RSS

Strengthening Our Grip…on Involvement Acts 2:42-47


17th century sage John Donne once wrote: No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less; any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee!”

be devotedSince we all are involved in mankind, how much more should we Christians be involved in the lives of other believers?

(John 17:23 NIV)  I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

(John 17:26 NIV)  I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.”

These verses underscore the fact that love and unity should characterize our involvement with each other.  In this lesson we want to get a better grip on our involvement with other Christians.

Involvement in God’s Family-A Historical Glance.  Throughout history, no church has better modeled involvement than the church in Acts 2. At the end of Peter’s message on the Day of Pentecost, three thousand Jews were saved. They had no church building, no Bible, no seasoned pastor, no traditions or forms of church government. Yet this new congregation knew more about how a church should function than we do today with two thousand years of experience and libraries full of church history notes.

And they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. (Acts 2:42). Initially drawn together by the thread of their common commitment to Christ, the early church members became a tightly knit group. The Greek term for fellowship is koinonia, the root of which means “common.”

And all those who had believed were together, and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions, and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. And day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.

First, fellowship was entered into by all. Not one of them had an island mentality. They shared everything they had: property, possessions, food, even their own lives. Second, this sharing was sincere, not contrived or coerced.

Their fellowship sparkled with authenticity. The early church expressed its involvement in two ways. The people shared with someone: things like money, time, food, encouragement, reproof, confession. And they shared in something: a situation, an experience, a failure, an emotion. In all their times of need, they were never alone.

As you look back at the involvement of the believers in Acts 2, how do we compare? Do we build bridges that link our life with others, or do we hermit ourselves away on some isolated island! The only cure for loneliness is to build relational bridges to span the seas that separate you.

In two other New Testament passages, Paul vividly describes the involvement in Acts 2 by answering the questions: Why should we be involved with others? Why should we open up our lives? Why take the risk?

  1. God Commands It — Romans 12:9-16.
  2. The Body Needs It — 1 Corinthians 12:20-27.
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 25, 2017 in Small groups

 

“People Power” From God


We can’t make it through life without dealing with people. They are everywhere. They are in our homes and at our work. They are at church and where we enjoy our leisure.

 A lot of us are like the cartoon character, who said, “I love mankind. It’s people I can’t stand.”

Like it or not, we need people. We might wish we could live life totally on our own terms, but that is impossible.

Learning to deal with people will help us at work or at church. It will help us live a happier life. Let’s look at some excerpts of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, to see what principles he can give us for getting along with people.

  1. Be careful about judging others (Matthew 7:1-5).
  • This does not say we cannot or should not discern good from evil.
  • It does say we should not subject others to unreasonable criticism.
  • We are not wise enough to make such criticisms.
  • We are not good enough to make such criticisms.
  • It will keep us busy enough, just monitoring ourselves.
  • If we try to straighten other people out while we have the same problem, then we become as comical as the man with a plank in his eye trying to pick out specks in others’ eyes.
  1. Do more than expected (Matthew 5:38-42).
  • Turn the other cheek. This does not mean that we cannot defend our lives. It does mean that we should not take little insults too seriously.
  • Go the extra mile
  • Give another your coat
  • This will drive others crazy until they find out why you are so kind.
  1. Don’t let disputes fester (Matthew 5:23-26).
  • It has been said that time heals all wounds, but this is not always true.
  • Sometimes time allows a situation to become worse and worse until it becomes dangerous.
  1. Show kindness to everyone (Matthew 5:43-48).
  • It is a shame to say sometimes we can’t even show kindness to those who are kind to us.
  • Jesus wants us to be kind, even to the undeserving.
  • Showing kindness to an enemy is the ultimate revenge.
  1. Treat others as you want to be treated (Matthew 7:12).
  • This is what has been called the golden rule, for the principle is worth gold to us.
  • Jesus saw this statement as summary of the law and the prophets.
  • Notice that Jesus states this as a positive. He didn’t say, “Don’t do to others anything you would not want done to you.”

Conclusion – People who have people power can be used of God in a mighty way. After all, people are His first concern, and people are His greatest tools.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 21, 2017 in Small groups

 

Christian Evidences Series: Science and the Bible


Studies in Christian Evidences by Waymon D. Miller

(This little booklet was developed in 1961 but is now out of print. For that reason, it is provided here for your use and edification in hopes that one more soul will come to believe today)

Introduction:
1. Through many years there has been a bitter conflict between religion
and science.
(a) Extremists on both sides contended that this conflict was
inevitable; that a Christian could not accept the finds of modern
science, and a scientist could not be a true Christian.
(b) Many Christians have viewed science with extreme skepticism,
believing its objective was to undermine religion, and many scientists
believe religion tends to oppose and retard scientific progress.
(c) It is true that many scientists are unbelievers, agnostics,
atheists, and infidels, but this is likewise true of many men of all
professions.
(d) Radical Christians have viewed science as the work of the devil, and
radical scientists have viewed religion as a relic of medieval
superstition.
(e) The mere fact that one is a scientist does not necessarily mean his
findings are untrue and antichristian, any more than the fact that one is
a professed Christian means his views of the Bible are correct.

2. There are some common sense matters to be recognized in whatever
issues may exist between science and the Bible.
(a) We need to recognize that the Bible is not a scientific book. It is
not designed to provide a technical discussion of scientific matters, but
rather to reveal God’s will.
(b) Since the Bible is not a scientific text, it should not be expected
to discuss scientific matters in detail, or its expressions (especially
obscure ones) be interpreted as scientific expositions.
(c) Science is an area of knowledge of human origin. The Bible is not
always concerned with intricate details of human wisdom, but it is our
conviction that all true knowledge is god-centered knowledge.

I. CAN THERE BE HARMONY BETWEEN SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE?
1. In order to determine if modern science denies the Bible we must
first determine what science is.
(a) In the absolute sense, “science” means “knowledge,” but this
definition is a narrow one, for many matters in scientific area are not
absolutely finalized.
(b) Science involves experiment, observation, deduction, conclusions,
conjecture, experience, fixed natural laws, hypotheses, speculation, and
theory. From these is derived both established truth and assumption.
(c) Herbert Spencer spoke of science as being “partially unified
knowledge.”

2. Does science destroy belief in God and the Bible beyond any dispute?
(a) If this were true, then in our wonderfully scientific age we could
not have the present sensational interest in the Bible and religion.
(b) The reason for the faith-destroying influence of scientific
knowledge lies deeper than science itself, since many good scientists
believe in God and the Bible.
(c) There is really no basic disagreement with any matter of scientific
knowledge and the Bible, when science is received reverently and the
Bible is rightly understood.
(d) Sir Oliver Lodge, noted scientist, said, “The region of religion and
the region of a completed science are one.”
(e) F. Hugh Capron correctly stated: “The fundamental truths of
religion are the fundamental truths of science.”
(f) Bernard Ramm wrote: “Ideally in their mutual pursuits the scientist
and the theologian should supplement each other.”

3. What is responsible for the conflict between scientists and the
Bible?
(a) There are both dogmatic scientists and dogmatic religionist who have
little sympathy for one another.
(b) Scientists have presumed to speak in the field of religion in which
they are not competent, and religionists have presumed to speak in the
field of science in which they are not qualified.
(c) Religionists have erred in seeking to make the Bible speak too
specifically about scientific matters, and scientists have erred in
seeking some conflict between science and the Bible.
(d) J.H. Pratt wrote: “The Book of Nature and the Word of God emanate
from the same infallible Author, and therefore cannot be at variance. 
But man is a fallible interpreter, and by mistaking one or both of these
Divine Records, he forces them too often into unnatural conflict.”
(e) In attempts to reconcile the Bible with various aspects of science,
over-zealous defenders of the Bible have frequently erred in seeking to
read many modern scientific discoveries back into the Scriptures
(f) Bible expositors have been guilty of superficial and untenable
interpretations of passages in effort to harmonize the Bible with
scientific matters. (cf. Heb. 11:3)
(g) Bible students have frequently confused their interpretation of
Biblical statements with inspired declarations, thus affirming that their
understanding of a passage is what inspiration declared about some
scientific matter.

4. We should understand some simple principles about what the Bible
teaches about the universe.
(a) the Bible declares that the universe and its in habitants were
brought into existence by creation by the infinite power of God, the
Creator.
(b) The Bible teaches that the universe is sustained by the unfailing
providence of God.
(c) The Bible maintains that the laws governing the universe are natural
laws, which are God’s laws.
(d) The Bible affirms the temporal nature of everything in the universe;
that all things are subject to decay.
(e) Observe the broad and general nature of these divine truths. The
Bible does not concern itself with infinitely technical details of these
matters.

II. SUPPOSED AREAS OF CONFLICT BETWEEN THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE:
1. The age of the world.
(a) Some have imagined that there is a contradiction between the
Biblical account of the age of the world and the affirmation of science.
(b) It is cited that scientists have estimated the age of the earth to
be between 4 and 5 billion years, while “the Bible teaches” it is only
6,000 years old.
(c) This is a conflict rising out of false assumptions, since the Bible
nowhere informs us of the earth’s age. It simply informs us that “in
the beginning” God created it. As to when “the beginning” was, we do
not know.
(d) Bible chronology was the work of Archbishop James Ussher of Ireland
(1581-1656), who worked out the elaborate time table of Biblical events
now found in many Bibles.
(e) John Lightfoot, English Bible scholar (1602-1675), working from
Ussher’s table, fixed creation during the week of October 18-24, 4004
B.C., and affirmed that Adam was created on October 23 9:00 a.m.,
forty-fifth meridian time!
(f) Since the Bible does not state in what year the creation occurred,
then such efforts are as much human speculation as the time estimates of
science.
(g) With modern radioactive dating procedures, if science can prove
beyond doubt that the world began five billions of years ago, this would
not contradict the Bible.

