QUESTIONS/ANSWERS FROM THE QUESTION FORUM
Group Number 84
What is the
evidence of being baptized in the Holy Spirit?
First, the proper terminology is baptized
"with," not "in," the Holy Spirit (Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33;
Acts 1:5; 11:16). Second, in all of the writings to the churches, there is not a
single reference to the two specific instances expressly related to this
marvelous promise -- Pentecost and the household of Cornelius -- let alone
teaching concerning evidences that it has taken place. That entire approach is
one of human invention, not of Divine origin. The Holy Spirit never moved an
inspired person to speak of being baptized with the Spirit in this manner.
While I have no difficulty with the matter of speaking in tongues, nothing in
Scripture suggests this is the "evidence" that one has been baptized with the
Spirit -- and Jesus is the One who does the baptizing, as you already know.
Jesus told His disciples when they would be "baptized with the Holy Spirit,"
they would "receive power," and would become effective witnesses of Him in
Jerusalem, Judaea, Samaria, and the uttermost part of the earth (Acts 1:5-7). To
them, I suppose that would be "evidence," even though I do not believe they even
thought in this manner.
Both at Pentecost and at the house of Cornelius, the thing that impressed the
listeners was not merely that the people who were baptized with the Spirit spoke
with other tongues, but that the listeners understood what they said. At
Pentecost, they powerfully spoke of "the wonderful works of God" (Acts 2:11). At
the house of Cornelius. Peter and company heard them "magnify God."
I realize there are finely tuned doctrines extant in the Christian community on
this subject -- doctrines that have caused divisions and fleshly judgments among
the people of God. However, in all of His speaking "to the churches," the Holy
Spirit never approached this subject in such a manner. No individual Christian
or congregation was ever instructed to seek this baptism, or were told they did
not have it, or that they could have it. In his teaching on speaking with other
tongues, Paul never connected it with being baptized with the Spirit. Rather, he
associated it with spiritual gifts that are dispensed by the Holy Spirit to
those in Christ's body.
There is not so much as a single syllable on the subject written to the Romans,
the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, the
Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, the Hebrew Christians, Philemon, the scattered
strangers to whom Peter wrote, or the backslidden believers to whom James and
Jude wrote. Jesus made no mention of it in His words to the seven churches of
Asia. In all of his extensive writings to believers, Paul made no mention of the
subject, nor did he refer to his own baptism with the Spirit. Those are just the
facts in the case. In view of such a circumstance, I do not know how it is
possible to formulate an extensive doctrine on the subject, and then evaluate
other believers on the basis of that doctrine. Such activities are a gross
infraction of brotherly love and the spirit of Christ.
I judge no believer's personal experience, nor do I question it. Those are
prerogatives belonging to the Lord. I cannot allow any person or group to impose
their understanding or experience upon me. I receive what the Spirit has said
without any reservations whatsoever. However, I will not receive what men choose
to believe about "evidences" of the baptism of the Spirit as though God had
spoken a clear word on such a theme. I know of my own experience with and in the
Holy Spirit. But that is not the touchstone of how I look at other members of
Christ's body.
To answer your question specifically, it is your business to live close enough
to God so that you will know whether or not a person has the Spirit of God, or
operates within His power. There is no handy formula by which we can infallibly
confirm what the Lord Jesus, the Baptizer, has done.
On May 18, my high
school Sunday school class read about the sending of the disciples in Luke. As
we were reading, I noticed that in my KJV Bible, the only numbers referred to
were 2 and 70. In the NIV Bibles, it refers to 2 and 72. Initially, I thought
that maybe my Bible had a type-o (strangely enough, I've seen some Bibles with
misspelled words: that=tht, the=th, heifer=heffer). Then I looked at other KJV
and discovered that the word truly was 70. There was no reference to the
"seventy and two," or "seventy two," just simply "seventy." Out of curiosity,
which is correct? I just don't feel right about reading the same Holy
Scriptures, with important details being different from version to version. Do
we know which number is correct?
he supposed scholars argue about this
subject -- whether there were seventy-two or seventy. Here are the versions that
say "seventy:" King James, New King James, New American Standard, American
Standard, New Revised Standard, Revised Standard, Basic Bible English, Darby,
Geneva, Webster, Revised Webster, Young's Literal Translation, Amplified New
Testament, The Message -- as well as some others. So no one is a "nut" who
insists there are seventy. Those translations represent well over 1,000 language
scholars.
For the most part, the Greek manuscripts use a word meaning "seventy." The
Vulgate Latin, Persic, and Epiphanius manuscripts read "seventy-two." The
Contemporary English Version (which also reads "seventy-two") gives this
footnote. "Some manuscripts have 'seventy.' According to the book of Genesis,
there are seventy nations on earth. But the ancient Green translation of the Old
Testament has 'seventy-two' in place of 'seventy.' Jesus probably chose this
number of followers to show that His message was for everyone in the world." How
is that for a bunch of jargon?
From a Scriptural perspective, Moses chose seventy judges to be associated with
him in governing the people (Ex 24:1). It seems more likely to me that Jesus
followed that example in selecting seventy more to assist in the spread of the
Gospel. The NIV reads "seventy" in Exodus 24:1.
