While many religious people believe the Bible to be important, and they want to believe that they are following the Bible, very few people actually cite biblical texts in defense of their positions and practices. Too many people simply assume that their religious teachings and traditions are correct. This is dangerous, for Jesus said that the use of human traditions and doctrines renders one’s worship “vain” (Matthew 15:8, 9).

There is way whereby we can know that our beliefs, doctrines and practices are pleasing to God: Jesus demonstrated this good and safe way every time He said, “It is written…” Jesus began and ended His ministry with these words. At the beginning of His ministry, in responding to Satan’s efforts to entice Him, Jesus prefaced each rebuttal with the words, “It is written…” (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10). At the end of His ministry, in explaining to His apostles His fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, Jesus said, “Thus it is written…” (Luke 24:46). To Jesus, the willingness of one to believe what was spoken and written by the prophets constituted “belief” (Luke 24:25). The things that were written in the Scriptures were the grounds of confident faith.

Herein lies the weakness and fallacy of so many of today’s religions. “Faith” is “strong belief,” and the so-called “faith” of many “religious” people is actually no faith at all. True Bible faith is founded upon Scripture – Paul said, “So then, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17). It is therefore not “faith” when people believe, teach and practice things that are not ordered and authorized by Scripture.

Jesus also admonished people to “read” the things that were written (in Scripture), and He rebuked people for failing to do so. In response to the Pharisees’ question about divorce, Jesus immediately responded, “Have you not read…?” (Matthew 19:4). He asked, “Have you never read…?,” and “Did you never read…?” (Matthew 21:16, 42). In answering the Sadducees’ question about the resurrection, Jesus asked, “Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God…?” (Matthew 22:31).

Restoration preachers of yesteryears rightly hammered into their hearers the words and sentiments of Peter in 1 Peter 4:11: “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God…” But Peter was merely following the model of His Master, for Jesus laid heavy emphasis upon a “thus saith the Lord.” In like manner, when explaining the nature of Abraham’s faith Paul asked, “And what saith the Scripture?” (Romans 4:3). We need to be asking this question today! Yes, it may result in some awkward moments in some of today’s churches, but religious people must insist that scriptural authority be produced for what their churches believe, teach and practice. When church leaders and representatives fail or refuse to provide scriptural authority in these areas, such churches should not be supported or attended. Refusal to “abide in the doctrine of Christ” will result in the loss of fellowship with God (2 John 9). It is a serious and important matter.

This lesson was presented on the radio on January 29, 2012.

Bible Economics

To listen, simply click on the link and the file should start playing automatically. To download the file to your computer, right-click (PC) or control-click (Mac) and select the option to save the file.

We have known for years that President Obama is pro-abortion. [And yes, the misnomer "pro-choice" does actually mean "pro-abortion," for the "right" that pro-choicers want women to have is the "right" to kill their unborn babies!] However, we have not previously seen Mr. Obama speak as glibly of abortion as he did this week.

In his January 23rd speech commemorating and celebrating the passage of the 39 year old Roe V. Wade abortion ruling, Mr. Obama said the following:

“And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our actions to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

In other words, Mr. Obama wants “our daughters” to be able to kill their unborn sons or daughters in order to provide them with the same rights as “our sons.” Though I am fairly sure that the president did not consider the potential implications of his statement with respect to the “rights” of sons, he nonetheless implies that the inability to get pregnant provides males with greater “rights, freedoms and opportunities” than females. Wow. What a cynical view of pregnancy. God calls childbearing a blessing (Ps. 127:5), but to Mr. Obama it is a curse – a hindrance to basic freedoms!

As usual, Mr. Obama’s default position is government intervention, rather than personal responsibility. He would rather have taxpayers fund “Planned Parenthood” (another misnomer) to abort babies, than to have individuals behave responsibly. If “daughters” wish to avoid the “liberty-crushing” scourge of pregnancy, then let them avoid premarital sex! And if these “daughters” intend to disregard God’s moral standard by practicing premarital sex, then let them at least use birth-control. Abortion does not have to be the answer, though every humanist sees it as such.

