Sunday Sermons
Take Care - Part 2
With all the warnings in the Bible concerning falling away from the faith (Matthew 7:15; Acts 20:29ff; Romans 11:21; 16:17-18; 1 Corinthians 15:33; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15; Galatians 3:1; 4:11; 5:1-4; 2 Timothy 4:2-4), I am amazed that some professed Christians seem to have completely turned a blind eye to all these warnings. Some are arguing that people are more important than rules (that is, God’s commands in Scripture). Yet Jesus and the apostles consistently argued that those who do not comply with God’s commands, even though they are made in the image of God and valuable, will still be condemned (Matthew 7:21-23; 2 Thessalonians 3:6,14; 2 John 9). People also tend to place a false distinction between “relationships” verses “rules”. The truth of the matter is that all healthy relationships are governed by divine rules (James 2:8-12; Romans 13:9).
Uncertainty
Neglecting doctrine does bring an earthly consequence. Some will say that baptism is necessary for salvation, but will at the same time fellowship those who deny baptism precedes salvation. Some are arguing that baptism is necessary for obedience, but waffle on whether it is necessary to be saved. Here I am amazed at the hairs people can split. Yes, one must be baptized in order to obey God, because baptism is a command, but Jesus is the one who plainly linked the term “saved” to baptism, as did His apostles! (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21). Some are equally uncertain that all the of the New Testament came by verbal inspiration. “They do not affirm that every verse is inerrant and utterly trustworthy. Instead, they accept Scripture as having errors and inconsistencies we cannot explain” (The Spiritual Sword, October 2002, p. 9). Yet this was not Jesus’ view of Scripture (Matthew 5:17-19), nor Paul’s (2 Timothy 3:16-17). “Some will tell you they are personally opposed to instrumental music, for instance, because a cappella music is part of ‘our heritage’, but they do not believe instrumental music in worship is a ‘salvation issue’. It is becoming common among some to oppose the use of the instrument during normal Sunday and Wednesday services but permit and endorse it in classes and devotionals” (p. 9).
“Our Heritage?”
The word “heritage” in the previous quotation sounds nice and respectable on the surface, but the problem is that Jesus is not impressed by a human religious heritage. The word “heritage” means, “something handed down from one’s ancestors or the past, as a characteristic, a culture, a tradition” (Webster). When Jesus came to this earth, the Jewish people had a definite “heritage” and Jesus rebuked them for passing down human religious traditions (Mark 7:3 “observing the traditions of the elders”; 7:4 “and there are many other things which they have received”—that is what a “heritage” is! Our task as Christians is not to observe some human religious heritage; rather it is to observe the word of God (Luke 11:28).
The Lord’s Supper
In the book Radical Restoration, the author F. LaGard Smith, argues that if the church does not have a social meal in conjunction with the Lord’s Supper, that it has departed from the New Testament pattern. Others are making the same argument. Some congregations are meeting in small groups on Sunday night for the purpose of observing the Lord’s Supper in the context of a social meal. John Mark Hicks in the book, Come To The Table: Revisioning the Lord’s Supper, argues that the discernment of the body means that the church needs to restore the “table as a meal”. At the end of the Lord’s Supper, he suggests that those partaking of the communion finish by serving dessert (p. 165). Anyone who has seriously studied Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is astounded by such claims or suggestions. The Corinthians were eating the Lord’s Supper in the context of a social meal and were condemned (1 Corinthians 11:22 “What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God?”). Carefully note that the Holy Spirit clearly separates a social meal from the observance of the Lord’s Supper, to the point that social meals are placed in a completely different setting (11:22,34). In addition, the Holy Spirit does not advocate any of the above positions. If the Lord’s Supper can only be properly eaten as part of a larger meal, then why did God clearly separate the two? Please note, neither does God allow the church at Corinth to divide up into many little groups and all have their own individual social meal and communion. In Acts 2:46 we find that the early Christians met for worship and study in the temple area, and then had social meals in private homes.
The Love Feast: 2 Peter 2:13; Jude 12
It is argued that the "feast" mentioned in these two verses were church-funded dinners or potlucks. The idea that the "love feast" was a social meal connected with, following, or before the Lord's supper is a common denominational view. Such a view contradicts what Paul says about the Lord's Supper. Paul not only separates the Lord's Supper from a social meal, but he commands all such meals to be eaten "at home" (1 Corinthians 11:22; 34). Some contend that Paul is simply correcting the Corinthians abuse of "fellowship dinners", and that we are not to interpret Paul as saying that all such church sponsored dinners are wrong. In response: When correcting an abuse of something legitimate, Paul never completely outlawed the practice, rather he would proceeded to regulate it (1 Corinthians 10:25-33). Paul never regulates "church dinners". He places all such social meals in the private sector (11:22; 11:34). Even many denominational commentators argue that the "love feast" was not a social meal at all; rather it is simply another name for the Lord's Supper. “When we come to Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 150) we find that in his account of church worship he does not mention the agape (love feast) at all, but speaks of the Eucharist (Lord's supper) as following a service which consisted of the reading of Scripture, prayers, and exhortation” (I.S.B.E. revised. “Agape”, p. 66). Someone also pointed out that from simply reading 2 Peter 2:13 or Jude 12 (if this was a social meal), the text says absolutely nothing about where these feasts took place. Did such feasts take place in private homes, or were they church funded? A recognized method of interpretation is to let the Bible interpret itself. The social meals of the early church in Jerusalem happened in the private homes of the members (Acts 2:46), and Paul places all social meals outside the assembly(1 Corinthians 11:22,34).
