

Copyright 2011 Raymond McAlister

Permission is given to copy or print this book in part or in whole with the following stipulations: (1) No changes are to be made in the text. (2) The book is not to be sold for profit. (3) The name of the author and this copyright notice is to appear in the work.

Smashwords Edition

# Introduction

This little book is a compilation of some of my short articles that appeared in the _Baptist Anchor_ over a period of ten years. I thought about calling this book "Potpourri" because the subjects are so disconnected and varied. The only common thread that binds them together is the fact that they are all religious in nature. It is my desire that these articles might instruct, inspire and challenge those who read them. My prayer is that God may somehow be glorified and His Word be honored through these.

The opinions I have expressed herein are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of any other person or organization.

Raymond McAlister

Proverbs 3:5-6

March 2011

This small volume is dedicated to my beloved wife, Barbara, without whose encouragement and help this work would have never been completed. And, this work is offered to the glory of God and the Lord Jesus Christ, the "Living Word," who cannot be known apart from His "Written Word," the Bible.

# Table of Contents

1. Affairs

2. The Anointed Cherub

3. Atheists

4. Baptist Heritage

5. The Call to Preach

6. Calvinism

7. Church Music

8. Closed Communion

9. Cremation

10. Flagellation

11. Government

12. Grieving

13. Heaven

14. The Intellectuals

15. King James Version

16. Local Church

17. Misconceptions

18. Mormonism

19. Once Saved

20. One Wife

21. Protestant or Not?

22. Sabbath Day

23. Salvation

24. Scientology

25. Suicide

26. Tongues

27. Tribulation

28. What Do You Say?

29. Women Preachers

30. Wonderfully Made

About the Author

# 1. Affairs

All of us have known pastors who have become involved with another woman and as a result destroyed their ministry, their family and sometimes their church. Another problem is, not only did it affect his ministry; it affected the ministry of pastors and churches in general.

What I am about to write may not be scientifically correct but are my personal opinions based on what I have read, heard, observed and experienced during my 50 years of ministry.

To me there seems to be two kinds of affairs. The first is based solely on pure, unadulterated lust. You might call it the "one night stand." There is no emotional attachment involved. There is no love involved. It is simply a sexual experience. This was the kind of affair King David had with Bathsheba. He saw her, she was beautiful, he lusted after her and he had sex with her, period. Had she not become pregnant, that would have been the end of the story.

All of us have seen women to whom we have been physically attracted. We may have even had some less than pure thoughts. However, in a little while the thoughts are gone and the attraction has passed. In my opinion, if a man is not able to control his sexual passions he should not be in the ministry.

This first type of affair is not the kind that most pastors become involved in. The large majority of pastors who have had affairs were not out looking for someone to have sex with and probably felt they would never have an affair. The second type is much more subtle than the first. It comes in small steps and sneaks up on you.

The first little step is the pastor being around the woman. A man will not be drawn into an affair with a woman he does not spend some time with. It is often unavoidable for a pastor not to be around some women. However, pastors have had affairs with secretaries, women they are counseling or others they have spent time alone with. Pastors should be careful about being alone with women. As Barney said, "Nip it in the bud!"

There is a mistaken idea that men only have affairs with women who are more attractive than their wives. From my observation men often have affairs with women who are not as good looking as their wives.

Step two is when emotional attachment begins. The man begins to think about the woman when he is not around her. He thinks how wonderful she is and thinks of all of her good qualities.

When you get ready to buy a new car, isn't it strange how many things you can find wrong with your old car? Your wife doesn't do things like Miss Wonderful. Your wife just doesn't understand you. You married the wrong woman. This is the one you should have married in the first place. Life would be so wonderful with her. Some even go so far as to actually believe it is God's will to be with this new woman!

At this step red flags should be jumping up all over the place! Danger warnings should be flashing in your brain. This is the time to ask, "What in the world am I doing?" This is the time to correct the situation. This is the place to admit to yourself and God that your thoughts are wrong. Jesus said, "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications . . ." (Mark 7:21).

If you find you cannot control your thoughts about a woman, you may find it necessary to separate yourself from her—even to the point of resigning your church and moving!

Up to this point there have been no outward signs of romance. The poor woman may not have any idea of your feelings for her. She may even laugh when she finds out. But then, she may have the same feelings or she may even be instigating the whole thing. That really does not matter because the responsibility is yours, not hers!

Thinking about her may go on for months or even years without going any further. But, the next step is to want to buy her a little something. It will probably be something small, something that wouldn't attract attention. When you give her a gift, even a little one, you have crossed a line that will be difficult to go back across. You have now gone from thinking to doing.

The next logical step is to touch her. I am not talking about touching inappropriately. Maybe her hair, or her hand, or her arm. You have now made physical contact. How wonderful it all seems, how right it feels.

From here you could almost chart the future. By now you have convinced yourself that you are madly in love with each other. You will hold her in your arms, you will kiss her lips and eventually you will have sex with her. It will probably be the most breath-taking, exhilarating, passionate sexual experience you have ever had. You never intended to wind up here, but here you are.

Now look at the mess you have gotten yourself into. You have a wife and kids who want and need you at home with them. But now you have another woman who wants you to divorce your wife, leave your kids and marry her. You find yourself in the most gut wrenching experience of your lifetime. You know you should be with your wife and kids, but you want to be with this "perfect" new woman. What are you going to do? You are going to lose either way you go. There is no easy way to get out of this mess you have made of your life. Someone is going to get hurt. There may not be an easy way, but there is a right way—God's way.

Some really dumb pastors have felt they could divorce their wives, marry this perfect woman and go right on with their ministry as if nothing had happened. That isn't going to happen. Your ministry is over! You had better go out and get an honest job.

I have some more sad news for you, as wonderful as you think life is going to be with Miss Wonderful, it won't be. Once the glitter has worn off, you will be back in the same place you were before, except she will never trust you and you will never trust her.

A man who had just remarried was asked how things were. The man replied, "Wonderful." A couple of years later the man was asked the same question. This time the he replied, "Same hell, different devil."

There is an old true saying, "Remember, the grass may look greener on the other side of the fence, but it has to be mowed too."

If you allow yourself to get this deep into the relationship, what should you do? You already know that the right thing is to say "goodbye" to the new woman and go back to your wife and children. In my opinion you should resign your church, move and rebuild your family relationships. This experience can be a stepping-stone to an even better marriage than you had before. Your ministry may have been damaged but it can be salvaged.

But, the best thing is to not let it get this far. As soon as you realize that you are becoming emotionally involved with a woman, run to God, confess it to Him and get busy building a better relationship with your wife.

If you are a preacher you may be thinking "I would never do anything like that." If that is what you think, you're an idiot and will probably be one of the first ones to get involved with someone else. "Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall" (1 Corinthians 10:12).

Be careful because what you do reflects on God, on your family, on your church and on me.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 2. The Anointed Cherub

The instructors here at Emmaus Baptist College all sign our doctrinal statement. In the section that deals with Satan being a fallen angel, Dr. Michael Seals, our proficient language instructor, marked out the word angel and had written cherub above it before he signed it. When I approached him later and asked why he had done this, he replied that the Bible never calls Satan an "angel" but a "cherub." I just hate it when people make me think. Just when you think you have something all figured out, someone has to come along and mess it all up.

When I did a little research on the subject, sure enough, the only time it comes close to calling Satan an angel is in 2 Corinthians 11:14. It says, ". . .Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." That does not say that Satan is an angel but that he sometimes appears to be one. However, he is clearly called a cherub.

Just what is a cherub anyway? Most commentaries will say that cherubim and seraphim are different orders of angels. Dr. Seals disagrees. He believes that angels are one thing, cherubim (plural of cherub) are another and seraphim are another. The more I study the subject the more I am inclined to agree with him.

The word angel means "messenger" or "one that is sent." That is, they go and do whatever God sends them to do. It could be to deliver a message, as the angel Gabriel did, or it could be to destroy, as the angel did in 1 Chronicles 21. Angels do not seem to have physical bodies but in the Bible they sometime appeared in the form of men. The pre-incarnate Jesus was called an angel when he appeared to people. These appearances of Jesus in the Old Testament are called "theophanys." Michael is called the archangel (not "an" archangel) in Jude verse 9. Archangel means the head or chief angel and as far as I can tell, there is only one chief angel.

Cherub or cherubim is used 91 times in the Old Testament. The exact meaning of the word is uncertain. In Ezekiel 28:14 it is said of Satan, "Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so . . ." What does it mean that God has set Satan as the "anointed cherub that covereth"? In the Old Testament men were anointed to set them in their office. (Anoint just means to pour oil on someone.) For example, Aaron was anointed by Moses to make him the high priest. David was anointed by Samuel to make him king. The term Christ means "the anointed one" and signifies that Jesus had been set in his office as Redeemer.

So, God, by anointing Satan, placed him in some special position. The question is, what position? There is a strong clue in the statement, "anointed cherub that covereth."

The Jews must have had some idea of what a cherub looked like because God commanded Moses to make two golden cherubim and place them on the ends of the Mercy Seat that was the lid of the Ark of the Covenant that was placed in the Holy of Holies of the Tabernacle. The wings of the cherubim touched in the middle and were said to "cover" the Mercy Seat (Exodus 25:19-20). The Hebrew word translated cover used here in Exodus is the same root word that is used in Ezekiel 28:14 that says of Satan, "Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth . . ."

The tabernacle served as an example or shadow or model of things in heaven (Hebrews 8:5). The Holy of Holies is a picture of heaven and the Mercy Seat is a picture of the very throne of God. From this we can easily deduce that there are two cherubim in heaven, one on each side of God, covering Him with their wings. I think it is safe to say that Satan, before his fall, was anointed to fill one of those positions. Imagine being selected to serve right next to God. No wonder he was lifted up with pride.

While we are on the subject of Satan, let me point out a few things about him. First, he is not some ugly hideous creature with horns, cloven hooves and a tail. He is described as being beautiful in Ezekiel 28:12.

Second, Satan was thrown out of heaven. Jesus said, "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven" (Luke 10:18). Because of his pride and his desire to set himself up as God's equal, he was cast out of heaven and became God's enemy.

Third, Satan has angels (Matthew 25:41 and Revelation 12:9). We assume that these angels are what we call demons that Jesus encountered during his ministry. They knew Jesus and knew Who He was. These angels do Satan's bidding as God's angels do His.

Fourth, Satan is not in hell and is not the king or ruler of hell. We have heard the expression, "all the demons of hell." Well, there are not any demons in hell either. If Satan and his demons were in hell they would not be bothering us so much. The Lake of Fire will be their final home (Matthew 25:41) but they are not there yet.

Fifth, Satan is the god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4). The authority and glory of the world belong to Satan and he can give it to whomsoever he wills (Luke 4:5-6). It is obvious that Satan is a very powerful being, even being able to take the Word out of a lost person's heart (Luke 8:12).

Sixth, Satan's job is to hinder people from being saved. But, if they are saved his job is to keep them from serving the Lord (1 Peter 5:8). He is good at what he does.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 3. Atheists

I heard an atheist on the radio and his closing statement was, "What the world needs is more atheists." (Lest I be misunderstood, let me state clearly that I believe any man has the right to be an atheist if he so chooses.) I mulled his statement over in my mind for quite a while and here are some of my thoughts.

I have read of many Christians, past and present, whose lives have been changed for the better. I have personally known or heard testimonies of many who testify that Jesus Christ has brought about dramatic changes in their lives. I enjoy listening to a radio program called "Unshackled," produced by Pacific Garden Mission in Chicago. Thousands of these programs have been produced that dramatize the life of a person that has been changed through faith in Jesus Christ. But, I don't recall ever reading or hearing one person who said atheism had changed his life for the better.

I have personally watched Christians meet death without fear and with eager anticipation of greater things to come. On the other hand, when I was a young man there was a good man in our neighborhood who was a self-avowed atheist. He would often joke about Jonah swallowing the whale. It was said that when he died he had to be held on the bed.

I have seen Catholic hospitals, Methodist hospitals, Baptist hospitals, Seventh Day Adventist hospitals, and Jewish hospitals, but I have never seen even one atheist hospital.

There are scores of "Christian" agencies that bring help to the hurting, whether it is feeding the homeless, running orphanages, visiting jails or bringing disaster relief. I am not aware of a single atheist agency whose purpose is to help the hurting.

In his book, In the Presence of Mine Enemies, Howard Rutledge, a Navy pilot, tells of spending seven years as a POW in North Vietnam. In this touching book he describes the torture he received and the loneliness he endured from years in solitary confinement. He, and his fellow prisoners, found strength and comfort in their faith in Christ and in the Bible verses and hymns they could remember. I don't recall hearing of a prisoner of war receiving strength and comfort from his atheism.

When I think of atheism I automatically think of some atheist professor in a public university who has a personal agenda to destroy the faith of any Christian who might have the unfortunate experience of being in his class. That seems to be their strong suit, spreading their atheism to young impressionable minds. Surely then atheism must have made a huge contribution in the area of establishing institutions of higher learning.

Eight of the nine colleges founded in America before the War of Independence in 1776 were begun for the furtherance of Christian education.

Harvard, the oldest university in America, was founded in 1636 by Puritans.

The College of William and Mary was founded in 1693 by Anglicans.

Yale was founded in 1701 by Congregationalists.

Princeton University (the College of New Jersey) was founded in 1747 by Presbyterians.

Columbia University (King's College) was founded in 1754 by Anglicans.

Brown University (Rhode Island College) was founded in 1764 by Baptists.

Rutgers (Queen's College) was established in 1766 by Dutch Reformed.

Dartmouth College was founded in 1769 by Congregationalists. _1_

I searched the internet and found at least 220 Christian colleges and universities in the United States. Ever hear of an atheist university? I doubt it, because atheists usually do their teaching in state universities. Public colleges and universities are supported by the taxes paid by the general public, yet atheists have free reign to teach whatever they like while Christians are often castigated and sometimes fired for teaching their convictions.

Atheists remind me of the European Cuckoo, a brood parasite. The cuckoo does not build its own nest but lays an egg in the nest of another bird. When the cuckoo egg hatches, the young cuckoo expels all of the other hatchlings and eggs from the nest, leaving the foster parents free to devote all of their time trying to keep up with the voracious appetite of a bird that usually grows much larger than the host adults long before it can care for itself. Atheists do not seem to be very good at starting things, they seem to be much better at taking over what someone else has begun.

How about great classical music? For example, George Frederick Handel's oratorio "Messiah," first performed 263 years ago. ("Oratorio means 'oratory by music.' Oratorios were originally designed to educate people in significant portions of the Bible. They date back to the time when Bibles were so expensive that few could afford them, and of the few who could, fewer still were sufficiently educated to be able to read them. To overcome the barriers of ignorance, or unavailability of the Scriptures, the great texts of the Bible were put to music, and men were taught to learn and sing them." _2_ ) Ever hear of atheism inspiring anything even close to Handel's "Messiah"?

Johann Sebestian Bach, considered by many people to have been the greatest composer in the history of Western music, composed "Christian" music. During one five year period of his life he wrote a cantata a week for his church! He died "in the sixty-fifth year of his life, yielding up his blessed soul to his Savior." Has atheism ever inspired such a man?

"Da Vinci's Last Supper has become one of the most widely appreciated masterpieces in the world. It began to acquire its unique reputation immediately after it was finished in 1498 and its prestige has never diminished. Despite the many changes in tastes, artistic styles, and rapid physical deterioration of the painting itself, the painting's status as an extraordinary creation has never been questioned nor doubted." _3_ Have you seen any great works of art lately that have been inspired by atheism?

How about Michelangelo's painting on the Sistine Chapel or his sculpture of David or his Pieta? Over sixty of Rembrandt's paintings were on biblical themes. Shakespeare quoted or alluded to hundreds of Scriptures in his plays. How about John Bunyan's classic Pilgrim's Progress? Where are the atheistic classic counterparts?

The United States was founded on a belief in God. The Soviet Union was founded on atheism. Did you notice any difference between the two?

I could go on but I have run out of space. I think you get the picture. Does the world need more atheists? I will answer with another question, "Why?"

__________________

_1_ United States History: Heritage of Freedom. Second Edition, (A Beka Books, Pensacola Christian College, 2002)

_2_ Mansfield, H.P.: from his booklet entitled "The Gospel in Song."

_3_ Bianco, Luigi, on website ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~lbianco/project/home.html.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 4. Baptist Heritage

In November of 2007 my sister-in-law, Bonita DePree, who lived in Indianapolis, went home to be with the Lord. Barbara went up to be with her almost a month before her death. I flew up for the funeral and her pastor, Marc Monte, and I were asked to conduct the funeral.

I had known Pastor Monte, who is pastor of the Faith Baptist Church in Avon, for a few years but was never able to get to know him. After the funeral we were able to have some good fellowship together. As we talked he recommended a book to me, _The Coming Destruction of the Baptist People_ by James R. Beller. When I got home I ordered a copy and read it.

Mr. Beller's thesis in the book is that our Baptist heritage is being systematically eroded and soon Baptist people will have no idea that Baptists are not Protestants. His idea of Baptist heritage is threefold, "ancient ancestry, revival heritage and American principles." Even now few people have any idea of the part Baptists played in the establishment of religious liberty in America.