Church history, which is not inspired, lists the seventy and where they
ministered. It does not list seventy-two. Great commentators like John Calvin,
A. Barnes, Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Jamieson Fausset and Brown, John Gill --
to name a new -- all say "seventy." Puplit Commentary does also.
McClintok and Strong's Cyclopedia of Bible Knowledge is considered the foremost
Bible Encyclopedia in the word (over 15 volumes). It states there were
"seventy," and provides the traditional listing of them. It is listed below.
SEVENTY IS RIGHT. The "seventy-two" is the imagination of translators who were
confused by the multiplicity of translations, and did not have the wisdom to
sort them out.
1. Agabus the prophet.
2. Amphias of Odyssus, sometimes called Amphiatus.
3. Ananias, who baptized Paul, bishop of Damascus.
4. Andronicus of Pannonia, or Spain.
5. Apelles of Smyrna, or Heraclea.
6. Apollo of Caesarea.
7. Aristarchus of Apamea.
8. Aristobulus of Britain.
9. Artemas of Lystra.
10. Asyncritus of Hyrcania.
11. Barnabas of Milan.
12. Barnabas of Heraclea.
13. Caesar of Dyrrachium.
14. Caius of Ephesus.
15. Corpus of Berytus in Thrace.
16. Cephas, bishop of Konia.
17. Clemens of Sardinia.
18. Cleophas of Jerusalem.
19. Crescens of Chalcedon in Galatia.
20. Damus, a priest of idols.
21. Epenetus of Carthage.
22. Epaphroditus of Andriace.
23. Erastus of Paneas, or of the Philippians.
24. Evodias of Antioch.
25. Hermas of Philippi, or Philippolis.
26. Hermes of Dalmatia.
27. Hermogenes, who followed Simon Magus.
28. Hermogenes, bishop of the Megarenes.
29. Herodion of Tarsus.
30. James, the brother of our Lord, at Jerusalem.
31. Jason of Tarsus.
32. Jesus Justus, bishop of Eleutheropolis.
33. Linus of Rome.
34. Luke the Evangelist.
35. Lucius of Laodicea in Syria.
36. Mark, who is also John, of Biblopolis, or Biblus.
37. Mark the Evangelist, bishop of Alexandria.
38. Mark, the nephew of Barnabas, bishop of Apollonia.
39. Matthias, afterwards the apostle.
40. Narcissus of Athens.
41. Nicanor, who died when Stephen suffered martyrdom.
42. Nicolaus of Samaria.
43. Olympius, a martyr at Rome.
44. Onesiphorus, bishop of Corone.
45. Parmenas of the Soli.
46. Patrobulus, the same with Patrobas (<451614>Romans 16:14) of Puteoli,
or, according to others, of Naples.
48. Philemon, called in the Acts Philip, who baptized the eunuch of
Candace, of Trallium, in Asia.
49. Philologus of Sinope.
50. Phlegon, bishop of Marathon.
51. Phigellus of Ephesus, who followed Simon Magus.
52. Prochorus of Nicomedia, in Bithynia.
53. Pudens.
54. Quartus of Berytus.
55. Rhodion, a martyr at Rome.
56. Rufus of Thebes.
57. Silas of Corinth.
58. Sylvanus of Thessalonica.
59. Sosipater of Iconium.
60. Sosthenes of Colophon.
61. Stachys of Byzantium.
62. Stephen, the first martyr.
63. Tertius of Iconium.
64. Thaddaeus, who carried the epistle of Jesus to Edessa, to Abgarus.
65. Timon of Bostra of the Arabians.
66. Trophimus, who suffered martyrdom with Paul.
67. Tychicus, bishop of Chalcedon, of Bithynia.
68. Tychicus of Colophon.
69. Urbanus of Macedonia.
70. Zenas of Diospolis.
"What is the
difference between the one born of God and my conscientious and respectable
neighbor who is not born of God?"
Do your respectable neighbors love the
children of God? (1 John 3:10). Do they know God? (1 John 4:7). Does God's seed
remain in them? (1 John 3:9). Do they believe Jesus is the Christ? (1 John 5:1).
Are they overcoming the world? (1 John 5:4). Those are a few of the distinctions
delineated by John.
Also, I question that non-Christian neighbors struggling against what they know
to be wrong in any way equates with the insights given to those who are in
Christ Jesus. Such people have not yet been convicted of sin, righteousness, and
judgment. Their comprehension of wrong is limited, and thus they have not been
constrained to come to Christ. It is true many of these people have better
outward lives than some who bear the name of Jesus. But that is not because they
have excelled, but because many who profess the name of Jesus have come
miserably short.
1 John 3:6 affirms things of those who are abiding in Christ. It is precisely to
the degree that a person abides in Christ that he does righteousness. Note,
verse ten does not say the person who does righteousness WILL be righteous, but
that he IS righteous. That is, the righteousness evidences what he is. A failure
to do righteousness also evidences what a person is, and where he lives.
