Category Archives: history

Is It History or not?

08 Monday Jul 2019

Posted by in Bible, history

≈ Leave a comment

As one opens the pages of the Bible to read, it’s easy to see the book presents the material within as factual history. It plainly states, in simple terms, propositions that can be either affirmed or denied, that are either true or false. Consider, for instance, Genesis 1:1-3, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light” (ASV). In each sentence or independent clause, there is an assertion that God did a specific thing. This is true or it is not. No middle ground.

If one denies the statements, then there is no logical reason to accept anything else one reads in the Bible, otherwise one falls into a trap of being very selective in acceptance or not-acceptance of the written record, and this is done on a rather arbitrary basis. This is revisionists-history. On the other hand, if one accepts the statements as they are written, then there is every reason to accept everything else in the Bible.

History is the record of man in time. “Time” is only measured in a material universe by people with people at its center (created on day six). Apart from man, the use of the word “history” is meaningless. The material universe “experiences” time, but man measures and chronicles it. So, with man in mind, the Bible begins with God’s creation. The words of Genesis 1, are they true or not?

Many people don’t want the Bible to be a true, factual history. For if it is, then the words of Jesus haunt those who reject. Which will it be for you? RT

 

No Alternative

21 Saturday Jul 2018

Posted by in America, Bulletin Article, God, history, Leadership

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

The First Amendment to the Constitution reads this way: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

2 Timothy 3:12 reads, Yea, and all that would live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution (ASV).

It appears to me we live in a time when the First Amendment is less about freedom to worship and more about taking the freedom, such as the freedom of speech. There are some in our country who do not like certain words, phrases and ideas to be expressed. Rather than the community shaming vulgar speech, some make laws (such as “hate” speech) to prevent others from speaking words with which some might disagree. This is called political correctness, otherwise known as PC. The amendment speaks against the government endorsing a religion, that is a religion of the state, this is what is prohibited, nothing more. Courts, however, afraid of many things and people expanded this phrase to mean much more than that. Now, there is the notion of “separation of church and state”, something not found in the Constitution, but in a personal letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Connecticut Baptists in 1802 (www.allabouthistory.org). Because of such a perverted interpretation of the phrase, the moral foundation of our country, exhibit in our government, is all but gone. John Adams wrote to a Mr. Warren that our government can only be “supported by pure Religion or Austere Morals. Private, and Public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics” (America’s God and Country, p.12). A moral standard comes from one of two sources: God, not God. There is no third option available. Since many in our community reject God, the only alternative is not God. Look where this has led us. Since we, as a country, are confused morally, the internal moral decay that destroyed Rome has already begun its destructive force against ours. It’s only in the Lord’s mind concerning how long He will allow us to stand as a Nation on this earth. We are we to do?

The only thing godly people (Christians) can do is live the life of Jesus Christ. For hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: (1 Peter 2:21-23). For the Christian, there really is no other alternative. As the opportunity is ours, let us redeem (make the best use of) time (Col. 4:5). In the end, while our country is being destroyed, those who live in accordance with the Lord Jesus will be saved. RT

Making sense of it

21 Wednesday Mar 2018

Posted by in God, history, Wisdom

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

There is no meaning to life without there being meaning in life; but meaning in life is generated from one of two sources. It is either something generated from within, or it is something generated from without. Solomon sought to determine meaning to life from the source within (“under the sun”), but he could make no sense of it. He determined that meaning in life can only be understood when there is recognition that life comes from God, and only this way can one make sense of the perplexities of life that man has contributed to and corrupted so badly, and even then he can hardly make sense of it. Nevertheless, the recognition that life came from God is important, but it is only the foundation from which one builds his/her life; the follow-up is to obey the “giver-of-life,” or God.

Many people (most people) assign meaning to life, but they are not sure if the meaning individually assigned is correct, and British philosopher John Powys saw this clearly in his reply to Will Durant’s inquiry; in the meantime, a person does the best one can. In the end, however, one perhaps wonders why he/she even existed in the first place! What is my place in the world? Why was I born at this time and in this place? What did I do to make the world better? Why did I use this standard of right/wrong rather than that standard of right/wrong? Will anyone remember me? What is my legacy? And on and on the questions are asked. Without clarity of knowledge and understanding, the last remaining bit of hope is taken away when life is over because the individually assigned meaning is vanity.

