The Mystery of Godliness
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
A Christian World View
A great topic of discussion in sectarian circles these days is the need for instilling a “Christian World View” in the minds of believers. As I understand this term, it refers to the attitude that we have when addressing all the areas of life around us. A true “Christian World View” would insist that we base all of our decisions and opinions of things on what the Bible says. This is easier dreamed of than done. Many people today will tell you that they believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and they believe the Bible is His word, but those truths should be restricted to the Church House. To try to carry that into the realm of science, morality, entertainment, culture, etc… would be going too far. This is an interesting thing to consider.
The Example of the New Testament Church
What makes a church a Church of Christ (Romans 16:16) is not that some conclave of men recognizes them as such and their name is stamped with a seal of approval and put on record in a basement somewhere. It is not being able to “rattle the chain of church secession,” nor is it determined on following one or two core creedal beliefs, but rather what makes a church a Church of Christ is submission to the instruction of the Bible alone (2 Tim. 3:16-17), and the example the early Church provides for us. When we do things as they did them, in the manner in which they did them, we will be one of them. So we ask, what of the Church under Apostolic guidance? What was it’s world view? Did Paul and Peter teach that Christianity should be confined to the worship service, but left out of daily affairs? Let us consider our only source:
A Christian View of Science
As Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus, surrounded by the greatest intellectual minds of his day, he did not hesitate to present a “Christian World View”. To these poly-theists, pantheists and atheists he declared, “God, who made the world and everything in it… is Lord of heaven and earth. He gives to all life, breath, and all things. And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings.” (Acts 17:24-26) He further affirmed that man could be, and often was wrong in his scientific theory. “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called…” (1 Tim. 6:20) Some might say, “well I want to know what Jesus Christ thought about science and religion, surely he did not seek to mix the two?” Quite the contrary, there was never a more outspoken defender of the miracles and wonders of God than Jesus Christ. Surely the scientific world of today would balk at the claims of a man to be the Son of God, to have the power to heal the sick and raise the dead, to have control over the very forces of nature. The Lord convinced many of the great minds of His day, for example Luke, the gospel writer and author of the book of Acts was a physician, and held a “Christian View” of science.
A Christian View of Morality
It is interesting to see people trying to keep the Bible out of discussions on morality. Interesting I say, because there would be no concept of morality in human civilization and we would be but a raging chaotic race of cave men if not for the master work of God. Moral concepts that are realized without the scriptures are said to be “written in our hearts” by the hand of the Creator. “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts.” (Romans 2:14-15). So we see that indeed even our most basic understanding of right and wrong comes from God, but we ask, “How do we now what is truly ‘good’?” Jesus gave us the answer, “No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Matthew 19:17). There is no good to be found in this world, but by the word of God. Furthermore, we note that in the scripture we have “the truth,” the absolute standard that settles all matters of faith and practice. “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:31-32) The only fitting view of moral issues is a Christian view.
A Christian View of the Government
One area where we find a great deal of activity today is the attempted merger of Church and State, but as we look into the scripture, we will see that this goes against the “Christian View” of earthly politics. The church is not told to take an active role in the affairs of the state, aside from being submissive, inasmuch as God is primarily served, and being good citizens, but of the Church it is said that we should behave as “guests” in the kingdoms of this world. We are in the world, but not of the world (1 Jn. 4:4-6). We are strangers and pilgrims (1 Pet. 2:11). We are not to involve ourselves with the affairs of the world (Rom.13:12), nor are we to love the world (1 Jn. 2:15). When I see Christians who are more concerned for the state of the State than the condition of the Church I am greatly troubled. When I see God’s people busier seeing to the President’s business than the King’s business, enthused and invigorated to go out and campaign for a ne’er-do- well senator, but unwilling to lift a finger to proclaim the sinless Christ, that is disturbing indeed. We thank God for the civil authorities, they are a gift from Him. They are sinners that the Lord uses to do the things Christians could never do (enact vengeance, take up arms, etc…) unto our protection from other sinners. We are to obey the Laws of the land, whether we think them unjust or not, so long as we give to God first (Matt. 22:20-21), pay our taxes, not speak evil of those in power (Titus 3:1-2) and pray for them.