2. The origin of the world.
(a) The Bible accounts for the origin of the world in the simple
statement: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” 
(Genesis 1:1)
(b) It has been thought that belief in creation and belief in modern
science is incompatible, in that science rejects the Biblical idea of
creation.
(c) It would, in fact, be difficult to state what modern science accepts
about the origin of the universe, in that some ten theories have been
propounded to account for the origin of the earth, none of which is
confirmed.
(d) It is true that no believer would accept a theory of science
regarding the origin of the earth that would rule God out, but it is not
necessary to believe any skeptical to accept modern science.
(e) Even the divergent views of science concerning the origin of the
world start with an origin and require a cause.
(f) The fact is that some very distinguished scientist maintain firm
belief in the fact that God created the world, among whom are Johannes
Kepler, astronomer; Michael Faraday, distinguished English scientist;
John Ray, “the father of natural history” in Great Britain; Louis J. R.
Agassiz, famous geologist; James Dwight Dana, brilliant American
scientist; Charles Augustus Young, American astronomer; Lord Kelvin,
eminent English scientists; Arthur H. Compton, physicist, and others.

3. The origin of man.
(a) As to man’s origin, the Bible declares that “the Lord God formed man
out of the dust of the earth.
(Gen. 2:7)
(b) It has been shown that “modern chemical analysis detects at least
fourteen elements in the human body identical with “dust”-such as oxygen,
hydrogen, magnesium, silicon, sodium, phosphorus, and carbon.”
(c) While scientists have advanced numerous theories as to the origin of
life, they confess that science is incapable of definitely knowing this.
(d) Julian Huxley stated: “A scientifically based philosophy enables us
in the first place to cease tormenting ourselves with questions that
ought not to be asked, because they cannot be answered-such questions
about the Cause or Creation or Ultimate or Reality.
(e) The agnostic, Ernst Haeekel, stated: “The process of creation as
the coming into existence of matter is completely beyond human
comprehension and can therefore never become a subject of scientific
inquiry.”
(f) Lord Kelvin state, “I cannot admit that, with regard to the origin
of life, science neither affirms nor denies Creative Power. Science
positively affirms Creative Power.”

4. The creative days of Genesis.
(a) It has been argued that there cannot be harmony between science and
the Bible because the Bible teaches that the earth was created in 4004
B.C., while science argues that it is five billion years old.
(b) But the Bible makes no statement, as already seen, about when
creation was, and the date 4004 B.C. is purely speculative.
(c) Some contend, further, that if the earth is only 6,000 years old,
and creation lasted only six days, then the earth could not possibly be
as old as geologists insist.
(d) This argument is based upon two assumptions: (1) that the Bible
teaches creation occurred in 4004 B.C., which it does not, and (2) that
the “days” of creation must have been solar days-24 hours days like we
now have.
(e) The Bible does not, however, suggest the length of the days of
creation, and our contention that these days had to be solar days is pure
assumption.
(f) To accept the Biblical account of creation, it is not necessary to
believe in an immediate creation. It does not reflect upon God’s
omnipotence to believe that He used periods longer than 24 hours for each
creative step.
(g) The Bible frequently uses the word “day” to represent a period of
time much longer than 24 hours. (Gen. 2:4, 17; Duet. 9:1; Psalms 95:8;
137:7; Matt. 24:50; Luke 17:24; John 8:56; 9:4; Rom. 13:12; 2 Cor. 6:2; I
Thess. 5:2; Heb. 3:15; 4:7-8)
(h) The Genesis record indicates that God did not create the solar
system until the fourth day, and logically there could not have been
solar days before then.
(i) God rested on the seventh day of creation. (Gen 2:2-3) If God’s
“Sabbath of creation: continues to the present, and involves thousands of
years, whey could no the other creative days involve thousands of years
also?

CONCLUSION
1. Space does not permit a detailed consideration of every issue
existing between skeptical scientists and the Bible.
(a) Many other areas of scientific endeavor have confirmed the truths of
the Bible-findings in such areas as geology, archaeology, anthropology,
biology and astronomy.
(b) There is no discovery of modern science that would destroy faith in
the Bible, or our faith in God as the Creator. 
(c) Much of the controversy between science and religion has been
produced by skeptical scientists or dogmatic religionists who
deliberately oppose each other.
(d) Science is not naturally opposed to religion, and we must not
presume there is an inherent conflict between them.
(e) Because one is a scientist does not necessarily mean that he is a
skeptic, atheist, or infidel, for a great host of the most gifted of
scientists have been believers in God.
(f) Michael Faraday firmly believed the Bible to be the basis of all
truth. One day while ill, his friend, Sir Henry Ackland found Faraday
resting his head upon a table upon which also lay an open Bible. Ackland
remarked, “I fear you are worse today.” Faraday replied, “No, it is not
that. But why will people go astray when they have this blessed book to
guide them?”
(g) Professor Francis Bowen, a professor of philosophy at Harvard
University for over thirty years, stated with deep conviction: “I accept
with unhesitating conviction the doctrine of the being of one personal
God, the Creator and Governor of the world, and of one Lord Jesus Christ,
in whom dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and I have found
nothing whatever in the literature of modern infidelity, which, to my
mind, cast even the slightest doubt upon that belief.”

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 18, 2017 in Bible

 

God’s children must be peacemakers


peaceofgodGod is a peacemaker. Jesus Christ is a peacemaker. So, if we want to be God’s children and Christ’s disciples, we must be peacemakers too. We should also diligently wish to work for peace in this world where peace is difficult to find. We might ask daily these questions:

  1. Do I strive to live in harmony with others?
  2. Do I strive to be sympathetic to the feelings of others?
  3. Do I give the benefit to others I would give to myself?
  4. Do I tend to insult or bless?
  5. Do I spread goodwill with my conversation?
  6. Do I pray for people to be in harmony with God and others?

You should pray when you’re in a praying mood, for it would be sinful to neglect such an opportunity. You should pray when you’re not in a praying mood, because it would be sinful to remain in such a condition.

Never let a day begin without it.  “My voice shalt thou hear in the morning, O LORD; in the morning will I direct my prayer unto thee, and will look up.” Psalm 5:3

Never let a day end without it.  “Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and He shall hear my voice.” Psalm 55:17

Never face a situation/problem without it. “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding..” Proverbs 3:5

Never neglect it when it seems unnecessary. A little boy when asked by minister if he prayed everyday, said, “Not everyday. Sometimes I don’t need anything.” That’s the response of an immature individual.

Keep submitting your heart to God. “And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.” Colossians 3:15.

Peace is the deliberate adjustment of my life to the will of God.

Everything starts with your thought life. “If you sow a thought, you reap an attitude. If you sow an attitude, you reap an action. If you sow an action, you reap a habit.”

“… every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren.” James 1:14-16

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 14, 2017 in Encouragement

 

Faith Pleases God! — Hebrews 11:1, 6


There is much we could say about pleasing God, but we want to focus on one aspect that is crystal clear, based on what we read in Hebrews 11:1, 6.  Faith is absolutely essential to pleasing God.  We need to grasp how central faith is to pleasing God and not only grasp its importance but actually have faith.

How to tell whether we actually have faith (look at context of each statement).

  • Humility There is no such thing as a proud faith. (Matthew 8:10 NIV)  When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.
  • Calmness: (Daniel 3:17-18 NIV) If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. {18} But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.”

     (Matthew 6:30 NIV)  If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?

     (Mark 4:40 NIV)  He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?”

     (John 14:1 NIV)  “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.

  • Whether we Approach God: (Ephesians 3:12 NIV) In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence.

     (Hebrews 10:22 NIV)  “…let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.”

  • Whether we obey God….especially when you don’t understand or agree with what God says. (Romans 1:5 NIV)  Through him and for his name’s sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.

     (Galatians 5:6 NIV)  For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

     (1 Thessalonians 1:3 NIV)  We continually remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Act on the faith you do have (Luke 17:5-10) don’t focus on size of faith, act in faith.

Allow difficulties to grow faith. I’m inclined to complain or to pray for removal of the difficulty, which is essentially to pray for God to remove the opportunity to grow faith.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 11, 2017 in God

 

Great Themes of the Bible: Humility


(Luke 14:7-11 NIV)  When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: {8} “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. {9} If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this man your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. {10} But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all your fellow guests. {11} For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Sabbath Day hospitality was an important part of Jewish life, so it was not unusual for Jesus to be invited to a home for a meal after the weekly synagogue service. Sometimes the host invited Him sincerely because he wanted to learn more of God’s truth. But many times Jesus was asked to dine only so His enemies could watch Him and find something to criticize and condemn. That was the case on the occasion described in Luke 14 when a leader of the Pharisees invited Jesus to dinner.

Jesus was fully aware of what was in men’s hearts (John 2:24-25), so He was never caught off guard. In fact, instead of hosts or guests judging Jesus, it was Jesus who passed judgment on them when they least expected it. Indeed, in this respect, He was a dangerous person to sit with at a meal or to follow on the road! In Luke 14, we see Jesus dealing with five different kinds of people and exposing what was false in their lives and their thinking.