DEPART FROM THE FAITH (1)

09 Friday Feb 2018

Posted by in history

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

The other day I was reading from a book that gave attention to the history of the church through the first five hundred years. As I was reflecting on that which I was reading, I took notice of what the book said about the church and compared it with what the New Testament said about the church. The two were different. That brings to mind the words of the Holy Spirit in 2 Timothy 4:3-4: For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables (KJV). Paul wrote to Timothy these words also, Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth (1 Timothy 4:1-3).

I want you to notice the two passages again. First, people will not endure sound doctrine; that means there will be some who will not want to hear a “thus saith the Lord” from the pulpit or in the Bible class setting. Yet, the Holy Spirit said that if any man speaks, let him speak the very oracles (words) of God (1 Peter 4:11). Second, these same people who will not endure sound doctrine (words) are people who have ears to hear, but will only hear what they want to hear (they have itching ears). If/When something new is being done elsewhere, there is a tendency to give thought to “Why can’t we do that here?” which then translates into “We need to do that here!” Third, the “itching-ear-person” then turns to a preacher who gives an ointment that sooths the ear, and this is not a good thing! The Lord said this is a turning away from the truth unto things that are not true, but instead are fables in relation to God’s will. Fourth, this turning away results in departing from the faith, buying into the teachings of man so one does not look out of place in the religious world.

The church in the New Testament and the church in church history are not the same. They may have started out the same, but they turned into something different from one another. The church in the New Testament is a church with Jesus at its head, the foundation being Jesus and the words of the apostles. This means that the teachings of the church are to be, and only be, the teachings of the Lord and His designated servants. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 3:11). Again, …. the household of God…built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone… (cf. Eph. 2:19-22).

Because of such dangers, leadership in the New Testament church is a crucial issue. Leadership that respects and insists on the Lord’s way, and only His way, is in prime position to promote the Lord’s way in a dark world. the leadership of which I speak is not a reference to preachers or elders, but to each New Testament saint who love the Lord. They must exercise leadership in this dark world, for many who are lost are looking to them for guidance.

A failure of leadership is disastrous. RT

A Contrast of Ideas

20 Thursday Nov 2014

Posted by in Corinthians, Doctrine, history, Islam

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

In 1 Corinthians 1, the apostle Paul addresses a problem that has plagued the Lord’s church since its beginning in the first century. The problem is in relation to competing ideas. There are three competing ideologies in the chapter, especially in verses 18-31. Those competing ideas are the gospel of Jesus Christ, the philosophy of this world, and a godly religion commandeered by fallen man.

The gospel of Jesus Christ stands without peer. The other two ideologies, however, will not let that go unchallenged. The gospel, of course, is God’s good news as revealed in the Lord Jesus Christ. He came to this earth to redeem man, and as He lived on this earth, He lived a perfect, sinless life (Hebrews 4:15). He fulfilled he law’s demands and all prophecies relating to His coming.

The wisdom of this world, as represented by Greek philosophical idea, is an ideology that looks upon what the Lord did as sophistically inadequate, too simplistic, and surely too naïve in today’s world. Yet, this same philosophy, or any idea that replaces it, is empty of spiritual and emotional substance that gives man answers to a chaotic world. All it really does is give answers and hope the hearer/receiver will be satisfied with that. That might be fine, but what good will that do for one when life is over?

The competing religious ideas, as represented in Judaism, are ideas that seek to grab the heart of man, teaching him that there is indeed something beyond this world. Not only is Judaism like this, but Islam also. In both cases they are false religions. Islam was false from its very start, but Judaism got its start with God on Mount Sinai. The Lord wanted the nation of Israel to obey, and when they obeyed, they were blessed. Unfortunately, as a nation, Israel took a path that was their destruction; after their national redemption they still failed to understand properly the Law’s intent (cf. Romans 9:33-10:3).

Paul understood the challenge, so he preached. “And my message and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, in order that your faith might not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (1 Corinthians 2:4-5, English Majority Text).

 

WOMEN IN HEBREWS

10 Wednesday Sep 2014

Posted by in Faith, history

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Having previously written two articles on women in the New Testament (“Women in 2 Timothy” and “Women in Titus”), there is but a brief reference to women in Hebrews. Nevertheless, there are some things that we can gain from that which we read.