If “rights, freedoms and opportunities” are extended to our daughters by the termination of unwanted unborn life, then what about the “rights, freedoms and opportunities” of daughters who do give birth, but whose born children are also unwanted? The purely secularistic argument that people make for abortion would also allow “our daughters” to kill those children as well! Thankfully, not many people are following the logical consequence of their argument, or we would see full-blown infanticide practiced in our country today! The Bible classifies unborn babies as human beings with distinct personalities and identities (Genesis 25:22, 23; Jeremiah 1:5; Psalm 139:13-16).

The debate over whether or not an unborn human constitutes “human life” is a foolish one: The unborn baby certainly isn’t bovine, feline or canine! If so, it would be a cow, cat or dog. It is in fact a human – a fact that cannot be genetically, medically or scientifically denied. Furthermore it is definitely a life, for if it were not alive then there would be no debate over the right of one to “terminate” its life. How can you “terminate” what has already been terminated? Let us stand together to condemn the godless practice of abortion.

Christopher Hitchens died December 15, 2011 at the age of 62. He reportedly died from complications from esophageal cancer.

Hitchens was only one of an estimated 146,000 people who die every day, which might lead some to wonder why I would devote an article to this one man. This is a fair question, particularly considering that so many others have already commented upon his life and legacy. His death has been widely reported by media outlets, and TV and web videos of his various interviews are now being emphasized. His insights, speech and writing skills are being extolled by many. What more can be added?

The death of Christopher Hitchens is particularly interesting to me for more significant reasons: Hitchens was a proud and avowed atheist, and an outspoken critic of religious faith. His books, writings and commentary will have a godless and potentially damning influence upon people for generations. His writings provide people with excuses for rejecting belief in God and the Bible, and they provide comfort to believers who are contemplating turning from their belief to unbelief. I cannot join my voice with the many who are offering high praise and commendation of Mr. Hitchens’ life and accomplishments.

In his 2007 book, “God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything,” Hitchens offered what he called “four irreducible objections to religious faith.” Some of these so-called “objections” contain logical fallacies. Others are based, not upon biblical prescriptions for religious faith, but upon unbiblical and false religious practices. This same mistake was repeatedly made by Mohammed (or whoever authored the Quran). His objections to “Christianity” were based upon apostate movements and unscriptural practices, rather than upon New Testament patterned religion. Some of Hitchens‘ objections are constructed, not from true religion, but from false religions that do not follow true “religious faith.” True “faith” comes from “hearing the word of God” (Romans 10:17), and that faith is a way of living that reflects the principles of the gospel (Romans 1:16-17). I will not judge Mr. Hitchens‘ motives, but I can say that some of his conclusions and “objections” were based upon contrived and false religious beliefs and practices. His conclusions and logic are therefore flawed.

Mr. Hitchens’ first irreducible objection to religious faith is: “that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos…” Like other faith-deniers, Hitchens had faith, but his faith was in science, not in God or His word. He wrote, “Literature, not scripture, sustains the mind and – since there is no other metaphor – also the soul.” This statement revealed Hitchens’ strong bias against the Scriptures: Even one who denies the divine authorship of the Scriptures should at least be willing to classify “Scripture” as “literature.” The Bible comes from some of the best attested manuscripts of antiquity. An honest man, even if an atheist, should be willing to admit that the Bible is at least as historically credible as other “literature.” To deny the Bible at least this status is dishonorable.