As to contrasting the new life with the old, there are several such comparisons
in Scripture -- and they are all refreshing and uplifting. Ephesians 2:1-13
compares a state of death in trespasses and sins with being made alive and
blessed in Christ Jesus. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 particularizes the sins in which
some of us lived, and affirms we are no longer in them or their power. Romans
6:17-18 compares servitude to sin to becoming servants of righteousness. 1
Thessalonanians 1:9-11 declares we turned from idols to serve the living God and
to wait for His Son from heaven.
Morality is not the distinguishing trait of those who are born of God, nor is
good citizenry, or even a Gentile building the Jews a synagogue (Luke 7:5).
Civility and righteousness are not synonymous.
I do not know who you mean by "we," when referring to a lack of emphasis on
release form the power of sin. There is no such thing as a salvation that does
not release from the power of sin. Those who wear Christ's name and continue to
be dominated by sin are either quenching the Spirit, or do not have Him at all.
Either case MUST be remedied.
The real difference is seen in vivifying faith (Heb 10:38), dominating hope (Rom
8:24), and unrelenting love (John 5:24). It is seen in setting affection on
things above (Col 3:1-3), being a pilgrim and stranger in this world (1 Pet
2:11), and looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our Lord Jesus
Christ (Tit 2:13). The difference is seen in living by every word of God (Luke
4:4), running the race with patience (Heb 12:2), persevering in the time of
trial (James 1:12), and looking to Jesus while running the race with patience
(Heb 12:2). The new life is one in which the grace of God teaches us to deny
ungodliness and worldly lusts, living soberly, righteously, and godly, in this
present world (Tit 2:11-12).The contrast between the new and old life is seen in
righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom 14:17). It is seen in
being filled with all joy and peace in believing (Rom 15:13), and possessing the
fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23). It is seen in being strengthened with might
by God's Spirit in the inner man so Christ can dwell in our hearts by faith, so
that we may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and,
length, and depth, and height, and to know the love of Christ that passes all
knowledge (Eph 3:15-119). The difference is found in being "washed, and
sanctified, and justified" (1 Cor 6:11). Those who are in Christ participate in
the Divine nature through the exceeding great and precious promises of God (2
Pet 1:4). They are being changed from one stage of glory to another by the
Spirit of God (2 Cor 3:18), thus being conformed to the image of Christ (Rom
8:29). They are persecuted for righteousness' sake (2 Tim 3:12). They are
troubled but not distressed, perplexed but not in despair, persecuted but not
forsaken, cast down but not destroyed (2 Cor 4:8-9). They see their afflictions
as light and momentary while they look not at the things that are seen, but at
those which are not seen (2 Cor 4:17-18). They are looking for a city that has
foundations (Heb 11:10), and seeking a better country, for which cause God is
not ashamed to be called their God (Heb 11:16). They are the circumcision that
worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in
the flesh (Phil 3:3). The child of God has a new heart (Ezek 36:26), a new
spirit (Ezek 11:19), a new song (Rev 5:9), and newness of life (Rom 6:4).
Hallelujah! I am so thankful such things are realities, not goals.
These are not things those in Christ should possess -- they are part and parcel
of salvation. A failure to exhibit such things, in the most favorable light, is
because believers have simply not been apprised of what they have in Christ. In
the most unfavorable light, it is because they do not possess them at all.
The prophets declared what the saints in Christ Jesus would be. They would have
circumcised hearts (Deut 30:6), would be willing (Psa 110:3), would live by
faith (Hab 2:4), know the Lord (Jer 31:34), and a whole lot more. The Apostles
expounded our status in Christ Jesus, as indicated above.
Sorry for the length of this, but I was too happy to stop.
Can you recommend a
true translation Greek/English and Hebrew/English Bible?
As you may know, there are a lot of
opinions on this. If you prefer to avoid the classical language (the "thee's"
and the "thou's"), The New King James Version or the New American Standard
Version are the most accurate. You can also purchase Bibles that have more than
one version side by side. Sometimes they are helpful for study and comparison
purposes.
The New International Version, The Living Bible, New Living Translation, Living
Word, and other newer translations are actually paraphrases. They follow a
different philosophy of translation. These versions translate a thought or idea,
versus translating the words themselves. That is fine if the translators know
what the thought really is. You should avoid using such translations as your
main study Bible. They are actually closer to a commentary than to a Bible.
In studying the Bible, the main thing is not to have a translation that makes
everything plain, but one that is most readable. As you know, it is God Himself
who opens up the text to us. That is what is meant by Peter's expression in
Second Peter 1:19. It is also why David asked the Lord, "Give me understanding"
(Psalm 119:34,73,125,144,169).
Along with your Bible, it is good to also have a Bible Dictionary to help
explain some of ther words used in Scripture (justification, sanctification,
concupiscience, lasciousness, etc). Words like these have a unique use and
meaning in Scripture, and are like containers that carry a lot of spiritual
thought.
A good Bible will have a center column on each page with cross-reference texts
and word meanings. You will find this very useful in your study.
I have been
researching the origins of the midweek assemblies within the Church of Christ
specifically and other religious groups as well. I find little information on
the internet. Do you have any sources that might be helpful? Or, do you know
of the origins?
I do not know of the historical origin of
midweek assemblies. I can only assume they were brought into being much like the
synagogue assemblies. They probably arose originally out of a desire to keep a
consciousness of the Lord alive and well.
