Christian Monthly Standard

These are a few of my Favorite Things

Richard Vandagriff — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 20:53:21 +0000

Aurelius Augustinus (354 – 430) is known as Saint Augustine. I might offer evidence that suggests he was not a saint at all. You may find a hint of that as you read on. He was responsible for solidifying many of the doctrines of Catholicism. Augustine wrote dialogues on the Trinity and Mariolatry and on a wide number of other topics. His complete works measure at least eight full volumes on my shelves, having used up more words than the entire Holy Scriptures by a few hundred times. You might note that he lived during the early part of the period suggested for the start of Catholicism.

Here is just a smattering of his teaching:

He suggested that baptism ought to be withheld until a person was close to death such as with the emperor Constantine, and as was then becoming common in the Romanized churches; so that converts might have the majority of their sins behind them when they repented.

The notion that you have a full knowledge of sin and will not make any changes is monstrously wrong. This is the argument “I cannot control myself” that is so prevalent today; so at least we didn’t invent it. It is sheer escapist nonsense. Does God now accept the sinner carte blanc, or do we need to rid ourselves of as much of the baggage of sin as we can possibly jettison? It also does not accord belief that we can ever give up sinning – we just cannot stop, don’t you see that Jesus? Augustine writes quite a bit about how he did not want to get rid of his mistresses – and so he did not. I wonder? Is the spirit willing, but the flesh weak? Or, is it the other way around?

You might as well believe that you must travel to Mars or to the bottom of the sea to be baptized and become a Christian. You would have equal authority. Such thought and instruction is completely against anything taught in the scriptures; and it will have the end effect of doing absolutely nothing for one’s status before God. Hear, believe, repent, be immersed and remain faithful – that is the prescription offered by the Holy Spirit. And you change for God or suffer the consequences. It is a very difficult but simple equation.

Augustine believed that Adam and Eve never died but ate of the Tree of Life in Eden and lived on and were eventually carried up to heaven.

This indicates he never actually bothered to read the scriptures. That too remains a problem today. Mormons teach this also; so, along with many others, that must mean they never read it either. In any case, it displays an ignorance of the scriptures as the record states exactly how long Adam lived and, that after a life of nine hundred thirty years “he died” (5:5). Someone is wrong, and I believe that it isn’t God or His Word. The scriptures are silent about Eve, but then they are also silent about how long most of the women lived and when they died.

Augustine believed that infant baptism was a matter “rightly held to have been handed down by apostolic authority,” and that even without this, the church could form a “true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants, from the parallel of circumcision…” He later posted this: “Therefore, when others take the vows for them, that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete on their behalf, it is unquestionably of avail for their dedication to God, because they cannot answer for themselves.”

Uh huh! So, let me see if I have this one. The apostles handed down the authority for infant baptism, but the Holy Spirit forgot to record a word about it? Go figure. To paraphrase Elijah, perhaps God was busy that day. Then baptism, rather than being a token of faith and the anti-type to circumcision, became the NT parallel to it. So Peter got it wrong too. And the baby babble is not to be taken as a dedication to God because they, after all, are not able to speak. Who would have ever thought that? Ronald Reagan once posed, babies (which he compared to the federal government) possess “an alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.” Some might suppose they have no responsibility period. If so, somebody had sure better do the dedication and talking for them. But how will we ever know when we get it right, babble being in need of serious interpretation, and the interpreters of babble but few?

Thank God, we have the right to believe whatever suits us, no matter how screwball and stupid. But in my simpleton’s view, this is certainly a giant leap of faith and a blinding misappropriation of both reason and logic. This is mind control theory at its very best; and thousands have championed it, while millions have been brought under their control. Yet it is a historical and religious lie with no evidence to bolster it and not so much as a shred of scripture behind any corner. As for the logic to the argument: there simply isn’t any.

But, just to be fair, Augustine here identifies original sin long before Jean Calvin ever thought it up. Which can only mean: Calvin did not think of it at all. To head straight down to the bottom of the rabbit hole, Augustine also tells the reader that he had inappropriate thoughts while at his mother’s breast; and thus as an infant he needed redemption. Perhaps these were some of those thoughts? How could we ever know? The more I read of these things, the more it makes me wonder.