Presbyterians know the names of John Calvin, John Knox, Jonathan Edwards, Gilbert Tennett and John Witherspoon. Methodists know the names of John and Charles Wesley, Sam Jones and Gipsy Smith. Fundamentalists know the names of Dwight Moody, J. Wilber Chapman and Billy Sunday. Why then do Baptists not know their ties to the Donatists, the Waldensians, the Paulicians, John Clarke, Obadiah Holmes, Shubal Stearns, John Leland, Isaac Backus and a host of others?

Beller makes the statement, "Until 1899 every Baptist historian in the world acknowledged the Baptists as ancient people tracing their principles back to Christ and His disciples." Then he lists the Baptist historians who do:

John Spittlehouse (1652)

Theilman J. Van Braught (1660)

Henry D'Avers (1670)

Thomas Crosby (1740)

Isaac Backus (1770)

David Benedict (1813)

Joseph Ivimey (1830)

G.H. Orchard (1830)

J.M. Cramp (1868)

William Cathcart (1887)

Thomas Armitage (1888)

J.M. Carroll (1901)

John Taylor Christian (1926)

## Reason One-Baptists

The first reason Beller gives for the demise of Baptist heritage is some Baptists, beginning with one William H. Whitsitt. Whitsitt was a professor and eventually president of the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. In 1896 he wrote an article about the Baptists for Johnson's Encyclopedia in which he said that the English Baptists did not begin to baptize by immersion until 1641, when a portion of the "Anabaptists" began immersing. This "Theory of 1641" set off a firestorm of opposition and Whitsitt was proven wrong many times over and was dismissed from Southern Baptist Seminary in 1898. However, historians A.H. Newman, W.W. Barnes, W.J. McGlothlin and Henry Vedder followed Whitsitt into the next generation. And, in the twentieth century Baptist historians Robert Baker, Leon McBeth, Walter Shurden, Robert G. Torbet, James Edward McGoldrick and others all marched lockstep with a man who was proven wrong in his own generation.

## Reason Two-Fundamentalism

The second reason Beller gives for the demise of Baptist heritage has been "Fundamentalism." It was an accidental blow but it happened. He points out that as Baptists, being both Fundamental and Baptist, we have been drawn into Fundamental heritage to the forsaking of Baptist heritage. For example, you have heard of the great revivals of Finney, Moody, Sam Jones and Billy Sunday. But, I doubt that you have heard of the great Baptist evangelists: Jeremiah Moore, Shubal Stearns, Daniel Marshall, Abraham Marshall, Samuel Harriss, John Waller, John Taylor and Jeremiah Taylor.

You probably did not know about Shubal Stearns, a converted New England Congregationalist who migrated to North Carolina. He began preaching to a congregation of 17 in central west North Carolina when revival broke out. He soon had 17 preachers whom he trained and sent into Virginia and South Carolina. Within one generation 1,000 churches were started and within two generations 5,000 churches were started. Many Baptist churches today are direct descendants from Stearns' revival.

Baptist people today have seldom heard of people like:

Roger Williams

John Clarke

Obadiah Holmes

Isaac Backkus

Elizabeth Backus

Samuel Stennett

Jeremiah Moore

Rachel Thurber Scammon

Shubal Stearns

Daniel and Martha Marshall

Abraham Marshall

William and Sara Murphy

Samuel Harriss

John Gano

John Leland

Adoniram Judson

John Taylor

Isaac McCoy

Jeremiah Vardeman

Hudson Taylor

Many Baptist preachers have attended Fundamentalist schools, like Moody and Bob Jones. These schools are not Baptist and graduates come away with the "Baptists are Protestants" philosophy. Fundamental heritage has overtaken our Baptist heritage.

## Reason Three-Christian Schooling

The third reason Beller gives for the demise of Baptist heritage has been our Christian School system. Christian schools have been training our children for several generations but few to none have taught or teach the part that Baptists played in the establishment of religious liberty in America. Our religious liberty certainly did not come from theologians like Martin Luther or John Calvin. These men did not believe or teach personal or religious liberty.

Beller reviewed all the major Christian curriculum for Christian schools and home schooling, Bob Jones, Alpha-Omega, A Beka, Landmark, ACE, Bill Gothard and Christian Liberty Home School, and did not find one that gave a true accounting of Baptist heritage.

I realize this article has turned into a book review but this is a book every Baptist should read, especially every Baptist preacher. What Beller says is true and we are in fact in danger of losing our Baptist heritage. The book is 120 page paperback and is an easy read with a big impact.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 5. The Call to Preach

I sometime hear people say something like, "My nephew is going to college to become a preacher." Colleges, Bible colleges or seminaries do not make preachers. God calls preachers. What does that mean? What in the world is a call to preach?

To answer that question we must first see what the call to preach is not. The call to preach is not a business decision, like, "I could be a brain surgeon or a fry cook or a preacher. I think I'll be a preacher." Some even think that becoming a preacher means a lot of "easy money." If that is the case, he needs to become something other than a Baptist preacher.

Neither is the call to preach some outward manifestation. The old story is that a man saw the letters "GPC" in the clouds while he was plowing. He took the letters to mean "Go Preach Christ." After several attempts at preaching he was told that "GPC" stood for "Go Plow Corn." God isn't going to give you some kind of sign or send an angel to announce your call.

Preachers are often looked upon with a great deal of admiration and respect. Some men are simply seeking the "glory" when they decide to become a preacher and do not really have the desire in their heart.

Sometime a person is very faithful to the church and very dedicated to the Lord and takes their desire to serve the Lord as the call to preach. In time this kind of "call" will lead to total frustration.

Some men are mother called or pastor called and some preach just because everyone expects that "someday he will be a preacher." These seldom last very long and everyone is disappointed.

The call to preach is difficult to describe. It is simply a burning desire to preach that will not go away. It often goes against reason and against the plans we, or others, have made but we simply must preach.

I heard of a young man that went to his pastor and told him that he thought he was called to preach. The pastor told him to just forget it. Later he came back to the pastor and again told him he thought he was called to preach. The pastor again told him to forget it. He finally came back and told his preacher that he couldn't forget it, he had to preach. This wise pastor made sure that this man's "call to preach" wasn't some passing fancy that would go away when things got tough. The call to preach is a burning desire to preach that won't go away.

If God has called you to preach, you will preach or burst. I am amazed at a man who announces that he is called to preach and then can be satisfied to sit in church and never preach. We sometime hear, "But the pastor won't let me preach." It is not your pastor's responsibility to give you a place to preach. If you have been called to preach, you will find a place to preach! It may be in a nursing home or jail, but you will find a place. If you can be happy not preaching, I doubt that you have been called to preach.

Often when a man is called to preach he tries to "scratch the itch" some other way. He may volunteer to run a bus route, or teach a Sunday School class or even become a deacon, thinking that will satisfy his inward calling. It doesn't and eventually he must surrender to God's will for him to preach.

When God calls a man to preach and the man surrenders to that calling from God, he is as much of a preacher as he will ever be. He may not be able to preach his way out of a paper sack. (The first sermon I preached in church was less than ten minutes long. As people were leaving the church and shaking my hand, one man said, "One good thing I can say about your sermon, it was short.") He doesn't know or understand all that it means to be a preacher. The new responsibilities may overwhelm him at times. He will spend the rest of his life learning to be a better preacher.

It is somewhat like a man getting married. As soon as the preacher says "I now pronounce you husband and wife" the man is as much of a husband as he will ever be. That does not mean he knows or understands all that it means to be a husband. The new responsibilities may even overwhelm him at times. He will spend the rest of his life learning to be a better husband but he is no more of a husband on his 50th anniversary than he was on his wedding day.

After a person decides he has been called to preach, the next step is to announce his call to the congregation. People will be happy and hug him and tell him how wonderful his first sermon was. But, announcing the call to the ministry is not the same as surrendering to the ministry. When a person surrenders to the ministry he surrenders his hopes and plans to God and his life heads off in a different direction. Money is no longer an issue. Distance is no longer an issue. He has surrendered to go when and where God chooses to send him, trusting God to supply his needs. He never passes up an opportunity to preach, regardless of where God may lead him.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 6. Calvinism

JOHN CALVIN was born in Noyon, France, in 1509 and was from a devout Roman Catholic family. He was placed on the Church payroll at the age of twelve and remained there for thirteen years. In 1528 Calvin's father, Gerald, and his brother, a Catholic priest, were both excommunicated from the church. Calvin's father then ordered John, who had been expected to enter the priesthood, to the study of law. He received a Bachelor of Laws degree in 1531.

Some of Martin Luther's sermons reached Calvin and stirred him to vocal support of Luther's ideas. Because of this he was forced to flee Paris during a crackdown on dissenters. In 1534 he returned to Noyon to resign from the Bishop's employ, was arrested and imprisoned but managed to escape.

By the age of 26 Calvin finished his first work called the Institutes of the Christian Religion. Influenced by Augustine, a fourth century Catholic bishop, and the Latin Vulgate Bible, he masterfully developed his own brand of Christianity. Although it was later enlarged to five times the size of the original, he never made any radical departures from any of the doctrines in the first edition. A basic foundation of this new religious system was a view of God's sovereignty which denied the human will and considered the church to be God's kingdom on earth—both views inspired by Augustine's writings.

Calvin determined to establish a beachhead for the kingdom of God on earth in Geneva, Switzerland, which ended with his expulsion from the city. However, three years later, faced with the threat of armed intervention by Roman Catholics, Geneva's city council invited him back. This time he succeeded in imposing his religion upon the citizens of Geneva with an iron hand. He returned in 1541 and his Ecclesiastical Ordinances were adopted.

These ordinances included such things as the color and quantity of clothing, the number of dishes permissible at a meal and even the arranging of a woman's hair. Censorship of the press was taken over from the Catholics. To speak disrespectfully of Calvin or the clergy was a crime. Calvin imposed his brand of Christianity upon the citizens of Geneva with floggings, imprisonments, banishments and burnings at the stake. Between 1542 and 1564 there were 76 banishments and 58 executions out of a total population of 20,000.

In a letter written in 1561 Calvin wrote, ". . . do not fail to rid the country of those zealous scoundrels who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard."

In spite of these facts and the fact that he despised Anabaptists, some Baptists proudly wear the name "Calvinist." Please do not call me a Calvinist, I do not want to be associated with John Calvin.

People have asked me, "Are you a Calvinist or an Armenian?" I would like to know exactly who it was that determined I had to be one or the other. I am neither. I am a Baptist. That leads us into a short study of what today is called "Calvinism."

Calvinists do not agree among themselves but the basics are the same: God at some time in the past, for no particular reason, predestinated, predetermined or elected some people to be saved and the rest to be lost. Those elected to salvation are unable and incapable of trusting Christ so they must, by God's irresistible grace, be regenerated so that they can believe. The elect have no choice in the matter, they cannot resist. There is absolutely no way for a person who was not elected to be saved. Because the number of saved was already determined, Christ died only for the elect.

An extreme view of Calvinism is that God predestinated every thought, deed, action, and occurrence. That includes the fall of Satan and the fall of Adam, making God the author of sin, evil and disaster. Man has no will of his own and is simply a puppet in God's huge play.

Some Calvinists, as the Primitive Baptists, have reached the logical conclusion that if some people are elected to salvation and will be saved regardless of any human circumstances, then mission work is a waste of time and money.

Most Calvinists adhere to the five points of Calvinism, which is expressed with the acronym TULIP.

T stands for total depravity

U stands for unconditional election

L stands for limited atonement

I stands for irresistible grace

P stands for perseverance of the saints

The foundation of this system is what is called "total depravity" but actually means "total inability." That is, man in his sinful condition is not able to believe. Scriptures such as Ephesians 2:1 ("And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;") are quoted to show that man is spiritually dead. Then the point is made that a dead man cannot exercise faith and therefore a man must be made alive before he can believe. The problem with this reasoning is equating physical death with spiritual death. A dead man cannot believe but neither can he sin or do anything else, for that matter.

"Unconditional election" means that God, for no particular reason, picked some people to be saved and left the rest to go to hell. The reasoning is that since all men are going to hell anyway, God is just in selecting a relatively few of them to save. For example, if ten people were drowning in the ocean and I arrived with a boat and selected two of them to save, I could reason that, even though I had the ability to save all ten, I was just in saving the two since all of them were going to drown anyway.

Since God determined those he would save, Jesus died on the cross for only those elected. It is reasoned that the payment for the sins of those not elected would be wasted. This is called "limited atonement."

Since a man had absolutely nothing to do with his salvation and is incapable of believing, God must first regenerate him and then give him faith. The man has no choice in the matter. This is "irresistible grace."

Those elected will remain faithful to the end. If a person does not remain faithful, it is proof that he was not one of the elect. This is "perseverance of the saints" which is not the same as preservation of the saints.

I personally find Calvinism to be of little practical value. I find it difficult to understand God's predestination, foreknowledge and election. What I find very easy to understand are such Scriptures as, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15), "And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely" (Revelation 22:17), "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2) and, "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent" (Acts 17:30).

Because of John Calvin and Calvinism, please do not call me a Calvinist.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 7. Church Music

Nothing has divided Christians today more than Bible versions and church music. So, for whatever it is worth, I thought I would give my opinion on church music.

Let me be careful to point out that I am talking about music used in a church service, in corporate worship. Singing and music in church to me is different than singing and music outside of church. I enjoy some music that there is absolutely nothing wrong with, but it would be completely out of place in church. One of my favorite songs and melodies is "Unchained Melody." To me it is enchantingly beautiful but it has no place in a worship service.

Every church has a personality of its own. What makes up a church personality? Among many other things, socio-economic level, general educational level, general age level, preaching style, church mission, friendliness, concern, and of course, music style. That is the reason a person might enjoy attending one church and not enjoy attending another, although both may be sound Baptist churches. Different is not necessarily wrong, it is just different. One church might enjoy preachers who "stomp and snort" and another church might enjoy preachers who are "calm and quiet." That does not make one right and the other wrong. It is a matter of personal preference.

There are many, many styles of music sung in our churches today. There are anthems, sacred classical and the old standard hymns. There is a little different style of songs found in such hymnals as "Favorite Songs and Hymns" and "Heavenly Highways Hymns." In my first pastorate in Arkansas, the churches in that area looked forward to getting the latest "Stamps-Baxter" song books and enjoyed singing from them. Then there is Southern Gospel, Country Gospel and Bluegrass.

I once heard a pastor say, "I hate Southern Gospel music!" He did not mean he hated the words sung in Southern Gospel music, what he did not like is the vehicle used to deliver the words.

Then there is a whole spectrum of music that has been labeled "contemporary." There are what have been called 24/7 songs — you sing seven words twenty-four times. Then there are choruses, like we have sung for years. Some songs are old hymns sung to a different style of music, some are Scriptures set to music and some are new songs. I enjoy some contemporary music and some I do not enjoy. Whether I enjoy it or not does not make it right or wrong. What makes something wrong is not my preference, but God's Word.

There are two scriptures in the New Testament that deal specifically with church music:

"Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord" (Ephesians 5:19).

"Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord" (Colossians 3:16).

Both verses have some things in common. First, they both mention the same kind of songs—psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. A psalm (which includes the whole book of Psalms) is a religious song sung to the accompaniment of musical instruments. A hymn is a song of praise or glorification. And, a spiritual song is just what it says, a song that is spiritual in nature. All three are very closely related and it is difficult to separate them into their own categories.

The second thing these verses have in common are the words, "in your hearts." Any song sung in a worship service of a church, either congregational, choir, or special, should come from the heart. According to these Scriptures, every song should be one the singer feels deeply about. From my own personal experience, most congregational songs are simply mouthing words and do not come from the heart.

The third thing they have in common are the words, "to the Lord." Church music should not be sung to impress people with the singer's talent. It should be sung as if the person were standing in the bodily presence of the Lord, looking Him in the face and singing the song only for Him. That is worship and anything less is simply making a noise. If these three scriptural principles were observed in our church music it would transform our services!

Colossians 3:16 says we are to teach and admonish each other with songs. If that is true, then the words of a song are important, must be true, and must be understood. The words of a song can be used of the Holy Spirit to reveal truth, to correct, and to encourage.

Church music must teach truth. A song I heard once said, "If working and praying have any reward, if anyone makes it, Lord, surely I will." That is blasphemous! Closer to home, how about, "On that bright and cloudless morning when the dead in Christ shall rise." If Jesus is coming in a cloud, as the Scriptures teach, then it will not be a cloudless morning. How about, "There's a brand new angel in the choir and I want to hear her sing." There is no such thing as a "new" angel and people do not become angels when they go to heaven. Or, "I've got to make it to heaven somehow." You don't get to heaven "somehow." I do not feel it is any better to sing error than it is to preach it.

The music must not overpower the words. It is not about the music, it is about the message. Paul said, "Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue" (1 Corinthians 14:19). If I can't understand the words I cannot be taught or admonished as Colossians 3:16 teaches.

I often wondered why some music had to be played so loud and I finally found the answer. Marilyn vos Savant, who is purported to have the world's highest IQ (228), writes a column in the Sunday news magazine, _Parade_. That question was asked her in the March 5, 2006 issue and her answer was, "They're trying to generate excitement, and a high level of decibels accomplishes that goal. Subjected to such intense sound, listeners' bodies produce adrenaline, noradrenaline and more. These substances make the heart pound and give an impression of increased muscle strength. Not surprisingly, some people become psychologically addicted to this hormone rush, which is implicated in thrill-seeking behavior. What a way to get—and keep —fans." That is not the kind of excitement that needs to be generated in church.