We know a condition like this existed in the days of Malachi, when the state of
the people of God had seriously deteriorated. Of that time it is written, "Then
they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened,
and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that
feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name. And they shall be mine, saith
the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them,
as a man spareth his own son that serveth him. (Mal 3:16-17).
The early church was so enlivened toward the Lord they "continued daily with one
accord in the Temple, and breaking bread from house to house" (Acts 2:46-47).
They did not do this because they were commanded to do so, or out of a sense of
mere duty. In my opinion, the kind of spirit that drove the early disciples also
compelled later believers to come together during the week. It is unfortunate
that this kind of spirit is almost extinct in the professed church of our day.
Can one who got
saved while married to two wives be used of God in the church?.
That depends upon whether he continued to
have two wives or not. If such a person addressed that unacceptable situation,
is now the husband of one wife, and has confirmed he is walking by faith through
a godly manner of life, God can use him.
Although polygamy was found among the Israelites prior to Jesus Christ, even the
Law strictly forbade it (Deut 17:17). Jesus also specifies that from the very
beginning, one husband and one wife was intended (Matt 19:4-5).
If God could use the woman at the well, who was in something decidedly less than
an ideal marital situation, you may be sure He continues to use humble and
contrite spirits who are willing to live wholly for Him (John 4:16-42).
How do we have
access to the Father as it is in John 14:6?
Primarily, Jesus Himself brings us to the
Father. When He says "no man comes to the Father but by Me," He means by means
of Him bringing us to God -- like a father takes a child to the store, so to
speak. This is expressly said in First Peter 3:18: "For Christ also hath once
suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might BRING US TO GOD, being
put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit" (1 Pet 3:18).
Secondarily, because we have been "called into the fellowship of His Son Jesus
Christ our Lord" (1 Cor 1:9), God accepts us in His presence. The book of
Hebrews deals with the practicality of this access. It is an access in which we
appropriate grace and mercy for our needy situation. "Let us therefore come
boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to
help in time of need" (Heb 4:16).
Access to the Father must not be confused with a mere procedure or form. The
reality of that access is confirmed when we receive His grace and mercy. In this
way, we are made adequate for the challenges of living in this present evil
world.
This is an access that is accompanied by boldness, or confidence. As it is
written, "Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace" (Heb 4:16). And
again, "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the
blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us,
through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the
house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith,
having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with
pure water. (Heb 10:19-22).
Also in John 14:6
the Word says that Jesus is truth and also the life. I would some feed back on
that verse.
When Jesus said He was "the Way, the
Truth, and the Life," He was speaking of man's approach to the Father. In being
"the Way," He is the sole means of being able to come to God, whether in pray or
after our lives conclude in this world. In the matter of coming to God, He is
"the Way" in the sense of a highway being the way from Chicago to Detroit.
He is "the Truth" in the sense of being the only way of comprehending the
Father, or understanding Him. He alone has provided an understanding of who God
is, what He wills, what He has provided, and how He sustains us. None of these
things can be properly understood apart from Christ.
He is "the Life" in the sense of making us "alive to God" (Rom 6:11). That is,
in Him we become sensitive to the Father, and able to respond in faith to what
He has said and requires. To be alive is to be able to survive an encounter with
God, stand in His presence, receive from Him, and give to Him. Jesus is the sole
means of doing these things.
Our unity with Christ enables us to come top the Father, know the truth of Him
and His will, and be alive and sensitive to Him.
Was Darius a
believer before Daniel was placed in the lion's den?
There is no indication that he was. He was
a Mede, and they certainly were not believers. The Lord moved him to have a
special respect for Daniel. That respect, in the beginning, is said to be
because of Daniel's "excellent spirit" -- not his faith in God (Dan 6:3).
As you know, Darius did not want to throw Daniel in the lion's den. In fact, he
diligently sought a way to avoid doing so (Dan 6:14). In his dealings with
Daniel at that time, he referred to God as Daniel's God, not his own (6:16,20).
Following Daniel's deliverance, Darius issued an edict to the whole world,
referring to "the God of Daniel." In that edict he acknowledged God's nature,
and that He was "the living God" (6:26-27). However, there is no evidence that
he himself ever trusted in the Lord.
Please tell me
about the beginning of the Church ,When, Who?
I assume you are referring to "the church"
that Jesus built (Matthew 16:18). Actually, the Word of God does not approach
the subject of Christ's church from the standpoint of its beginning. The things
that are recorded do lead us to some conclusions on the matter, but its
beginning is never the way the subject of "the church" is approached by the Holy
Spirit.
It is generally understood that the church Jesus built had its beginning on the
day of Pentecost. Then, for the first time, the door of salvation was thrown
open to "whosoever" (Acts 2:21). We know the body of people who began to grow on
that day was "the church," for it is said of what followed the proclamation of
the Gospel, and those who obeyed it, "And the Lord added to the church daily
those who were being saved" (Acts 2:47). The church, therefore, consisted of
those who were "saved."