The Pharisees: False Piety (Luke 14:1-6)

Instead of bringing them to repentance, Jesus’ severe denunciation of the Pharisees and scribes (Luke 11:39-52) only provoked them to retaliation, and they plotted against Him. The Pharisee who invited Jesus to his home for dinner also invited a man afflicted with dropsy. This is a painful disease in which, because of kidney trouble, a heart ailment, or liver disease, the tissues fill with water. How heartless of the Pharisees to “use” this man as a tool to accomplish their wicked plan, but if we do not love the Lord, neither will we love our neighbor. Their heartless treatment of the man was far worse than our Lord’s “lawless” behavior on the Sabbath.

This afflicted man would not have been invited to such an important dinner were it not that the Pharisees wanted to use him as “bait” to catch Jesus. They knew that Jesus could not be in the presence of human suffering very long without doing something about it. If He ignored the afflicted man, then He was without compassion; but if He healed him, then He was openly violating the Sabbath and they could accuse Him. They put the dropsied man right in front of the Master so He could not avoid him, and then they waited for the trap to spring.

Keep in mind that Jesus had already “violated” their Sabbath traditions on at least seven different occasions. On the Sabbath Day, He had cast out a demon (Luke 4:31-37), healed a fever (Luke 4:38-39), allowed His disciples to pluck grain (Luke 6:1-5), healed a lame man (John 5:1-9), healed a man with a paralyzed hand (Luke 6:6-10), delivered a crippled woman who was afflicted by a demon (Luke 13:10-17), and healed a man born blind (John 9). Why our Lord’s enemies thought that one more bit of evidence was necessary, we do not know, but we do know that their whole scheme backfired.

When Jesus asked what their convictions were about the Sabbath Day, He used on them the weapon they had forged for Him. To begin with, they couldn’t heal anybody on any day, and everybody knew it. But even more, if the Pharisees said that nobody should be healed on the Sabbath, the people would consider them heartless; if they gave permission for healing, their associates would consider them lawless. The dilemma was now theirs, not the Lord’s, and they needed a way to escape. As they did on more than one occasion, the scribes and Pharisees evaded the issue by saying nothing.

Jesus healed the man and let him go, knowing that the Pharisee’s house was not the safest place for him. Instead of providing evidence against Jesus, the man provided evidence against the Pharisees, for he was “exhibit A” of the healing power of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Lord knew too much about this legalistic crowd to let them escape. He knew that on the Sabbath Day they would deliver their farm animals from danger, so why not permit Him to deliver a man who was made in the likeness of God? Seemingly, they were suggesting that animals were more important than people. (It is tragic that some people even today have more love for their pets than they do for their family members, their neighbors, or even for a lost world.)

Jesus exposed the false piety of the Pharisees and the scribes. They claimed to be defending God’s Sabbath laws, when in reality they were denying God by the way they abused people and accused the Saviour. There is a big difference between protecting God’s truth and promoting man’s traditions.

The Guests: False Popularity (Luke 14:7-11)

Experts in management tell us that most people wear an invisible sign that reads, “Please make me feel important”; if we heed that sign, we can succeed in human relations. On the other hand, if we say or do things that make others feel insignificant, we will fail. Then people will respond by becoming angry and resentful, because everybody wants to be noticed and made to feel important.

In Jesus’ day, as today, there were “status symbols” that helped people enhance and protect their high standing in society. If you were invited to the “right homes” and if you were seated in the “right places,” then people would know how important you really were. The emphasis was on reputation, not character. It was more important to sit in the right places than to live the right kind of life.

In New Testament times, the closer you sat to the host, the higher you stood on the social ladder and the more attention (and invitations) you would receive from others. Naturally, many people rushed to the “head table” when the doors were opened because they wanted to be important.

This kind of attitude betrays a false view of success. “Try not to become a man of success,” said Albert Einstein, “but try to become a man of value.” While there may be some exceptions, it is usually true that valuable people are eventually recognized and appropriately honored. Success that comes only from self-promotion is temporary, and you may be embarrassed as you are asked to move down (Prov. 25:6-7).

When Jesus advised the guests to take the lowest places, He was not giving them a “gimmick” that guaranteed promotion. The false humility that takes the lowest place is just as hateful to God as the pride that takes the highest place. God is not impressed by our status in society or in the church. He is not influenced by what people say or think about us, because He sees the thoughts and motives of the heart (1 Sam. 16:7). God still humbles the proud and exalts the humble (James 4:6).

British essayist Francis Bacon compared fame to a river that easily carried “things light and swollen” but that drowned “things weighty and solid.” It is interesting to scan old editions of encyclopedias and see how many “famous people” are “forgotten people” today.

Humility is a fundamental grace in the Christian life, and yet it is elusive; if you know you have it, you have lost it! It has well been said that humility is not thinking meanly of ourselves; it is simply not thinking of ourselves at all. Jesus is the greatest example of humility, and we would do well to ask the Holy Spirit to enable us to imitate Him (Phil. 2:1-16).

The Host: False Hospitality (Luke 14:12-14)

Jesus knew that the host had invited his guests for two reasons: (1) to pay them back because they had invited him to past feasts, or (2) to put them under his debt so that they would invite him to future feasts. Such hospitality was not an expression of love and grace but rather an evidence of pride and selfishness. He was “buying” recognition.

Jesus does not prohibit us from entertaining family and friends, but He warns us against entertaining only family and friends exclusively and habitually. That kind of “fellowship” quickly degenerates into a “mutual admiration society” in which each one tries to outdo the others and no one dares to break the cycle. Sad to say, too much church social life fits this description.

Our motive for sharing must be the praise of God and not the applause of men, the eternal reward in heaven and not the temporary recognition on earth. A pastor friend of mine used to remind me, “You can’t get your reward twice!” and he was right (see Matt. 6:1-18). On the day of judgment, many who today are first in the eyes of men will be last in God’s eyes, and many who are last in the eyes of men will be first in the eyes of God (Luke 13:30).

In our Lord’s time, it was not considered proper to ask poor people and handicapped people to public banquets. (The women were not invited either!) But Jesus commanded us to put these needy people at the top of our guest list because they cannot pay us back. If our hearts are right, God will see to it that we are properly rewarded, though getting a reward must not be the motive for our generosity. When we serve others from unselfish hearts, we are laying up treasures in heaven (Matt. 6:20) and becoming “rich toward God” (Luke 12:21).

Our modern world is very competitive, and it is easy for God’s people to become more concerned about profit and loss than they are about sacrifice and service. “What will I get out of it?” may easily become life’s most important question (Matt. 19:27ff). We must strive to maintain the unselfish attitude that Jesus had and share what we have with others.

The Jews: False Security (Luke 14:15-24)

When Jesus mentioned “the resurrection of the just,” one of the guests became excited and said, “Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God!” The Jewish people pictured their future kingdom as a great feast with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the prophets as the honored guests (Luke 13:28; see Isa. 25:6). This anonymous guest was confident that he would one day be at the “kingdom feast” with them! Jesus responded by telling him a parable that revealed the sad consequences of false confidence.

In Jesus’ day when you invited guests to a dinner, you told them the day but not the exact hour of the meal. A host had to know how many guests were coming so he could butcher the right amount of animals and prepare sufficient food. Just before the feast was to begin, the host sent his servants to each of the guests to tell them the banquet was ready and they should come (see Es. 5:8; 6:14). In other words, each of the guests in this parable had already agreed to attend the banquet. The host expected them to be there.

But instead of eagerly coming to the feast, all of the guests insulted the host by refusing to attend, and they all gave very feeble excuses to defend their change in plans.

The first guest begged off because he had to “go and see” a piece of real estate he had purchased. In the East, the purchasing of property is often a long and complicated process, and the man would have had many opportunities to examine the land he was buying. Anybody who purchases land that he has never examined is certainly taking a chance. Since most banquets were held in the evening, the man had little daylight left even for a cursory investigation.

The second man had also made a purchase—ten oxen that he was anxious to prove. Again, who would purchase that many animals without first testing them? Not many customers in our modern world would buy a used car that they had not taken out for a “test drive.” Furthermore, how could this man really put these oxen to the test when it was so late in the day? His statement “I go to prove them!” suggests that he was already on his way to the farm when the servant came with the final call to the dinner.

The third guest really had no excuse at all. Since they involved so much elaborate preparation, Jewish weddings were never surprises, so this man knew well in advance that he was taking a wife. That being the case, he should not have agreed to attend the feast in the first place. Since only Jewish men were invited to banquets, the host did not expect the wife to come anyway. Having a new wife could have kept the man from the battlefield (Deut. 24:5) but not from the festive board.

Of course, these were only excuses. I think it was Billy Sunday who defined an excuse as “the skin of a reason stuffed with a lie.” The person who is good at excuses is usually not good at anything else. These three guests actually expected to get another invitation in the future, but that invitation never came.

Having prepared a great dinner for many guests, the host did not want all that food to go to waste, so he sent his servant out to gather a crowd and bring them to the banquet hall. What kind of men would be found in the streets and lanes of the city or in the highways and hedges? The outcasts, the loiterers, the homeless, the undesireables, the kind of people that Jesus came to save (Luke 15:1-2; 19:10). There might even be some Gentiles in the crowd!