Indeed we can all agree that a “Christian World View” is essential to being a New Testament Christian and being a Member of the New Testament Church. CED
Questions About the Lord’s Supper Answered
Dear Interested Reader,
I write this article to help you in your quest for simple, New Testament Christianity, an essential part of which is scriptural, God-pleasing worship!
The Cup –
What I would first encourage you to do is look through the scriptures where we are told how to commune. It is always cup, never cups. There was no sign of individual cups until 1898 when Rev. J. G. Thomas invented the first set. G. C. Brewer in his autobiography, “40 Years on the Firing Line,” makes this admission: “I think I was the first preacher (Church of Christ) to advocate the use of the individual communion cups, and the first church in the state of Tennessee that adopted it was the church for which I was preaching, the Central Church of Christ, Chattanooga Tennessee.” This occurred in 1914; how can something so recent be called apostolic? I know of people alive today who witnessed the first time individual cups were ever used by the Lord’s Church in the observance of communion. How are they different from instrumental music? One innovation is just as sinful as the other.
Q. Does it make any difference how we observe the communion?
A. Jesus says yes. “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” Vain worship means useless worship, good for nothing.
A. The Apostle Paul says yes. In 1 Corinthians 11 the Bible says that the churches of Corinth had perverted the communion by turning it into a common meal, no discerning the Lord’s Body. Because they did this it was no longer the Lord’s Supper that they were partaking of (1 Cor. 11:20) Christ said, “This do in remembrance of me.” When we change it, it can no longer be called the Lord’s Supper.
A. Logic and common sense say yes. The word communion means “joint participation.” We are communing or participating jointly, eating and drinking with one another and with Christ. Individual cups and loaves destroy that concept of joint participation.
Q. Is the word “Cup” making reference only to the contents?
A. Experts of the Greek Language say no. Thayer, Bullinger, Vine, Ardnt and Gingrich and others all agree that the word poterion, translated cup, means a “drinking vessel”.
A. Jesus says no, “Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you’.” (Luke 22:20) Now earlier Jesus said that the fruit of the vine (grape juice) represented the Blood. He then says that the Cup containing the grape juice represents the New Testament. The Apostle Paul said the same thing in 1 Corinthians 11:25.
Q. Jesus said in Luke 22:17, “Take this (the Cup) and divide it among yourselves…” doesn’t this give the authority to divide it into individual cups?
A. Jesus explains what He meant.
He Commands them to divide it – Luke 22:17, “Take this (the Cup) and divide it among yourselves…”
He tells them How to divide it – Matthew 26:27, “Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it (the Cup), all of you.” (NKJV)
They do as they were told – Mark 14:23, “And He took the cup, and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them: and they all drank of it (the Cup).”
The Loaf –
The initial reasoning for why we ought to use one loaf is the same as with the cup. Jesus only used one, it is clear from the text, so we should use one in order to comply with his command to “do this.” Like the individual cups it was not until recent years that men, particularly the Lord’s Church ever started using individual loaves.
There are a number of problems with individual loaves-
1. The bread must be unleavened, just as the grape juice must be unfermented, as the supper was being observed during the Feast of Unleavened Bread all leaven, in or out of food or drink, would have been purged from the house. Are the crackers often used as “individual loaves” unleavened?
2. The word translated bread or loaf in the Gospel and Pauline accounts means specifically one loaf. Artos is the Greek word meaning a loaf, if it were referring to more than one it would be an entirely different word.