At this noble beginning the people were together in one accord (2:1), the Holy
Spirit was present (2:2-4), the Gospel was declared with insight (2:11-36), the
people were pricked in their hearts (2:37), what the people needed to do was
announced (2:38), those who gladly received the word were baptized (2:41), the
people continued steadfastly in the Apostles doctrine, the breaking of bread,
fellowship, and prayers (2:42), the people were of one accord having gladness
and singleness of heart (2:46), and the Lord added to the church (2:47).
Today, the church is still present where such qualities are found.
What "allowed"
Jesus, as a human (not the fact that He was God) to not sin? As a man, did Jesus
have a sinful nature like we do? I think I understand that it is this sinful
nature of ours that allows us to slip into sin even once we have been saved. If,
as a man, Jesus gave up His Godly power, how is it that He did not fall into
sin? Was it His reliance/trust/faith in the Father, just like it's supposed to
be reliance/trust/faith in Jesus for us? I am so confused and hope you can help
me
As you already know, the subject that
concerns you is not a simplistic one. Anything that is related to the Word
becoming flesh, the Savior emptying Himself, and taking upon Himself the form of
a servant, will not be easy to comprehend. If it is challenging to consider
fallen man being conformed to the image of God's Son (Rom 8:29), it will be
exceedingly challenging to consider the Word taking upon Himself the name of
man, and becoming a servant -- even to the death. At this point, your faith and
willingness to believe God will bring you more satisfaction than mere
intellectual comprehension.
In the matter of Jesus being tempted, the temptation was genuine, for He
"suffered being tempted" (Heb 2:18), and was "tempted in all points like as we
are" (Heb 4:15). The factor that kept Jesus from sinning was the same factor
that will keep us from sinning -- He lived by faith. It is said of Him in
Hebrews 2:13, "I will put my trust in Him." There is, however, a difference
between our Savior's trust and ours. With us, faith is required because of our
sinful condition. With Jesus it was required because He had to be like us to
save us. Also, He volunteered to place Himself under this restriction. That is
involved in Him humbling Himself (Phil 2:6-8). Think of it like this: His Deity
was like a sword, and He put in a sheath, refusing to depend upon it to deliver
Him. Instead, He relied upon God to deliver Him, which itself is a most
marvelous condescension.
Jesus did not have a sinful nature, even though He had a human nature. The
sinful nature was passed along through Adam, as delineated in Romans 5:12-19.
Jesus was the "Second Man," and the "Last Adam" (1 Cor 15:45-47). Technically
speaking, none of Adam was in Jesus. he was the "Seed" of the woman, not the man
(Gen 3:15). There are only two places in Scripture where "seed" is traced to a
woman. One is the Genesis 3:15 text, the other is Revelation 12:17, where the
people of God are the reference. Ordinarily, children are the "seed" of the man
("his seed" -- Gen 17:19; Josh 24:3; Gal 3:16, etc., "the seed of ____ "(a man's
name -- Gen 19:32; Lev 21:21; 1 Kgs 11:39; 2 Chron 20:7, etc.).
There are only two men who started WITHOUT a sinful nature -- Adam and Jesus.
Adam fell, and thus became sinful, and through him sin "entered" into the world,
together with death (Rom 5:12). Jesus, while dwelling in a human body, did not
begin with a sinful nature, passed along through Adam. However, He felt the pull
of temptation because He was voluntarily made like to us, and entered the domain
of temptation, thereby becoming accessible to Satan in some degree.
As I understand it, although He was "tempted in all points like as we are" (Heb
4:15), He was not tempted with every temptation we confront. When Satan tempted
Jesus, it was in all "points," as defined by Scripture. Those "points" are
identified in First John 2:16, and are three in number: "the lust of the flesh,
the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life." Although our Lord was tempted in
all of these "points," or areas, the temptations themselves were not a lure into
immorality, like drunkenness, fornication, theft, murder, and the likes. They
were of a higher order than that.
Satan attacked Christ's sonship. His first temptation was an appeal to "the lust
of the flesh." But note its manner: "And when the tempter came to him, he said,
If Thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread" (Mat 4:3).
The second was an appeal to the "pride of life." Again, note how Satan tempted
Him. "And saith unto Him, If Thou be the Son of God, cast Thyself down: for it
is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning Thee: and in their hands
they shall bear Thee up, lest at any time Thou dash Thy foot against a stone"
(Mat 4:6). The third was an appeal to the "lust of the eye." "Again, the devil
taketh Him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth Him all the kingdoms
of the world, and the glory of them; and saith unto Him, All these things will I
give Thee, if Thou wilt fall down and worship me" (Mat 4:8-9). In all three
temptations, Jesus responded in faith, using the "sword of the Spirit, which is
the Word of God" -- "It is written" . . . "It is written" . . . "It is written"
(Matt 4:4,7,10).
These were the same three points in which Satan tempted Eve, successfully
"beguiling" her (2 Cor 11:3). First he tempted her with "the lust of the flesh"
-- "good for food." Second, he appealed to the "lust of the eye" -- "pleasant to
the eyes." Third, he appealed to "the pride of life" -- "desired to make one
wise" (Gen 3:6). Eve failed on all three points -- the very points on which
Jesus overcame.