There is so much more, it just boggles the mind. I have every intention to move further off in history (as I had said) with some similar records and remarks about what amounted to the universal or Catholic “Christian” religion during the Dark Ages. But the road both here and there is so completely strewn and spread over with heresy, blasphemy, lack of care and the pure rot of godlessness; it is hard to leave this part of religious history without offering some of the worst for us to ponder. It all makes the false teachers of today look like rank amateurs.

Proclaim the message; persist in it whether convenient or not; rebuke, correct, and encourage with great patience and teaching.

(2 Timothy 4:2, HCSB)

Where did all the Denominations come from? (Pt. 3)

Richard Vandagriff — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:58:20 +0000

We noted that it cannot be stated authoritatively when true Christianity first became perverted and then vanished for periods of time. But we should know it happened just as Christ said that it would.

Humankind can pervert and disassemble just about anything when left to our own devices. Though the Word lives and abides forever, that does not mean it cannot be roundly and completely ignored by “religious people”.

I suggested that you cannot identify an exact point in time when the first Christians left off scriptural authority and embraced what would in short order become known as Roman Catholicism. We do know, from the scriptures, the seed had been sown while the apostles and the first disciples were yet alive. And we have offered scriptural information and then an opinion or two based upon the leftovers of secular history.

The path of religious history occasionally appears to be sparsely marked; and at times, it seems to have vanished altogether, or to be strewn with the bias of the recorders. It gets worse when you look at the divisions and consolidations that were forged from the fifth through the twelfth century. Out of this period you have so many departures, it becomes difficult to list them all. To name a few, you have the schism between Eastern and Western Catholicism, of pope and anti-pope, the rising German influence, the politics of the aristocracy and the popes, the Crusades and many other heretical departures, some that you may be able to put a name to and some that you cannot. Most of the existing history was recorded by willing participants. It is complex; and I would be doing an injustice to the truth by attempting to put it into a few five hundred word essays.

So, it’s necessary to remember the basics: Salvation is in Jesus Christ; and the only record of all things eternal is The Word of God. As part of this reminder, I would refer you to Brent’s appeal in his most recent posts, and to what the scriptures inform us about holiness. In short: it is God, and God alone who decides what is Holy – what is to bear His Name and what, where and when something is to be identified or known as Holy. We should know the Scriptures tell us this is true whether or not we are talking about popes, archbishops, prophets, pastors, later apostles, temples, angels, names, places, commands, assemblies, worship or its patterns — or anything else that has to do or we think may have to do with God and salvation. All that we know about things eternal is contained in what God has left us. And He said it is finished and complete.

As was suggested, the history of apostasy is the result of a process. The amount of time it took to reach some ungodly milestone was directly proportional to the increasing lack of faith and disinterest in the Word of God. This particular fact needs to be burned into our memory chips and remembered as long as we live — if we claim to serve God and Christ. Remember, it took the Hebrews less than forty days to depart from the truth, and to head off into abominable passions and to end up worshipping a golden idol. Centuries later it took the Northern Kingdom of Israel a single generation to forget Jerusalem and God’s commands completely and to set up two more golden calves in Dan and Bethel. The simple cause was failure to do what they had been told to do, and to pay strict attention to the Word of God.

So, is it surprising what began to infect churches while the Holy Apostles were yet alive? The New Testament is rife with warnings and examples. Have we today been suddenly caught unwarned and unawares?

It ought to be abundantly clear. And we all ought to be able to identify ungodliness and what is unholy, whether it started out centuries ago, or comes through the door tomorrow smiling and calling on the name of Christ. We all, every one of us, have Bibles. There is no mystery to it.

Christ asked those who questioned Him “Have you not read?” What is your answer?

And someone said to him, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?”

And he said to them, “Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the master of the house has risen and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, open to us,’ then he will answer you, ‘I do not know where you come from.’ Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.’ But he will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, all you workers of evil!’ In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out.

(Luke 13:23-28)

Where did all the Denominations come from? (Roman Catholicism pt. 2)

Richard Vandagriff — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 15:55:56 +0000

The Catholic Rule of Faith,with its “unanimous consent of the Fathers” is stated to be held in solemnity. It first appeared under Pius IV at one of the many sessions of the various Councils of Trent. It also appears in more recent Papal Creeds: “Nor will I take and interpret it (the Sacred Scriptures) otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” It might as well state that “I will not take and interpret the scriptures unless I possess the Sorcerer’s Stone” or some better fictional conjurers invention. It is after all the Roman Church that anointed everyone of these ancients known as “Church Fathers.” Too bad that, for the most part, they contradict one another and have nothing that might pass as unanimous consent on all except a single topic. So I plan to give credit where credit is due.