3. It destroys the entire picture symbolized in the bread. Jesus said “this is my body.” The loaf represents the Body, the body is the Church: One Church , one body, one loaf. In the Old Testament there were twelve loaves, one for each of the twelve tribes of Israel , that were on the showbread table in the temple. (Lev. 24:4-6) Today we are one tribe represented by one loaf. “The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? We being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.” (1 Cor. 10:16-17)
Are Public Bible Classes, Tracts, Papers and TV Preachers Really 4 of a Kind? Part 2
Opposing Innovation in Religion
There are certainly those who will ask: why do we approve of innovations in material matters and oppose them in divine matters? Well the answer is very simple. There are two types of Innovations:
- Those Involving Man’s Arrangements
- Those involving Divine Arrangements
With the first we have no problem. Why? It is because such innovations do no alter or affect the holy commandments of God. Refrigerators are an innovation in the storage of food from the day of the New Testament Church, but it is not sinful to own one. God did not instruct us on how we were to store our food. 747 Airliners are an innovation in travel from the days of the Apostle Paul, so is it sinful for our preachers to use them to fly to foreign nations to do missionary work? No, God did not give divine instruction on how we are to travel, it is the same with using the television and Internet or sending out Bible Tracts, these are innovations in man’s arrangements not God’s. God has instructed us on how to teach the saved, and public bible classes were never a part of his plan.
Bible Classes: A liberty, or an Innovation?
Now many may say, “We understand why we must prevent ‘harmful’ innovations, but what would be wrong the Bible Classes they are strengthening the personal knowledge of Christians aren’t they?” Rather than answer this question with my own frail, fallible words, I will give an example found in the Word of God. Let us look at a story that is found in 1 Samuel 15:1-22. The gist of the incident goes like this: King Saul was commanded to go over to the land of Amalek and utterly destroy the people, and all they possessed. After reaching the land, Saul, instead of doing exactly as he was told, spared the best of the flocks and oxen, and even the King of the Land. Behind his action was a noble purpose; at least it would appear. But let us not forget that God commanded this man to do something, and regardless of the motives behind his actions he failed to do what God had commanded. Will he be held responsible? Let us see – “And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and have gone the way which the Lord sent me, and have brought Agag, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God in Gilgal. And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice and to hearken, than the fat of rams.” – 1 Samuel 15:20-22. In the eyes of Saul and the people, the thing they did by bringing back these fine animals and the King of the Land was doing an extra service for God. They took the liberty of expanding somewhat on what God had told them. But Samuel told him the finest oxen and sheep and the greatest riches in all the land were not as good as obedience. The same lesson applies today what we might see as a liberty that would seem to be beneficial to the mission of the Church, is in the eyes of God an innovation and corruption of His command.
Closing Comments on what is Wrong With Public Bible Classes
The wonderful thing about having the Word of God to guide us is that it is perfect, harmonious and clear. If followed exactly as it is written there will be no division, no controversy, and when there is it can only be due to mans foolishness of deceit. When Acts 20:20 is seen for what it is than we have a distinction, public and private. With public we have Worship Service and Evangelism which, according to 1 Cor. 13:44-45 and 2 Tim. 2:11-12, are times when women are forbidden to speak (the assembly) and teach or take an authoritative role (publicly). In the story of Pricilla and Aquilla studying with Apollos we see two men and one women talking together in private. In private a woman is authorized to teach a man. These lines and boundaries are very clear, but when a system alien to the scripture is placed in the picture the lines become distorted. When Public Bible classes are advocated one will be ready to stand and say “Lets have women teachers in these Bible classes.” How will you rebuke them with scripture? We have already determined that the Bible class cannot be classified as either of the two authorized methods of public teaching of the word, nor can it be classified as private. This means that you would not be able to rebuke them using the Word. The only way you would be able to, would be to admit that because of a lack of scriptural backing, the Bible Class system is unscriptural. Finally, in 1 Peter 4:11 there is a command to all Christians, a command that the early Restoration preachers knew had to be strictly followed if the will of God was to be done, it says “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. If anyone ministers let him do it as with the ability which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ to whom belong the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.” If we are to truly worship God in accordance with His will we must hold to what was said in that verse, when we speak we must “speak as the oracles of God.” “Speak where the Bible speaks, be silent where the Bible is Silent” is recognized as an old Restoration plea. Examine the scriptures and see if they anywhere mention or authorize “public bible classes”, if not than please run “back to the Bible” and hold fast to the Ancient Order. –CED
Are Public Bible Classes, Tracts, Papers and TV Preachers Really 4 of a Kind? Part 1
The Question was recently posed to me asking what the difference is between bible classes and a television program or tracts. How is one any more scriptural than the other? In the Early Church their were two basic methods of teaching the Word of God according to Acts 20:20 where Paul said, “I taught you publicly and from house to house,” meaning publicly and privately.In subgroups we have three examples of how God’s Word was taught.
