Last night at Oak Grove we discussed having a bible reading plan. Not just a plan for 2018, but a plan to consistently read the bible throughout our lives. An important aspect of any bible reading plan is 1 Peter 2:1-3.
1: “Therefore laying aside all malice, all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all evil speaking,”
So much of what preoccupies our time can be described in these terms.
2: “as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby,”
Instead of feeding on the filth the world has to offer, desire that which helps us grow closer to God. Without this desire we will not be steadfast in our reading and rather than growing we will certainly shrink back toward the world.
3: “if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is gracious.”
The desire will be created when we taste what the Lord has given us. Throughout the scriptures and as a whole the bible reveals the grace of the Lord. Make a commitment to reading and discover His grace for yourself – you may be surprised by what you find. Some passages / books may be difficult at first but keep reading – not to complete a yearly bible reading plan, but to be strengthened in your walk with God.
If you would like a schedule to help you read through the bible in 2018 click the One Year Bible Reading Plan banner at the top of the page.
An often repeated story, found in scripture, is one of great success followed by great failure. David, Solomon, Elijah, and Peter all serve as examples for us to beware that victory attracts Satan’s attention. These men all stumbled after (some immediately after) experiencing a spiritual high point in their life. Most likely, everyone reading this (as well as this writer) has experienced the same thing. Borrowing the theme from Billy’s lessons last week – How can we overcome this tendency? Continue reading
Our meeting with Billy is now fully underway. Sunday we were blessed with three great lessons from God’s word, with another added Monday evening, all of them intended to help us overcome things that have shipwrecked the faith of many.
Sunday morning during our regular class time brother Randolph taught on the importance of being present. When we are absent we miss out on so many blessings regardless of why we are absent. With strength that comes from God and encouragement from one another we can overcome the habit of being absent.
Perhaps my favorite lesson was Overcoming Worldliness, presented Sunday evening. When we got in the van to come home, the kids were talking about their favorite points made in the lesson. Satan is cunning, and if we are not careful he will have us wrapped up in this world so tight that our faith is choked out. This is what Jesus warned about it Matthew 13:22. Here are the three applications Billy made in conclusion to help us overcome the sin of worldliness:
– Be humble enough to change
– Be diligent in service
– Live like Christ will return
Take the time to listen carefully to these lessons, as well as the others that are posted, so that together we can overcome the things that would keep us from our God!
If you are in the area, come and be with us during the remaining assemblies; if you want to find encouragement from God’s word you will not be disappointed.
Written by Robert Turner
Our “Getting to the Bottom Line” series has taken us through a consideration of How We Know Things of God, Grace, and Faith; all very basic subjects. Members of the church of the Lord need these fundamental studies, and yet, strange as it may seem, there is probably more need for a basic understanding of the Nature of the Church than for any other one subject. The reason is obvious to all who give reflective thought to the study of church history. Within the first one hundred years of the church there is evidence that the concept of its nature was being corrupted. Nearly one thousand, nine hundred years have passed, during which that corrupted concept has maintained a predominate position among historic “Christians.” Despite manful efforts for “restoration,” we live among and draw converts from people who have accepted the corrupted concept. What could we rightfully expect but that our small minority of people will be affected by this overwhelming burden?
Recently I was told of two preachers who tried to discuss product of truth, some points of difference. After three or four matters were measured by the Scriptures and not the mother it became apparent they were poles apart in understanding, one remarked, “You know, I don’t believe you are a member of the Church of Christ. I have never met a Church of Christer who believed as you do.” It was a clear case of “you don’t believe as we do, so you are not ‘Church of Christ.”‘ Reminded me of a statement from Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.) about the church at Rome: “. . which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority. . .”(Against Heresies, Bk.III, Ch.3, par.2; subject to various translations of the Latin). This tells us how early the nature of the church was corrupted, and the direction that corruption took.