Hitchens asserts that religious faith “wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos.” This first objection is not so “irreducible” after all, for what proven representation of origins does religious faith misrepresent? Is it the representation that life and the universe were blown into existence by the explosion of a super-hot, super-dense atom? That lightning struck a mud puddle, produced life from non-life and set in motion a process of evolutionary change that produced men from monkeys? Or that extraterrestrials planted life on earth during one of their ancient visits to the planet? Given the absence of empirical evidence for any of these conjectures, upon what basis did Hitchens base his assertion? Was it upon his own personal faith in his preferred theory of origins? If so, don’t I and others have as much of a right as Mr. Hitchens to propose our own “irreducible” with regard to origins? Hitchens’ objection is based upon his own conjecture, not upon any empirical evidence. If Hitchens can affirm an unobservable, unrepeatable non-biblical account of origins, why can’t I equally affirm an unobservable, unrepeatable biblical account of origins? Upon the basis of what empirical evidence can one affirm that Hitchens’ claim is right and mine is wrong? How is his claim any more credible than mine?

Hitchens boldly proclaimed that religious faith “wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos.” With equal confidence I can proclaim that Christopher Hitchens’ scientific faithwholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos!

Mr. Hitchens’ second irreducible objection to religious faith is: “that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism.” “Servility” is an excessive desire to serve or to please others. Mr. Hitchens cites this as a weakness of Christianity, implying that it is a bad thing. What is so weak or bad about people helping other people? Paul taught, “So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Galatians 6:10). How has “well-doing” for others ever hurt anyone or injured society at all? It is said that Jesus “went about doing good” (Acts 10:38). What harm can possibly come from one going about doing good? Why is this objectionable, even to an atheist?

Mr. Hitchens criticized the “servility” generated by religious faith, but failed to criticize the servility that is forced upon people in the absence of religious faith. Communist atheists have forced millions of people into abject servitude. Once utterly impoverished, people lack any ability to protect themselves and they become slaves to their leaders. The regimes of Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler are prime examples of this scenario being played out. Such regimes caused the deaths of tens of millions of such helpless people. I will not charge all atheists with being ruthless, immoral and amoral. However, the rejection of God and biblical morality does make it easier for one to mistreat others. When combined with evolution, atheism becomes extremely dangerous. The doctrine of the survival of the fittest allows the strong to unreservedly exploit and victimize the weak and vulnerable to advance their own purposes. Conversely, the believer’s faith causes him to conduct himself towards others upon the basis of his God-consciousness (1 Peter 2:19). His belief in an omniscient, omnipotent and judicious God compels him to regulate his behavior towards others. The unbeliever has no God-consciousness, so his motives are based exclusively upon human considerations.

Fortunately, some atheists do have a sense of concern for their fellow man, which keeps them from acting on a purely selfish and evolutionary principle. For others, atheism is freedom from moral restraint and freedom to do to others whatever serves their own personal and selfish desires. Hitchens wrote of himself and other atheists, “We do not believe in heaven or hell, yet no statistic will ever find that without these blandishments and threats we commit more crimes of greed and violence than the faithful.” As I have demonstrated, history has proven Mr. Hitchens to be quite wrong in his assertion. There is also a logical fallacy to consider:

People like Christopher Hitchens have spent their lives trying to convince other people that there is no God and that the Bible is purely mythological. Ironically, if they were to be successful in turning all humans against religious faith, the earth would become an exceedingly dangerous place. There would be no real restraints against full-blown animalism, for one man’s morals would be no better than those of another. By winning the argument, the atheist forfeits is life and property to his first true convert who happens to be stronger and smarter than himself. True atheism leads not to social bliss but to animalism and pandemonium. “The fool has said in his heart ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1).

But what about “solipsism?” Hitchens claimed that religious faith combined the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism. “Solipsism” is the theory that the self is all that can be known to exist. Solipsists tend to deny the reality of everything but oneself and one’s own mind. I suspect that Mr. Hitchens is using certain elements and implications of Hinduism as the basis of his charge, in which case he horribly misrepresents Bible believers. While Bible believers believe that some things are perishable, while others are imperishable (1 Corinthians 15:42), they do affirm that the perishable things are real. According to the Bible, the cosmos is quite real. Paul spoke of the sun, moon and stars as being real objects, each having its own distinct purpose and “glory” (v. 41). The Bible teaches that the universe and its contents are real and that their existence is independent of the human mind. So, contrary to the allegations of Mr. Hitchens, genuine Bible believers are not solipsists. Their perception of reality is, in fact, quite clear. Their understanding of the Scriptures actually provides them with a uniquely accurate understanding of reality.