These men may have had only one reason for refusing the kind invitation: they were unprepared to attend such a fine dinner. So, the servant constrained them to accept (see 2 Cor. 5:20). They had no excuses. The poor could not afford to buy oxen; the blind could not go to examine real estate; and the poor, maimed, lame, and blind were usually not given in marriage. This crowd would be hungry and lonely and only too happy to accept an invitation to a free banquet.

Not only did the host get other people to take the places assigned to the invited guests, but he also shut the door so that the excuse-makers could not change their minds and come in (see Luke 13:22-30). In fact, the host was angry. We rarely think of God expressing judicial anger against those who reject His gracious invitations, but verses like Isaiah 55:6 and Proverbs 1:24-33 give a solemn warning that we not treat His calls lightly.

This parable had a special message for the proud Jewish people who were so sure they would “eat bread in the kingdom of God.” Within a few short years, the Gospel would be rejected by the official religious leaders, and the message would go out to the Samaritans (Acts 8) and then to the Gentiles (Acts 10; 13ff).

But the message of this parable applies to all lost sinners today. God still says, “All things are now ready. Come!” Nothing more need be done for the salvation of your soul, for Jesus Christ finished the work of redemption when He died for you on the cross and arose from the dead. The feast has been spread, the invitation is free, and you are invited to come.

People today make the same mistake that the people in the parable made: they delay in responding to the invitation because they settle for second best. There is certainly nothing wrong with owning a farm, examining purchases, or spending an evening with your wife. But if these good things keep you from enjoying the best things, then they become bad things. The excuse-makers were actually successful people in the eyes of their friends, but they were failures in the eyes of Jesus Christ.

The Christian life is a feast, not a funeral, and all are invited to come. Each of us as believers must herald abroad the message, “Come, for all things are now ready!” God wants to see His house filled, and “yet there is room.” He wants us to go home (Mark 5:19), go into the streets and lanes (Luke 14:21), go into the highways and hedges (Luke 14:23), and go into all the world (Mark 16:15) with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

This parable was the text of the last sermon D.L. Moody preached, “Excuses.” It was given on November 23, 1899 in the Civic Auditorium in Kansas City, and Moody was a sick man as he preached. “I must have souls in Kansas City,” he told the students at his school in Chicago. “Never, never have I wanted so much to lead men and women to Christ as I do this time!”

There was a throbbing in his chest, and he had to hold to the organ to keep from falling, but Moody bravely preached the Gospel; and some fifty people responded to trust Christ. The next day, Moody left for home, and a month later he died. Up to the very end, Moody was “compelling them to come in.”

The Multitudes: False Expectancy (Luke 14:25-35)

When Jesus left the Pharisee’s house, great crowds followed Him, but He was not impressed by their enthusiasm. He knew that most of those in the crowd were not the least bit interested in spiritual things. Some wanted only to see miracles, others heard that He fed the hungry, and a few hoped He would overthrow Rome and establish David’s promised kingdom. They were expecting the wrong things.

Jesus turned to the multitude and preached a sermon that deliberately thinned out the ranks. He made it clear that, when it comes to personal discipleship, He is more interested in quality than quantity. In the matter of saving lost souls, He wants His house to be filled (Luke 14:23); but in the matter of personal discipleship, He wants only those who are willing to pay the price.

A “disciple” is a learner, one who attaches himself or herself to a teacher in order to learn a trade or a subject. Perhaps our nearest modern equivalent is “apprentice,” one who learns by watching and by doing. The word disciple was the most common name for the followers of Jesus Christ and is used 264 times in the Gospels and the Book of Acts.

Jesus seems to make a distinction between salvation and discipleship. Salvation is open to all who will come by faith, while discipleship is for believers willing to pay a price. Salvation means coming to the cross and trusting Jesus Christ, while discipleship means carrying the cross and following Jesus Christ. Jesus wants as many sinners saved as possible (“that My house may be filled”), but He cautions us not to take discipleship lightly; and in the three parables He gave, He made it clear that there is a price to pay.

To begin with, we must love Christ supremely, even more than we love our own flesh and blood (Luke 14:26-27). The word hate does not suggest positive antagonism but rather “to love less” (see Gen. 29:30-31; Mal. 1:2-3; and Matt. 10:37). Our love for Christ must be so strong that all other love is like hatred in comparison. In fact, we must hate our own lives and be willing to bear the cross after Him.

What does it mean to “carry the cross”? It means daily identification with Christ in shame, suffering, and surrender to God’s will. It means death to self, to our own plans and ambitions, and a willingness to serve Him as He directs (John 12:23-28). A “cross” is something we willingly accept from God as part of His will for our lives. The Christian who called his noisy neighbors the “cross” he had to bear certainly did not understand the meaning of dying to self.

Jesus gave three parables to explain why He makes such costly demands on His followers: the man building a tower, the king fighting a war, and the salt losing its flavor. The usual interpretation is that believers are represented by the man building the tower and the king fighting the war, and we had better “count the cost” before we start, lest we start and not be able to finish. But I agree with Campbell Morgan that the builder and the king represent not the believer but Jesus Christ. He is the One who mustcount the costto see whether we are the kind of material He can use to build the church and battle the enemy. He cannot get the job done with halfhearted followers who will not pay the price.

As I write this chapter, I can look up and see on my library shelves hundreds of volumes of Christian biographies and autobiographies, the stories of godly men and women who made great contributions to the building of the church and the battle against the enemy. They were willing to pay the price, and God blessed them and used them. They were people with “salt” in their character.

Jesus had already told His disciples that they were “the salt of the earth” (Matt. 5:13). When the sinner trusts Jesus Christ as Saviour, a miracle takes place and “clay” is turned into “salt.” Salt was a valued item in that day; in fact, part of a soldier’s pay was given in salt. (The words salt and salary are related; hence, the saying, “He’s not worth his salt.”)

Salt is a preservative, and God’s people in this world are helping to retard the growth of evil and decay. Salt is also a purifying agent, an antiseptic that makes things cleaner. It may sting when it touches the wound, but it helps to kill infection. Salt gives flavor to things and, most of all, makes people thirsty. By our character and conduct, we ought to make others thirsty for the Lord Jesus Christ and the salvation that He alone can give.

Our modern salt is pure and does not lose its flavor, but the salt in Jesus’ day was impure and could lose its flavor, especially if it came in contact with earth. Once the saltiness was gone, there was no way to restore it, and the salt was thrown out into the street to be walked on. When a disciple loses his Christian character, he is “good for nothing” and will eventually be “walked on” by others and bring disgrace to Christ.

Discipleship is serious business. If we are not true disciples, then Jesus cannot build the tower and fight the war. “There is always an if in connection with discipleship,” wrote Oswald Chambers, “and it implies that we need not [be disciples] unless we like. There is never any compulsion; Jesus does not coerce us. There is only one way of being a disciple, and that is by being devoted to Jesus.”

If we tell Jesus that we want to take up our cross and follow Him as His disciples, then He wants us to know exactly what we are getting into. He wants no false expectancy, no illusions, no bargains. He wants to use us as stones for building His church, soldiers for battling His enemies, and salt for bettering His world; and He is looking for quality.

After all, He was on His way to Jerusalem when He spoke these words, and look what happened to Him there! He does not ask us to do anything for Him that He has not already done for us.

To some, Jesus says, “You cannot be My disciples!” Why? Because they will not forsake all for Him, bear shame and reproach for Him, and let their love for Him control them.

And they are the losers. Will you be His disciple?

Pride vs. Humility

Pride is the sin above all others that humans cherish, defend, and rationalize. We are proud of country, proud of education, and proud of achievement. We are proud to be recognized in public and to be sought out privately. We are proud of family name, company title, and educational rank. And it is not only the world but perhaps even more especially the church of God that fosters this haughty spirit. We are proud of our denomination or the claim to be un-denominational. We are proud of our own congregation of believers. We can quickly become sectarian, exclude others as unworthy to be included in our fellowship, and hold all who are different under judgment and in contempt.

Lest anyone misunderstand or misrepresent what I have just said, let me hasten to say that our English term pride is rather ambiguous. The word may be used to refer to healthy and honorable things. For example, there is a pride in self and family name that has helped some of us avoid the most shameful snares Satan has set. There is pride in country that brings us to our feet when the National Anthem is performed and causes young men and women to serve in the military. There is pride — we most often use the term “self-confidence” here — that allows one to acknowledge gifts from God, put those trusts to work for his glory, and expect him to use them for holy purposes. There is even pride in — we would probably choose “dignity of” or “respect for” — one’s faith heritage that anchors her to noble motives and worthy perspectives.

There are, indeed, at least two kinds of pride. One is the polar opposite of humility and shows itself in self-centeredness, eager criticism of others, impatience, self-pity, and the willingness to steal God’s glory by taking credit for things he has given to or done in a person’s life. This evil quality in one’s heart shows itself as condescending treatment of others. It generates enmity in families, strife in the workplace, and division in churches. It brings people to isolation and loneliness — which they interpret, of course, as standing on principle or defending the faith. This is the unhealthy and sinful pride so constantly denounced in Scripture. Just think of a few texts from Proverbs: “When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom” (11:2). “Pride only breeds quarrels, but wisdom is found in those who take advice” (13:10). “The LORD detests all the proud of heart. Be sure of this: They will not go unpunished” (16:5). “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall” (16:18). “A man’s pride brings him low, but a man of lowly spirit gains honor” (29:23).