The concept puts “Church authority” in the hands of a body politic, whose true core consists of its administrators. Perhaps this strikes a familiar note to those who read some recent literature, but do not let that turn you off. If the current examination of local church “entity” and elders succeeds in raising another divisive “issue” it will be because we have too few truly taught in the nature of the N.T. church — not because the Examiner was logical or understood that nature correctly. It is a shameful state that should enlist careful study on the part of us all.
Catholicism sees the church as “the society founded by our Lord Jesus Christ” (Catholic Encyclopedia, V. III, p. 744). It is defined as “a body of en united together by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by participation in the same sacraments, under the governance of lawful pastors . . .” (Ibid, p. 745). Look carefully for the nature of the church in any reliable Catholic source. It is a society (a body politic), having lawful pastors (administrators), who dispense grace (blessings of the sacraments), bought by the blood of Christ. (See Understanding the Catholic Faith, John O’Brien, 1955.)
Allow me to put this pragmatically. (1) Such a church must perpetuate itself, sanctioning and authorizing additional churches. Mormons, accepting this concept in principle, conclude that since the church had been “lost” the original “authority” had to be restored – hence, Peter, James and John appeared to Smith and others, laying hands on them (?). Baptists, accepting this concept in principle, conclude they must “rattle the chain” of succession back to the original “church” – to prove validity. (2) “The church” (via bishops) baptizes, validates public worship, etc. The Great Commission was given to “the church,” hence none but the institution is authorized to go, teach, baptize. Growth of this idea can be traced through Ante-Nicene writings (cf. Constitution of the Holy Apostles, Bk. III, Ch. 10, ca. 120 A.D.). However, as late as 193 A.D., one writer says in special cases “other disciples are called i.e., to the work” (On Baptism, ch. 17). The concept that the institution was the authority, the validator, and the testing stone for heaven, was developed at a very early date. Little wonder, when the institution apostatized it took “Christianity” with it.
I believe the Scriptures teach a much different nature of the church. The word itself is a collective noun, and refers to saints metaphorically assembled. We have put far too much emphasis upon the establishment of the Church, when we should be emphasizing the establishment of the rule of Christ (Study Isa. 2; Acts 2 objectively). It has caused us to think of an institution, when we should have been thinking of a certain kind or quality of people – the saints. Christ rules His people via His word, and even the Apostles were not “the authority,” but were the king’s Ambassadors, who delivered the authoritative word. They have no successors – need none, being still active via their inspired message. I am not arguing the case here, for I believe my readers who will take time to think, will agree with what I am saying. The church (visible) is the product of truth, not the mother of it. Take the word to people, cause them to believe and obey it, and they become Christ’s church.
Putting that pragmatically, we would say a New Testament could be tossed from a boat to an island where people never heard of Christ’s church, and if translated, studied, believed and obeyed, the “church” would exist on that island. (Consider: put sheep on that island, and a “flock” exists there.) This concept says anyone can teach the word, and if it is taught accurately, and obeyed, it produces the same thing every time. Succession is in the seed, not in the sower. Baptism is not “administered” by some “office,” nor is public worship validated by such administrators. Saints assemble and worship because they want to follow the Lord’s instructions, and have a perfect right to do so, without some “mother church” giving them this right. The “nature” of the church in this sense, is the character of its units, the saints. We speak of the “body” of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23), the whole family of God in heaven and earth (3:15, KJ), the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven (Heb. 12:22-23).
We are aware some seem to think this is the only possible use of “church,” and that every passage which speaks of “the church” doing something simply means that “saints” did something. Well, saints did it all right, but not always individually or distributively. Such limitations are inexcusable. They sometimes did something as a team, or collectively; and that team has “entity” and is called a “church.” “Churches” paid wages to Paul (2 Cor. 11:8). This can be broken down to no smaller unit than “church.” “Let not the church be burdened” (1 Tim. 5:16) can not refer to saints individually, because of the contrast in the context. Saints (distributively) have an obligation, and are to perform it and not let saints (collectively) be charged with that obligation. The saints at Philippi, with their overseers and servants (1:1), were called “church” in chapter 4:15, and here “church” is the subject of a singular verb – indicating the saints are not being considered distributively.