Church music must be culturally appropriate. To make a point, let me tell an incident that Missionary Joe Morell in Lithuania related to me. It went something like this: A good Southern Gospel quartet went from the United States and sang some Cathedrals Quartet songs for a Lithuanian church. The performance would have brought the house down in many American churches. However, the Lithuanians were unresponsive. After it was over some of the Lithuanian men took Brother Morell aside and expressed the feeling that the music was the most carnal they had ever heard. What was the difference? Culture!

There are cultural differences between countries and there are cultural differences all across America. The music that is enjoyed in a small rural church in the South probably will not be enjoyed by a large suburban church in the North. Why? Because they live in different cultures. Which is right and which is wrong? Well, the one is right that enjoys the kind of music I enjoy!

As much as I hate to admit it, there are even cultural differences in different age groups. A younger colleague of mine came into my office one day almost in tears. He said, "You must come hear this song. It really touched my heart." So, I went to his office and he played the song for me. The best I remember the song was about the crucifixion. I am sorry but it did not move me. What brought him to tears left me flat. Why? Because the difference in our ages put us in two different cultures that enjoy two different styles of Christian music.

I have heard some say that a church cannot grow if it does not use a certain style of music. The facts prove otherwise. There are growing churches across America that use almost every kind of church music. However, we must face the fact that a church is not likely to attract people who do not enjoy the personality of the church.

One of the great mistakes many a new pastor has made was to try to suddenly change the personality of a church, in music and other ways. What usually happens is that the church is torn up in the process. If the personality of a church needs to be changed, it must be done with a lot of teaching, love, and patience.

My conclusion is, if a song meets the Scriptural criteria, that is:

1. it is a psalm, hymn or spiritual song,

2. it is sung from the heart,

3. it is sung to the Lord,

4. it is true,

5. the words can be clearly understood, then it is a good song, regardless of the style of music in which it is delivered. That does not mean I will enjoy it, that it will speak to my heart or that I would want to belong to a church that only used that style of music. Let's be careful not to equate our own personal preferences with Scripture

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 8. Closed Communion

After I had spoken in a church and was standing by the door shaking hands with the people, a man, who was obviously a visitor, out of the blue asked me if the church practiced closed communion. I said the church in fact did practice closed communion and also told him that some Lutheran churches also practiced closed communion. He told me that he was a Lutheran and assured me that no Lutheran church would do such a thing. I smiled and let the matter drop even though I knew for certain that some Missouri Synod Lutheran churches do in fact practice closed communion.

Catholic churches practice their form of closed communion. A person who is not a Catholic is not invited to partake of their Eucharist, or communion. No one seems to be overly upset with Lutherans or Catholics, but when a Baptist church practices closed communion people seem to be highly offended.

In fact, almost every major denomination puts some sort of restrictions on who may partake of communion, at least on paper. None invite an unbeliever to partake of communion. They would certainly exclude Buddhists, Muslims or Hindus. They would not invite an openly immoral person. They all, to some degree, restrict their communion. So, it is not a matter of drawing a line, it is a matter of where to draw the line.

I suppose we should define some terms. "Open communion" normally means that anyone present during a communion service is invited to examine himself and partake of the elements. "Close communion" usually means that people of "like faith and order" are invited to partake of the Lord's Supper even though they may not be a member of the church observing the ordinance. "Closed communion" means that only the members of the church observing the Lord's Supper, after serious self-examination, are to partake. Sometime in the past the term "close communion" was also used to mean "closed communion."

Close communion is the historic position of Baptist churches in America. In a history of the Disciples of Christ, it states that Alexander Campbell and the Baptist churches of his time had some differences of opinion, but both practiced close communion. "One might expect to find a difference in the matter of open or close communion, since it is well known that close communion was the universal Baptist practice."

Many of our forefathers in the faith have written books on the subject of close and closed communion. However, historic position does not justify a doctrine or practice. Only the Bible does. Our forefathers held some teaching that we do not generally believe today. I just bring up the history to show that close and closed communion are not something new.

So what does the Bible teach about restricting communion?

First, there is the biblical order for communion. In the New Testament it was first salvation, then baptism, then church fellowship, and then the Lord's Supper. I personally think this is an indisputable fact. That being true, baptism is a prerequisite of communion. Since Baptists hold that immersion is the only biblical mode of baptism, to be consistent, only those who have been immersed should partake of communion in a Baptist church.

Second, in 1 Corinthians chapter five, Paul told the church at Corinth not to eat the Lord's Supper with brethren who were fornicators, covetous, idolatrous, railers, drunkards, or extortionists. Paul's instruction here was not for the individual to "examine himself" but to the church to examine its members. If a member were involved in any of the above named sins, he was to be put out of the church and not allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper. This could hardly be construed as open communion. So, a church has a biblical obligation to examine its members and not to partake of the Lord's Supper with those who are living a sinful life. One church does not have the right to judge the members of another church and therefore does not have the biblical right to invite members of other churches to their communion.

Third, 1 Corinthians 11:18-20 clearly states that when there are divisions in the church is not time to take the Lord's Supper. If a church is not to observe the Lord's Supper unless the members are in harmony, then it would hardly seem reasonable to invite someone completely out of doctrinal harmony with the church. That in itself would create a division.

Proponents of open communion ultimately quote 1 Corinthians 11:28, "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup." What they are saying is "let any man examine himself." That is not what the verse says and it is poor Bible exegesis to try to make it say that. To whom is Paul writing? Not to just any man but to the church at Corinth. Let a member of the church examine himself. Examine himself about what? The church had made a mockery of the Lord's Supper. Some came early and ate all the bread and drank all the wine. Some even got drunk. For that reason God's judgment fell and some were made sick and some even died because of their disregard for this sacred ordinance.

The examination to which Paul was referring was for a person to realize the manner in which he had been taking the Lord's Supper. 1 Corinthians 11:29 says, "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation [judgment] to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." The word unworthily is an adverb and modifies the verbs eateth and drinketh. It describes the manner in which they were eating and drinking. They were eating and drinking in an unworthy manner that brought God's judgment. It has nothing to do with whether or not a person is personally worthy to eat the Lord's Supper. None of us are worthy of such an honor.

From this passage it is quite clear that God takes the Lord's supper very seriously. He wants it to be observed correctly. And what is the correct manner? The correct manner is to do it the way the New Testament teaches.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 9. Cremation

My nephew asked if I would write an article on cremation and since I had never given the subject a lot of thought, that brought on a little research. What does the Bible teach, if anything, about cremation?

God said, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" (Genesis 3:19).

My grandfather died in 1940 and was buried in the cemetery in Beebe, Arkansas. My grandmother died in 1956 and was also buried in the same cemetery, but not by the side of my grandfather. The family decided to have my grandfather exhumed and re-buried next to grandmother. It is my understanding that when they dug him up, the only thing they found was a part of his skull and part of a thigh bone. The rest of his body had already gone back into the earth, just as God had said.

Very little is said in the Bible about how a body is to be disposed of and nothing is commanded in the Law of Moses. We do have some examples but no commands. Abraham bought the cave of Machpelah where he buried Sarah and later he, Isaac, Rebekah, Leah, and Jacob were all buried there. Jesus was not buried in the ground but in a tomb hewn out of solid rock. Jesus' friend Lazarus was also buried in a tomb. It seems to have been a common practice in Judea at the time of Christ to bury in a tomb or cave, called a "sepulcher" in the New Testament. After the body had been in the tomb or cave for a few years, someone in the family would go in, collect the bones and place them in a box, called an "ossuary" which was then placed in the back of the tomb. This made room for others to be buried later in the same tomb. If you are going to follow Biblical example, then you would not be embalmed and would need to be buried in a tomb and not in the ground.

Some have argued that because of the resurrection the body needs to stay in one place so God can put it back together again. If this is true, then hundreds of martyrs who have been burned at the stake will be in serious trouble at the resurrection. All of those buried at sea will also have a problem. If God wanted to put a body back together, He would have no problem finding all the molecules no matter where they were located. However, the body that is put in the grave is not the body God is going to give us in the resurrection.

"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15:42-44).

The only example I can find of cremation in the Bibles is in 1 Samuel 31:11-13. The people of Jabesh-gilead bravely retrieved the bodies of King Saul and his three sons from the Philistines and burned them, after which they buried the remaining bones.

The English word _cremate_ came from the Latin word _crematus_ which means "to burn to ashes." Cremation was practiced by Greeks as far back as 800 B.C. and others much further back than that. The first crematorium in the Unites States was built in Washington, Pennsylvania, in 1876.

The cremation process goes something like this. Before a body is taken to a crematorium all metal, such as jewelry, pacemakers, metal implants, etc, are removed. At the crematorium the body is placed in a container, usually cardboard or wood, and then placed in the cremator (or furnace) where temperatures will reach between 1,400 and 2,100 degrees. After the cremation, which lasts from 90 minutes to two hours, almost all that is left are bone fragments. All of the rest of the body has been vaporized and oxidized by the intense heat. These bone fragments, now mostly dry calcium phosphates, are collected and ground into a powder. This ash is around 3.5% of the original body mass and usually weights from four to six pounds. These cremated remains are then placed in a container and given to the family to dispose of or keep as they see fit.

Someone might say something like, "It gives me the creeps to think of a body being burned." I guess it is just as "creepy" to think of a body being put in a coffin and buried in the ground to slowly decay.

The truth is, when a person leaves his body in death, it really doesn't make a lot of difference what happens to the body after that. All of the bodies of the Old Testament saints have gone back to "dust" many, many years ago. The bodies of the Apostles, whether they were buried in the ground, buried in a tomb or burnt, have all decomposed and are no more.

Since the Bible does not specify a proper mode of burial, my opinion is that God isn't really all that concerned about what happens to your physical body after you are finished with it. Bury it in the ground, place it in a tomb, cremate it, or bury it at sea, it all winds up like God said, back in the ground. Should a Christian be cremated? I think it should be the personal decision of the person and/or his family.

How about the funeral in case of a cremation? A person can have a funeral and then be cremated or he can be cremated and have a memorial service sometime afterward. I have seen both and both are effective.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 10. Flagellation

It has been said that it is what you learn after you know it all that matters. I preached at a pastor's fellowship meeting in Apopka and likened the beatings of Paul with the scourging of Christ. After the meeting a pastor came to me and kindly pointed out that the two were very different. The Romans were not limited to 40 stripes and used a different scourge than did the Jews. Well, this brought on some investigation and research and the pastor was right.

The Roman whip was called a _flagrum_ and not one has survived to show us what it looked like. There is not one in a museum somewhere nor has an archeologist ever discovered one. We do know from history that they were brutal and destructive weapons. Joel M. Donahoe of Selah, Washington, has probably done more research and testing on the Roman flagrum than any other person. After years of research he has produced what he believes to be authentic Roman whips. The whips have wooden handles with from three to twelve short leather straps of different lengths. (Very different from an English Cat-O-Nine-Tails.) On the end of each strap is a piece of lead in which has been embedded either nails, glass, or bone. Testing has shown that even a child can do horrific damage with one of these whips. You might like to visit his informative website at www.naturesdesignsonline.com/Cat-of-nine-tails.htm.

Mr. Donahoe also gives us some good research on the subject: Josephus noted that ". . . certain rebel Jews were torn to pieces by the scourge before being crucified." The Roman historian Livy said, "The Romans employed scourging as torture or punishment to extract information or testimony." The New Catholic Encyclopedia states, "Romans inflicted scourging on recalcitrant slaves or prisoners for withholding information and on criminals condemned to death by crucifixion." Harper's Bible Dictionary states, ". . . scourging sometimes led to the death of the condemned person." A 3rd century historian, Eusebius of Ceasarea, wrote ". . . their bodies were frightfully lacerated. Christian martyrs in Smyrna were so torn by the scourges that their veins were laid bare, and the inner muscles, sinews, even entrails, were exposed" (Westminster Dictionary of the Bible).

The Roman soldiers who did the whipping were called _lictors_ and had been trained for their job. Historical records indicate that scourging was usually done by two lictors, one on each side of the victim. The victim was stripped of his clothes, tied to a post and the lictors would alternate lashes and direct each lash to the specific part of the back, buttocks or thigh they chose.

In Deuteronomy 25:3 the Law of Moses limited to forty the number of lashes a Jew might inflict, but the Romans had no such limit. The lictors were expert at stopping just short of death.

In Jesus' beating, described in Matthew 27:26 and Mark 15:15, the Greek word _phragelloo_ is used, which is the equivalent to the Latin _flagellum_. These are the only two times in the New Testament this word is used.

John, in speaking of Jesus' beating in John 19:1, used a more general Greek word, _mastigoo,_ which means "to flog."

In Luke 23:16 when Pilate told the people, "I will therefore chastise him, and release him," he used a very different Greek word, _paideuo._ This word literally means to "train a child" or "chasten." He was saying that he would punish Jesus and then let him go but he did not mention a flagellation.

Although it is not certain, it seems that the Jewish whippings were done with a single leather strap or whip. It would be this type of beating to which Paul referred to in 2 Corinthians 11:24 when he said, "Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one." As painful as these must have been, they were not the "flagellation" to which Jesus was subjected. Paul goes on to say that he was beaten with rods three times. One of these beatings with rods took place at Philippi but we are unsure about the other two. The same Greek word is used in 2 Corinthians 11:25 and in Acts 16:22 and is _rhabdizo_ , which means "to beat with rods."

All of that being said, it is evident that the beating Jesus received and the beatings Paul received were not the same.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 11. Government

I sometime hear people quote from the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:13 where it says, "Thou shalt not kill" in order to prove that capital punishment is wrong. Yet, in the next chapter it says, "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death" (Exodus 21:12). Why does it say in one place not to kill and then also say to put someone to death? The explanation is relatively simple, one is instructions to the individual and the other is to government.

To illustrate, if someone were to murder one of your relatives, you do not have the right to go and kill him, even after he is found guilty. However, the government not only has the right but also the responsibility to see that the man is caught and brought to justice.

The Bible clearly teaches capital punishment. However, it seems to be ineffective today because it is usually a decade or more between conviction and execution. As Ecclesiastes 8:11 states, "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil."

Another illustration is the admonition in the Sermon on the Mount when Jesus said, ". . . whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." That is directed to the individual and not to government. I would hope a policeman on duty (an agent of the government) would not "turn the other cheek" when hit by some criminal. The policeman (the government) is there to protect the citizens.

Of course the question always arises about a soldier that kills an enemy during a war. The soldier, like the policeman, is acting as an agent of his government. He has the duty to engage the enemy to protect the citizens. If this were not true we would not enjoy the freedoms we do in this country. A soldier is no more guilty of "murder" than the citizens because he is there acting on their behalf.

It has been said, and I agree, that "Bad government is better than no government." Without some form of government anarchy reigns and it becomes the survival of the strongest.

What is a Christian's attitude supposed to be regarding government? Romans 13:1-7 makes it very clear: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour."

From these verses we see that:

1. God has ordained government

2. Christians are to be subject to the government

3. Rulers are the ministers of God

4. Christians are to obey the laws

5. Christians are to pay taxes

6. Christians are to honor those in government

Christians all around the world live under many different kinds of governments, some are friendly to Christians and some are hostile to Christians. Under any type of government the six named thing above still apply.

Even though Paul had been in trouble with governments all over, he said in Titus 3:1-2, "Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, to speak evil of no man . . ."

Peter also confirms Paul's writing in 1 Peter 2:13-15, "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men."

But what happens when a government requires Christians to do or not to do something contrary to the Word of God? Of course we should never do anything contrary to God's Word (Acts 4:19). Paul is a great example to follow:

1. Paul never spoke evil of a ruler

2. Paul always respected the rulers

3. Paul had convictions of what he would and would not do

4. He was ready to suffer the consequences

The same thing was true of the Apostles in Acts chapter four when Peter and John said, "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye." The same was true of Stephen in Acts 7. All of these men chose to obey God rather than government but they were willing to suffer for their choice.

Not only are we admonished to respect and obey those in authority over us, we are told to pray for them. 1 Timothy 2:1 states, "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty."

There always seems to be those that do not like the president, the congressmen, the governor, the mayor, etc. They belittle, make fun of, castigate, and threaten those in authority. It is clear from the above Scriptures that Christians should not take part in this kind of behavior. Kings and those in authority in Paul's day were no better ethically or morally than they are today. Yet, Paul tells us that we should pray for them.

Should Christians be involved in politics? Absolutely, if being in politics will not harm their testimony for the Lord. Christians, as good citizens, should certainly vote their convictions in any election. Christians should try to put people of integrity and honesty in any office of authority. However, when a person is placed in an office, regardless of his ethics, he is to be respected for the office he holds. As in the military, you respect the uniform if you cannot respect the man in the uniform.

Should churches be involved in politics? Absolutely not! The mission of the church is to get the gospel preached to every person on earth, not to endorse candidates or influence legislation. Satan loves to get churches sidetracked into doing things that will not help accomplish their mission.

So, God ordained government to protect us. We are to respect those in authority, obey the laws, and pay our taxes.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 12. Grieving

If you have recently lost a spouse, a child, a sibling, a parent or even a very close friend, you have entered one of the strangest times of your life. You are going to be on an emotional roller coaster, over which you will have little control. You may be laughing one minute and crying the next or having a good day one day and in the dumps the next. You may see something or smell something and just start crying. Pastor Bob Aligood tells of a time after the death of his son when he was in a store and saw a display of potato chips, which were his son's favorite. He burst into tears and stood there in the store and cried. As he says, "Grief has a mind of its own."