There is a virtuous sense of pride, however, that may be thought of as the polar opposite of stigma, shame, or personal insignificance. Jesus most certainly did not lack confidence, was not intimidated by challenge, and was not ashamed of his racial stock, social position, or religious heritage. Life didn’t threaten him. Critics didn’t deter him. Failure in the eyes of the world did not destroy his sense of identity as the faithful Son of God. He could bill himself as “gentle and humble in heart” (Matt. 11:29) and still be determined, strong, and courageous. The healthy and indispensable pride every believer needs is referenced several times in Paul’s writings. At least twice in writing to the church at Corinth, he spoke of taking pride in the people of that church: “”I have great confidence in you; I take great pride in you” (2 Cor. 7:4a). “Therefore show these men the proof of your love and the reason for our pride in you, so that the churches can see it” (2 Cor. 8:24). He wrote to Christians in Galatia to encourage them to personal spiritual responsibility and said: “Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else” (Gal. 6:4).

By the same token, it might also be helpful to point out that there are also distinctions to be made about humility. The genuine humility of Christ’s obedience to the divine will (cf. Phil. 2:8) stands in sharp contrast to the pseudo-humility some people offer in the name of religion. Paul censured some people who were trying to make ascetics out of the church at Colosse by writing this: “Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence” (Col. 2:23).

The Practical Meaning

Let me see if I can pull all this together. Let me try to fix the distinction between healthy and unhealthy pride, genuine and false humility. Let me offer you some things that might help us fix humility as a meaningful goal for our lives. It is, after all, a virtue to pray for but for which we can never give thanks.

Spirituality is learned and virtues are developed only in the frustrations of living. We have put Christianity in church buildings, Sunday School classes, and books, but it is first and foremost an experience-related faith. When we come to our buildings, attend our classes, and read the books, we should be reminded that we are then only reflecting on, getting perspective about, and getting ready to face again the realities of life. Christianity isn’t calm reflection and beautiful sunsets. It is Christ’s Spirit-presence in our midst on what is often a battlefield. Sickness, poverty, setbacks, discouragement, accidents, mistakes, ignorance, failure — these are the everyday terrain for the battle. Satan, death, sin — these are the specific tactics of evil that are trying to destroy us.

Failure is one of life’s best teachers. We are conditioned by our culture to see success and achievement as desirable and mistakes and failures as unpalatable. The reverse may actually be closer to the truth. Failure keeps us humble, and humility is frequently a good thing in the Kingdom of God. The devil would have a field day in ruining anyone’s character, spiritual life, and relationships, if he could grant that soul unbroken success in life. If churches and individual believers would be more honest about our failures and sinfulness, I suspect we’d be more effective in reaching unbelievers. No wonder the obvious strugglers and mess-ups avoid places where everybody puts on a happy face in order to look pious on Sunday. They get the impression they’re the only sinners in the crowd. Oh, we don’t have to become a group outdoing one another with tales of woe and sinfulness. But we can and must be honest about our weakness, failures, and sinfulness in order to avoid a holier-than-thou attitude. Peter sinned. Christ sought him out to forgive him. And Peter spent the rest of his life helping other sinners. There’s the model for all of us. Failure keeps us humble and honest with one another. It makes pretending unnecessary.

Be gracious in your triumphs and even more gracious in others’ failures. I was once called to help another church deal with a serious moral failure by its most visible and notable member. Sitting in a den with four elders of that church, I asked each to voice his most urgent concern. “We have to preserve our reputation in this town,” said one. “We have to serve notice to our own members that we won’t tolerate this sort of nonsense,” said another. “I just want him to know there is no excuse for what he’s done,” said the third, “and that he has set this church back ten years.” When the final brother spoke, it was softly and with tears. “God graciously rescued me from the same sort of humiliating failure thirteen years ago,” he said. “I am painfully aware every day of my weakness and vulnerability that would take me there again.” I asked him to be the one to take the lead in trying to reach that erring brother and quoted these words from Paul: “Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted” (Gal. 6:1).

Know that your relationship with God is entirely of grace. No matter what gifts, triumphs, or successes you have had in this world, you have no ground of boasting in what you have done before God. Even if you stand head and shoulders above your fellows, you fall far short of his divine perfection. Jew and Gentile, black and white, male and female, company president or federal prisoner, top of the heap or lower than a snake’s belly — right standing with God is a gift of grace. “This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:22-24). We have no status or claim in ourselves. Everything is God’s gift to us through Christ. We stand only because we are in him.

Conclusion

John Bradley was one of six men forever immortalized in the famous photograph and now-equally-famous Marine Corps Memorial in Arlington, Virginia. He helped raise the American flag atop Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima. He never talked much about that event. When asked about his heroism on Iwo Jima, he would only say, “I just did what anyone else would have done” or “I was just doing my duty.” In the only taped interview he did on the subject, this was his comment: “I saw some guys struggling with a pole. I just jumped in to lend them a hand. It’s as simple as that.”

It was only after his death that John Bradley’s son learned from government documents what happened around that event. It was hardly as simple as his father had left him to think. Neither his wife nor son had known what happened half a century before. His wife would later say that he talked with her about it only one time — on their first date, for “seven or eight disinterested minutes and then never again in a 47-year-marriage did he say the words ‘Iwo Jima,'” she said.

Two days before the flag-raising, Bradley’s company was penned down by enemy fire on the beach. On February 21, 1945, with screams of the wounded and dying all around, Bradley saw a fellow-Marine fall wounded about 30 yards away. He was a Corpsman and immediately sprinted through what the official report called “merciless Japanese gunfire” to stabilize the wounded man and drag him back to safety. A few days after the flag-raising, he became a casualty himself when an artillery shell drove hot shrapnel into his feet, legs, and hips. Eyewitnesses said he would not tend to his own wounds until he had taken care of other wounded Marines around him.

All his life afterward, Bradley kept these exploits essentially private. He didn’t write about them. He didn’t sell his story to anyone. He didn’t even tell his wife and children what he had gone through. He insisted that he “really didn’t do much” and said simply, “I was just doing my duty.” Remember this story. We’ll have occasion to return to it later.

———-
[1] This story is taken from James J. Bradley, “‘Uncommon Valor Was a Common Virtue,'” Wall Street Journal, Nov. 10, 2000, p. A18.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on September 7, 2017 in Doctrine

 

Fill your mind with God


You can fill your mind with many different things. If you want peace, though, you must fill your mind with God. 

“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” Philippians 4:8

Men and women of the 21st century are worn out, fatigued, and overcommitted. The man with a full resume always pays a price to get it. Something has to suffer when we are an elder, a businessman, a civic leader, and a sportsman. When we run in the fast lane, precious little time remains for God and our family. Wouldn’t you like to get out of the fast lane?

Prayerfully ask God to help you make the right choices. If you were speeding down the inside lane of a busy interstate highway at 80 miles an hour and decided to get off the road, you wouldn’t swerve sharply without warning. You would turn on your blinker and start to work your way over. Even then you would have to wait for an exit ramp.

God is not so much interested in your position as He is in your attitude, in where you are as in where you are going. When we make the decision to get out of the fast lane, God will help us, will bless the direction in which we are moving. He will empower us to make the adjustment, to find an exit.[1]

Winston Churchill said “an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile — hoping it will eat him last.”  I’m reminded of what happened just prior to World War II.  Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister, had a policy of appeasement in regards to Nazi Germany.  Whatever Hitler wanted he gave in return for a guarantee of peace.  As he got off the airplane he waved in the air the peace treaty signed by Hitler.  He spoke bravely of “peace with honour” and “peace in our time.”  Just two weeks later Hitler’s armies invaded Czechoslovakia.

We have our peace movements, and all we want is peace abroad and at home.  But if by peace we mean appeasing tyranny, compromising with gangsters and being silent because we haven’t the moral fortitude to speak out against injustice, then this is not real peace.  It is a false peace.  It is a farce and it is a hoax.[2]

Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice. Herbert Hoover said, “Peace is not made at the council tables, or by treaties, but in the hearts of men.”

——————————-

[1] Patrick M. Morley, The Man in the Mirror (Zondervan, 1989), quoted in Men of Integrity, Vol. 2, no. 4.

[2] Billy Graham in, The Quotable Billy Graham. Compiled and Edited by Cort R. Flint and the Staff of Quote, (Anderson, S.C.: Droke House, 1966).

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 4, 2017 in Encouragement

 

Strengthening Our Grip…on Money 1 Timothy 6:3-19


Yeah, right. I wouldn’t mind strengthening my grip on a briefcase of money,” you say. But lest the title make a promise it can’t deliver on, the lesson today is not about money grabbing! It offers no get-rich-quick formulas. It won’t help you get your hands on a low-interest mortgage. And it won’t help you understand APRs or ATMs, IRAs or the IRS.

What it will help you with, however, is getting a firm grasp on what the Bible says about money. And it says a lot. Surprisingly, giving is only one of the subjects it addresses. It talks about the nature of money as well as the nature of man in relation to money. It talks of spending, saving, and investing.

No matter how greatly monetary systems have changed since the Bible was penned, God’s principles regarding money are still applicable. Today, we want to try on some of those ancient principles to see just how well they fit in today’s ever-changing world of yen and francs, of dollar signs and decimal points. Read 1 Timothy 6:3-10, 17-19.