“Brethren, look into the Holy Scriptures, where are the true words of the Holy Ghost. You know there is nothing unjust or counterfeit in them.” (Clement from his letter to the Church at Corinth.)

“The blessed and renowned Paul… did with all exactness and soundness, teach the word of truth; and being gone from you did write an epistle to you, into which, if you look, you will be able to edify yourselves in the faith that has been delivered to you… I trust that you are well exercised in the Holy Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you.” (Polycarp to the Philippian Church.)

“Ignorance of the scriptures is the cause of all evils.” “The knowledge of the Holy Bible is a powerful defense against sin: while an ignorance of them is a deep precipice, a profound gulf. It is a great betraying of salvation to know nothing of the Divine Law, it is this ignorance which has given birth to heresies.” (Chrysostom’s third sermon on Lazarus.)

Then the Romanists came up with this at the Council of Toulouse in Canon 14: “We prohibit the laity from having the books of the Old and New Testaments; unless it be, at most, that any one wishes to have, from devotion, a Psalter, a breviary for the divine offices, or the honor of the blessed Mary; but we forbid them, in the most express manner, to have the books translated into the vulgar tongue.”

And finally this from the same Council of Trent: “It belongs to the Church to judge of the true sense and interpretation of Scripture; and that no person shall dare to interpret it in matters relating to faith and manners, to any sense contrary to that which the Church has held, and does still hold; or contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”

You be the judge.

Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him or invite him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.

(2 John 9 -11)

Where did all the Denominations come from?

Richard Vandagriff — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:33:01 +0000

Dating Roman Catholicism

I would not want to try to offer a specific year or date for the start of Catholicism. All my life I have heard 606 given as the year of the start of those things. But I feel fairly certain that the Roman Catholic denomination did not spring forth within the same year that the title of pope was first officially assumed. After all, they maintain that Peter was the first pope, and if that had any foundation at all historically or doctrinally, it would certainly force a much earlier date.

However, I do feel comfortable offering a range of dates for the beginnings of Catholicism. Things just don’t happen overnight – it takes time. And without an understanding of events including the complicity of the Roman emperors and the problems found within the early churches, we may not understand how things got started. It would never have gotten going without the persistence and diligence (can I say that?) of many. Yet if the apostasy of Western Catholicism had not happened, then something else would have fallen in place to start the denominational ball rolling.

The range I suggest for the start point of the first denomination would begin around the time of the second Edict of Toleration or by the Nicene Council, moving onward with the continuing decline of Rome. It would go along through the rise of Constantinople and end up somewhere in the seventh and eighth centuries with the rise of Islam.

It was both a process and a product, but a solid timeline is pretty hard to nail down. I start with dates around 325 heading up to 606 or beyond to 800 with the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire as was just noted. The mentioned 606 date heralds the ready assumption of the title of “Holy Father” and Pope by Boniface III, but things were already well formed by then. On the other end of the range during the seventh and eighth centuries you have Islam growing rapidly and the fear of it for a possible upper range point. You could span those years with some more or some less time as you might see things a little differently, but a similar range is not without some historical support – allowing for a half century or two either way. So I might conclude reasonably that Roman Catholicism had its beginning around 325 or even a little earlier, and was well constructed by 800. As said, you may differ with where to start or to end.

By the fifth century much of Europe had fallen to aristocratic feudalism and religiously had come under the control of Catholicism – which is another form of feudalism. It is only due to the resistance and intervention of the Anglo Saxons that England was a “late arrival.” To this day the Anglicans claim their denomination is “more an English church” than its Roman mother. Unfortunately it is more about traditions and ascendancy and has little to do with Christian doctrine. They may have been late to the party, but they were led by the nose into the pen without much of an outcry. Most of Europe and the Scandinavians had already fallen down on bloodied knee or were on a steady slide by 600. The Caliphs, the Sarasin and the rest of Islam would soon cause the gaze of Europe (and the power of Rome) to turn to the east, while adding to their increasing strength and numbers.