On a Friday afternoon in April of 1999 my wife of 42 years died. She had been a physical invalid for almost two years, we had seen over a dozen doctors and had every test run they could think of, yet her condition remained undiagnosed. Mentally she was sharp until the day she died. No one expected her to die, not the doctors and certainly not me. That afternoon she just died. I said all of that to say, although I don't know exactly how you feel, I do understand what you are going through. I hurt with you.

Please don't try to bypass the grieving process. 1 Thessalonians 4:13 states, "But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope." That verse does not teach that Christians are not supposed to grieve; it says Christians do not grieve like those who have no hope of eternal life through Jesus Christ.

I tried to bypass the grieving process and it didn't work. I thought I had to be strong and pretend everything was fine when it wasn't. I smiled and laughed and was just going to go on with my life like nothing happened. Four months later I unexpectedly went into depression, which was horrible. I am not talking about having a down day. I am talking about an elephant sitting on your chest; not being able to shut your mind off at night; not wanting to be alone but not wanting to be around anyone; not wanting to be at home but not wanting to go anyplace. I even had some panic attacks which is an experience in itself. I was reading my Bible and praying every day and I had no idea what in the world was going on. Lynn Raburn was wise enough to listen to me, recognize the problem and recommend I go to my doctor. The doctor prescribed an anti-depressant and I was soon sleeping again. However, it took some time to recuperate. I have never been the same emotionally as I was before.

We must understand that grieving is not for the loved one we have lost, grieving is for ourselves. I have heard people say, "It's OK. I know they are with the Lord." No, it isn't OK. They may be with the Lord but we aren't. We are left here to face life without them. We grieve because something has been "stolen" from us and our life has suddenly been turned upside down and will never be the same again. It has been said that losing a loved one in death is not like a wound that will heal, it is like an amputation that we must learn to live with. The grieving process is a time in which we learn to go on with our lives without the loved one.

Although you may be running on adrenalin at the time, the funeral or memorial service is an important part of the process. Even though you may not remember all about the funeral, it brings reality to death and is a chance for closure and a time to say a final good-bye. The people, the hugs, the message, the flowers and the cards are a source of strength and will mean more to you in the weeks to come.

How long should the grieving process last? The truth is, no one knows. Every situation is different and everyone goes through it differently. Our age and the closeness of the one who has died will have a lot to do with it. You will probably never get completely over it. So, don't pay any attention when someone says to you, "Snap out of it" or "Isn't it time you got on with your life?" People who haven't been through it just don't understand. Often people mean well but really don't know what to say.

As strange as it may seem, you may get mad at the person who died for leaving you or for leaving something unfinished or who knows what. It is OK to get mad at them. You may get mad at God because He didn't do as you asked. It is OK to tell God you are mad at Him. He can take it because He understands.

In his booklet "What Do You Say to A Friend Who is Hurting?" Dr. George Garner relates a conversation between himself and his pastor, Dr. Harris Crittenden, soon after the death of his daughter. "'Preacher, I am hurting right now and I just don't understand why this all happened.' To which he [Dr. Crittenden] wisely replied, 'George, I don't know why either. But you know, one of the most beautiful examples of Christ's ministry was as He hung on the cross, as described in Matthew 27:46. Betrayed and wronged, He too cried out to His God, "Why?" George, I think that was Christ's way of telling us that it is OK to question God and ask, "Why?" And then my pastor continued, 'George, do you remember the answer that He got?' I stopped and thought, and then I remembered that Christ received no answer. The Scripture simply declares that there was darkness on earth and silence in heaven. Finally, Pastor Crittenden observed, 'I think God wanted us to know that sometimes in this life there will be no answers to our questions. And that is where faith comes in.'"

If you feel like crying, then cry. If you feel like screaming, then scream, although I would do that in private. If you feel like kicking the wall, then kick it. You need a release for your emotions. When you feel like being along, tell everyone to leave.

One thing you really need to do is talk. You need to talk about your loved one and you need to tell someone exactly how you feel. You need to find someone who will keep their mouth shut and just listen and that is sometime hard to find. That person also needs to be someone you can trust because you may need to share some feelings that are no one's business but your own.

Please don't make any major decisions in your life for at least a year, or maybe more. Your emotions will not allow you to make informed decisions for some time to come. If there are some major decisions you absolutely must make, seek wise council before you do.

One last thing. Stay close to the Lord during this process. You need to stay close to Him in prayer, His Word and the fellowship of other Christians. He is the God of all comfort and will give you peace as you work your way through this emotional quagmire.

Remember, you will live through it but you must go through it.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 13. Heaven

As I was driving to the office the other morning, I was listening to a religious radio program that was airing a recording of a daughter of a well-known evangelist as she described heaven. She went to Revelation chapter 21 and began to describe the splendors of heaven. I gripped the steering wheel and said to her (as if she could hear me), "Revelation 21 isn't talking about heaven!"

I have even heard Baptist preachers talk about the pearly gates and golden streets of heaven and that we will be in heaven forever. The Bible does not say that there are pearly gates or golden streets in heaven and it certainly does not teach that we will be in heaven forever.

The pearly gates, walls of jasper and golden streets in Revelation chapter 21 describe that beautiful city, the New Jerusalem that comes down from God out of heaven to the new earth at the end of the millennium. Revelation 3:12, 21:2 and 21:10 all mention the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God. If the city comes "out of heaven" then it is not the same as heaven.

In 2 Corinthians 12:2, Paul tells about a man that was caught up into the third heaven, so there must be at least three heavens spoken of in the Bible. The first heaven would be where the birds fly and the clouds float, roughly called our atmosphere. The second heaven would then be where the sun and stars are. The third heaven, described by Paul, is where the throne of God is located.

It is interesting that in Genesis 1:1, it says "In the beginning God created the heaven and earth." In the Hebrew, the word _heaven_ used in Genesis 1:1 is neither singular nor plural, it is dual. In English we only have singular, signifying one, and plural, signifying more than one. However, in Hebrew there is also dual, which signifies two. Being dual would indicate that God created the first and second heavens but not the third heaven, where His throne is, because it was already in existence.

We are often given the idea that when we die we will go to heaven where we will float around on a cloud and play a harp forever. Offhand I cannot think of much that would be more boring to me than to float around on a cloud and play a harp forever. The Bible does not teach that we will float on clouds. However, the book of Revelation in chapter five tells us that the 24 elders have harps, and in chapter 14 it says that the 144,000 have harps and in chapter 15 it tells that those who overcome the Beast (Anti-Christ) have harps. In each case the harps are connected with singing. The people sing praises to God accompanied by their harps.

Another idea is that when we die we become angels. Or sometime we hear that we will have to "earn our wings." Both of these ideas are completely false. Angels were created as angels sometime before the creation of man in Genesis chapter one. Humans were created as humans and will never be angels. The two are completely separate beings.

Some speculate that Genesis 6:2 teaches that angels married women and produced offspring. That is impossible. First, Jesus told us that angels do not marry. There were a certain number of angels created and they did not reproduce to make more angels. Second, God created things, both plant and animals, to reproduce after "their kind." Angels and humans are not the same "kind." They are two completely different beings.

In Revelation chapters four and five, John was caught up into heaven and we are given a glimpse of what it is like. First, God's throne is there. Second, the Lamb, Jesus, is there. Third, angels are there. Fourth, saved humans are there (24 elders). Fifth, four beasts (living creatures) are there who give glory and honor and thanks to God continually. Nothing is said about jasper walls or pearly gates or golden streets. It is all about who is there and not about what is there.

Now about being in heaven forever, as we so often hear. 1 Thessalonians 4:17 teaches that at the resurrection and rapture we shall "meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord." In Philippians 1:23 Paul had "a desire to depart and to be with Christ; which is far better." Those who are saved, when they die, will immediately go to heaven to be with the Lord and will be with Him forever. There is not room in this article for a detailed study but just let me give you an overview. When saved people go to heaven at death, they go there without their bodies. Their bodies go back to the dust of the earth. At the resurrection the Lord will bring all of those people who are with Him in heaven back to the earth and will give them new bodies, which will be done quickly, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. Then at the end of what is called the Tribulation Period, He will bring all of those people back to the earth where He will set up His kingdom and will personally rule on the earth for 1,000 years. During that 1,000 years there will be people on earth in their glorified bodies and will also be people in their natural bodies. If we are to be with the Lord, we will have to be back on the earth, and not in heaven, for that 1,000 years.

At the end of the 1,000 years some major changes will take place. All of the lost people will be cast into the Lake of Fire, described in Revelation 20. Then God will create a new heaven and a new earth, described in Revelation 21.

Isaiah 65:17 says, "For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind." The word _heavens_ in this verse is the same Hebrew word as used in Genesis 1:1. It is also a masculine dual noun, indicating two. So, we must conclude that the new heaven that God will create is not the heaven where His throne is located, but the first two heavens we mentioned earlier that is connected to the earth. The same heavens He created in Genesis 1:1.

On this new earth the holy city, the New Jerusalem, shall descend to the earth out of heaven. Then our abode will be on the new earth, not heaven, and God himself shall be with us and be our God. It is at this point, that is, on the new earth, that it says that God shall wipe away all tears, that there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying, nor pain.

The Bible leaves us at this point where we enter a new dimension, eternity. What happens from there no human knows.

That brings us back to our original question. If there are no pearly gates and golden streets, what is heaven like? I suppose my answer would be, what difference does it make? We will be with the Lord and that is really all that matters.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 14. The Intellectuals

My brother gave me a set of cassette tapes on understanding the Bible and asked me to review them to see if they were OK. The introduction went well but after that things went haywire. One of the first things I heard was that Moses didn't write Genesis. It was written by a number of different people. Of course I was familiar with the concept and knew where the man was going. He was about to question everything in the Bible. The Old Testament is full of allegories and not real stories. The miracles did not really happen but were just myths.

Did Moses actually write Genesis and did the great fish actually swallow Jonah? How can we know for sure? Well, as it turns out, it really isn't all that difficult. All we need to do is to ask someone who actually knows.

When Jesus was on earth he had access to exactly the same books we now call the Old Testament. The books were not in exactly the same order as the Old Testament we have today, but all the books were the same. So, if there were any corrections to be made in the Old Testament Jesus would have surely mentioned them. Remember, if the Bible is inspired of God, then it must have been preserved by God, otherwise inspiration would have been no benefit.

## The Writings of Moses

In John 5:46-47 Jesus said, "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"

## The Book of Moses

In Mark 12:26 Jesus speaks of the "book of Moses." "And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?" A reference to Exodus 3:6. Looks like Jesus attributed Exodus to Moses.

## Adam and Eve

In Matthew 19:4 Jesus confirms the existence of Adam and Eve. And he answered and said unto them, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female."

## Noah and the Flood

In Matthew 24:37-38 Jesus confirms the existence of Noah and the flood. "For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe [Noah] entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."

## Abraham, Isaac and Jacob

In Matthew 8:11 Jesus verifies the existence of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven."

## Lot

In Luke 17:28 Jesus verifies the existence of Lot, Abraham's nephew. "Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded."

## Sodom and Gomorrah

In Luke 17:29 Jesus confirms the story of Sodom being destroyed by fire rained from heaven in Genesis 19. "But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all."

## Lot's Wife

In Luke 17:32 Jesus verifies the existence of Lot's wife. "Remember Lot's wife."

## The Burning Bush

Also in Mark 12:26 Jesus confirms the story of Moses and the burning bush. "And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?"

## Moses and the Fiery Serpent

In John 3:14 Jesus verifies the story of Moses and the serpent lifted up on a pole found in Numbers 21. "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up."

## King David

In Mark 2:25 he verified the account of David in 1 Samuel 21. "And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?"

## David and the Psalms

In Mark 12:36 Jesus confirms that David was inspired of the Holy Ghost when he wrote Psalm 110. "For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool."

## Solomon, his wisdom and the Queen of Sheba

In Matthew 12:42 Jesus confirms the existence of Solomon and his wisdom and the Queen of Sheba found in 1 Kings 10. "The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here."

## Jonah and the Whale

Matthew 12:40-41 Jesus verifies the existence of Jonah, the great fish and the story of Ninevah. "For as Jonas [Jonah] was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here."

## The Prophet Elijah

In Luke 4:25-26 Jesus verifies the existence of Elijah and the story of the drought and the widow woman who miraculously fed him in 1 Kings 17. "But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias [Elijah], when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow."

## The Prophet Elisha

In Luke 4:27 Jesus verifies the existence of Elisha and the cleansing of the leprosy of Naaman in 2 Kings 5. "And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus [Elisha] the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian."

Never once did Jesus call into question anything that is written in the Old Testament.

When you begin to question the Bible and believe parts are only myths or allegories, then who becomes the authority to tell us which is true and which is not? To do so will quickly run you to the position that no one actually knows which is true and which is not.

If you claim to be a Christian it only makes sense to me that you would accept the teachings of Jesus above any other, and He never questioned the authenticity of the Word of God.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 15. King James Version

I do not have an axe to grind, this subject is not a hobby horse of mine and I will not debate the issue. If I were to be asked if I were "King James only," I would reply, "I am not King James only, I am King James best."

I have always read, studied and memorized Scripture from the King James Version and I will have to have a better reason than, "It is easier to read," to change to another version. I am going to give you my personal opinions.

If God went to the trouble to inspire His Word, then it is logical that He would preserve His Word through the ages for His people to use. Inspiration would be of no use without preservation.

The main reason I stay with the KJV is because of the manuscript from which it was translated.

As I am sure you already know, the New Testament was written in Greek and the KJV is a translation from Greek into English. I have read that there are 5,255 Greek manuscripts in existence today. (That makes the New Testament the most well documented ancient literature in history.) None are complete, some are fragments containing only a few words and none are in perfect agreement. However, the vast majority of the variations are inconsequential, like spelling, word order, etc., which are not translatable.

These manuscripts have been divided into two major groups, the Alexandrian text-type, which means manuscripts whose text is most similar to Christian writers active in Alexandria, Egypt, in the 3rd and 4th centuries, and the Byzantine text-type. Forty-five of the manuscripts are of the Alexandrian text-type and 5,210 are of the Byzantine text-type. It is easy to see why the Byzantine is sometime called the "Majority Text."

Before the KJV, the Bishops Bible, the Cloverdale Bible, the Tyndale translation and the Geneva Bible were all translated from the Byzantine family of texts. Also before the KJV, the Spanish, French, Dutch and German Bibles all came from the Byzantine family of texts.

That all changed in 1881 when two men, Brooke Foss Wescott and Fenton John Anthony Hort edited a new Greek New Testament. Their Greek text did not come from the Byzantine texts but from the Alexandrian texts. They relied most on the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, two of the Alexandrian text-types.

The Vaticanus remained unnoticed in the Vatican library (hence the name Vaticanus) until 1475 when it was found by textual scholars. However, scholars were not able to examine it until 1843. It was published in 1858. This manuscript is missing 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon and Revelation. It has been dated to the 4th century and is held to be one of the oldest manuscripts in existence. Westcott and Hort relied heavily on the Vaticanus for their Greek text.

The Sinaiticus was discovered in a monastery on Mt. Sinai (hence the name Sinaiticus) in 1859. This manuscript has also been dated to the 4th century. It contains all the books of the New Testament. However, 14,800 corrections have been found in the Sinaiticus that were made by nine correctors, believed to be made in the 6th and 7th centuries.

The Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus are far from being identical. There are reported to be 3,036 differences between the readings in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in the Gospels alone.

The Alexandrian and Byzantine text-types are at least 85% identical and many of the variations are trivial. However, there are substantial differences between the two. Navida Shahid, in an article on the Codex Sinaiticus said, "The differences found between the text of the Codex Sinaiticus and the NT as perceived by Christians today, are nearly shocking." And, "The evidence of the Sinaiticus proved to be very disturbing for many, especially, at one point, 20th century theologians found the witness of the Codex Sinaiticus so disturbing, that they were forced to re-consider, the central doctrine of the Christian faith itself: The resurrection of Jesus Christ himself."

To give you some idea of the differences between the Alexandrian and Byzantine text-types, Westcott and Hort's Greek text does not include Matthew 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 9:44, 46; 15:28; 16:9-20; Luke 17:36; 23:17; Acts 8:37; 28:29 and Romans 16:24. (I just checked the NIV and none of these verses are there.) Besides these whole verses there are many, many phrases and words that do not appear.

Almost every translation since the Westcott and Hort Greek text in 1881 has been made from their text or a revision of their text.

I still use the King James Version because I believe that the Byzantine text-types are correct and that the Alexandrian text-types are corrupted.

I still use the King James Version because I believe that a Bible you can study must be a word-for-word translation. Some of the modern translations are word-for-word translations and some are paraphrases. In a paraphrase the translator reads a passage in the Greek text and then writes what he thinks the writer meant. This becomes a commentary and not a Bible. There is a big difference between reading the Bible, like a newspaper, and studying the Bible, like a textbook.

Many people say they do not like the King James Version because of the words like "thee" and "thou." The Greek of the New Testament was a more precise language than our English. For example, in English the word "you" can be singular or plural in the objective or subjective case. In order to make the meaning very clear, the King James translators used some terms we do not commonly use today.

Personal pronouns beginning with "t" are singular: thou; thy; thee; thine.

Personal pronouns beginning with "y" are plural: ye; you; yours.

Thou -- designates the subject of a verb.

Thee -- designates the object of a verb.

Ye -- designates the subject of a verb.

You -- designates the object of the verb.

Verbs ending in "est" indicate the second person singular (the one spoken to).