In the great “hall of faith” (chapter 11) there is reference to Abraham’s wife, Sarah. That which is known about Sarah is little, but what is known paints a picture that is both positive and not so much. The ASV reads: “By faith even Sarah herself received power to conceive seed when she was past age, since she counted him faithful who had promised” (Hebrews 11:11). Yet, when one compares this with that which the book of Genesis says, we might wonder where her faith was.

And Sarah laughed within herself, saying, “After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?” And Jehovah said unto Abraham, “Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, who am old? Is anything too hard for Jehovah? At the set time I will return unto thee, when the season cometh round, and Sarah shall have a son.” Then Sarah denied, saying, “I laughed not;” for she was afraid. And he said, “Nay; but thou didst laugh.” (Genesis 18:12-15, ASV)

It seems rather clear that Sarah was not one who believed the Lord when this promise was initially given to her from the Lord. In Genesis Sarah had her doubts; in Hebrews she had none. It appears we have a problem between two sentiments expressed.

But do we?

There is little reason to wonder why Sarah had her doubts. She was an old woman, even by the standards of that day (Genesis 18:12). Yes, she knew that her husband had received a promise, an encouraging word concerning that which would come from his loins, but the natural processes of life wherein child-bearing was possible/probable had come and gone for women such as Sarah. In part, this is the point of the Lord’s promise to both Abraham and Sarah – He is not constricted by the natural processes of life.

Sarah, learning this, and feeling humbled by the Lord’s rebuke to her, had a new outlook on the promise given to her husband. She was now taking it as a promise to her also.

There is a great lesson in this for us. It may be that doubts exists within us. We might ask, however, why is it that doubts exists within us (me). After taking some thought (2 Corinthians 13:5) and after reflecting on the steadfastness of the Lord, we should allow those doubts to fade away. No doubt Sarah did, and those doubts she had began to wane away. Thus the Holy Spirit is able to say that in faith she received power to conceive seed.

Pilate’s Tough Spot

20 Thursday Mar 2014

Posted by in Behavior, history, Jesus, Leadership

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The Bible does not paint Pilate in a very good light. There is, of course, good reason for this. He was Rome’s representative in Judea, administering Roman justice to a people in constant turmoil because of Rome’s presence. Moreover, the name “Pilate” has gone down in history as an infamous name, one that will always be tied to the crucifixion of Jesus.

In John 19 the tough spot Pilate was in was how best to deal with a crowd that had the single interest of killing an innocent man (19:6), and for him to maintain loyalty to Rome. The crowd did not originate this desire of theirs to kill Jesus (cf. Acts 19:32); rather, they were complicit with those who did originate the desire (Matthew 27:20; cf. John 12:19; 11:45-50). Pilate knew this (Matthew 27:18), and desiring to satisfy the crowd he gave Jesus over to their will (Mark 15:10-15).

Pilate was in a tough spot, don’t you think? Not really. He knew Jesus was innocent of the charges leveled against him. Knowing this and allowing justice to hold sway meant that he was not in a tough spot at all. Pilate’s way of thinking, however, was not one that allowed justice to hold sway; what did hold sway was his political fortunes. Because that was his priority the Jews had him over a barrel (as the saying goes). Pilate knew this and turned it around on them. Pilate cried out: “What shall I do with your King?” They replied, “We have no king but Caesar!” (John 19:14-16). What Pilate had just accomplished, unbeknownst to the Jews at the time, was to make the Jews succumb (worship) to the emperor of Rome. More than that, however, even in their denial that Jesus was their king, the Roman administrator, made it a point to label Jesus as their king with the sign he nailed on the wood (John 19:17-22). Pilate was in a tough spot; our tough spots don’t have to be so dramatic if we allow God’s justice to hold sway in our lives. Surely, we don’t want “Pilate” to accomplish the same with us, do we?

 

Sacred Worship

31 Friday Jan 2014

Posted by in history

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, ,

 

                In the four previous articles we have written about the church in relation to what “church history” has recorded. We have paid some attention to the structure, the leadership, persecution, and whether or not church councils are proper avenues to set forth doctrine. Today we want to give our attention to the worship of the church and its relationship to what  man has altered through the years.