Eternal Punishment
In 1982, Edward Fudge produced a book entitled, “The Fire That Consumes”. In that book he asserts that the unrighteous will be raised to judgment, punished for a while, and then banished to total, everlasting extinction. Pepperdine University invited this author to present his “conditionalist” doctrine at the spring lectureship in 1991. Here is one evidence that even proclaimed churches of Christ are being affected by the liberal thinking among the denominations. In fact, during the April, 1988 Pepperdine University Lectureship, F. LaGard Smith argued that God “will destroy (the soul). Not punish it. Not dangle it. Not torture it. Destroy it” (A Christian Response to the New Age Movement”, tape 3). The question with such comments is, “Where did Jesus or the apostles ever teach such a concept?” Jesus spoke of the fire that is not quenched (Mark 9:48), and the “punishment” that is eternal (Matthew 25:46). If hell is only temporary then why didn’t God clearly have Jesus inform us concerning that truth? The rich man is never told in Luke 16:19ff that his suffering would only be temporary. John made it very clear that the torment of the wicked never ends (Revelation 14:11; 20:10 “they will be tormented day and night forever and ever”). Some are arguing that the word “eternal” when connected with “fire” does not mean that the fire is eternal but only that the fire comes from an eternal God. Yet Jesus did not say that, rather He spoke of hell has a place of eternal punishment(Matthew 25:41). Remember, any tinkering with the word “eternal” in reference to hell also impacts upon “eternal” life. If the word “eternal” has nothing to do with the length of the suffering, when what guarantee do we have that heaven will be eternal in duration? If hell is not eternal, then how does one prove that heaven is, seeing that the exact same word is used for both?(Matthew 25:46) “John Clayton, a popular speaker among (liberal) churches, gave Fudge’s book an enthusiastic recommendation, while himself confessing: ‘I have never been able to be comfortable with the position that a person who rejected God should suffer forever and ever” (The Spiritual Sword, April 1997, p. 35). This comment reveals the true issue when it comes Jesus’ teaching on eternal punishment. Men sadly want a teaching that is comfortable to their ears (2 Timothy 4:3; Isaiah 30:10 “Speak to us pleasant words, prophesy illusions”). Imagine how such a statement, “I’m not comfortable with an eternal hell”, looks to God! Did we create the human race? Are people violating the moral laws that are the outgrowth of our nature and blaspheming our name every day? Did we give our Son to die on the cross? Do we sit in heaven and see all the evil things that people do day after day? Do we behold all the suffering that selfish people bring upon others? Are we the Judge? (James 4:12). Yet in spite of these truths, we complain, “Well, I am not comfortable with sinners being punished forever”? Could not God say, “Who asked you?” Some argue that the word “destruction”, when associated with hell, means that God actually annihilates the soul in hell (Matthew 10:28). Yet, why would God resurrect the bodies of the wicked if He was only going to annihilate them? (John 5:29). Jesus said that where the sinners goes is “unquenchable fire”, where the “worm does not die” (Mark 9:43,44). Yet if the soul is obliterated, then the fire does end and the worm does die. Many have pointed out that the term “destroy” does not mean the loss of being, but the loss of well-being. It is the same word that Jesus used when He spoke of people “perishing” or being “lost”. Compare with Matthew 8:25; 9:17; Mark 9:22; 11:18; Luke 4:34; 11:51; 13:3; 15:24; Romans 14:15; 1 Corinthians 15:18; James 4:12).
The Rejection of Reason
On February 21, 1996, William S. Banowsky, former president of Pepperdine University, spoke at the Abilene lectures on the subject, “The Christ-Centered Church”. In that speech he argued “faith is more a matter of intuition and feeling than logic and reason”. He warns, “We will not win this fight for faith if we wage it on the basis of reason”, and thus he pleaded for a “heartfelt religion” such as manifested by Pentecostalism. God has a different perspective. Yes, God wants our hearts involving in loving Him, but He also expects all of our “reason” as well (Mark 12:30). Through Isaiah, God said, “Come, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18). God urges the nation to act with reason, and notice that God knows that even sinners can make the decision to think correctly. “The Lord forces none to obey Him. His call is one that enjoins man to ‘reason’ or give consideration to the immutability of God’s word. All who reject Him suffer condemnation, but those who obey have the blessed assurance of forgiveness” (Harkrider p. 11). To repent and obey God is the “reasonable” thing to do! Compare with 1 Corinthians 15:34; Romans 1:21-22; 2 Peter 2:10-13. “In the light of the historically established evidence and the pragmatic proof of the commandments and promises of God’s Word, unbelief is irrational, unreasonable, and immoral. Only God knows where man came from, what man’s purpose in existing is, and what man’s destiny is. All other thinking about these ultimates, unless conformed to God’s revealed thinking, is irrational and untrue” (Butler p. 79). Sin is irrational, because it is the violation of what is true (John 17:17). God also warns us against operating on the basis of feeling or intuition (Matthew 7:21-23).