Verbs ending in "eth" indicate the third person singular (the one spoken about).

The KJV translators sometime added words to make a smoother reading. They wanted to make sure everyone understood when they added words not in the Greek text, so they put them in italics.

There are some words in the KJV that have changed meaning since 1611. It is usually easy to get their meaning from the context. In case you need it, for a dollar you can buy the booklet "The King James Bible Companion" that will give you a list of the archaic words and their modern day meanings. It is small enough to keep in your Bible. You can order one from WWW.chick.com.

Why study Greek and Hebrew? I do not use the Greek and Hebrew to try to correct the KJV. I use it similar to the way I use a dictionary. It often adds depth and color to a word or a verse or sometime to a whole passage. But, if you do not know one word of Greek or Hebrew, you can still study the KJV and arrive at the same conclusions.

These are my reasons for using the KJV and I don't think I will be changing any time soon.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

#  16. Local Church

I was talking to a man once that mentioned a "tooth dentist." To my knowledge there is no other kind of dentist but a "tooth" dentist. That is like saying "local church." There can be no other kind of church but a local church.

It is redundant to say "local church." Here's why. In the New Testament the word church is translated from the Greek word _ekklesia_ , which means "an assembly." It is often pointed out that _ekklesia_ comes from two Greek words, _ek_ meaning "out" and _kaleo_ , meaning "to call." Hence, they say the word ekklesia means "called out." That is incorrect. _Ekklesia_ does not mean "called out." That is the etymology of the word, not the meaning. (Etymology is a word's history that tells how the word evolved to the definition in current use.) There is a difference. If you do not believe that is true, go through the New Testament and read the words "called out" in place of the word church and see how much sense it makes. _Ekklesia_ means "an assembly" and you cannot have any other kind of assembly but a "local" assembly.

This short article is not intended to be an in-depth study of all the places the word church is used in the New Testament. The word _ekklesia_ is used 118 times in the Greek New Testament and in the KJV it is translated "assembly" three times and "church" 115 times. In the vast majority of times it is easy to understand that a specific assembly is meant. (As in Matthew 18:17, "tell it unto the church" and 2 Corinthians 1:1, "unto the church of God which is at Corinth.")

However, in some places "church" is used when it is not referring to any specific assembly. There is a figure of speech called a synecdoche in which a part is used for the whole or an individual for an entire class or people, or vice-versa. For example, in Ephesians 5:23 it says "the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church." While no specific husband is meant, no one would ever argue that there is some sort of universal invisible husband nor a universal invisible wife. All husbands and all wives are local —without exception. In this case the word husband and the word wife are figures of speech in which one is used for the whole. That is fairly simple.

Why then do some want to complicate matters and make the word church in this same verse mean something entirely different? The word church in this verse is also used as a figure of speech in which one is used for the whole. Christ is the head of every church and not of some mystical body called a "church."

Many take some verses to mean that "the church" refers to all of the saved. Some believe it to be made up of all the saved in all ages, some that it is the saved of the church age and some think it to be the saved who are living. This is called the universal church.

If this universal church did exist, it would have no practical purpose. It has no pastor to visit you in the hospital. It sends no missionaries. It has no meetings. It does not evangelize. It does nothing. With that being said, why are some people so emphatic in holding to such a theory? I can only give you my opinion.

It seems that to some the most important thing is the universal church. Then the so-called "local churches" are only expressions of the universal church. It is like a tree, the universal church is the trunk and all of the local churches are branches from the same trunk. That means doctrine is not important, baptism is not important, the origin of the church is not important, church history is not important. One church is as good as another because all churches are all just local expressions of the universal church. As long as you have a group of saved people, you have a church.

I really feel that the reason some churches and pastors embrace this universal church theory is to become less offensive and attract more people. Because, when you embrace the universal church theory, you immediately weaken your stand on baptism and the Lord's Supper, two of the most offensive doctrines to the world.

You cannot have a universal assembly. Try to imagine a universal assembly. It is impossible. If it is universal it is not an assembly and if it is an assembly it is not universal. Universal church (assembly) is an oxymoron.

If you will follow the New Testament example you will find that a church was always made up of saved people who had been baptized and joined themselves together to carry out the Lord's commands. If you have an assembly of unsaved people, you do not have a church. If you have an assembly of saved people who have not been baptized according to the Scriptures, you do not have a church. If you have an assembly of people who have been saved and properly baptized but who have not bound themselves together, you do not have a church. For example, in our chapel services we have a group of saved students who have been baptized but have no desire to be bound together as a church.

The way we use the term church today is often different from the way it is used in the New Testament. We often see a church building and call it a "church." In the New Testament the word church is never used to refer to a building. We sometime use the word church to refer to a denomination, like the United Methodist Church or the Roman Catholic Church. In the New Testament the word is never used to refer to any sort of denomination.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 17. Misconceptions

From time to time I hear well-meaning laymen, and some preachers, teach things from the Bible that are just not there. These are a few of my pets.

## By the Sweat of Your Brow

Since I was a little boy I have always heard it said that "The Bible says you must earn your living by the sweat of your brow." Genesis 3:19 says, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

## The Tower of Babel

It is sometimes said that the people of Babel planned to build a tower so tall that they would just walk up the steps to heaven. That is not true. The Bible is very plain as to the reason they were building the tower. It was a monument. "And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth" (Genesis 11:4). God did not get excited because He was afraid people would be climbing to heaven but he was upset because the people entered into an agreement to always be one nation. If God had left them alone men would have driven air conditioned cars, while talking on cell phones and listening to the radio several thousands of years ago. Genesis 11:6,". . . now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."

## The Death Angel

I was listening to a professor of a Bible college lecturing on the Passover. In the lecture he mentioned the death angel killing those who did not have the blood applied to the door posts. The term "death angel" is not mentioned in connection with the children of Israel in Egypt. As a matter of fact, the term "death angel" is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

## The Wise Men in Bethlehem

Everyone knows that the three wise men came to visit the baby Jesus when he was born in Bethlehem. After all, Christmas cards and Christmas plays always show the three wise men bringing their gifts to the baby Jesus as he lay in a manger in a stable. But, a little study of the Bible shows otherwise. In Matthew chapter two the wise men were sent by Herod to Bethlehem but it was the star that led them to Jesus. At the time Jesus was called a "young child" and not a "baby" and they entered a "house" and not a "stable." According to Herod's questioning of the wise men, Jesus was probably two years old. After the wise men left, an angel instructed Joseph to take Mary and Jesus and flee to Egypt. In Luke chapter two we are told that Mary and Joseph took Jesus to the Temple according to the Law of Moses (found in Leviticus 12, at which time Jesus would have been at least 41 days old) after which they returned to Nazareth. If you put these two chapters together you must arrive at the conclusions that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, when he was at least 41 days old he was taken to the Temple after which the family returned to Nazareth. When Jesus was around two years old the wise men, led by the star, came bringing their gifts to Nazareth. When they left, Mary, Joseph and Jesus left for Egypt.

## Mount Calvary

"On a hill far away stood an old rugged cross." It must have been that song that started the talk and songs about Mount Calvary. The fact is, the Bible says nothing about Calvary being a hill, much less a mountain. A lecture I once heard at Gordon's tomb in Jerusalem convinced me that the common place for crucifixion in Jesus' time was at the bottom of the famous "skull" hill and not on top of it. There is now a bus station built on the spot.

## Eternal Abode in Heaven

It is often said that we are going to heaven and stay there forever. That is not true. We are going to heaven and stay there until the resurrection. After the tribulation we are coming back to the earth for the millennium and after the new heaven and new earth, the earth will be our home, not heaven (Revelation 20 and 21). The Bible says so little about heaven that about the only thing we can say for sure about it is, we will be there with the Lord.

## Pearly Gates and Golden Streets

Even preachers sometime preach that you enter heaven through the "Pearly Gate" and walk on streets of gold. That isn't what the Bible says. The gates of pearl and golden streets are in the New Jerusalem (which will be on the new earth) and not said to be in heaven (Revelation 21).

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 18. Mormonism

Since Mormonism has been in the spotlight lately, I thought I would give a brief overview.

Mormon is a nickname for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints which was organized April 6, 1830 by Joseph Smith, then 24 years old, and five associates in Fayette, Seneca County, New York.

As a boy of around 14, Joseph Smith was praying about which church he should join. In the spring of 1820 he was allegedly visited by the Father and Jesus Christ who told him that all churches were wrong and not to join any of them. September 21, 1823 an angel, named Moroni, allegedly revealed to him the resting place of ancient golden plates upon which was inscribed the inspired history of the early inhabitants of America. The inscription on the plates was written in what Joseph Smith called "reformed Egyptian." Along with the plates were two stones (called "Urim and Thummim") set in bows of silver (like spectacles). With the aid of these and "under inspiration of God," Joseph Smith was able to translate the ancient inscriptions, which became the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon sets forth that in the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah (600 B.C.), an Israelite prophet named Lehi, together with his family and parts of other families, migrated from Palestine to America under Divine direction. In the new world the colony multiplied rapidly, but in the course of time two opposing nations arose, known as Nephites and Lamanites.

The Nephites were finally exterminated by the Lamanites (who became the American Indians) about A.D. 400. The Nephite records were summarized by Mormon, one of the later prophets and delivered to his son, Moroni. Moroni survived the destruction of his people long enough to continue the record and then bury it in the hill Cumorah. This same Moroni became the angel who revealed the hiding place to Joseph Smith.

The Mormons recognize two sources of doctrine: (1) the written word of God - the Scriptures; and (2) direct revelation from God.

Scripture, however, to the Mormon is not just the Bible, but four books. They are: (1) the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly;" (2) the Book of Mormon; (3) Doctrine and Covenants; and (4) the Pearl of Great Price.

The Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contains revelations given to the prophet Joseph Smith with some additions by his successors.

The Pearl of Great Price contains principally certain revelations and writings of Moses and Abraham not found in the Bible.

The church also believes in continuous revelation. There is one man on earth at a time who may receive revelation for the guidance of the entire church. He is the president of the church, who holds "the keys of the priesthood and is accepted as a prophet, seer and revelator." His official word when speaking in the name of the Lord, is received by the church as God's word.

**God.** Joseph Smith taught that "God, the Father, has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's." He also taught that there are many gods, and that it is possible for man to become one of these gods.

Brigham Young, Joseph Smith's successor, taught that Adam "is our Father and our God and the only God with whom we have to do." When Adam came into the Garden of Eden he brought Eve, one of his wives with him. "Adam created man as we create our children: for there is no other process of creation."

**The Trinity.** Mormon doctrine speaks of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. However, these three persons compose the great presiding council and have revealed themselves to man: (1) God the eternal Father; (2) His son Jesus Christ; and (3) the Holy Ghost. These three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other.

**Jesus Christ.** Jesus was not begotten of the Holy Spirit, but was the son of Adam and one of His wives, the Virgin Mary.

Jesus was married to several women. The marriage at Cana of Galilee was actually Jesus' marriage to Mary and Martha and the other Mary. When Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene after His resurrection, He was naturally appearing first to one of His own dear wives.

Jesus also had children. Orson Hyde said, "I shall say here that before the Saviour died He looked upon His own natural children as we look upon ours."

In Doctrine and Covenants (68:1,4) "God said: My servant, Orson Hyde, was called by his ordination to proclaim the everlasting gospel . . . And whatsoever, they (those ordained unto this priesthood) shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation."

**Angels.** People who are not married for eternity cannot become gods but may become angels. They can never become gods, be married or have children, but will throughout eternity be ministering servants for those who became gods. Moroni, the son of Mormon, became an angel and appeared to Joseph Smith.

**Joseph Smith.** The feelings about Smith are summed up in Doctrine and Covenants 135:3, written after his death, "Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it." Brigham Young taught that "Every spirit that confesses that Joseph Smith is a prophet, that he lived and died a prophet, and that the Book of Mormon is true, is of God, and every spirit that does not is of anti-Christ." In other words, a person cannot be saved if they do not accept Joseph Smith as a prophet of God and the Book of Mormon as true.

**Salvation.** Salvation is attained by accepting the principles and practices of truth issuing from God as taught by the Mormon church, being baptized by immersion for the remission of sins and then following the teachings of the church. Children are baptized at age eight.

**Baptism for the Dead.** Since there is no salvation except by water baptism administered by a qualified Mormon priest, those who have died without this baptism cannot be saved. This would include the millions who died before the gospel was restored by Joseph Smith. Therefore God revealed to Joseph Smith that people could be baptized for the dead. This baptism must take place in the Temple. A Mormon may be baptized by proxy for his dead ancestors. This is why the Mormon Church maintains one of the largest genealogical libraries in the country.

**Marriage.** The church recognizes two kinds of marriages. The first is for this life, the other is for eternity. "Celestial marriage" is entered into by couples who are worthy, have paid their tithes and kept their vows. This marriage takes place in the Temple and the two are "Sealed" for eternity as well as for time. Only such as are thus sealed become gods and can propagate children in eternity. Those who are unworthy of the Temple rite, or do not desire it, are married outside of the temple. Such cannot become gods but only angels or ministering servants to those who become gods.

Polygamy was practiced widely by the Mormons after their move to Utah. Brigham Young, Smith's successor, was survived by 17 wives and 47 children. In 1862 Congress passed a law prohibiting polygamy. In 1890, after the U. S. Supreme Court had reaffirmed the constitutionality of the anti-polygamy laws, the church withdrew its sanction of plural marriages. It was not until after this change that Utah was admitted into the Union as the 45th state in 1896.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 19. Once Saved

Of all the religions in the world, Christian and otherwise, there are really only two plans of salvation. One plan is that you have to somehow work for your salvation. The other plan is that, because of what Jesus has done, we are saved by the grace of God without any works.

Those that are working for their salvation can never be certain that they are saved because no one knows exactly how many, or what kind of good works are needed to obtain salvation. Some have salvation on the installment plan, as long as they keep up the payments (good works) they can keep it, but when they miss some payments, God takes it back. Others feel that as long as they do not do anything really bad, they can keep their salvation. The problem again is, no one knows which sins will take away their salvation.

As I often quote, "Opinions are like belly buttons, everybody has one." If my opinion is not based on something concrete, then it is only an opinion and is seldom worth anything. If I can point you to a truth in the Bible, then it is no longer my opinion. That is why, as Baptists, we try to base everything we believe and practice on the Word of God. (I should be quick to add that sometime we almost give our traditions equal footing with the Word.)

The New Testament is clear that we are not saved by our good works. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us . . ." (Titus 3:5). "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9). If we are not saved by our good works, then how could our good works keep us saved?

First John 5:13 states, "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life . . ." First, this verse teaches that we can know, or understand, or be conscious of the fact that we possess eternal life. If we are kept by our works, we can never be for certain we are going to heaven. Second, this verse teaches us that we have eternal life. That is present tense. We have it now, not will have it sometime in the future. Third, if we have eternal life, it can never end. If it ends, it was not eternal life in the first place.

One of the first verses I memorized was John 5:24. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." Again, this verse states that believers have everlasting life and you cannot lose everlasting life! It also tells us that believers will not come into condemnation. The word condemnation means "to be judged and found guilty." So, once you have trusted Jesus Christ to be your Savior, you will never come into judgment for your salvation.

In John chapter three, Jesus said we "must be born again." When you are born you have parents that, good or bad, can never change. First John 3:2 says, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." Now, not some time in the future, we are the children of God. That is a relationship that cannot be broken. However, there is a big difference between relationship and fellowship. You and your father could be at odds and not speak to each other. That does not keep you from being his child or him from being your father. Unconfessed sin in our life will break the fellowship between us and God but it does not break the relationship.

The main objection to eternal security, or security of the believer, or once saved, always saved, is, what happens when a believer sins? Can a believer just sin and get by with it? If your child did something really, really bad, would you take him to the back yard and kill him? Even the thought is repulsive. If you wouldn't think of doing something like that, then why would God?

A believer cannot sin and get by with it! First, as we have already mentioned, unconfessed sin breaks our fellowship with God. The intimacy is gone.

Second, just as you do, God chastens His children. "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth" (Hebrews 12:6). Because God loves you, unconfessed sin will bring a punishment in order to get you to do right and not do wrong. What kind of punishment? Who knows what it may be? God makes the punishment fit the person and the sin.

Third, every believer will stand before the "Judgment Seat of Christ" and give an account of what he has done with his life. "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad" (2 Corinthians 5:10). Those that have used their life in God's service will receive a reward. Jumping in the middle of the narrative, 1 Corinthians 3:14-15 says, "If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." The word reward means "a wage or salary." Those who have served the Lord will get paid for their service but those who were saved but wasted their life will still be saved but will have nothing to show for it. That is why Jesus said, "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (Matthew 6:19-21).

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 20. One Wife

In one week three people asked my opinion on a pastor being divorced and remarried. In my forty-seven years of ministry I don't remember doing an in-depth study on the subject, I just had my opinion.

The Scripture verses alluded to in such questions are 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, which deal with pastors, and 1 Timothy 3:12, which deals with deacons. These are found in the qualifications that Paul laid down to Timothy and Titus concerning pastors and deacons.

Let's lay some foundation. The terms _elder_ , _bishop,_ and _pastor_ are all speaking of the same office, which today we call "pastor." In the New Testament elder is the actual name of the office, bishop, meaning "superintendent" and pastor, meaning "shepherd," are descriptive titles of the office. The qualifications found in 1 Timothy and Titus are for elders (pastors) and deacons. Any other office or position does not fall under these qualifications. May I also point out that not all preachers are pastors.