The Frenchman Pepin and his army managed to cede much of Italy to what would soon become the Holy See and aided in the legitimization of its power base by the mid seven hundreds. To quote Philip Schaaf: “But by this gift of a foreign conqueror he (the Pope, RAV) became a temporal sovereign over a large part of Italy, while claiming to be the successor of Peter, who had neither silver nor gold, and the vicar of Christ who said: ‘My kingdom is not of this world.’ The temporal power made the papacy independent in the exercise of its jurisdiction, but at the expense of its spiritual character.”

Indeed.

Later by the time of the first crusades you have the rising response against the movement and expansion of Islam through the East and toward the West. And in these times there appeared, in the minds of some, a clear need to continue to consolidate power between state and church in order to meet headlong this fierce and defined foe.

The end product is that Rome and its church-states have successfully tightened the noose over the ensuing centuries and they will surely not release their grip this side of Judgment. It was in response at first to the changing face of Rome, and moved out into the control of the Germanic tribes and the rest of Europe. It built its walls higher in response to Islam and the East.

Today the Roman church is far and away the wealthiest organization in the world and although perhaps they wield the power more quietly now — they still exercise a form of rule over millions with acquired billions that should not be ignored. They have been reined in slightly by some long overdue accounting and some bits of reason. And they have been somewhat stifled in their overt political manipulations in the Americas due to the strength of the Protestants and the strength of political awakenings mainly in North America.

In my opinion, the Roman church still offers the gullible a legacy of apostasy and a “two door policy” – a closed door to the scriptures and an open door to destruction. And they use the poor and simple among us to heap riches to themselves. I apologize only half-heartedly for the assessment; but I see it as a church of men mostly serving each other. Again, this is not about people but about godliness and its opposite. I suggest that like the rest of the denominations that have followed them out onto the landscape: they have nothing at all to do with the Christ, his Word, salvation or the work of the apostles and disciples.

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

(2 Timothy 3: 1 – 7)

“There is one hope of your calling” (2)

Richard Vandagriff — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:57:58 +0000

We are told to all teach and hold to the same things. If we must teach and do alike, are we all to be Unitarians, Trinitarians or Universalists? Somewhere in time some folks decided that they must distinguish themselves and should be identified by a different set of instructions and names: some became Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Pentecostals, Catholic, Adventists, and a myriad of others. That was done because they did not all teach and hold to the same things. But then they were not the first. And there is not so much as a thread of unity between all of these groups and disciplines.

Does any one of these broad groups and the rest have it right. Certainly they all cannot. And if there is only one faith and one hope, which one is the right one — which is The Way?

Recently the political question has again been raised: Is a Mormon a Christian? Perhaps we must all become Mormons and hold to their teachings in order to be found faithful? Surely Mormons believe that.

Let me pose some troubling questions. If you call yourself by some other person’s name than Christ’s, or by some name somebody else picked for you; or if you are called after an action or a process, and let’s suppose you post it over a door, in a text, on a marquee, or in your heart – does that make you a better Christian? Does it make you a Christian at all? It does make you different doesn’t it? Even if it is an afterthought, is what you practice under another name of any value to the state of your soul? If it is we had all better find out which one does the trick.

How about this: Does the Word of God date prior to 328, 606, 1312, 1439, 1609, or 1824? Did it appear recently as some addendum or did the new supersede what had originally been given? Did the renewed truth of God show up some place in the remote or not so remote past, in some other century early or in modern times? If it did doesn’t that make Jesus a liar (or was he simply mistaken)? Doesn’t that also say the same for all of the apostles and prophets of the NT?

Perhaps we ought to start by answering this question: Whose name is it that we are commanded to honor and to wear? I might quickly ask another: why do the scriptures call disciples Christians?

We could do the exact same form of dating and ask the very same questions about every name and every Christian religious group known. And we can ask the same things about every other variation we can possibly find with the same result – except that is for a single one: the assembly that Jesus founded and the apostles established and described – the only one found in both form and practice within the pages of a NT.