Jesus overcame as "the Man" relying upon God, not as God who was impervious to
temptation. He put Himself at this disadvantage in order that He might be a
"merciful and faithful high priest," assisting us through temptation (Heb
4:15-16).
I am persuaded there is much more to the matter than this, but this is something
of what I can see at this time. Notwithstanding, it has proved satisfying to me,
and given me encouragement to look forward to the Lord Jesus responding to my
need, just as He promised.
"If
men do not "draw back" (Heb 10:38-39), they will not be removed from the hand of
Jesus or the hand of God." Just wondering if you would expound a little more on
this statement.
The affirmation of Hebrews 10:38-39 is
quite clear. "Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, My
soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto
perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. (Heb 10:38-39).
Presently, we are in the Lord's hand by means of our faith. In fact, the entire
experience of salvation is "by grace THROUGH faith" (Eph 2:8). There are those,
Jesus said, who "believe for a while" (Luke 8:13). The promise of being kept in
the hand of Jesus and the hand of the Father is not given to such.
Jesus defined his "sheep" as those who could not be plucked from His hand or the
hand of the Father. Those "sheep," He said, follow Him and know His voice (John
10:4). They refuse to follow a stranger, but will run from such, for they do not
recognize a stranger's voice (John 10:5).
The "drawing back" of Hebrews 10:38-39 is moving away from the states of
knowing, hearing, and following, for no one can withdraw from the Lord, and
continue to know, hear, and follow Him. That is the point of the Hebrews text.
If
God made us do good works or made us choose the proper choice, what credit would
that be to us? We would have exercised no choice at all. It is always a matter
of choice.
Realizing this is a guest devotional,
there is an element of truth to the above statement, but it is too simplistic to
be included in your devotionals. There comes a point where men really have no
choice at all. When, for example, men do not receive the love of the truth, God
sends them a "strong delusion," bringing them to believe a lie. "So God will
send great deception upon them, and they will believe all these lies" (2 Thess
2:11, NLT). There were also those hardhearted souls in Bethsaida who "could not
believe" because God had "blinded their hearts and hardened their hearts" (John
12:39-40).
There is not a syllable in Scripture that suggests sin did not affect, and even
enslave, the human will. That is why God opens hearts (Acts 16:14), gives
repentance (Acts 5:31; 2 Tim 2:25), and gives us ears to hear (Deut 29:4; Matt
13:9).
There comes a time when not choosing life is lethal to the soul, provoking the
Lord to pour out a spirit of deep sleep upon the people (Isa 29:10). An over
statement of the human will is out of order. The Holy Spirit never inspired any
extended dialog about the human will or its imagined capacities.
I am
teaching in a Jr. High camp next month and want your text on two
subjects--Heaven and Hell. Would that be difficult to access and e-mail to me? I
appriciate your ministry very much.
Your quest for the truth is a great
delight to my soul, and I am grateful to the Lord for the hearty appetite He has
given you. Here are considerations.
HEAVEN
1. Heaven is not a mere place, but is where God and Jesus are. (Mark 16:19; Luke
24:51; Acts 1:11; Eccl 5:2; Heb 9:24). Jesus described our presence there as
being where He is (John 14:3), and beholding His unveiled glory (John 17:24).
2. Our resurrection bodies are a "building of God," and are presently "in
heaven." Following our death, or the Lord's return, we will put them on. This is
something for which salvation prepares us (2 Cor 5:1-5).
3. Presently, those in Christ are citizens of heaven (Phil 3:20), and their
names are recorded there (Luke 10:20; Heb 12:23). Therefore their affection is
placed on things that are there (Col 3:1-2). We are also admonished to hear Him
who is speaking from heaven (Heb 12:25).
4. When we are "present with the Lord," there will be an absence of all
competing and debilitating influences. They will be "no more" (Rev 21:4;
22:3-5).
5. When we are with the Lord, where He is, we will be "like Him" (1 John 3:2),
fully with Him, beholding His face without a veil, and possessing His own nature
(Rev 22:4; Rom 8:29). We will be stable, like pillars (Rev 3:12), and will reign
with Jesus (2 Tim 2:12).
6. The saints will be rewarded "in heaven" -- which rewards are presently there
to be distributed at the appropriate time (Matt 5:12; Luke 6:23; Heb 10:34).
7. Our inheritance is presently reserved for us in heaven (1 Pet 1:4).
8. Much of what the saints will receive in heaven is presently now being "laid
up" there by themselves (Matt 6:20). This is done largely by the development of
an appetite for heavenly things.
9. In heaven the righteous will "shine as the sun" (Matt 13:43).
10. In heaven there will be no decline of any sort -- nothing will ever
diminish, fade, or lose its luster. That is involved in the words "Neither can
they die any more" (Luke 20:36).
11. Our hope, or more specifically, the Object of our hope, is laid up for us
"in heaven" (Col 1:5).
12. Heaven is why we were saved in the first place, for He "called us to the
obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thess 2:14).
Summation: Heaven is the appointed destiny of those who are in Christ Jesus.