The first word in the list of these qualifications for pastors is "blameless." In my opinion all the qualifications that follow are describing how a man is to be blameless.

To begin my study I looked at the Greek construction of "husband of one wife" found in all three verses and found them to be very similar. The same words are used. The Greek word used for husband is _aner_. In the KJV this word is translated "man" 156 times and "husband" 50 times.

Since that did not give me a conclusive answer to the meaning of "husband of one wife" I checked a dozen or so commentaries to see what others have thought about these passages. I found that through the years preachers have held (and still do) to four basic positions. They are:

1. A pastor must be a married man.

2. A pastor could be married only once, regardless.

3. A pastor could not be divorced and remarried.

4. A pastor could not be married to two women at the same time.

Since the commentators did not agree on the meaning, the Scriptures mentioned might mean any of the above.

Now it is time to do some serious study and see if we can arrive at some conclusion. Whatever conclusion we arrive at, I know we will still not all agree.

First, the term "husband of one wife" could mean that a pastor must be a married man. Although I was not able to confirm it from over half a dozen commentaries or dictionaries, I have always heard that members of the Sanhedrin had to be married men. Also, "The Jews teach, a priest should be neither unmarried nor childless, lest he be unmerciful [Bengel]. So in the synagogue, 'no one shall offer up prayer in public, unless he be married' [in Colob, ch. 65; Vitringa, Synagogue and Temple]." _1_ If the members of the Sanhedrin had to be married, and priests had to be married and you couldn't publically pray in a synagogue without being married, it would not seem unreasonable that a qualification for being a pastor would be to be married.

Second, the passages in question might also mean that a pastor could only be married once, regardless of the circumstances. "The most strict interpretation and the one common among the earliest commentators (second and third centuries) . . . extends the prohibition to any second marriage, even by widowers. Their argument is that in the first century second marriages were generally viewed as evidence of self-indulgence. . . . According to this strict view Paul considered a widower's second marriage, though by no means improper, to be evidence of a lack of the kind of self-control required of an overseer, in much the same way that a similar lack disqualified a widow from eligibility for the list of widows." _2_ 1 Timothy 5:9 seems to support this position since Paul said "having been the wife of one man" was a qualification for a widow to be put on the list to receive help from the church.

The third and most commonly held view today is that a pastor could not be a man who had been married, divorced and remarried. The thought is, if a man is divorced and remarried he has "two living wives" and is not the "husband of one wife." The divorced and remarried man does not have two wives. As Dr. L.D. Foreman used to say in class, "If a divorced and remarried man has two living wives, he should be arrested for bigamy." In John chapter four, Jesus said to the woman at the well, "Go, call thy husband, and come hither." The woman answered, "I have no husband," to which Jesus replied, "Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly." Jesus did not say, "You have five husbands" but "You have had five husbands." He did not say she had five living husbands, He said she did not have any husbands. He said she spoke the truth when she said she was not married even though she had been married five times.

The Law of Moses stated in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 that if a man divorced a woman she was free to remarry. However, if her second husband divorced her or died, she was forbidden to again become the wife of her first husband. If she had "two living husbands" she should have been able to return to her first husband since he was still her husband. The plain teaching is, she was no longer married to her first husband when she was divorced and remarried.

While we are here, let's put to rest the phrase, "living in adultery," as it applies to a divorced and remarried person. "Living in adultery" is not a biblical phrase. Jesus taught that if a man divorces his wife and marries another, he commits adultery. If his divorced wife marries she and her new husband commit adultery (Matthew 5:32, 19:5). Adultery is not something you "live in," it is something you "commit." When a divorced person commits himself to a new mate in marriage and seals it with the sexual act (even though it may be adultery) the bonds with the first mate seem to be dissolved and there seems to be no relationship whatever with the first marriage.

If our scriptures in question teach that "husband of one wife" applies to a divorced and remarried man, it is not because he has "two living wives." It would have to be because of the influence his divorce would have on his testimony.

The fourth position is that "husband of one wife" teaches against polygamy or bigamy. Whatever position you take on these verses you must conclude it teaches against polygamy and bigamy. You cannot be the husband of one wife and have two wives. However, this does not seem to be the primary meaning since the Gentiles in the first century did not practice polygamy.

Now, for what it is worth, I will now give you my sincere opinion. I think I will reject all of the four above positions and agree with Kenneth S. Wuest when he says, "The words, when used of the marriage relation come to mean, 'a man of one woman.' The nouns are without the definite article, which construction emphasizes character or nature. The entire context is one in which the character of the bishop is being discussed. Thus, one can translate, 'a one-wife sort of a husband,' or 'a one-woman sort of a man.' . . . Since character is emphasized by the Greek construction, the bishop should be a man who loves only one woman as his wife. It should be his nature to thus isolate and centralize his love." _3_

I feel that this qualification has to do with the character of the man more than whether he must be married, be married only once or has been divorced. A pastor must be a man whose affections are centered exclusively on his wife. If he has a "wandering eye," he is not the sort of person who needs to be in the pastorate. I once knew a pastor who was married only once but flirted with all the nice looking ladies. I don't think he met this qualification. My opinion is, this qualification is all about character.

Let me leave you with a few jewels I ran across. Wuest also said, "In some matters 'the common sense of most' is a safer guide than the irresponsible conjectures of a conscientious student." I think it was Ravi Zacharias I heard say, "The more words it takes to defend your position the more likely you are of being wrong." James A. Harris said, "The difference between a conviction and an opinion is that you can discuss your convictions without getting mad."

_1_ Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. 1997. A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, Wash.

_2_ Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. 1983-c1985. The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures. Victor Books: Wheaton, Ill.

_3_ Wuest, K. S. 1997, c1984. Wuest's word studies from the Greek New Testament : For the English reader . Eerdmans: Grand Rapids

I have known for a long time that people do not hear what I say, they hear what they think I say. However, I was not aware that people read what they think I wrote. After the above article on "The Husband of One Wife," it has come back to me that I wrote things I did not know I had written. For example, I have heard that I wrote that a pastor could have all the wives he wanted as long as he has them one at a time. I did not say that because I do not believe that.

As a little background, I concluded in the article that I believed that the teaching in Timothy and Titus had to do with the character of the man and not with the fact that he may have been married twice. In other words, he is not a womanizer. He is interested in his wife and only in his wife. For example, some of our past U.S. presidents were married only once but they were not "one woman men." They would not qualify for the office of pastor or deacon even though they had been married only once.

In my opinion, if a pastor or deacon divorces his wife in order to marry another woman, his character is such that he does not qualify for the office and his ordination should be rescinded. It is not a matter of "one wife at a time," it is a matter of his wife being the only woman in his life. I remember one of my instructors, Dr. Leo Causey, saying something like, "If you are married to the witch of Endor, you made a commitment to stay with her all of your life."

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 21. Protestant or Not?

When Barbara and I visited First Baptist Church in Kingstowne, Virginia, where Clyde Duncan was pastor, Shinji Amari was there and spoke. Brother Amari is pastor of the Abiko Baptist Church in Japan. After the service we all gathered at the pastor's home for a time of fellowship and, as best I recall, here is the story Brother Amari told me:

It seems that there was a church directory printed in Japan and all of the Baptist churches were listed under "Protestant." Brother Amari visited the editor and explained that he was not a Protestant but a Baptist and would like his church listed under a heading of "Baptist." The editor said he was not aware that Baptists were not Protestant and he would be glad to make a Baptist classification. He asked Brother Amari to contact the Baptist churches in Japan to see if they would all like to be listed under "Baptist."

All of the Southern Baptist churches said they were Protestant and wanted to be listed that way. Half of the Bible Baptist churches said they were Protestant and half said they were not, but for the sake of unity they all decided to be listed under "Protestant." As it turned out the ABA churches and a few independent Baptists were the only Baptist churches in Japan that chose to be listed under "Baptist" and not under "Protestant."

I think that story pretty much reflects the feelings of Baptist churches in America. Probably most Baptist churches in America today would teach that Baptists are a product of the Protestant Reformation that took place in the 1500s.

The Protestant Reformation came about because some inside the Roman Catholic Church tried to "reform" it. They were not successful and new churches were begun as a result of their teachings. The problem was, when they came out of the Catholic Church they brought a lot of "Catholic" teaching with them. Over the years churches came out of those churches and churches came out of those churches and today we have a whole group of churches that trace their history back to the Protestant Reformation. These are "Protestant" churches.

Do Baptists trace their history back to the Protestant Reformation? Some say we do but history says otherwise. As Baptists we do not trace our history by our name but by our teachings. I just pulled a book off my shelf first printed in 1658 called The History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piemont. On page 30 of this book is "An Ancient Confession of Faith of the Waldenses copied out of certain manuscripts, bearing date Anno Dom. 1120. That is to say, near 400 years before the time of either Calvin or Luther." I do not see anything in these 14 articles with which I would disagree.

On page 12 of this book it tells that some Waldenses who escaped the massacres in France in 1165 fled to the valleys of Piemont and joined themselves to the brethren who were already there. In France they were called Waldenses, in Albie they were called Albigenses, in Dauphine they were nick-named, in mockery, Chaignards. Those who went over the Alps were called Tramontani. In England they were known by the name of Lollards. In Provence they were usually termed Siccars. In Italy they were called Fraticelli. In Germany they were called Gazares and in Flanders they were called Turlepins. These were not names they gave themselves but names given to them by their enemies. For example, Gazares means "wicked in the highest degree." Turlepins means "companion of wolves," because they were at times, due to persecution, forced to live in the woods with wild animals. Because of their stand, all of these people were later referred to as Anabaptists. "The very name 'Anabaptist,' coined by Ulrich Zwingli [1484-1531] and meaning 'to rebaptize,' had a disdainful connotation" (Encyclopedia Americana). They were called this because they insisted that only believers should be baptized and that by immersion. Anyone who had been baptized as an infant should be baptized or "re-baptized." This made them hated and persecuted by both the Protestants and Catholics of their day. As time went on the "ana" was dropped and the people became simply known as Baptists. That's how we got our name.

There is an abundance of history that people who believed like Baptists can be found under various names from the times of the Apostles until today. They held in common at least the following:

1. The Bible as the only rule of faith and practice

2. Salvation by grace without works

3. A regenerated church membership

4. Baptism by immersion of believers only

5. Independence of the churches

6. Soul liberty, that is, people should be free to decide for themselves what they want to believe

7. Separation of church and state, that is, there should not be a state church

I read this statement the other day: "Take the Baptist teachings out of Protestant churches and you would have Catholic churches. Take the Catholic teachings out of Protestant churches and you would have Baptist churches." Close, very close.

I came across a delightful little book, The Bible Makes Us Baptists, written in 1894 under the title, In Editha 's Days. It is a historical novel of the suffering of the Anabaptists in England and Holland during the 1500s. It is a 350 page paperback book and is a must read for any Baptist history buff.

## THE INQUISITION

Here is an interesting little article I recently found tucked away in the Indianapolis Star newspaper:

"Vatican: Inquisition victims were fewer than believed

"Vatican City—Torture, burning at the stake and other punishment for the faithful condemned as witches or heretics by church tribunals during the Inquisition was not as widespread as commonly believed, the Vatican said Tuesday. Pope John Paul II praised the research. At a news conference to present a 783-page book on the findings, church officials and others involved in the project said statistics and other data demolished long-held beliefs about the Inquisition. Agostino Borromeo, a professor at Rome's Sapienza University who oversaw the volume, said that while there were about 125,000 trials of suspected heretics in Spain, researchers found that about 1 percent of the defendants were executed. In Portugal, 5.7 percent of the more than 13,000 people tried before church tribunals in the 16th and early 17th century were condemned to death, he said."

I looked up "Inquisition" in the Encyclopedia Americana and found a few interesting facts. The Inquisition was common all over Europe (except England and Scandinavia) and not just in Spain and Portugal. Although there are not certain dates when it began or ended, it was most popular from the 11th to the 17th centuries. The sole purpose of the Inquisition was to stamp out heresy, which means anyone who disagreed with the Roman Catholic Church. Specifically mentioned in the article as targets of the Inquisition were the Donatists, Albigenses, Waldenses, Cathari, Beguines, Beghards, Fraticelli and Anabaptists. According to the encyclopedia, punishment for not believing like the Catholic Church included fines, imprisonment, servitude, exile, confiscation of goods, mutilation, hanging, strangulation and burning at the stake.

The article in the Indianapolis Star reports that new findings show that only around 1,250 people were put to death in Spain and around 750 in Portugal. The older estimates were much higher.

This is why our forefathers in the faith, who felt the sting of the Inquisition, always stood for soul liberty and separation of church and state.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 22. Sabbath Day

The Seventh Day Adventists, Seventh Day Baptists and a few smaller Sabbatarian denominations believe the Bible to teach that the Sabbath is the day we should meet in church to worship. The Sabbath is the seventh day of the week and is the day we call Saturday. Sunday is not the Sabbath and is not even a "Christian Sabbath." I suppose the Sabbatarians would point to the fact that Jesus attended the synagogue on the Sabbath day. Should we be meeting on Saturday instead of Sunday?

The Sabbath was instituted by God Himself at the creation. He worked six days on the creation and then rested on the seventh day. Did God actually get tired from working? Of course not. Then why did He make this a day of rest? Jesus answers that question in Mark 2:27, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." The Sabbath was not made for God, it was made for men. God did not need to rest but men do. So God made one day a week a day of rest and as an example rested the seventh day of creation. Notice that there is no worship service of any kind connected with the original Sabbath. (Ever wonder why we have a seven day week and not a six or a ten day week? It is because God made it that way in the beginning.)

It is off the subject, but do you know where we got the English names for the days of the week? All the names are pagan. In English, Sunday gets its name from Sunna, or Sunne, the Germanic sun goddess. Monday gets its name from Mani, the Germanic Moon god. The English name for Tuesday is derived from the Nordic god Tyr, the god of warfare. The name Wednesday comes from the Old English Wodnesdaeg meaning the day of the Germanic god Woden, who was the supreme god of Norse mythology. The name Thursday comes from Thor, the Norse god of thunder. Thor replaced the Roman god of thunder, Jupiter. The name Friday comes from the Old English frigedaeg, meaning the day of Frige, the Norse god of beauty. Frige replaced the Roman god of beauty, Venus. Saturday is the only day of the week to retain its Roman origin in English, named after the Roman god of time, Saturn.

For a little over 1,400 years there was no worship service of any kind connected with the Sabbath day. Then came the Law of Moses which made the keeping of the Sabbath compulsory to the Jews and imposed the death penalty for breaking it. But even with the Law of Moses and the introduction of the Tabernacle there was no worship service connected to the Sabbath. The Sabbath was still a day of rest.

The Law of Moses instituted the Tabernacle worship in which offerings and sacrifices were made. With it God set aside three feasts a year in which all the Jewish males were to come and assemble together: the feasts of Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. Days during these feasts were designated as Sabbath days in which they were to do no work. These were special Sabbath days and not the seventh day Sabbath. But even with the Tabernacle worship the weekly Sabbath remained a day of rest and not a day for worship services.

It seems that David introduced a choir and orchestra to the two regular daily sacrifices required by the Law. Then Solomon came along and built the magnificent Temple in Jerusalem. Still no required worship services on the weekly Sabbaths.

The Tabernacle and Temple worship was not even close to the church services we have today. Other than the feast days there were no regularly scheduled meetings, there were no pastors or deacons, no sermons, no congregational singing and no offerings received. Our church services are more like a synagogue service than the Temple worship.

Some seem to think that the Jewish synagogue (like Jesus attended regularly) was instituted by God. It was not. There were no synagogues or Rabbis until the Jews went into captivity around 600 years before Christ. While they were in this 70 year captivity they began to meet together for mutual encouragement, to sing, pray, read the Word of God and to hear someone speak. It is logical to assume that they began to meet on the Sabbath since they were working the other six days and since such a meeting did not violate the Sabbath laws. There was no commandment from God to meet in the synagogue and no commandment from God to meet on the Sabbath day. The Sabbath day was made for resting, not meeting.

It is interesting that a "Sabbath day's journey" is mentioned only once in the Bible. Acts 1:12, "Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey." A Sabbath day's journey, the distance a person could travel on the Sabbath, was not part of the Law of Moses. It was set by Jewish tradition at 2,000 paces or approximately three-quarters of a mile. This was only one of the many rules and regulations Jewish tradition built around the Sabbath day.

I get a little amused when people say they are keeping the Ten Commandments. I do not personally know of anyone who rests all day Saturday, or even Sunday for that matter. The laws concerning the Sabbath were very strict. The whole household, and any visitors, were forbidden from any kind of work. They were not allowed to cook or even build a fire. One man was put to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath! You see, breaking the Sabbath was a capital offense, as were most of the Ten Commandments.

Sabbatarians will be hard pressed to find any Scripture that commands us to attend a worship service on the weekly Sabbath.

When Jesus started His church the purposes were entirely different from either the Temple or the synagogue. The purpose of the church was to get the good news of the gospel proclaimed to every creature on earth. His followers are commanded to meet together (Hebrews 10:25). In my own opinion I don't think God is as concerned with the day of the week we meet as He is with whether or not we are fulfilling the purpose He intended for the church–getting the message of salvation to the whole world.

All that said, it does appear that the early churches met on the first day of the week. "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight" (Acts 20:7). And, "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come" (1 Corinthians 16:2).