Mr. Hitchens’ third irreducible objection to religious faith is: “that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression.” In order for him to make this claim, Hitchens had to cite conditions in Pakistan and other Islamic and Sharia governed states. While it was right for him to condemn the treatment of women in Islamic cultures, it was wrong for him to charge all religions with causing “dangerous sexual repression.” It is dishonest to condemn one group of religious people for the false standards and evil practices of another group. As I stated earlier, the atheism of some people has resulted in the slaughter and starvation of millions of people over the past century. Would it then be accurate for me to say that since Christopher Hitchens was an avowed atheist that he was then personally responsible for the deaths of those millions of people? Of course not. And neither should he have charged all religionists with repressing women. The New Testament teaches that men are to “love, nourish and cherish” their wives (Ephesians 5:28, 29). The man is to “show honor to his wife as the weaker vessel” (1 Peter 3:7). Women are said to be equal to men with respect to spirituality and salvation (Galatians 3:28). These Bible passages and many others plainly distinguish the religion of Christ from other religions with respect to the treatment of women. Mr. Hitchens should have been more discerning in his representation of “religious faith.” Not all so-called “faiths” are based upon the word of God.

Mr. Hitchens’ fourth irreducible objection to religious faith is: “that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking.” Why is it “wish-thinking” for Christians to believe as they do regarding origins and afterlife, but not “wish-thinking” for atheists and evolutionists to believe in a “big bang” and spontaneous generation? In the absence of any empirical evidence the atheist believes that the entire universe exploded itself into existence. He believes that order was created from disorder. In the face of much empirical evidence that explosions destroy, and never construct things, the atheist yet believes that an explosion created what he admits being an extremely complex universe. Isn’t this “wish-thinking” on the part of the atheist? In the face of much empirical evidence that life produces life, the atheist believes in spontaneous generation. Is this not “wish-thinking” on the part of the atheist? Sure it is. And if the universe came into existence by the explosion of a super-hot super-dense atom, then who or what made that atom? What forces or conditions made it explode? What caused the forces or conditions that made it explode? (and we could keep going and going on this point…). Truly, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1).

Conclusion

Sadly, to my knowledge Christopher Hitchens never changed his mind about “religious faith.” I have no authority to pronounce his personal fate, but the Bible teaches that all unbelievers will be cast into eternal punishment (Rev. 21:8). We cannot change Mr.Hitchens’ fate, but we can avoid being captured by his crafty arguments. Let us regularly contemplate the revelations of God – both in nature and in Scripture (Psalm 19).

Tim Haile

This lesson was presented on the radio on December 25, 2011.

The Religious Observance of Christmas

To listen, simply click on the link and the file should start playing automatically. To download the file to your computer, right-click (PC) or control-click (Mac) and select the option to save the file.

Religious sentiment tends to increase during Christmas and Easter. And even though we admit that a small amount of attention to Bible topics is better than none at all, we do not want people to be deceived into thinking that this seasonal “religion” is sufficient for their souls. There is more to serving God than just attending a “Christmas” or “Easter” church service once a year.

While there is nothing wrong with people celebrating national holidays by having special family visits and exchanging gifts, the Bible nowhere instructs churches or individuals to establish special religious holy days. Doing so is a violation of Bible authority, for one “adds to” the Scriptures by adding such special services. It is sinful to “add to” the Scriptures (Revelation 22:18). One cannot “speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11) and claim that churches are to celebrate the birth of Christ, either upon December 25th or any other day of the year! Christ’s gospel contains no instructions authorizing or requiring such special services or assemblies. Churches act presumptuously when they arbitrarily assign a special religious significance to a certain day of the year. Sins of “presumption” are nonetheless sins, and rather than rush into them we should ask God to keep us “back” from them (Psalm 19:14)!