So how many ways can we have it and still get it right? Is it an open field full of fat game birds just ready to break for the tree line? Or is there just one bird standing alone? Bret Stephens, columnist and author, writing on the existence today of the religion of Zoroaster, noted that all of their sacred texts had been destroyed by Alexander the Great. That of course did not put a stop to things. They are still around. Some of those variations on Christianity are much the same. Some have no link to a thing in either the Old or New Testament. Some focus on a single verse in Mark sixteen and make it a calling card to the exclusion of other things,making snake handling a spiritual sign. Some seem to have made up everything they do. But pointing these things out will not stop the proliferation of doctrines and assemblies. Yet perhaps it may cause someone to have second thoughts and to start reading a bible.

I would suggest you should know this is not a multiple choice exam. And these are not rhetorical questions. Will any of us be saved by aligning ourselves with any one of the hundreds of groups, sects or denominations that exist today? Are these groups about serving God or more about serving men? If about serving God, then which one is IT? Jesus once asked, When the Son of Man returns, will he even find faith upon the earth? Well?

Perhaps we should attempt to join every group, supposing against all reason that every one of them teaches the truth? That would surely keep us busy. Though it sounds silly; aren’t there good people found in each one? Don’t they all believe in what they do and teach, just as the Muslims and Buddhists?

You should know that there are several people alive right now who claim to be the Christ, the Messiah, and some of them head huge organizations with millions of followers. Should we stop what we are doing and go and follow one of them? Which one?

Everybody claims to have some greater knowledge about The Way and The Truth. But Jesus told us that only He, The Word, is that.

Well then, does anybody bother to teach the truth today? If your answer to that is yes, how do you know they teach the truth? And if you said you’re certain and sure because you can find everything they do listed in the New Testament; then do you worship with them to the exclusion of all other distractions? And are you trying with all your might to get your friends and family through the proverbial front door? Does it matter for your soul and for theirs? If not, then please explain what are you doing?

The place I am going with this is obviously populated by many different things. I plan to offer, over the next few weeks, a partial, simple and insubstantial answer to the question: Where did all the denominations come from? I hope to offer a smattering of available information on some of the main groups, and where and how they got started. I may not be politically correct (horrors!); but I will strive for accuracy.

Rest assured, but not comfortably, that not a single one of these groups can ever trace themselves back in some unbroken line to the pages of the New Testament. But there is one assembly in form and worship that can find themself and what they teach and do in there. But then if we find the one that fills the patterns, perhaps we might ask the outlandish rhetorical question (or one like it) — if it looks like a duck, quacks, has feathers and webbed feet, what is it? Hmm, and it makes me wonder.

Hopefully we might all be able to answer the question: is the church of the bible still around today? I have no doubt, what about you?

Personal Holiness (3)

Brent Kercheville — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 02:29:50 +0000

Some Reasons Why We Are Not Holy

1. Our attitude toward sin is more self-centered than God-centered. Often we are more concerned about our own victory over sin than we are about the fact that our sins grieve the heart of God. Many times the only reason we are upset about sin is because we are success-oriented, and not because we know that we have done something offensive to God. I believe W.S. Plummer said it well, “We never see sin aright until we see it as against God…. All sin is against God in this sense: that it is His law that is broken, His authority that is despised, His government that is set at naught…. Pharaoh and Balaam, Saul and Judas each said, ‘I have sinned’; but the returning prodigal said, ‘I have sinned against heaven and before thee’; and David said, ‘Against Thee, Thee only have I sinned.’” God wants us to walk in obedience, not personal victory. Obedience is oriented toward God; victory is oriented toward self. One shows a self-centered attitude and the other shows a God-centered attitude. We cannot consistently walk in holiness as long we continue to make sin merely a personal battle. God wants us to experience the victory over sin, but that is not the end goal. Personal victory comes as a by-product of obedience. As we concentrate on living an obedient, holy life, we will certainly experience the joy of victory over sin.

2. We must take personal responsibility for holiness. Too often the religious world has tried to impress upon us that true holiness can only come from God and there is nothing one can do to attain it. While holiness is defined by the Lord, as we have noticed, living by faith does not mean that we are to exert no effort at all. We have a personal responsibility to walk in holiness. We will be judged based upon our choices and decisions in this area. We are not passive participants in this world. We are not victims of sin. We have been empowered by God to choose our course and have the responsibility to walk in holiness. Human nature tells us that we need to blame others for our shortcomings and problems. We see this was done in the very beginning as Adam and Eve blamed everyone else but themselves for their sins. The devil made Eve do it and Eve made Adam do it. Holiness will never come as long as we are laying the blame upon others. No one has caused us to sin. No one is to blame for our condition. Certainly we have been affected by other people’s actions, but we have control over our choices. A denial of this fact will continue to lead us into a life of sinfulness.