                In brief, let us begin with the teaching of the New Testament. Jesus said to the Samaritan woman that those who worship God must do so in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). The meaning of this phrase “describes the two essential characteristics of true worship: in spirit, as distinguished from place or form or other sensual limitations (4:21); in truth, as distinguished from the false conceptions resulting from imperfect knowledge (4:22)” (Vincent Word Studies, E-Sword). “True worship must be in harmony with the Nature and Will of God” (Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary). Thus, acceptable worship to God is from the spirit of man in accordance with the truth of God.

                In the New Testament we learn that those who implemented this holy standard did so by the authority of Jesus (Colossians 3:17) and, moreover, that which was taught by Paul, the same was taught by Peter (1 Corinthians 15:11). It is important to also note that what Peter, Paul, or John taught, whether in Jerusalem, Rome, or Ephesus, it was the same in every church (1 Corinthians 4:17; cf. Romans 15:18). On the occasion of Pentecost, those who accepted the Holy Spirit’s doctrine “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts 2:42, ESV). The four things mentioned in this single verse are of note. The apostles’ doctrine is simply the teaching of God’s word (1 Peter 4:11), fellowship pertains to the gathering together of the saints (Hebrews 10:25), and the breaking of bread would be communion (or the Lord’s Supper, Acts 20:7).

                The first century can be called the “apostolic age;” after the first century it is commonly called the age of the “apostolic fathers” (Kuiper, p. 44). “The apostles were followed by the Apostolic Fathers. From their writings [the apostolic fathers] we can see that the signs of deterioration were disturbing the Church. In the course of the next four hundred years that deterioration increased steadily” (Kuiper, p. 44). Though there was much moving away from the teachings of the New Testament, there were some who tried to stay faithful to the Lord’s way. It cost them dearly, but the glory associated with the Lord’s name was greater than the glory associated with any man (cf. Hebrews 11:35-40). About the time of the thirteenth century and following into the seventeenth century the great protestant reformation started and anchored itself in place. Unfortunately, this commendable effort went only so far as to attempt a reformation, that is, a reforming of the church. When this did not work, men tired of the corruption and started their own church, trying to adhere to Scripture. this, however, produced man-made creeds, that is, teachings that did not necessarily conform to God’s revealed word.    It was in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that some denominational preachers started taking a stand on the New Testament exclusively, and thus was coined the term a restoration movement. In other words, they determined to say “let us speak where the Bible speaks and let us be silent where the Bible is silent.” This motto soon became a mission statement because it corresponds exactly with 1 Peter 4:11 and Romans 15:18.

                The Highway Church of Christ, therefore, is a local religious body that seeks to restore (in relationship to man-made churches) and elevate the teachings of Scripture to its rightful place, as the supreme godly document that declares unto us all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). Our worship is simple, but godly. We teach what the Scriptures teach (and nothing else), we offer our prayers to the Lord continually, we observe the Lord’s Supper weekly, we give of our means for the cause of Christ, and we sing our songs of praise without the use of the mechanical instrument. We do these things on purpose because this is what the Lord said in His word. “Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth’” (John 4:21-24, NKJV).

Church Councils in Church History

22 Wednesday Jan 2014

Posted by in history

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

As it was mentioned in a previous bulletin article, Christians during the first century suffered for their faith. Historically, this persecution was a localized effort, not something that was empire wide. Well, what was not empire wide soon turned to be—and it was fierce. But, in A.D. 313 the Roman Emperor, Constantine, issued an edict known as the Edict of Milan; this granted religious tolerance throughout the territories controlled by Rome, bringing the persecutions to a halt. It also made it somewhat “fashionable” to be a Christian. Along with the popularity of being a Christian, a problem of another making resulted. “Constantine’s edict of 313 opened the floodgates through which a mighty stream of corruption poured into the church” (Kuiper, p. 27).

With Christianity now an accepted religion by the state the local population soon began to make entry into the church environment. Consequently, it was not long before ideas came flooding in concerning a number of conflicting things. It is important to remember that some 300 years previous to the edict given by the empirical government the Lord had already set forth His will in Scripture. God revealed His word to man, His doctrine that pertained unto life and godliness. Everything God wanted man to know was available to him. Scripture (or the written record), unfortunately, was not something readily available in “book” form to every home. There was reliance on the part of the people to those few who had opportunity and capability to learn and teach. Some teachers, unfortunately, took advantage of this situation (position) and were manipulators. On the other hand, others conscientiously served the people.