There is, however, a “day” of significance to God: The New Testament makes every Sunday equally significant. New Testament Christians assembled upon the first day of every week to give (1 Cor. 16:2), to remember the Lord’s death through the observance of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:23-26), and to pray, sing and study (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 14:26-33). No particular Sunday service was any more or less important than others, for every Sunday has been divinely prescribed as our day of worship. The notion that certain religious services are more spiritual than others is a mere fiction.

This raises an important question: Why do some people commemorate events that God has not told us to commemorate, but refuse to commemorate an event that God has told us to commemorate? The Bible does record the birth (Matt. 1:18-2:12; Luke 2:1-21) and the resurrection of Christ (Matt. 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20), and these are important gospel facts that we must believe. However, the Bible nowhere authorizes the establishment of certain holy days or procedures for their commemoration. Conversely, the Bible quite plainly instructs us to commemorate the Lord’s death (by the Lord’s Supper, Matt. 26:26-29; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:23-33), stating the day of the week on which this is to be done, and even implying the frequency of observance (every week has a “first day” – Acts 20:7). With the approval of an inspired apostle, the disciples at Troas assembled “upon the first day of the week” to observe this memorial. Inasmuch as every week has a “first day,” we are to observe the Lord’s Supper upon the first day of every week. Let us commemorate what God has told us to commemorate, not what we arbitrarily decide to commemorate. By doing as God instructs, we will worship God weekly, not just annually or biannually, and not by mere contrivance.

Tim Haile

I recently read an online article on child discipline in which the author repeatedly used the word “smacking” in place of “spanking.” The article even contained a poll that asked the question, “Have you ever smacked your children?” The term “smacking” is a loaded and prejudicial term and I strongly suspect that the author knows this. The dictionary defines “smack” as a “sharp slap, or blow.” The secondary dictionary entry is “the loud sharp sound made by such a blow.” Thus the word “smack” has a far more negative connotation than does the word “spank.”

The writer alleged that “smacking” children punishes the parents more than the children. She repeated the feeble and failed arguments of the past that “smacking” children makes children “aggressive” and is “counter-productive” to their development. She said that “smacking” children promotes aggressive behavior, and causes them to “smack” others when they are upset with them. Before condemning corporal punishment, perhaps the anti-”smacking” crowd should consider the dangerous degree of ethical and moral breakdown that exists among many of today’s youths. It is, in fact, the lack of substantive forms of discipline that has created the near anarchic conditions that exist in our society today.

Bible believers have a higher and more reliable standard than the fluctuating findings of sociologists. Parents are to bring up their children “in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). This discipline may take various forms, but it should not exclude spanking. Solomon said, “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of chastisement shall drive it far from him” (Prov. 22:15). Some people shy away from Old Testament passages that speak of the use of a “rod” in disciplining children, for they immediately think of child abuse. No such conclusion can be drawn, for God nowhere sanctions child abuse. While the Hebrew word for “rod” (shebet) can refer to a “staff” or “scepter,” it can also mean “stick” or limb. Solomon obviously did not mean “club” by this word, for he also said, “Do not withhold discipline from a child; for if you punish him with a rod he shall not die. Punish him with a rod and save his soul from death” (Prov. 23:13, 14). Conscientious parents will take great care to avoid injuring their children when administering discipline. Child discipline can be properly administered only by those who are themselves disciplined. Parents who physically abuse their children should themselves be punished (Exodus 21:23-25), but the general rule and practice of spanking should not be banished just because some parents are careless and cruel.

The Parkway Church of Christ recently received a letter from the elders of the University Heights Church of Christ in Bowling Green, in which they announced the beginning of a “Spanish speaking ministry here in Bowling Green.” The letter stated that a Nicaraguan preacher had been chosen for the work, and the “Elders, Deacons and interested members” of various area churches were invited to meet this preacher at a specified time and place. The letter further stated, “We, the Elders of University Heights have agreed to take on the oversight of this ministry.”