A Reminder to Those Who Are Not Rich — From a biblical point of view, money is amoral-neither moral nor immoral. It’s the human heart and our attitude toward money that determines the issue of morality or immorality. Godliness is validated neither by wealth nor poverty. The Bible is replete with godly people who were poor-for example, John the Baptist (Matt. 3:4) and the widow who gave her last penny to the temple treasury (Mark 12:42). The Bible is also full of godly people who were rich, Abraham (Gen. 24:34-35) and Job (Job 1:1-3), for instance.

Paul is quick to show in verse 6 that gaining godliness is a higher goal than gaining anything of material merit. But godliness actually is a means of great gain, when accompanied by contentment. Godliness + Contentment = Great Gain. So, to those who are not rich, the advice is clear. First, we need an eternal perspective (v. 7), and second, we need a simple acceptance of the essentials (v. 8). And what are these essentials? Food and coverings! With these we should be content, as Paul says in Philippians 4:11-13.

What, then, is necessary to help us quit striving for more and be contented and at peace with what we have? The first half of the answer is found in 1 Timothy 6:7. Babies are born empty-handed, and who ever saw a hearse pulling a U-Haul? That’s why Paul tells us in Colossians 3:2 to “set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth.” We are to have an eternal perspective.

Having our sights telescoped on things above will cause our material longings to blur into the periphery. That’s when we can relax-when our real needs are brought into focus: (1 Tim. 6:8).

Warning to Those Who Want to Get Rich — In verses 9-10, the pronoun shifts from “we” to “those.” Paul is addressing those who have made it their ambition to follow the rainbow’s end in a frenzied search for that elusive, often illusory, pot of gold. The term want seems tame enough in verse 9, but in the original Greek it indicates “resolve” or “determination.” So for this person, the pursuit of money is not a passing fancy but a passionate obsession. For those possessed individuals, this verse offers a series of stern warnings: First: They fall into temptation and a snare. Second: They fall into many foolish and harmful desires. Third: Those things plunge them into ruin and destruction.

Verse 10 tells us that it is not money itself that is the problem, but the intimacy of our relationship with it. Notice this verse carefully-it does not say money is the root of all evil. Nor that the love of money is the root of evil. Love of money is a root, not the root, of all sorts of evil.

Instructions for Those Who Are Rich — Paul now turns his attention away from the frustrated have-nots to the financially endowed. In doing so, he offers three pieces of advice in verses 17 -19: two negative and one positive. First: Don’t be conceited. Conceit is the first temptation money throws across our path, to become highbrowed and look down our nose at others who are not so well-heeled. Second: Don’t trust in your wealth for security. Third: Become a generous person.

What the whole world really longs for is not an abundance of things but an abundant life. So often, however, that longing drives us to all the wrong places, off the right road to wander somewhere in the tall weeds and tangled overgrowth.

John 10:10b: “I came that they might have life, and might have it abundantly.”

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 31, 2017 in Encouragement

 

Christian Evidences Series: The Menace of Modernism


Studies in Christian Evidences by Waymon D. Miller

(This little booklet was developed in 1961 but is now out of print. For that reason, it is provided here for your use and edification in hopes that one more soul will come to believe today)

Introduction:

1. Modernism is perhaps as vicious and dangerous an enemy as has ever confronted Christianity.
(a) This is so because it is a subversive element found inside of Christianity, and seeks to discredit and undermine the Christian religion from within.
(b) Another reason for its great danger is its deceptive nature. Being found inside Christianity, it is viewed under the disguise of Christianity..
(c) While found inside Christianity, it is definitely unchristian, and seeks to destroy the fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion.

2. A clear and concise definition of modernism is virtually impossible, though it has its distinctive marks by which it is readily identified.
(a) A definition of modernism is difficult because it offers no distinct, clearly-defined platform, and is not found in any one
particular religious group, but in many.
(b) Modernism is, however, a rationalistic philosophy, negative in nature, that seeks a denial of every fundamental premise of Christianity.
(c) In effect, modernism is a philosophic system of theistic infidelity, or religious rationalism.

3. Modernism is a misnomer, for religious infidelity and rationalism is not at all new.
(a) During the apostolic era there were those of the modernistic persuasion of our time: those who preached another gospel (Gal. 1:6-9),
those who elevated human wisdom above the wisdom of God (I Cor. 1:18-29), those who denied the resurrection (I Cor. 15:12-19), those who denied the incarnation (I John 4:2-3; 2 John 7); those who denied the Lord (Jude 3-4; 2 Peter 2:1)
(b) Groups which denied the fundamentals of Christianity were also found in the post-apostolic age: the Gnostics of the first century, the
Marcionites of the second century, the Neo-Platonics and Manicheans of the third century, and the Pelagians of the fourth century.
(c) This summary of the Gnostics of the first centruy bears a remarkable resemblance to modernists of our time: (1) They claimed to have a deeper and truer view of Christianity. (2) They rejected the of  the scriptures. (3) They maintained that belief in one’s self is belief
in God. (4) They contended that Christ will deliver men by his coming, not by his atonement. (5) They rejected the virgin birth of Christ. (6)
They ridiculed orthodoxy. (7) They professed that salvation is by illumination, or intellectual achievement.

4. The nature of modernism may be summarized by the following quotations:
(a) James M. Gray, in his book modernism describes this great evil in this manner: “Modernism is a revolt against the God of Christianity. 
Modernism is a revolt against the Bible of Christianity. It is a revolt against the Christ of Christianity.”
(b) T.T. Shields stated: “Modernism, when it is finished, is sheer lawlessness; it rejects all authority except the authority that resides
in the individual himself. . . .Modernism is a naturalistic religion. It grows out of the pride of the human mind that magnifies men and
minimizes God; it holds that authority in religion is in man’s own consciousness, rather than objectively in the Book as the revelation of
God himself.”
(c) Frank Pack defined modernism in this manner: “Modernism masquerades as Christianity, but denies everything distinctively Christian. It
rejects the divinity of Christ, man’s need of salvation, the authority of the Bible as the revealed will of God, the reality of miracles, the
resurrection of the dead, the divine origin of the church, the hope of the second coming and judgement, confidence in any supernatural interest
in prayer.”
(d) Defining modernism positively, Pack continues: “It is a system of religious ethics finding its basis in the concept of the universal
fatherhood of an immanent God and the universal brotherhood of man-a system exalting human authority and reason, and rejecting all that does not come within the approval of naturalistically guided human thinking.  While infesting churches, its faith is utterly different from New
Testament Christianity.” (Article, Gospel Advocate, July 26, 1951, p. 470)

I. THE PREVALENCE OF MODERNISM:

1. The Christian who has made no study of these matters would be utterly amazed at how extensively modernism has been spread in many churches.
(a) Modernistic preachers fill the pulpits of some of the largest churches of America, many religious journals are edited by modernists,
and many so-called “Christian” universities and colleges are thoroughly modernistic.

2. Professor George H. Betts, professor of education, Northwestern University, sent a questionnaire to 1309 ministers in the Chicago area
and to students of five religious seminaries. The churches represented twenty of the largest denominations in America. Some of the questions
and answers from ministers and students were:

                                                                                                          Ministers         Students
(a) Do you believe in the existenceof an actual devil?                        40% No         82% No

(b) Do you believe in the Genesis account of creation?                     47% Yes        5% Yes
c. Do you believe the Bible as a  final revelation?                              66% Yes        18% Yes
(d) Do you believe in the virgin birth of Christ?                                  71% Yes        25% Yes
(e) Do you believe that Christ diedfor our sins?                                 70% Yes        29% Yes
(f) Do you believe in the existence of heaven?                                   57% Yes        1% Yes
(g) Do you believe in the existence     of hell?                                    53% Yes        1% Yes
(h) Do you believe in a bodily resurrection for man?                         62% Yes        18% Yes
(i) Do you believe in a final judgment for man?                                 60% Yes        17% Yes
(j) Do you believe in the second coming of Christ?                          40% Yes        8% Yes

3. This survey by Professor Betts has also been analyzed in the following manner, with reference to the great fundamental doctrines of
the Bible:
(a) God. Only 87% of the ministers queried believed that God is omnipotent; only 79% believed that He is unchangeable, only 84% believed
that God assumes any direct part in the running of the universe. It was disclosed also that 64% of Congregationalist ministers, 28% of
Methodists, 14% of Evangelicals, and 12% of Baptists rejected the doctrine of the Trinity.
(b) Christ. Among these ministers, only 71% accepted the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ, 76% believed Christ of equal power,
authority, and knowledge with God, 58% believed that when Christ was upon the earth He was limited in knowledge about the earth and scientific facts in general, 70% believed the death of Christ obtained the forgiveness of sins, 84% believed He actually arose from the dead, and 82% believed that He is now interceding for us with the Father.
(c) The Bible. Only 55% believed the Bible was uniquely inspired and is God’s message for us, 66% believed that the New Testament is God’s final revelation, only 38% believed the Bible is wholly free from legend or myth, only 34% believed every part of the Bible of divine authority, 70% believed the inspiration of the Bible different from any other religious literature, and 77% believed that the New Testament is an infallible
guide.
(d) Sin. Only 60% of these ministers believed in a personal devil, 53% believed men are born with a sinful, depraved nature, and 60% denied that the fall of Adam brought sin, death, and suffering to the human race. 

(e) Creation and Evolution. Only 47% accepted the Genesis account of creation, 61% believed the idea of evolution to be consistent with the
idea of God as Creator, and only 33% believed the theory of evolution to be a denial that man was created in the image of God.