3. We do not take sin seriously. We need to take our actions seriously and see the devastating effects of sin if we are going to live in holiness. We must not rationalize our weaknesses as tolerable or generally okay. We are committing sins and God does not find our sins acceptable. When we accept this harsh reality we are now ready to separate ourselves from these actions so we can separate ourselves to the Lord. We must separate from the things of the world and dedicate ourselves to God. Only God can define what is holy and unholy, not us. We need to look at sin as a personal offense to God. Will we see our actions as offensive to God and not merely a person defeat? Will we take personal responsibility for our sins, realizing that we must depend upon God’s grace for what we have done? Will we decide to obey God in all areas of life, no matter what is commanded of us? If so, we have take the first steps down the road to the holiness of God.

“There is one hope of your calling”

Richard Vandagriff — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:11:18 +0000

Rebellion is based upon a lack of respect for the Word of God. Disobedience is the predecessor or the seed to rebellion, and displays a lack of trust in the given Word – that God can accomplish what he has said. Some might argue that disobedience comes first.

It really doesn’t matter which comes first, the outcome is the same. You lose either way. Both are the products of taking liberties with God’s Will or doing something else in place of doing what God has given us to do.

Will there ever be a time when disciples disavow rebellion and disobedience and seek to unite under a banner of peace and unity? Will they ever again come together as one body, in one Spirit serving one Lord, through one faith and in one baptism? Will we ever worship in common under the structure of the New Testament as the single family of God?

Or is it possible that God has many families and Christ a multitude of brides?

We will see the Lord one day but it won’t be on our terms. And both rebellion and disobedience have their stated reward. Without recognizing that, many who call upon the name of Christ will find themselves pinned up with the rest of the goats. We know God has given everyone the exact same set of scriptures. No matter which version you might enjoy or pick up, doctrinal things have remained unchanged. What God, Christ, and the Apostles gave us to do is no different now than it was when it was first delivered long ago. Do you believe that? It is certainly written today and can be translated out just like it was when handed down. And ungodly revisions, new doctrines and interpretations have come from the likes of those who call upon another god – those in rebellion. It is part of our duty to be able to distinguish that.

God has said that we cannot miss the mark if we will diligently seek him. He also said that he gave clear and complete instructions, warning us that nothing can be added to it and nothing taken away from it (Eccl. 3:14, Matt. 7:21). We had better know that we will surely die if we allow ourselves to be led away by different spirits or different gospels. The Word of God is chock full or warnings and examples about that: “Even as you are called in one hope of our calling.” (Eph. 4:4.). Everything is about one: one Lord, one faith, one immersion, one God. The scriptures tell us the gospel was given once for all time. We are told that when we follow diversions, we end up serving other gods. And in reality we serve Satan, whether we know it, like it much and believe it or not. The end product is what matters; but without the correct process we will not get the desired product.

There is only one plan of salvation found in God’s Word and one set of instructions for worship. Try though you may, you will find no more. That one hope can be located easily within the NT. And although every one of the modern and not-so-modern assemblies claims to teach the truth and to worship God and honor his Word, in reality most are wide of the mark. Rebellion and disobedience have bred every departure and every corrupt offspring.

Does your assembly teach the gospel just exactly as did Peter, James and John? For that matter, do they teach it the same as the other guys right down the street? Or does your assembly have special teachings they hold to and call upon? Do they heed all of the commands? Are they “sound?” Do they, as Paul said, teach sound things or do they teach another gospel? Is there such a thing as a perversion of the gospel? Is the Holy Spirit still delivering or has it been sealed and settled? Is it that the gospel you believe in is the true version, and it’s everybody else that has another one? Isn’t that what we all want to believe?

Do we serve God or are we rebellious and disobedient? Can we call ourselves after whomever or whatever we please, and do whatever we chose, whether or not we can find it in the scriptures? Can we produce our own sacred doctrines if an angel reveals it directly to us and tells us to write it all down on sheets of gold?