But through the years, though many were very conscientious, competing and confusing ideas permeated the local churches. The confusing doctrines resulted in church council meetings being called to order. The first general council meeting called to order was by Constantine (the political Roman Emperor) in A.D. 325 (Nicaea). Before the next 200 years had come and gone there were 3 additional general council meetings called, and from these came creeds, or official church doctrines (teachings). Herein is a problem.

To have a “Church Council,” some people argue, has biblical justification (authorization) from the events in Acts 15. It was on that occasion the apostle Paul traveled from his missionary work (Antioch) to Jerusalem to convene with the apostles about a false teaching that was plaguing the Christian community. This event is referred to by some as the “Jerusalem Council.” It is important to note, however, that the so-called Jerusalem council had the sanction of the Holy Spirit, and not man. Paul wrote, “Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain” (Galatians 2:1-2, NKJV).

The importance of understanding this is in relation to who authorized it, and for what purpose. The Holy Spirit had already put in place His word for the Christian community, and during the first century He authorized the only church council He wanted convened. Consequently, there was (and is) no justification for men to collect and hash out particular doctrines and then set them forth in a creed (written or unwritten). If the word of God teaches it, that is the only creed one needs. This is not to say that the saints can’t gather together and engage in some intensive study, but setting forth a creed from that study is another matter entirely—and this was what the various church councils did after the time of the New Testament.

Single Bishop?

13 Monday Jan 2014

Posted by in history, Leadership, Man-Made Churches

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , ,

In this third bulletin article on church history, the book I have been gleaning my material from has expressed the importance of the Church’s inward growth. By that is meant the growth in doctrine (teaching) and organization.

Interestingly the author of this church history book spoke truly when he said “[t]he theory that doctrine is not important is not only shallow and foolish, it is also crafty. It is one of the devil’s best tricks” (The Church in History, Kuiper, p.15). It’s unfortunate, however, when he mentions that from the first through the early portion of the fourth century the organization and doctrine developed (p. 16). Of course, this is true when viewed from the perspective of man-made institution, but from the perspective of the Holy Spirit this is not true at all. Peter wrote that at the time he lived all things that pertained unto life and godliness had been revealed (2 Peter 1:3; cf. Jude 3). Paul stated it this way: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NKJV).

There are a number of doctrinal items worthy of discussion in this bulletin article, but only one that I want to reference now: “the development of the episcopate.” This is the title of the section dealing with how the church developed a doctrine wherein one man stood above and before others. In fact, “[b]y the middle of the second century practically all churches had monarchical bishops” (p. 20).

The term “monarchical bishop” is a term for a single man who rules alone in a particular religious community. The reason for this single-man rule, we are told, was because of the heresy of the day (known as Gnosticism and Montanists) needed to be opposed and this was best accomplished in one man. We are told the “Church had to establish its position as the authority who decided the meaning of the Bible” (p. 18), and this was exercised through the episcopate or monarchical bishop. This was (and is) a most unfortunate sentiment because it dismisses (unintentionally, I believe) what the Lord’s revealed word had already determined. “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12, NKJV).

When the Lord gave His charge to the apostles to take His message into all the world, He gave them and those they taught (2 Timothy 2:2) the adequate tools to thwart the fiery darts of Satan. Man, in his own wisdom, decided to set aside that which the Lord taught and make some adjustments to the pattern set forth by the Lord. This presumptuous action, even if it was done with good intentions, puts both the teacher and those taught in a precarious position (at best).

In this same church history book the author clearly recognizes that in the New Testament this form of leadership (government) is not present. “At first the organization of the Church was very simple. The officers were the elders and deacons. The elders were known as presbyters, since presbyter is the Greek word for ‘elder’” (p. 19, italics in original). Thus, based on what we just read, the Lord’s simple plan was made more complex by man. Herein is the problem; “There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death” (Proverbs 14:12).

Our challenge is to stay true and fiercely adhere to the teachings of the New Testament. If one would simply allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves, then man’s complex ways could be dismissed. The sacred Scriptures need to be put exactly where the Lord placed them: as the revealed pathway of life (2 Corinthians 5:7; Romans 10:17).