There is nothing unusual about a term having more than one application. The word “elder” means older, and sometimes refers only to age. But it is not so limited. Presbuteriou (1 Tim. 4:14) “is a late word (ecclesiastical use also), first for the Jewish Sanhedrin (Lk. 22:66; Acts 22:5), then (here only in N.T.) of Christian elders. . . ” (Word Pictures, Robertson). In “The high priest . . . and all the estate of the elders” (22:5) the high priest was also “elder” but has a separate designation. Adolf Deissmann (Light from Ancient East) confirms the ecclesiastical and official use of “elder” in the N.T., and even mentions a scholar who has written a “history of the title ‘presbyteros. “‘ The dual use of “church” is so commonly confirmed it is foolish to ignore it. All of which brings us to consider “church” when it refers to a group of saints who have covenanted together to act as one – to “organize” if you please. Our study on the nature of the church is incomplete without much more consideration of the nature of the local church, so we promise that in our next article.
Guardian of Truth XXX: 19, pp. 583-584
October 2, 1986
Written by Leon Mauldin
An article entitled Does God Care? appeared in the Cullman Times (4/25/08), written by Mr. Bill McCartney (hereafter referred to as Mr. M. for brevity). The position set forth was this: “Who is right and who is wrong in the way they worship? I suggest that God simply doesn’t care because there is not a wrong way to worship Him.”
I maintain that God does care how we treat His word, and for that reason He cares how we worship. As Mr. M. told us what God does and does not care about, he did not share with us upon what scriptures he based his conclusion. But as I respond to his article, I want to include several passages, and I ask that you give them a fair hearing.
Mr. M. asked, “Which does God care about: how we worship or how we live our lives?” That’s a bit like asking, would you like to breathe, or would you like to eat? Mr. M’s fallacy is making worship and conduct “either-or” – thus creating a false dilemma. Are those the only alternatives? Could it not be that God is concerned with both? Let us not presume to speak for God. He is capable of doing that Himself, and He has done so in His word. That’s why we have the Bible.
Old Testament Examples. You remember the biblical account of Cain killing his brother Abel. But what was Cain so angry about that he took his brother’s life? Genesis 4:3-5: “And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the LORD. Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the LORD respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell.”
Remember, Mr. M. said there is not a wrong way to worship. If that’s true, why didn’t God accept Cain’s worship? The Bible plainly says He did not. The difference between the two brothers is this: Abel did what God said, the way God said it (Hebrews 11:4; Romans 10:17). Cain did what he wanted to, but God did not accept it. You see, God really does care how we worship Him.
If the priests, Nadab and Abihu, could talk today on the subject of worship, would they say that “God simply doesn’t care”? Would they conclude there is no wrong way? Leviticus 10:1-2 (NIV): [they] took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, contrary to his command. So fire came out from the presence of the LORD and consumed them, and they died before the LORD.”
I understand that we today live under the authority of the New Testament. But we are to learn from the Old, as Paul said in Romans 15:4, “For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.”
New Testament Warnings. Take your New Testament and see how Jesus warned about ignorant worship… “you worship what you do not know” (John 4:21), vain worship (Matt. 15:9), will worship (Col. 2:23, KJV). How can this be, if God doesn’t care?
Jesus showed that acceptable worship has two essential elements: “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:24). The spirit here is the human spirit; that is, the heart, the inner man is involved. Truth is God’s word (John 17:17). Further, notice that word must – worship must be both from the heart and in accordance with the directives of scripture (truth) if it is to be acceptable. Can you read these verses and conclude that God doesn’t care???
This subject is important because it deals with our souls. God holds us responsible for what we accept (read Matt. 15:14; 1 John 4:1). Jesus said, “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46). Oh yes, He cares!