Does what is revealed in the scriptures matter? Do names and words really matter? We have asked those questions repeatedly. If you have read any of the blogs here you know we believe words DO mean something – they DO matter. And God’s Word matters more than anything else. Remember: there is one hope of your calling.

Personal Holiness (2)

Brent Kercheville — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 21:29:26 +0000

Holiness Is Only Defined By The Lord

Every culture has some form of holiness which it keeps. Certain actions are considered taboo and improper in a society, while other actions are considered good and acceptable. But this is not the holiness that God is speaking about. Society does not dictate what is holy and what is common. Holiness has high standards. I cannot simply say that I dedicate this paper to God and it is no longer part of my common papers. Biblical holiness is specific separation as revealed by the Lord. People can claim to be holy and dedicated to the Lord but that does not make them holy to the Lord. The scriptures are full of illustrations of those who claimed to be holy to the Lord because they declared that their actions were for God yet God condemned them.

A clear example of this is in Leviticus 10:1-3 with the sacrifice presented by Nadab and Abihu. Nadab and Abihu offered a sacrifice to God which they considered dedicated to God. However, God killed Nadab and Abihu for offering an unholy or unauthorized fire. Verse 3 says, “This is what the Lord meant when He said, by those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, and before all the people I will be honored.” God defines what is holy and dedicated to God and what is not. This is an important lesson that we cannot gloss over too quickly. Too often people believe their actions are authorized as long as it is dedicated to the Lord. They seem to think that church bingo parties, church funded golf tournaments, church funded recreation and feedings, and anything else can be considered worship and acceptable to God as long as we simply declare that it is dedicated to God. But this is not the case. Only God has the right to declare what is holy and what is common. People have no right to make such declarations.

Further proof of this principle is found in Acts 10. Peter has a vision with all sorts of creatures and God said to Peter, “Rise, kill and eat” (Acts 10:13). “But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy” (Acts 10:14-15). Peter did not have the right to declare something unholy which God had declared holy. By the same token, we have no right to declare something holy which God has declared unholy. God defines holiness.

Therefore, attaining holiness is a very simple proposition: do what God says. Since God defines holiness, if we are to be holy as He is holy, we must simply do what God says. This is what God said to Israel in Exodus 19:5-6, “Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” This same command is reiterated to us in 1 Peter 2:9, where Peter tells us that we are chosen race, a royal priesthood, and a holy nation.

External Holiness Alone Is Unholy

In Matthew 15:1-9 Jesus drew this clear distinction. Jesus pointed out that the Pharisees were keeping their own traditions and not following the commands of God. Jesus called them hypocrites because keeping their rules was not the holiness of God. Further, the external holiness that the Pharisees attempted to keep was also unholy. The reason they were unholy was because their hearts were far from God. In other words, it is possible for a person to do something that the Bible defines as holy or that people believe to be holy yet not fulfill biblical holiness.

When we engage in actions that would seem holy, like prayer, study, and worship attendance, but permit our hearts to remain distant from God or even rebellious to God, we are unholy even though we appear holy to others. We cannot be holy to the Lord unless both our actions and our hearts have been separated from the world and dedicated to God. One without the other is simply to be unholy. A clean heart that does not do what God says is unholy. A person who do what God says yet has an impure heart is also unholy. We must have heart and actions separated from the world and devoted to God to be credited as holy to the Lord.

Personal Holiness

Brent Kercheville — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 20:24:43 +0000

I am going to write a few posts on the topic of holiness. Holiness is a characteristic that is often talked about but hardly understood as to how it can be obtained. Too often holiness is considered an attribute of God that is not attainable to man. Holiness is considered something impossible. However, 1 Peter 1:15-16 reads, “As the One who called you is holy, you also are to be holy in all your conduct; for it is written, be holy, because I am holy.” God commands all people to be holy.

Holiness Means Separation

Our first step in attaining holiness begins with a proper understanding of what God means when He calls us to be holy. Holiness has been defined in all sorts of ways. Sometimes we have allowed our minds to think of holiness as sinlessness. Perhaps we consider holiness as perfection. The first time we come across a strong concept of holiness is in Exodus 3. In this passage we see Moses is shepherding a flock in the wilderness and comes to Horeb. The angel of the Lord appears to Moses as a flame of fire within a bush, yet the bush was not consumed by the fire. In verses 4-5 we read, “When the Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called out to him from the bush, ‘Moses, Moses!’ ‘Here I am,’ he answered. ‘Do not come closer,’ He said. ‘Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.’” Why was this holy ground? How could ground be considered holy? If Moses had taken a handful of “unholy” ground and compared it with the “holy” ground at the burning bush, would he been able to see a difference? If Moses had traversed this ground last week while shepherding, would the ground have been holy then? Consider for a moment what made this ground holy!