4. Dan Gilbert, author and evangelist, in the “World Wide Christian Conservation,” related the following information obtained in his
experience with modernists:
(a) One minister commented: “The machinery of protestantism is securely in the grip of the liberal element. That’s what really counts. So long
as the great seminaries, publishing houses, the denominational organizations, are controlled by liberalism, there is no chance for the
orthodox to make a comeback.”
(b) After addressing a group of ministers in Washington, D.C. on the subject of “The Faith or Our Fathers,” a well known minister remarked: 
“We liberal clergymen are no longer interested in the fundamentalist-modernist controversy. We do not believe we should waste
our time engaging in it. So far as we are concerned, it makes no difference whether Christ was born of virgin or not. We don’t even
bother to formulate and opinion on the subject.”
(c) After speaking in Arlington, Virginia, a minister remarked: “We have closed our minds to such trivial considerations as the questions of
the resurrection of Christ. If you fundamentalists wish to believe that nonsense we have no objection, but we have more important things to
preach about than the presence of an empty tomb 20 centuries ago.” 

(d) A Virginia minister summarized the modernistic philosophy by saying: “We are interested in human life and human destiny on earth. We
don’t know or care whether there is life beyond the grave. We presume that there is a God, but we know that he will ever be a mystery to us. 
We do not know or care whether God possesses personality or not. He may be just an impersonal force. Religion means very little, if anything. 
In the modern world of religion has no vital place. The function of the modern minister is to guide the thinking people along social and economic
lines. Morals, like religion, are out of date. The world today requires a new social order. The younger generation won’t need either morals or
religions if we create a social order in which ignorance and poverty have no place. We are moving in the direction of the elimination of prayer
from our services entirely. We still include it, occasionally, to please those who are accustomed to it. Prayers is a sort of habit with folks. 
It takes time to educate them to a realization that it is a hangover from the superstitious past. We do not teach the Bible to our young people. 
Our youth program is centered around recreation.”

II. THE ORIGIN OF MODERNISM:
1. It is not possible to establish a definite date as the point of the origin of modernism, but it had its beginning in the 18th century.
(a) Modernism is not a concrete and dogmatic system of ideas, but is composed of numerous divergent philosophies of religion developed during the 18th and 19th centuries.
(b) So gradually was this philosophic system developed that no date can be pointed to as its birthday, and no person can be identified as its
sole author.

2. How modernism developed.
(a) Following the wake of the Protestant Reformation in Germany there arose a revolt among the intellectuals of Europe to conservation
Protestantism.
(b) The scholars in Germany in particular, and later in other European countries, turned from religion to philosophy.
(c) These scholars regarded human reason as the supreme authority in life, and rejected everything that could not be rationally explained.
(d) Philosophers who exerted tremendous influence during this period were: Baruch Spinoza, Albrecht Richl, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Georg W. F. Hegel, Jean Astrue, John Locke, Julius Wellhausen, William James, and John Dewey.
(e) Leading theologians who contributed much to the development of modernistic thought were: Wilhelm M. L. deWette, Johann Semler, Karl
Barth, Emil Brunner, Albert Schweitzer, Soren A. Kierkegaard, Rudolf Bultman, David F. Strauss, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Friedrich Schleiermacher.
(f) Spinoza is credited with having initiated the movement of higher criticism (destructive criticism of the Bible).
(g) Albrecht Ritschl has been styled by some as the “father of modernism.”

III. EXAMPLES OF POSITIONS OF MODERNISTS:
1. The modernistic view of the Bible.
(a) Modernists reject the Bible as an inspired, infallible Book that is final authority in religion.
(b) “The Higher Criticism at once degraded into what it is today-a skeptical crusade against the Bible, tending to lower it to the level of
a purely human book.” (The Bible and Modern Criticism, Sir Robert Anderson, p. 43)
(c) Dr. Lyman Abbott expressed the typical modernistic view: “An infallible book is an impossible conception, and today no one really
believes our Bible is such a book.”
(d) Bishop Barnes stated: “The Old Testament is Jewish literature. In it are to be found folklore, defective history, half-savage morality,
obsolete forms of worship based on primitive and erroneous ideas of the nature of God, and crude science.” (From Heresies Exposed, William C. Irvine, p. 117)

2. Religion.
(a) Modernism views religion in the light of philosophy, and the religion of modernists is a mixture of pantheism, natural religion,
deism, and rational philosophy.
(b) Without the true Bible meaning, modernists use such terms as “incarnation,” “resurrection,” “atonement,” “redemption,” “salvation,”
and the like. But a highly metaphorical meaning is intended for these.
(c) To the modernist, “salvation” is solely a matter of personal experience, or one’s consciousness of God.
(d) The doctrines of the New Testament are meaningless to a modernist, for he holds no formal, dogmatic faith.
(e) In preaching the doctrine of “the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man,” modernists believe all religions to be valid and
equally “inspired.” Schopenhaur, for instance, believed Buddhism to be superior in purity and wisdom to Christianity.

3. The modernistic view of Christ.
(a) The modernists hold Christ to be a mere man, deny that He is the Son of God, deny his virgin birth, deny that He performed actual miracles,
and deny that He is Savior.
(b) They believe Christ was a superb teacher, and extoll His teachings as containing excellent ethical values.
(c) “The sole factor in the redemptive work of Christ, in the opinion of Schleiermacher, was his person, his supernatural birth, resurrection,
ascension, and his second advent were regarded as of little moment.”
(d) When asked by letter of December 8, 1952 from W.W. Otey if it is essential for one to believe in the virgin birth and atonement of Christ,
Edgar J. Goodspeed relied: “No, not at all. The Virgin Birth is simply an oft repeat ancient Greek way of describing the moral sonship to God.” 
(Christ or Modernism, Otey, p. 38)
(e) In replying to the same questions, Millar Burrows wrote: “I never have believed that the virgin birth of Jesus was an essential article of
Christian faith. As for the doctrine of blood atonement, I feel that in the form in which it has usually been presented it is foreign to the
teaching of the Bible.” (Ibid., p. 39)
(f) In his book, “The Quest of the Historical Jesus,” Albert Schweitzer asserts Christ is not discovered through the Scriptures, but rather He is “the spirit of Jesus revealed in one’s own religious experience.”

Here is another link for further thoughts on this subject:

The Menace of Modernism

 

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 28, 2017 in God

 

Christian Evidences Series: Why We Believe in God


Studies in Christian Evidences by Waymon D. Miller

(This little booklet was developed in 1961 but is now out of print. For that reason, it is provided here for your use and edification in hopes that one more soul will come to believe today)

Introduction:
1. The premise of the existence of God is one of paramount importance to
man and religion.
(a) It would be frightful to imagine a world without a God, a universe
without a Creator, sinners without a Savior, and the human race without
eternal hope!
(b) It is instinctive for man to believe in the existence of a supreme
Being.
(c) Man is naturally religious, and requires an Object upon which to
bestow his worship.
(d) Faith in God is a fundamental requirement of the religion of the
Bible. (Hebrews 11:6)
(e) The moral and spiritual situation of man demands the existence of
God. So Voltaire stated, “If there were no God, it would be necessary to
invent him.”

2. There is need to examine the proof’s of the existence of God, even
for those who believe in Him.
(a) We live in an age of skepticism, and need to be able to
intelligently meet this issue.
(b) To examine afresh these matters will serve to strengthen our faith. 
“Let your hearts be strengthened in the Lord.” (Eph. 6:10. Conybeare’s
translation)
(c) We need to be familiar with the proof principles of the existence of
God for our own information.
(d) We will be able by such studies to see that belief in God does not
rest upon blind, unreasoning faith.

  JesusIsLordofthisWebSite  575273_579331012148169_1163921425_n

I. KINDS OF UNBELIEF AND REASONS FOR IT:    
    
1. There are numerous classes and varieties of unbelief in the existence
and authority of God.
(a) Skepticism. A skeptic is one who possesses doubt and uncertainty of
the existence of God, and as a result does not believe in Him.
(b) Atheism. An atheist is one who so strongly disbelieves in God that
he denies there is a God.
(c) Infidelity. The infidel is one who rejects Christianity, and
occupies a position of disbelief.
(d) Agnosticism. The agnostic affirms that he does not know if there is
a God, and therefore does not believe in Him.
(e) Freethought. The freethinker asserts his right of freedom of
thought, independent of authority or revelation, to believe or disbelieve
in God.
(f) Theistic Infidelity. This is a species of infidelity held by
professed Christians who reject numerous fundamental truths of the Bible.
Among this group are the liberals and theistic evolutionists.
(g) The Willful and Untaught. Some are unbelievers because they
deliberately choose this, but others because they are untaught and have
had no opportunity to believe.

2. What are some of the reasons for unbelief in God? In his book,
Therefore Stand, Wilbur M. Smith lists the following as a number of
reasons for unbelief:
(a) Man has fallen away from God, and has a bias toward Him.
(b) The darkness of the mind of the natural man prevents his
appreciation of spiritual values.
(c) The pride of man, which resents dependence upon a Supreme Being. 
(cf. John 5:44)
(d) The determination to live without God.
(e) Educational influences that have by their character created the
attitude of skepticism.
(f) Increasing supremacy of the material and the subordination of the
spiritual.
(g) The affects of sin, and the sinner’s self-justification.
(h) Ignorance of the Word of God and of true Christianity.
(i) Some deliberately determine not to believe in God.

II. PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS:
1. Through the years rational and philosophical arguments have been
developed in support 
support of belief in God.
(a) These complicated arguments involve philosophical principles
unfamiliar to the average person.
(b) They will be briefly stated here so that some familiarity with them
may be gained at least.

2. The Cosmological Argument. 
(a) This argument approaches the issue of the existence of God from the
viewpoint of the existence of the world.
(b) The very existence of the world argues a beginning and an actuating
cause, which cause believers affirm is God.
(c) If the universe had an origin, there must have been some causative
force behind it, for there is no such thing as an uncaused beginning.
(d) “God is the infinite and perfect Spirit in whom all things have
their source, support, and end.”-A.H. Strong.
(e) Herbert Spencer speaks of “the absolute certainty that we are ever
in the presence of an infinite and eternal energy from which all things
proceed.”

3. The Teleological Argument.
(a) The object of this argument is to demonstrate and end or the purpose
of all things that comprise the universe.
(b) Simply stated, this argument affirms that order and purpose require
an intelligent cause, or that the design of anything in itself suggests a
designer.
(c) The presence of a beautiful building argues the work of an
architect, an engineer and a builder.
(d) The presence of the universe, therefore, wonderfully produced and
precisely arranged, argues divine intelligence behind it.
(e) We have evidence all about us of marvelous design: man, the
planetary system, flowers, animals, the chemical elements, principles of
physics, and the like.

4. The Moral Argument.
(a) The fact that man possesses moral concepts of right and wrong, which
are not of human origin, also argues the existence of a Supreme Being.
(b) The fact that these moral laws, unvarying from generation to
generation, so frequently condemn man shows that man is not the author of
them.
(c) Sophocles speaks of “the unwritten laws of God that know not change;
they are not of today or yesterday, but live forever.”
(d) Immanuel Kant, the philosopher, was so strongly impressed with the
strength of the moral argument that he was willing to rest the case of
the existence of God on it.

5. The Ontological Argument.
(a) the ontological argument asserts the existence of God from the fact
that man has a concept of Him.
(b) Since man does possess a concept of a Supreme Being, from what
source is this concept derived?
(c) The fact is that man’s concept of a Supreme Being is received
through inspiration, and is of divine origin.
(d) Man also possesses ideas of the infinite and supernatural-a
supernatural Being that possesses the attributes of infinite goodness,
perfection, justice, holiness, power, wisdom, and authority. These
attributes are the very ones that are distinct qualities of God.

III. LOGICAL REASONS FOR BELIEF IN GOD:
1. There is universal belief in a God who created, sustains, and governs
all things.
(a) All peoples everywhere, regardless of religion or culture, have a
consciousness of a Supreme Being.
(b) Cicero said, “There is no nation so barbarous, no race so savage, as
not to be firmly persuaded of the being of God.”
(c) How de we account for this universal consciousness of God, and what
is its origin, if there is no Supreme Being?

2. There also exists a universal consciousness of God, and what is its
origin, if there is no Supreme Being?
(a) The most primitive tribes, as well as cultured men, possess a
conviction that a Supreme Being must be propitiated and answered to.
(b) This universal concept is that the Supreme Being is infinite, holy
and just, and calls man’s misdeeds to judgement.
(c) From what source is this sense of accountability derived if there is
not Supreme Being?

3. The hand of God is clearly seen in the creation.
(a) All of the speculative theories concerning the origin of the
universe are far from conclusive and satisfactory.
(b) There is convincing evidence, however, that the material things of
the world could not have existed from eternity in that all matter is
subject to change and decay.
(c) All things of the universe exhibit wonderful design, and they could
not have originated by chance since chance does not require purpose and
design.
(d) In that there is design in all things, the things that exist did not
form themselves or occur spontaneously.
(e) It would be preposterous to imagine that a rock falling from a
mountain could burst itself into a sculptural masterpiece. It is also
absurd to imagine that the universe originated in any such accidental
manner.
(f) The physical law of cause and effect argues the existence of a great
Cause of the universe.

4. The order and government of the universe also argues the existence of
a Governor and Author of these laws.
(a) Our material world is governed by an infinite number of natural
laws. If no supreme Governor exists, where did these natural laws
originate?
(b) The precise position and movement of planets, seasons, temperature,
moisture, animals, and plants are regulated as to make man’s earthly
existence possible.
(c) Consider the arrangement of our planet to accommodate life: such
important factors as the size and mass of the earth designed to retain
essential gasses, the length of day caused by the speed at which the
earth rotates on its axis (1,000 m.p.h.), the precise tilting of the
earth on its axis of 23 degrees to govern temperature and the seasons,
the proper distance of the moon from the earth to regulate the tides, the
proper distance of the earth from the sun to govern temperature, and the
relation between water and land masses which regulates the supply of
oxygen essential for animal life and carbon dioxide and oxygen essential
to plant life.

5. Man possesses a conscience to regulate his moral conduct.
(a) Animals possess no such sense of moral judgment. Where did man
receive it, and how are we to account for it?
(b) Why is man filled with fear and remorse even when committing secret
wrongs?
(c) If there are no principles of right or wrong, or if there is no God
to whom we must answer, why this merciless condemnation of conscience?

6. The natural laws of the universe evidence such mathematical precision
as to imply divine intelligence behind them.
(a) Some of these laws are fixed and unalterable. For instance, 2 + 2 =
4. This is a fixed rule. No other answer is possible.
(b) Chemical combinations also show this mathematical precision and
fixedness. For instance, two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen always
make water.
(c) In the universe all things are constructed of a proper combination
of the 96 basic elements, and the same combination always produces the
same thing.
(d) The infinitely precise laws regulating our solar system enable
scientists to accurately predict with accuracy a solar eclipse. What or
Who established these marvelous laws of our solar system?
(e) In the realm of natural law, everything is seen to reproduce after
its own kind. This again illustrates the uniformity of natural law and
precludes chance.

7. The instinctive religious disposition of man requires the existence
of an Object upon which he can bestow his worship.
(a) Man possesses an instinctive religious nature. It has been aptly
expressed that “man is incurably religious.”
(b) The most primitive and the most cultured people have their religion,
though it may range from the superstitious and crude to the most cultured
and refined.
(c) This religious disposition has been found to exist universally in
all races and throughout all ages.
(d) Is it possible that man could possess a misguided instinct? Could
his religious nature be reasonably thought to be his only deceptive
instinct?
(e) The great masses have always, through this natural religious
feeling, accepted the idea of the existence of God, and of man’s need to
worship Him.
(f) Since all men everywhere possess this religious disposition, how can
this be accounted for except that it was implanted in man to cause him to
“fear God and keep His commandments”?
(g) Thus the whole human race gives testimony to God, and of man’s need
to worship Him.

IV. BELIEF IN GOD MEETS THE DEEPEST HUMAN NEEDS:
1. Since man is seen to possess a tenacious conviction of the existence
of a Supreme Being, God is the fulfillment of that conviction and need.
(a) The spiritual needs of man are as real and insistent as any of the
other needs of man.
(b) It is as natural for the soul to crave God as it is for the boy to
crave food, water, clothing, or rest.
(c) To stifle religious impulses will distort the personality of the
whole man. The needs of the soul cry out for satisfaction.

2. Belief in God creates a sense of well being and calm confidence
obtained in no other manner.
(a) When the life of man is deprived of the compass of religion, man is
adrift upon a constantly uneasy sea.
(b) The unbelieving soul is devoid of this sense of well being, and has
instead feelings of fear, guilt, doubt, and apprehension.
(c) Only the believer in God can possess a sense of inward well being
and a peace that “passeth understanding.”

3. Belief in God is necessary for man to find himself, to know himself,
and see himself as he really is.
(a) The believer in God sees himself as an infinitely frail and unworthy
creature who is dependent upon the forgiving mercy and sustaining grace
of God.
(b) The believer divests himself of all self-trust, realizing his
insignificance and worthlessness, and how completely dependent he is upon
God.
(c) When man is made to see that he lives, breathes, and has his
existence in God, he is the more impressed with his reliance upon Him in
all things.
(d) Belief in god enables man to see the infinite holiness and goodness
of Jehovah, and the infinite worthlessness of himself.

4. Belief in God enable man to properly appreciate the greatness of
human dignity and the purpose of human life.
(a) To believe in God enables man to see who he is, why he is, where he
is, where he has been, where he is going, what he is, and what he by
God’s grace can become.
(b) Knowing himself to be fashioned after the image of God, he
appreciates the divine aspect of his being, and that the grand purpose of
his existence is to glorify God.
(c) To the believer, life has purpose. It is not merely animal
existence, but he lives for spiritual purposes as well.
(d) The idea that we are God’s creatures and objects of His love gives
the highest possible meaning to life, whereas unbelief has never achieved
meaning or moral good.
(e) No other person has as much to live for as the believer.

5. Belief in God enables man to live in communion with the infinite.
(a) The believer is lifted above the meaningless reality of the material
things, and vies them as but means to the end of heavenly things.
(b) While in this life he prepares for a heavenly citizenship, and he
realizes that one’s life is not determined so much by what he has as Who
he has.
(c) The believer has constant communion with God, walks with the
Creator, and his soul reaches into the infinite.

6. Belief in God imparts hope beyond this earthly experience.
(a) The Christian life is begun on earth and completed in the endless
realm of eternity.
(b) By faith we look beyond the tragedies of life to the triumphs of
glory, and an existence of eternal bliss.
(c) No philosophy of life is so richly rewarding for time and eternity
as that of belief in God

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 24, 2017 in God