Even though you and I are not under the Law that commands us to keep the Sabbath, there is a clear principle taught. The principle is that the human body needs rest. Not only does it need to rest every night, it needs to take a break from the rigors of work one day a week and rest. Jesus rested one day a week. He did not eat out, did not play ball in the afternoon or go shopping—he rested. Why am I so sure of that? Because He kept the Law of Moses to the letter, and that is what the Law required.

In my opinion we would be healthier, happier people if we would observe the principle of the Sabbath and allow our bodies complete rest one day a week.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 23. Salvation

The single most important question in the whole world is, "Where am I going when I die?" Most of the people in the world never give it any serious thought. Those who do are given a smorgasbord of options. If we forget about all the non-Christian religions and focus only on "Christian" religions we still have a wide variety to choose from. These can be divided into two categories, salvation by some type of works or salvation by grace through faith without works. The Bible is very clear that we are not saved by any kind of good works on our part. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus 3:5). And, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

So, if you are depending on your good works, your church membership, your giving, or your religious acts to somehow get you into heaven, you can forget it. It isn't going to happen. A Pharisee went into the temple one day to pray (Luke 18:10-14). His prayer revealed a lot about the man:

1. He was very religious

2. He was a good man

3. He prayed

4. He didn't cheat people out of their money

5. He was not an adulterer

6. He fasted twice a week

7. He gave tithes of everything he owned

If good works could get you into heaven it looks like this man was on his way. But, Jesus said he was not going.

The Bible tells us that we can know or understand that we have at the present time life that will last forever. "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God" (1 John 5:13). If you were saved by your works you could never be certain that you were saved because no one knows how many or what kind of good works it would take. How can a person know that he has eternal life? Well, there are some things you need to understand.

First, religion and salvation are not the same thing. It has been said that religion is what a man does for his God and salvation is what God does for a man. Salvation is not about being religious or doing religious things.

Second, God is holy, absolutely righteous, and being holy He cannot tolerate sin. Sin is simply defined as disobedience to God. God is the standard and anything short of that is sin.

Third, you are a sinner. Not just you but all of us. "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of god" (Romans 3:23). None are righteous. We are sinners by nature and by practice. Did you know that there is a sin worse than murder?

Fourth, Jesus came into the world, lived a sinless life, took your sins upon Himself and made a payment for them that would satisfy God. "For he [God] hath made him [Jesus] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Corinthians 5:21). Your sins have been paid for by Jesus on the cross. The wrath of God has been appeased.

Fifth, God offers you the forgiveness of sins and eternal life as a gift. "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 6:23). You do not earn a gift, you do not work for a gift and you do not pay for a gift. Your eternal life has already been paid for—at a price so great you could never afford it.

Sixth, you get the gift of eternal life by receiving it by faith. You trust Jesus to save you, just like He said He would. It is not believing about Jesus, it is trusting in Jesus. It is not religion, it is a relationship. To illustrate, you might have a terminal disease but you know of a doctor that can cure your disease. You might know all about the doctor, his background, where he went to school, his experience, etc., but still die of the disease. It is not until you go to the doctor and place yourself in his hands that he can heal you. You can know all about Jesus and still die lost. It is not until you place yourself in His hands that he can save you. When a paratrooper goes up in an airplane and jumps out, all of his trust is in his parachute. He cannot fly. It is the parachute or death. In a similar way we must jump off on Jesus and trust Him alone to save us. It is faith alone in Jesus alone. It is Jesus or hell.

Seventh, salvation does not come by praying, it comes by trusting. It is not a matter of the head, it is a matter of the heart. I am afraid that a lot of people have prayed a little prayer with their mouth but have never cast themselves on the grace of God. They look back to a time they said a prayer and are counting on that as a means of their salvation. We sometime have a person repeat the "Sinner's Prayer" and then pronounce them saved.

Eighth, you need to repent. Repentance simply means to change your mind, turn around and go in a different direction. Just what do you need to repent of? I mentioned that there is a sin worse than murder. After all God has done to save us, after all that Jesus suffered on the cross for our sins, after His loving offer to freely give us eternal life, to refuse such an offer is a sin far beyond any other. To reject such an offer is an insult to God. If you spent every last dollar you had to buy someone a very expensive gift and they refused it, how would you feel? How would you feel if you offered someone the very expensive gift and they wanted to pay you a dollar for it? Can you understand why God is offended? This is the only sin that will send you to hell. A person must realize how much he has offended God by his rejection and turn to God by faith in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance in this case is turning from rejection to acceptance.

Ninth, with salvation comes a changed life. The Bible says when we are saved we are a new creature. The Spirit of God has moved into our heart and our outlook is different. We no longer desire the things we once did and we desire things we did not desire before. A lost man has no interest in praying or studying the Bible or fellowshipping with Christians but a saved man does. I am not saying that a saved person will live a sinless life. Being saved will not keep you from sinning but it sure takes the fun out of sin. If you made a profession of faith but there was no change of direction in your life, you have no desire to pray, no desire for the Word of God, no desire to be around other Christians, if I were you I would give some serious consideration to whether you just said a prayer or you actually trusted Jesus to be your Savior.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 24. Scientology

While I was getting my hair cut yesterday, my hair dresser, Julie, asked what I thought about Scientology. It dawned on me that I knew almost nothing about this religion. She suggested that it might be a good idea to do an article on Scientology. So, I have spent most of the morning on Scientology's website trying to get my mind around this strange religion.

We must begin by saying that Scientology is not in any way a "Christian" religion. It does not recognize the Bible or the God of the Bible. In my thinking it would be closer to Hinduism than Christianity.

I am going to try to be as accurate as I can, but Scientology makes it difficult. They have coined some words of their own, like thetan and MEST. All of the facts I am going to give came from their website and can be easily checked. All of the quotes in this article are from their website.

In 1950 L. Ron Hubbard published a book called _Dianetics_ : _The Modern Science of Mental Health._ This book proved to be a best seller and from the principles in it the religion of Scientology was begun in February of 1954.

It is said that "Scientology is something one does, not something one believes in."

Scientology believes that man is a spirit being and has a body and mind. Although it is not called reincarnation, the church recognizes that men have had previous lives, reaching back to "time immemorial." Man is basically good but carries a lot of negative and bad with him through his previous lives.

The best I can figure is that Scientology believes it is helping people rid themselves of all of the negative and bad experiences in this and previous lives. With those out of the way a person can be taught to live a happy and productive life. "But because Man is basically good, he is capable of spiritual betterment. And it is the goal of Scientology to bring him to a point where he is capable of sorting out the factors in his own life and solving his own problems." "In Scientology, one is given the tools to handle upsets and aberrations [act of departing from the right, normal or usual course] from past lives that adversely affect the individual in the present, thus freeing one to live a much happier life."

"Auditing" is the process by which a person is led to identify any "spiritual disabilities" in this or previous lives. "Auditing provides a precise path by which any individual may walk an exact route to higher states of spiritual awareness." A trained auditor will use an exact set of questions (written by L. Ron Hubbard) or directions to help a person locate areas of spiritual distress, find out things about himself and improve his condition.

"In the Church of Scientology, parishioners make donations for auditing or training they wish to receive. These contributions are the primary source of financial support for the Church and fund all Church-sponsored religious and social betterment activities."

On a person's journey to a greater spiritual awareness, several Scientology teachings come into play, like "The Eight Dynamics," the "ARC Triangle," the "Emotional Tone Scale" and others.

Scientology teaches that: "The basic command 'Survive!' which is obeyed by all of life, is subdivided into eight compartments so that each aspect of life can be more easily inspected and understood. These compartments are called the eight dynamics (dynamic meaning urge, drive or impulse)."

The eight dynamics are:

1. Self, the effort to survive as an individual;

2. Creativity, the family unit and raising children as well as anything that can be categorized as a family activity;

3. Group Survival, the urge to survive through a group of individuals or as a group;

4. Species, the urge toward survival through all mankind and as all mankind;

5. Life Forms, the urge to survive as life forms and with the help of life forms such as animals, birds, insects, fish and vegetation;

6. Physical Universe, the urge of the physical universe to survive;

7. Spiritual Dynamic, the urge to survive as spiritual beings or the urge for life itself to survive;

8. Infinity, commonly called God, the Supreme Being or Creator, but it is correctly defined as infinity. It actually embraces the allness of all. That is why, according to L. Ron Hubbard, "When the Seventh Dynamic is reached in its entirety, one will only then discover the true Eighth Dynamic."

The "Emotional Tone Scale" is a list of emotions that have been given a numeric value. The emotions range from things like dying (rated at 0.01), useless (rated at 0.03) and apathy (rated at 0.05) to enthusiasm (rated at 4.0) and exhilaration (rated at 8.0) and beyond. By knowing where a person falls on the scale, one can precisely predict his actions and can respond appropriately.

Then there is the "ARC Triangle," which stands for affinity, reality and communication, which is known as the "Components of Understanding." Affinity is the feeling of love or liking for something or someone. Reality is "that which appears to be. Reality is fundamentally agreement. What we agree to be real is real." And, Communication is the interchange of ideas or objects between two people.

The ARC Triangle answers the question of how to talk to someone. If one uses the triangle and chooses a subject on which the person being talked to can agree, affinity will rise and communication will be better. Using the principle that raising any corner of this triangle raises the other two, one can improve his relationship with anyone.

"The vast majority of Scientology scriptures are widely available to the general public and can be read and studied by anyone. However, a very small portion of the scriptures that deal with the most advanced levels of spiritual counseling is restricted to those parishioners who have attained the prior levels of spiritual awareness."

"Scientologists believe that people are immortal spiritual beings who have lived before and who will live again, and that their future happiness and immortality as spiritual beings depend on how they conduct themselves in the here and now." Therefore, there is no personal God, no Bible, no heaven or hell, no sin and no need for a Savior.

Where did everything come from? Scientology holds the view that theta (the life force, or spirit) created MEST (a coined word for the physical universe, Matter, Energy, Space and Time). I am not sure exactly what that means or how they came up with it. I like the Bible version better.

If I could sum up all of this in my own words I would put it something like this: In Scientology there is no personal identifiable God. Man is a spirit being that has lived through many, many lives. Man is basically good and with the help of Scientology can lift himself to a place of happiness and productivity by understanding himself and his relationship to others.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 25. Suicide

Almost every pastor has held at least one funeral for someone who had taken his own life. As a pastor I have been asked not to mention the details of the death during the funeral. No one wants to talk about it, at least not in public or with the family. Losing someone by death is always traumatic for a family but losing a loved one because of a suicide heaps more stress upon them.

I am not a medical doctor, a psychiatrist or a psychologist, so anything I am about to say is strictly my own opinion and is not anything professional.

When I think of suicide I think of two words, _overwhelmed_ and _despair_. There is no one reason why people decide to end their lives. Probably in most cases a person is faced with a situation they can see no other way out of. Many times suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

Depression is involved in a lot of cases. I am not talking about having a down time that lasts a few days that almost everyone has. I am talking about full blown clinical depression when a person has no way to get himself out of it. The elephant sitting on the chest, the mind that won't shut off so you can sleep, the loss of interest in everything and everyone, panic attacks, and gloom, doom, and despair. Advice like "Why don't you snap out of it?" or "I think you enjoy being like this," does not help but only makes matters worse. Praying more or reading your Bible more has little effect on this kind of depression. If you have never been there you have absolutely no idea what it is like, so please don't be judgmental of the person who is in the middle of it.

It is even possible for a person to be in this kind of depression and you would never know it because people often put on a front. I remember once asking a man how he was, and he replied, "Too blessed to be stressed." I found out later that at the time he was going through a bout with depression and had even considered suicide. You never know.

In my opinion depression is the body's natural reaction to an overload. God won't put more on you than you can bear, but you sure will. If you are there the first thing you should do is see a medical doctor and get a complete physical exam. The problem could be physical and not mental. Sometimes depression is caused by a chemical imbalance and the doctor can prescribe a medication that will help. It may be that you will need to see a psychologist or a psychiatrist to help you sort through things and find out what caused the depression in the first place. Do whatever it takes, even if it takes a while to claw your way out of it.

As strange as it may seem, sometimes the medication given for depression may cause thoughts of suicide. If you are on any kind of medication for depression and begin to have thoughts of suicide, contact your doctor immediately.

Back to the subject at hand. When a person has been in this kind of depression for a long time they can feel trapped and think it will never end. Sometimes suicide seems like the only option to get out of it.

Some people who are not going through depression may feel overwhelmed in a situation they can see no way out. For example, a wife may suddenly leave with another man and the husband feels his world has fallen apart and life is no longer worth living. Or, a person is diagnosed with a terminal illness and feels he cannot face it. Perhaps a man unexpectedly loses the position at work he has worked so hard to attain and he cannot face life at a lower social status. All of these, of course, are not true and are actually lies of the devil. When a spouse leaves, it is not the end of the world and, with God's help, in time you can be happy again. Terminal illness? God may have some incredible experiences in store for you or there may be others who need to see how a real Christian faces death. It should be God, and not you, Who determines the length of your life. Lost all your money and social standing? Maybe you needed to learn some valuable lessons.

Remember that suicide, under whatever circumstance, is done under extreme emotional distress.

Is suicide a sin? Of course it is. The Bible is clear that we are not to take a human life. Then can a person who commits suicide go to heaven? That depends. If a person has accepted Jesus Christ, and Him alone, as his Savior, he will go to heaven even if he commits suicide because we are saved by faith in Christ and not by our works. However, that is not the end of the story. After we die all the saved will stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ and give an account for the things we have done since we were saved, whether they are good or bad. This is not to determine our salvation but to determine our rewards. So, if you are saved and commit suicide, you will still have to stand before the Lord and give an account for what you have done.

If you are, or if you ever consider suicide, please take time to consider that this is not the only way out of your situation. What you see as being a permanent situation may actually only be temporary. Stop and think. If you do not know Jesus as your personal Savior, when you take your life things are only going to get worse. There is not any situation on earth as bad as hell. Also think of the trauma, trouble, and problems you are going to put your family, friends, and loved ones through.

If you have serious thoughts of suicide call someone immediately. Call a Suicide Prevention Hot Line (800-273-8255), call your pastor, call your doctor, call someone and explain exactly what you are feeling.

Almost every family has been affected by a suicide. If you are one of those families, there is no reason to feel ashamed of it and there is no reason not to talk about it. Remember, when a person takes his life he is under extreme emotional distress, whether you understand it or not.

Suicide usually comes from hopeless and helpless feelings. May I tell you that things are not hopeless. The most important thing is to know Jesus as your Savior and to know that you are going to heaven. God loves you so much that He gave His Son to die for you and He has a specific plan for your life. If you will check in the Bible you will find that life was not easy for the Apostles, for Stephen, for Paul or for any other person who seriously wanted to serve God. As a matter of fact, Jesus promised persecution for all who would live godly. God may not take you out of your situation but He will be with you, will strengthen you, and see you through the situation.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 26. Tongues

Do people today speak in some sort of tongues as prompted by the Holy Spirit?

It must be remembered that the Spirit of God will never act contrary to the Word of God. The Holy Spirit and the Bible will always agree. So, it comes down to, what does the Bible teach concerning speaking in tongues?

Several spiritual gifts were given to the church on the day of Pentecost to help the early church carry out the commission they had been given by the Lord. Speaking in tongues was one of those gifts and was the ability to speak a language a person had never studied.

From the book of First Corinthians it is easy to see that the church at Corinth had some major problems. The reason for Paul's writing the book was to help the church straighten out some of these issues. Among those problems were some who were abusing the gift of speaking in tongues. Remember that not every member had the gift of tongues (1 Cor. 12:30). Chapters 12, 13 and 14 deal with spiritual gifts. Chapter 14 deals specifically with the gift of tongues. Paul's main idea in these chapters is that these gifts should be used to edify the whole body and not the individual.

Let's point out that in these chapters the word unknown (as in "unknown tongue") in the King James Bible is in italics which indicates that the word does not appear in the original Greek but has been added for clarification or sentence structure. So the original simply says "tongue." The Greek word for tongue is _glossa_ and means what our English word tongue means. It can mean the organ found in the mouth or it can mean a language, like a person's "mother tongue." In 1 Corinthians 14 it means language. What was spoken on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 were actual languages. The languages are even listed.

In Paul's instructions to the church at Corinth in chapter 14 he lays down some specific rules for speaking in tongues.

Rule 1: (verse 27) People speaking in tongues were limited to two, or at the most three, people in a church service. It would seem that in the church at Corinth there were an abundance of people who spoke in tongues and who wanted to speak in every service.

Rule 2: (verse 27) The two or three who spoke in tongues were to speak one at a time. Obviously there had been people in the church speaking in tongues at the same time. The result of such activity was confusion and Paul states in verse 33 that such was not of God because God is not the author of confusion.

Rule 3: (verse 28) If no one was able to interpret what was said by those two or three who spoke in tongues, then they were to keep silent. I was watching a preacher on television who suddenly spoke a dozen or so words in an "unknown tongue." He then said, "I don't know what I said but the Lord enjoyed it." Such so called tongues speaking is clearly against Paul's teaching on the subject.

Some believe that when the "Spirit" comes over a person, the person has no control and must speak. The teaching here is otherwise. The person who had the gift of tongues was in control of the gift and could speak or refrain from speaking.

**Rule 4:** (verse 34) Women were not allowed to speak in tongues or prophesy in a church service. Keep in mind that the subject under consideration in these three chapters is spiritual gifts. This Scripture is not teaching that a woman had to keep her mouth shut the whole time she was in a service. In keeping with the context it means she was not allowed to prophesy or speak in tongues in a service.