1. Public Worship Service (Assembly)
2. Public Evangelism
3. Private Bible Study
In order for a method of teaching the Bible to be authorized by the Scripture it has to fall under one of these categories. When examining the three modern modes of teaching that are listed in the title we immediately can come to realization. A Bible tract or religious paper is not a worship service or a private Bible study, but it is a mode of public evangelism. The same could be said of the TV preaching program, but what of the Public Bible Class? Can it be classified under any of the three authorized sub-groups? Let us see:
Is a Public Bible Class a worship service? A worship service is composed of an assembly of the saints: praying, praising god in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, and hearing the Word of God taught to them, and on the Lord’s Day, the observance of the Lord’s Supper and the giving of means is also part of the public service (Acts 20:7). It is important to point out that in the worship service it is: a shame for a woman to speak (1 Cor. 13:34-35), it is not to be divided (1 Cor. 11:20, 14:23), it is to be carried out with order and reverence, with one man speaking at a time (1 Cor. 14:31), and it is forbidden for a woman to teach or take an authoritative role (2 Tim. 2:11-12). Even supporters of Bible Classes will say that they are separate and different from the worship service, if this is the case then the first of the three sub groups can be checked off.
Is a Public Bible Class Public Evangelism? Aside from the Worship service, the Bible tells us that the Apostles practiced another form of public teaching that was separate and different. In Acts 14:1 the Bible tells us that Paul and Barnabas were at Iconium and went into “a synagogue of the Jews” where they preached the word to a multitude. This was not a worship service but rather Paul and Barnabas had gone into the realm of unbelievers to teach them the Word in order to convert them. This is what such things as TV Preachers and Bible Tracts can be classified as, not a worship service, not an assembly of the Saints, not a private Bible Study, but a method of Public Evangelism. A Public Bible Class cannot be called Public Evangelism because it is not an outreach to the world intended to convert, but rather a public Bible study of the Saints.
Is a Public Bible Class a Private Bible Study? This seems like a rather silly question, the two titles show the distinctive difference: Public and Private. Supporters of Bible Classes often use the story of Priscilla and Aquila to support their claim that the New Testament gives an example of Early Church members studying the Bible outside of the Worship service. Well that is very true, the Early Church would study the Bible publicly (worship service, public evangelism) and from house to house (private bible study). But in order for the story of Priscilla and Aquila to exemplify and authorize public bible classes, it would have to demonstrate a public bible class taking place. In Acts 18:24-28 the Bible tells of Priscilla and Aquila. In verses 24 and 25 the Bible says that there was a preacher named Apollos who was “an eloquent man and mighty in the scripture.” It says that he “taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John.” So after he was finished preaching, the Bible says in verse26, “They took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.” Notice the words there, “they took him aside,” this indicates to me that it was a private discussion, or study, on the scriptures separate from the worship service. The key word there however is private.With that in mind we cannot justifiably classify Public Bible Classes under this category. What are we to do now? The only three scripturally authorized methods of teaching the Bible have been taken out of the picture and still the Public Bible Class has no home; this is because it cannot be found within God’s Word, and thus has no place within His Church. – CED