While there is nothing wrong with a local church expanding its teaching program to include Spanish-speakers, there is something wrong with the elders of one church taking oversight of a “ministry” that is supported by other churches. There is also something wrong with churches funding “ministries.” Local churches are scripturally authorized to directly support individual preachers for their work of gospel preaching (2 Corinthians 11:8; Philippians 4:14-18; 2:25-30; 1 Corinthians 9:1-14). However, churches are not authorized to fund preacher “ministries.” The Bible teaches that the sound preacher is a “laborer,” and as such he is “worthy of his hire” (Luke 10:7; 1 Timothy 5:18), but there is a difference between a “minister” and “ministry.” A preacher is a minister (servant, see 1 Cor. 3:5). Technically, a “ministry” is a work. Many ministries are organizations. Others are conglomerates of various services and activities that are provided by the minister, but funded by churches and individuals.

Local church elders are authorized to oversee the members, monies, works and affairs of the flock that is “among them.” Paul told the Ephesian elders, “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all of the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). Peter told elders, “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof…” (1 Peter 5:2). These verses clearly limit the scope of the elders’ oversight to the local church of which they are members. They have no right to oversee programs and activities beyond the scope and ability of their local church to provide or perform. The elders of one church have no right to supervise the use of the monies and resources of another church or churches. If the University Heights church wishes to hire a Spanish-speaking preacher, they are certainly authorized to do so. However, they have no authority to “take the oversight” of a multi-church “ministry.”

The Bible attributes salvation to a great many things. This fact goes unnoticed by many people, because they overly rely on their church and their preacher for their Bible knowledge. Sadly, very few churches are careful to speak all of the council of God on very many subjects at all (Acts 20:26-27). They teach their members only the parts and portions of the Bible that they want them to know. This shields their members from Bible teaching on most subjects. If these members don’t do their own personal Bible study, or seek information from others elsewhere who are willing to teach them in these areas, sadly, they will remain ignorant of various aspects of basic Bible truths.

Some people are confused by the notion that salvation is attributed to several different things. They see it as a contradiction. Of course, the Bible does not contradict itself: “The Scripture cannot be broken” (Jn. 10:35). There is a simple solution to what some see as multiple contradictions. We are to conclude simply that salvation involves and requires several things, and each thing is vitally important. All of the ingredients of salvation must be combined in order for salvation to be produced. Each component should be viewed as one thing that must be combined with the others.

Salvation Is Attributed To:

THE GOSPEL (Rom. 1:16; Jas. 1:21; Acts 11:14; Eph. 1:13; 1 Cor. 1:21; 15:1-2; Ps. 19:7) – The gospel is God’s power to save the believer. No one can be saved apart from his hearing, believing and obeying the gospel. “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17).

FAITH (Acts 10:43; 16:31; John 3:16; 8:24; Mark 16:16; Hebrews 11:6; Rom. 3:28; 5:1) – Faith is persuasion and strong belief. It is the foundation upon which we act in service to God.

REPENTANCE (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 11:18; 17:30-31; 2 Cor. 7:10; Luke 13:3,5) – Repentance means to turn, or change. In reference to salvation, repentance is a change of mind accompanied by a change in action.

CONFESSION (Romans 10:9-10; Jn. 12:42-43) – This is a verbal acknowledgement of the Son-ship and deity of Jesus Christ.

BAPTISM (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 8:12, 36-38; 9:18; 10:47,48; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 22:16; Rom. 6:3,4; 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:26,27; Col. 2:11,12; 1 Pet. 3:21) – Baptism is immersion in water for the remission of sins.