Their Father and Savior are in heaven. The Spirit they have received came from
heaven (1 Pet 1:12). Their inheritance is there, and their affection is placed
on things there. Salvation prepares us for heaven by giving us samples from the
homeland, like Israel ate the grapes of Eschol from Canaan. The "heaven" of
Scripture has no compelling appeal to those who are not living by faith or
walking in the Spirit. However, for those who are, it is the answer to their
longings. There, the Savior they long to fully behold will be so viewed. God
Himself will be with them in an evident, satisfying, and invigorating manner
(Matt 5:8). Everything that chaffed against their souls will be gone, together
with all of their enemies, and their adversary the devil. Without heaven, what
is commonly called "the Christian life" makes no sense whatsoever. Heaven is for
those who are, and confess that they are, strangers and pilgrims in the earth
(Heb 11:13; 1 Pet 2:11). It also should be said that a church that is not
heavenly minded is a gigantic contradiction, and no church at all.
HELL
While heaven is the appointed destiny of all are in Christ Jesus, Hell is the
inevitable destiny of all who are not.
1. Hell is "everlasting fire," or "lake of fire," and was not made for men, but
for the devil and his angels (Matt 25:41). Notwithstanding that circumstance,
those who refuse the Son will be cast there (Rev 20:15). This is a fire like
that of the "bush" through which the angel spoke to Moses -- it does not
consume.
2. Hell is a place of ultimate cursing, where the presence of the Lord is
totally withdrawn. It is "everlasting destruction (or exclusion) from the
presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power" (2 Thess 1:9).
3. It is better to mortify fleshly preferences in this world, than to nurture
them and be "cast into hell" (Matt 5:29-30).
4. Hell is associated with "the worm that dieth not," which is a goading
conscience, dreadful remorse, and regret in exponential measures (Mark
9:44,46,48).
5. Hell is referred to as a "furnace of fire" where there is "gnashing of teeth"
(Matt 13:42). "Gnashing" denotes both unrestrained rage (Job 16:9; Lam 2:16;
Acts 7:54) and unfathomable sorrow (Psa 112:10).
6. Hell is the appointed repository for "all things that offend and them which
do iniquity" (Matt 13:41). Nothing good or comforting will be there in any sense
-- no friendship, satisfaction, or fulfillment of any sort, or in any measure,
will be realized.
7. There will be "wailing" in hell -- loud and uninterrupted lamentation (Matt
13:42).
8. Hell is associated with "outer darkness," where nothing will be seen with any
clarity, but total confusion and hopelessness will envelop its inhabitants (Matt
25:30).
9. Hell is where the curse of God is realized in its fulness (Matt 25:41).
10. Hell is not merely punishment, but "everlasting punishment" (Matt 25:40).
11. There is evidence that those in hell will in some way behold those who are
with the Lord (Luke 16:23; Rev 14:10). The delimma is going to be that they will
have no capacity to desire the place of blessing. They will be repulsed by their
own environment, as well as the dwelling of the redeemed. The rich man never did
ask to go where Lazarus was.
Summation: Hell is the antithesis of heaven. Those who are consigned there will
go with all of the appetites they developed in this world, yet will not be able
to satisfy a single one of them. They will experience the ultimate of total
frustration. For the saved, the appetites they cultured while in the body, will
be thoroughly satisfied. Their new bodies will be perfectly adapted for their
longings. But for the damned, it will not be so. They too will have resurrection
bodies (John 5:29). However, those bodies will not be capable of carrying out
the sinful lusts that were nurtured by the lost. Every single longing they have
will be denied fulfillment, while all of the longings of the righteous will be
satiated.
Well, sister, there are some starters. In a sense, in the end everyone will get
what they wanted. Of course, those who did not want God will find that a
God-less eternity is most dreadful.
A
very fine brother-in-Christ is moving to this area with his good wife.
While he is a friend, those who have written in opposition to the instrument
have caused a serious conscience problem for him. He's in his later 50's. Would
you be pleased to consider sending some material to help me with him?
It is a great tragedy that sincere souls
have had their attention turned from the Lord Himself to the traditions of men.
In some ways, many of us have experienced such distraction, and know the awful
weight it places upon both heart and mind.
First, there is a certain frame of mind that you must seek to acquire in dealing
with this brother. The bottom line is that his conscience has been shaped by
men, not by God. Because of the importance of the conscience, he must not be
moved to make a choice that violates it. In my judgment, your appeal must not be
based upon what men are supposed to do or not do, but on the nature of God
Himself and His great salvation. These are the issues that have become blurred
to the brother. You must approach him in the spirit of First John 5:16,
believing the Lord can use you to clarify his vision.