The only reason the ground where Moses stood was holy was because God had said it was holy. The word “holy” simply means “separate.” God had separated this land from the other parts of the earth as the place where He would reveal Himself to Moses in the burning bush that was not consumed. If God had spoken to Moses at another place, that location would have been holy. The ground did not change its characteristics or organic components. The ground was the same dirt that it always had been. The only way Moses knew that this ground was holy was because God revealed to Moses. The only reason the ground was holy was because God declared it separate from other ground.

Holiness requires separation from one thing and separation to a different thing. The ground that God used to appear to Moses was separated from the rest of the ground of the earth and separated to God for His purpose. Holiness requires division. This is one reason why the word “holy” and its various derivatives are translated with terms like “set apart, dedicated, consecrated, sanctified, and separated.” Holiness is about distinction and division from one thing and separation for or to another thing.

Suppose the temple priests required a new knife to be used for the preparation of the sacrifices to God. The priest could not merely take a knife from home and start using in the temple sacrifices. The knife may have been separated from the home but it had not been dedicated or separated to God. Further, the knife could not be considered holy to the Lord and remain in the house of the priest. The knife had to not only be separated to God, but it also had to be separated from the common use in the house. Holiness requires subtraction and addition. With this idea in mind, we see that God has called us to abandon our unholy ways and pursue His holy way. Without both actions, holiness is not possible.

Consider 2 Timothy 2:22, “Flee from youthful passions, and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.” In this command we see the dual command of separation. We are to separate ourselves from youthful passions and lusts. But that is not all that is required for holiness. We are to separate ourselves to or dedicate ourselves to righteousness, faith, love, and peace. This is the two-part equation to holiness. Separation from plus separation to equals holiness. We are not holy if we only separate from the youthful passions. Neither are we holy if we only dedicate ourselves to righteousness, faith, love and peace. Both separation from youthful passions and separation to righteousness, faith, love, and peace leads to the holiness of God. When we return to 1 Peter 1:14-16 we see that we are to separate ourselves from the desires of our former ignorance and inappropriate conduct and separate ourselves to Him and appropriate godly conduct.

Thoughts on being Thankful

Richard Vandagriff — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 15:36:48 +0000

Which Bible version is IT? You know: the one that has it exactly right on every verse; and is the one that is so easily understood you don’t need to scratch your head over things? Why it’s so good you don’t have to think about it! Well, which one is IT? Our late friend Homer Smith used to say (with tongue planted securely in cheek) that “The King James was good enough for Moses, and it’s good enough for me.” He didn’t invent the phrase; you’ve likely heard it before.

I use several versions. And I am grateful that I can cross reference things online to make it easier for comparison sake. Things were not always so simple. And, know what? Part of the puzzle is that many hands have been laid upon the scriptures, and some were attached to brains and some were not. Some were certainly inventive (to be polite on this holiday). But, then some turned out things that were and are most helpful. Yet all in all there is no single version that I could designate as IT.

But, on this Thanksgiving Day, while I am grateful to God for my blessings and my family, I am also grateful that there are scholars that will sometimes spend years working on versions of the scriptures for our use, whether they get it exactly right or not (I still hope and pray for the former over the latter). Some of these folks have even taken time to weigh in with thoughts on this site. I am thankful for the people who took the time to translate and collate and cross reference things for me. I am thankful there is a will for such things and an environment that allows its flowering and production both here and elsewhere. We have all been richly blessed by these efforts.

Lastly I am thankful for the fact that I can have a version of two that I may use to read God’s will for me (so many in history could not make that statement, and even today, many cannot). So I am thankful to be able to hold salvation in my own hands, and to be able to freely study and ponder the myriad riches of the Word of God. I am thankful for a country that still allows me to read and openly worship and to teach and pray. May it be so everywhere, and continue.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone. Take the time to count those many blessings you enjoy: “name them one by one.”