FAITHFULNESS (Matthew 10:22; 24:13; Rev. 2:10; Col. 1:21-23; 2 Tim. 4:7; Heb. 3:6,14)

OBEDIENCE (Matt. 7:21; Mk. 3:35; Lk. 6:46; John 14:15; 15:13; Heb. 5:9; 1 Pet. 1:22; 4:17; Rom. 6:17-18; Acts 5:32; Phil. 2:12; 2 Thess. 1:8)

WORKS (James 2:24)

CALLING ON THE NAME OF THE LORD (Acts 2:21; Romans 10:13; see Acts 22:16)

THE PREACHING OF THE CROSS (1 Cor. 1:18, 21)

THE LOVE OF THE TRUTH (2 Thessalonians 2:10) – The apostle plainly states that those who do not have a love for the truth will receive a strong delusion, believe a lie, and be damned.

HOPE (Romans 8:24) – “We are saved by hope…” But, obviously not hope alone! Not without faith, repentance, confession, obedience, and the other things to which salvation is attributed in the Bible.

HUMILITY (Luke 18:11-14; 1 Pet. 5:5-6) – It was the humble publican that went down to his house justified. God resists the proud, but He gives grace to the humble.

GOD Himself (2 Timothy 1:9) – (God) has “saved us and called us with a holy calling.”

GOD’S GRACE (Acts 15:11; Eph. 2:5,8; Tit. 2:11; 3:7; Rom. 3:24) – We are indeed saved by grace, but that grace does not exclude every other component of salvation.

GOD’S MERCY (Titus 3:5; Eph. 2:4) – “…but according to His mercy He saved us…”

GOD’S LOVE (1 John 4:8-10; John 3:16) – Christ’s coming to the earth, and His work of redemption, were the result of divine love. We are saved on the basis of God’s love, However, God’s love does not nullify human action and responsibility.

GOD’S GOODNESS (Romans 2:4) – God’s goodness is one of the things that leads us to repentance.

CHRIST Himself (Luke 19:10; Galatians 2:17) – “The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

CHRIST’S BLOOD (Romans 5:9)

CHRIST’S DEATH (Romans 5:10)

CHRIST’S LIFE (Romans 5:10) – We are no more saved by Christ’s “life” alone, than we are by Christ’s “death” alone. We are saved by both the life and death of Christ!

CHRIST’S FREE GIFT (Romans 5:15-18) – Death had passed upon all, because all had sinned (Rom. 5:12). Once sin is committed, man has no innate powers by which he can cleanse himself of his sin. This text shows that Jesus did all of the things that were necessary to enable man to deal with his own sins. As is taught in the very next chapter, man is still responsible for his part. He must meet the conditions of grace.

THE HOLY SPIRIT (1 Corinthians 6:11) – The Holy Spirit is involved in our sanctification and justification. His word, the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:17), guides us away from the path of sin and darkness. One is God’s child insofar as he is willing to be led by the Spirit, and to conform his own spirit to the image of Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:14,16).

WE SAVE OURSELVES (Acts 2:40; Phil. 2:12) – Some people have been so indoctrinated with Calvinistic concepts of salvation, that they are shocked by this last point. They have been led to believe that there is absolutely no sense in which we “save” ourselves. I urge the reader to read the two references that I cited. They clearly teach that we are responsible for our own salvation. There is a sense in which we do save ourselves! The context of these passages demonstrates in what sense this is: we must act upon the divine instructions given to us in God’s “word of life” (Phil. 2:16). We must obey God.

Conclusion

We are not saved “by faith alone,” as some have been misled to believe. We are saved by everything by which God says we are saved. By attaching the word “alone” to any one of the items to which salvation is attributed, one excludes every other item! Faith “alone” excludes repentance, confession, baptism, hope, love, the gospel, and everything else we have discussed in this article. Let us not take from God’s word (Deut. 12:32).

Tim Haile

In our adult Bible class, we spend time studying the different books of the Bible. We are currently studying the book of 1 Corinthians. This page contains the questions used in class. These questions are simply used as an aid to study. More chapters will be posted as they are available.

If you are able to join us, we meet for Bible study every Sunday morning at 9:00am and Wednesday evening at 7:00pm.

[All of the files are in PDF format unless otherwise indicated.]

1 Corinthians: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16