In the case of the hackneyed argument about David, the originators of that view
were both ignorant and lacked honesty. His placing of instruments in "the house
of the Lord" was not only according to his own commandment, but also "of Gad,"
his seer, and "Nathan the prophet." All three of them did this because "so was
the commandment of the Lord by His prophets" (2 Chron 29:25). The whole Temple
structure, together with its various courses, including the priests and their
instruments, was given to David "by the Spirit." It was something the Lord made
him "understand" (1 Chron 28:12-19). Additionally, those very instruments are
called "the musical instruments of God" (1 Chron 16:42). At the dedication of
the Temple, when these instruments were sounded, it is written, "indeed it came
to pass, when the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be
heard in praising and thanking the LORD, and when they lifted up their voice
with the trumpets and cymbals and instruments of music, and praised the LORD,
saying: 'For He is good, For His mercy endures forever,' that the house, the
house of the LORD, was filled with a cloud, so that the priests could not
continue ministering because of the cloud; for the glory of the LORD filled the
house of God" (2 Chron 5:13-14). All of these associations were made by the Holy
Spirit of God, and were recorded for our learning. Those who demean musical
instruments because they imagine David was the sole creator of them forget that
he was a man after God own heart (Acts 13:22), and was "the sweet psalmist of
Israel" (2 Sam 23:1). There is not so much as a syllable of Scripture that
suggests he transgressed in creating and placing such instruments in the service
of God. In fact, we are categorically told this: "Because David did that which
was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he
commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the
Hittite. (1 Kings 15:5). However, if the postulate of the opposers of musical
instruments is right, then David committed a sin of great magnitude in making
musical instruments. The sin, if this is true, is of such greatness that it has
impacted the history of the body of Christ. In my judgment no person can possess
godly sincerity and fully embrace and perpetrate such a view.
Not only do the Old Covenant Scriptures refer to the "musical instruments of
God," John received a special revelation on Patmos that spoke of "the harps of
God" (Rev 15:2). However one may choose to view such expressions, if "all
Scripture" has been given by the inspiration of God, we have God associating
Himself with musical instruments, and musical instruments with Himself. If the
anti-instrumental view is correct, that would be the same as referring to
harlots of God, drunkards of God, or "the idols of God" . . . etc.
There are at least two considerations that must be brought to bear upon any
amiable discussion of this subject. First, God does not and cannot change.
Second, Satan does not and cannot change. Neither God nor Satan are capable of
acting in contradiction of their character. God has clearly said, "I am the
Lord, I change not" (Mal 3:6). That is why He cannot "deny Himself" (2 Tim
2:13), "cannot lie" (Tit 1:2), and abides faithful (2 Tim 2:13). Since his fall,
Satan has never waffled between truth and the lie. He has consistently remained
"a liar," and "there is no truth in him" (John 8:44). He and his angels are
locked in a state of darkness and vileness, from which they cannot recover (2
Pet 2:4).
At some point, we must know how both God and Satan react to a righteous person
playing instrumental music. We already know from Scripture that God cannot abide
ungodly people playing musical instruments before Him, attempting to emulate
David (Amos 6:5). But what of a godly person playing an instrument? How does God
react to that? And how does the devil react to it? Fortunately we have two
concrete examples that clearly reveal the answer to the questions. When an "evil
spirit" came upon king Saul, David took a harp and played with his hand. This
resulted in Saul being refreshed, and the evil spirit departing (1 Sam 16:23).
On another occasion, when Elisha stood before Jehosaphat, he prepared himself to
speak by calling for a minstrel. It is written that "when the minstrel played,
the hand of the Lord came upon him" (2 Kings 3:15).
The argument cannot be made that these things occurred during the First
Covenant, for God does not change, nor does Satan. The New Covenant is not
marked by a change in God, but rather by a change in men. If the Divine nature
is not repulsed by the godly playing instruments of music, then we need an
explanation of why any man would be so repulsed. In their own hearts and
conscience, they must reason on why they have had the same reaction as an evil
spirit rather than the revealed response of God Almighty.
In 1988, I had a debate with Alan Highers, an appellate judge from Tennessee and
editor of "The Spiritual Sword," on the subject of instrumental music and the
worship of God. It was a well attended debate. There was such a spirit of
animosity and hatred at that meeting that one can scarcely imagine it. It was
also made very apparent that the people in general were very unacquainted with
the Divine nature as made known in Scripture. I do have a few of the books of
that debate, and would be glad to send you a copy if you desire. To this day, I
am derided by many of their people because I took an approach they had not
considered. I denied the fundamental premise that was accepted by both sides of
every debate I have ever read on the subject. It was that we can only offer to
God what He has told us to offer. The debate deals with that aspect of the
subject. For the most part, those attending did not know what I was talking
about. However, in the twelve or thirteen years that have passed since that
debate, I have received hundreds of phone calls and letters from those attending
that debate who have now seen what I was saying. Not all of them changed
instantly, but they did realize they were on a platform that cannot hold them up
when standing before the Lord.
The brother with which you will be dealing has been victimized by the concocted
theology of certain leaders. Because of this, your appeal must be to his heart,
not his mind. You must appeal to the part of Him that preeminently loves God and
wants to honor Him -- the new creation. The position with which he is wrestling
has corrupted his view of God, Christ, salvation, worship, the New Covenant, the
church, and much more. In fact, there is very little in Scripture that is not
infected by this view. It is not an innocent position, and the fruit of it shows
how contaminating it is. Among the Churches of Christ there are nineteen major
divisions, and at least forty-two minor ones. Every single one of them use the
same argument employed to discredit the use of musical instruments. If we knew
nothing else, that fruit clearly declares the nature of this their position.
May the Lord bless your efforts. He can give you wisdom in approaching this man
in a meek and lowly manner, yet with the firmness of faith and full persuasion.
Go to next page