Philip had four daughters who prophesied (Acts 21:9). That they prophesied cannot be questioned, but that they did not prophesy in a public service such as Paul was speaking about, can neither be questioned.

**Rule 5:** (verse 40) A church service was to be decent and orderly. The word "decently" is the Greek word _euschemonos_ and means: "in a becoming manner; with propriety; gracefully." The word "order" is the Greek word _taxis_ and means: "well regulated conduct; arrangement; orderliness." A church service that is out of control and confused is an unscriptural service. Paul describes such a service in verse 23 where he tells of a service in which all were speaking in tongues. An unbeliever in such a meeting would think they were crazy.

If we contrast these biblical rules with much of the so called speaking in tongues today I think you will find the following.

1. Tongues in the New Testament were languages. Tongues today are unintelligible utterances.

2. Tongues in the New Testament were for a sign to the unbelievers. Tongues today are a sign to the individual that he has received the "baptism of the Holy Ghost."

3. Tongues in the New Testament were to edify and build up the church. Tongues today edify the individual.

4. Tongues in the New Testament were limited to two or three in a public service. Tongues today are spoken by as many in a service as the "Spirit" moves.

5. Tongues in the New Testament were to be restrained unless an interpreter was present. Tongues today are spoken in services when no one knows what is being said.

6. Tongues in the New Testament were to be spoken one at a time in a service. Tongues today are spoken by as many at one time as the "Spirit" moves.

7. Tongues in the New Testament were not spoken by women in the public services. Tongues today are spoken by women in public services.

The fact is, as the New Testament was completed the spiritual gifts were no longer needed. For example, we no longer need the gift of prophecy because God has given us all the prophecy we need in the Bible. We do not need the gift of knowledge because all we need to know is in the Bible. We are told to study the Word of God not to seek after the gift of knowledge. We do not need the gift of tongues to be a sign to unbelievers because the Bible is all the sign anyone needs. This is what 1 Corinthians 13:9, 10 says, "For we know in part [gift of knowledge], and we prophesy in part [gift of prophecy]. But when that which is perfect [complete] is come then that which is in part shall be done away."

Some believe that "that which is perfect" refers to Christ. If that were the case then the Bible would have said "he who is perfect" and not "that which is perfect."

Paul then compares these spiritual gifts to children's toys. When a child grows up he puts away the toys he played with when he was younger. (A man's toys seem to grow larger and more expensive as he ages.) In the same way the infant church needed things (spiritual gifts) that it would no longer need as it matured.

The fact of the matter is, the modern tongues movement has only been around for barely over 100 years. If the spiritual gift of tongues were still in effect, then Christians all through the ages would have been speaking in tongues. But such has not been the case.

Be careful to weigh your doctrines and practices by the Word of God and not by some experience or feeling you may have had.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 27. Tribulation

Of all the articles I have written for the _Anchor_ , I suppose this is the least important. But, it is something that has bugged me for years.

On my way to work today I was listening to Dr. David Jeremiah and he was talking about the Millennium. As he was doing a short time line he mentioned the seven year Tribulation. In books, sermons and articles, the whole seven years is always referred to as the tribulation period. Now here is my problem. I cannot find anywhere in the Bible that speaks of that whole seven years as the tribulation. It is very clear that during the last three and a half years there will be great tribulation but it never speaks of the whole seven years as the tribulation. To me the last three and a half years is the tribulation period.

I realize that I am playing a semantics game but it is important to me. Here is how it will play out.

Daniel 9:27 teaches that Anti-Christ will make a covenant or agreement with many for one week. From Daniel 12:11 we see that this "week" is not a week of days but a week of years, or seven years. This is where the seven years comes from, commonly called the "Tribulation."

Again in Daniel 9:27 we are told that three and a half years after the covenant is made, Anti-Christ will cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. For there to be sacrifices made, there must first be the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. It seems clear to me that the covenant or agreement is a peace agreement between Israel and her enemies and will allow the Temple to be rebuilt. For years U.S. presidents have attempted to arrange an agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians for peace in Israel. There are "peace talks" going on now to seek peace. So far all have failed. It boggles the imagination to think how Anti-Christ will work out, not only peace in Israel, but will allow the Jewish Temple to be rebuilt on the Temple mount.

People who have recently visited Israel have visited the Temple Institute in Jerusalem and report that all of the articles, except the Ark of the Covenant, are prepared and waiting for the Temple to be rebuilt. It is not a hope that the Temple will be rebuilt; it is an expectation that it will be rebuilt.

The Jews would never agree to build the Temple anywhere else besides where Solomon's Temple stood on the Temple Mount. A couple of problems will need to be resolved before the Temple can be built on the Temple Mount. First, the Palestinians are in control of the Temple Mount and they are in no mood to have a Jewish temple built there.

Second, standing on the place where the Temple stood is the Dome of the Rock. The Dome of the Rock is an Islamic shrine (not a mosque) built over a rock that is believed to be the spot from which Mohammad temporarily ascended into heaven accompanied by the angel Gabriel. Mohammad was taken there by Gabriel to pray with Abraham, Moses, and Jesus Christ. It is the third most sacred spot to Muslims, preceded only by Mecca and Medina. It was built in A.D. 691.

Can you see the problem? The Jews are determined to build their Temple on a spot believed to be a most holy place by over a billion Muslims.

Further in Daniel 9:27 we are told ". . . for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate. . ." This leads us to Matthew 24:15 where Jesus said, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth let him understand)." Jesus was referring to Daniel 9:27. Anti-Christ will do something that will be an abomination to God and will make the Temple desolate or empty. This abomination, according to Jesus, will be something or someone standing in the holy place or Temple. The Temple, by the way, included more than the building. It included the courtyard surrounding the building.

Exactly what is this standing in the holy place? Paul tells us of Anti-Christ in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, "Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." The abomination will be when Anti-Christ goes into the Temple and declares himself to be God. Revelation 13:14 tells us that there will also be an image of Anti-Christ set up, no doubt in the Temple, another abomination.

When will this abomination take place? According to Daniel it will take place three and a half years after the covenant is made, which leaves three and a half years to go.

Back in Matthew 24:21 Jesus said, speaking of the abomination being set up, "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no nor ever shall be." There it is. The tribulation period will begin three and a half years after the covenant is made and will last three and a half years. This is the period of time described in the seals, trumpets and bowls of Revelation chapters 6 - 19. It will be a time marked by war, famine and death. Something like a burning mountain will fall into the sea. We can only imagine what tsunamis that will cause. There will be an earthquake so great that the islands will disappear and the mountains will become flat. Sufferings so intense that men will chew their tongues in pain and wish to die. Truly it will be three and a half years of the worst time the world has ever known.

I have had it explained to me that the seven years are the Tribulation period and the last three and a half years are Great Tribulation. Where did that come from? I can't find it in the Scriptures.

For the first three and a half years the world will think Anti-Christ is wonderful. He will be so smart and wise that he will be able to work out the world's religious, financial and political problems. He will be able to amalgamate all the religions into one. He will bring the whole world into a single monetary system and solve recessions and inflation. He will have a one world government and he will be the ruler, at least for a while.

There will be some who will suffer trouble during this first half. They will be the ones who are saved and refuse to accept Anti-Christ's mark in order to buy or sell. Some will be beheaded. But, even though this is a troubled time for some, it is not the Tribulation period.

Anti-Christ will pretend to be friends with the Jews and will be accepted as their Messiah. That is, until the time he sets himself up as God. Then everything changes. From that point in time he will do his best to destroy the Jews, much like Hitler but on a much larger scale. If it were not for the grace of God, they would be destroyed.

The whole seven years of Daniel are not the Tribulation Period, only the last three and a half years. There, I've gotten it out of my system and I feel better.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 28. What Do You Say?

It is awkward to stand face to face with someone who has just lost a loved one. You don't know what to say, you don't want to say the wrong thing and you don't know what to do. Maybe it would help a little to examine the situation.

Over ten years ago (it is hard to believe it has been that long) my wife of 42 years passed away after a long undiagnosed illness that left her a virtual invalid for almost two years. Even though she was in a bad physical condition, no one expected her to die. One Friday afternoon she just died. I realize this situation has happened to thousands of others, but it had never happened to me and I was totally unprepared for it.

What happened the next week was surreal. I sort of remember picking out the casket and making the arrangements for the funeral. I think I was running on adrenalin. The visitation and funeral are a blur in my memory. What I do remember is that my pastor and some of my best friends flew in to be with me. I remember my son being by my side as we grieved together. I remember one dear pastor making sure I had enough money. I do remember that many friends came out for visitation and for the funeral. And, although I cannot remember now who they were from, all the flowers, calls and cards gave me a feeling of comfort knowing that people cared.

The day after the loss of a dear one, you go outside and the sun is still shining and you think, "How could the sun dare shine after such a tragedy?" You see people going about their daily lives and wonder how they could be so heartless as to not acknowledge your loss. What a person needs who has lost a loved one is to have others recognize their loss and pain and to know someone cares. However it is expressed, in presence, words, flowers, cards, etc., the bottom line is to know someone understands that you are hurting.

The visitation and funeral are an important part in the grieving process. Not only do they bring a sort of closure to a relationship and a time to say good bye, but it allows a time of support from family and friends. All of the handshakes, hugs, flowers, cards and phone calls surround a person with a feeling that someone cares about what you are going through.

Please be understanding. For several weeks after my wife's death my emotions were like a roller-coaster. I would be laughing one minute and crying the next. Grieving is a process that doesn't end with the funeral. It is a process that must be worked through, sometime for months and sometime for years. Everyone grieves differently. Some get through their grieving quickly and others never do. As good friend told me, "You will live through this, but you must go through this."

As Pastor Bob Aligood points out, "Grief has a mind of its own." Sometime after the loss of his son he went to a supermarket and saw a display of potato chips. Those particular potato chips were his son's favorite. He stood there looking at the display and burst out crying. It was not something he could control, grief had a mind of its own. It shows up at the worst times in the worst places.

Please save the pious clichés. Everyone needs to understand that my grief was not for my wife, my grief was for me. I knew where she was, that she was in a better place and that I would see her again. You didn't need to tell me that. The problem was, my wife was in a better place but I wasn't. I was still here and alone. Before we were a couple but suddenly I was a single. I didn't feel bad for her, she was with the Lord. But, I was angry, I was hurt, I was disappointed because a lot of things I had counted on, like a 50th wedding anniversary, would never happen. Part of my life had been stolen and I didn't like it.

"I know how you feel." Losing a spouse is like having half of your body torn off without anesthesia. If you have never experienced it, you have no idea what it is like. So, never tell a person you know what they are going through if you have never been through it.

What you see is not what you get. Soon after the death of a loved one a person may seem fine. They may smile, sing or even joke. That is what you see on the outside. If you ask them how they are doing, they will answer, "Fine." You cannot see what they feel inside. If the opportunity ever presents itself, be a good listener. Allow them to tell you how they really feel.

It is OK to talk about the deceased. I wanted to talk about my wife. I needed to talk about her. I wanted to tell about her. It is alright to share some happy remembrances, even humorous ones. I even enjoyed people telling me how pretty she was lying there in the casket.

Thanks, but no help needed. Almost immediately after my wife's death people started trying to find me another wife. Within two months a preacher friend of mine suggested a woman he knew who might make a good preacher's wife. Later I went to preach at a church and, trying to head things off, announced that I was not looking for a wife. That only seemed to make matters worse.

I went through a strange time. I was scared. I was afraid that if became friendly with a lady and perhaps went out on a date, she would become too serious too soon. I think I would have enjoyed dating several ladies but I was afraid to. I wanted someone I could just feel comfortable and safe with.

Be careful what you say. A few years ago I had someone tell me, "I love my wife so much that if anything ever happened to her, I would never remarry." I am sure he didn't mean anything by it but I took it to mean that since I had just gotten remarried I didn't love my first wife enough. My reply was that I enjoyed being married so much that I wanted to be married again.

If it had not been for the Lord, the comfort of the Holy Spirit and his Word, my difficult situation would have been a hopeless situation. I really have no idea how people who do not know the Lord as their personal Savior can cope with the death of a loved one. I am not saying that a Christian does not feel the loss and the pain. I am not saying that a Christian does not go through the grieving process. What I am saying is that it is not a hopeless situation. There is a great deal of comfort in knowing that a loved one is with the Lord, that his or her pain, suffering and heartaches are over and that you will be reunited sometime in the future.

What do you say to a person who has just lost a loved one? You really don't have to say anything. Just being there says more than any words. What I wanted was someone to hug me, cry with me, hurt with me and feel my pain.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 29. Women Preachers

Several years ago I was a stranger in a group of people when one of the ladies said, "Sometime I feel like I am called to preach." To which another lady answered, "You had better do whatever you feel the Lord wants you to do." Since I was a stranger and no one asked my opinion, I said nothing.

This thinking seems to be popular today. Whatever you feel God wants, you should do. The problem is, it is dangerous to only follow our feelings. The truth is, the Spirit of God will never lead contrary to the Word of God. May I repeat that? The Spirit of God will never lead contrary to the Word of God. If you feel one way and the Bible teaches another, you should align your feelings with God's Word and not the other way around.

That brings us to the subject of women preachers. In my very short research on the subject, it appears that women preachers find their beginning with John Wesley and the Methodists. "In 1787, despite the objections of some of the male preachers, he [John Wesley] officially authorized Sarah Mallet to preach, as long as she proclaimed the doctrines and adhered to the disciplines that all Methodist preachers were expected to accept." (Charles Yrigoyen, Jr., John Wesley: Holiness of Heart and Life, p. 9)

Almost a century later, in 1879 R.L. Dabney, a Presbyterian preacher, wrote, "A few years ago the preaching by women was universally condemned among all conservative denominations of Christians. Now the idea is being presented to the churches, and female preachers are knocking at our doors." (www.pointsouth.com/fbs/women.htm)

Today most Methodist, Holiness, Pentecostal, Charismatic, as well as other churches ordain women.

More recently we find,

"CHARLOTTE, N.C. (Baptist Press) — Anyone who resists the notion of women preachers is functioning as a tool of the devil, Tony Campolo, founder and president of the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education, said during the opening session of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship's general assembly June 26 [2003]." (www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=16205)

With that short background, does the Bible have anything to say about women preachers? Yes it does.

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (1 Timothy 2:11-12). This is not some obscure verse that you must stretch to make a point. It is so plain as to be almost impossible to misinterpret. Paul said he did not allow a woman to teach or have authority over a man. That should settle the matter, but of course it doesn't. Many will reply that Paul hated women or that times have changed or that we are living under different circumstances today. First, you must remember that Paul wrote under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Second, if we change the Bible to fit the times in which we are living, then the Bible becomes meaningless. The Bible would be in a state of constant change.

Again, "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak;but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). The subject under consideration in these verses is speaking in tongues and prophesying in church. Women were not allowed to speak in tongues or prophesy in a church service. (That would surely destroy the tongues movement.)

But wait. Doesn't the Bible say that Philip's four daughters prophesied? "And the next day we that were of Paul's company departed, and came unto Caesarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him. And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy" (Acts 21:8-9). Philip certainly did have four daughters who prophesied, but not in a church service. Otherwise we would have a serious contradiction in the Scriptures.

Aren't there some good women preachers? Of course there are. I know some women that I think would make better preachers than a lot of preachers I know. They know more about the Bible than most men. But, that is not the subject under consideration. Our only question should be, what does the Bible teach?

1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 teach that a pastor should be the husband of one wife. A woman cannot be the husband of a wife.

Not one woman pastor or preacher can be found in all of the New Testament.

Does this mean that women are inferior to men? It means nothing of the sort. That is comparing oranges to apples. Men and women are different. That does not make one better or one worse than the other. Most churches today would not exist if it were not for the women. However, God has placed men in the position of leadership in the church and in the home. The most important position in any church is the position that God has placed you in.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# 30. Wonderfully Made

While I was in WalMart the other day (waiting while my wife shopped) I was watching their in-store TV. One thing caught my attention: It takes 200 muscles to bat one eye! Imagine that. I love that sort of information.

While I was waiting to get a haircut last month I picked up a book, _God's Prescription for Healing_ by James P. Gills, M.D. (Dr. Gills is the most experienced cataract surgeon in the world.) This book was a treasure trove of facts about our bodies. Let me share some of them.

>Your body is made up of approximately 60 trillion cells.

>Your cells form 200 different tissues such as brain, pancreatic, muscle and heart tissue (all of which came from an original single cell).

>Each of your cells communicates with its neighbors across a cell membrane that is thinner than a spider's web.

>Each of your cells are filled with extremely tiny energy burning "engines" that are 200,000 times smaller than a pinhead.

>Every one of your 60 trillion cells contains the biochemical blueprint (known as DNA) for your height, eye color, liver function, the sound of your laughter, etc.

>The information contained in the DNA molecule of a single cell would fill 200 volumes of the Manhattan phone book.

>The DNA from a single cell, stretched out, would extend over five feet in length but would be only 50-trillionths of an inch wide.

>Removal of DNA from all of your cells and stretched out from end to end would extend in a strand from a minimum 10 billion miles to a possible maximum of 170 billion miles.

>A strand of DNA stretched from you to the sun would weigh a slight 1/50 of an ounce.

>Your 60 trillion cells are absorbed and replaced at a rate of a trillion a day (that's over a million a second).

>Your lungs have a surface area the size of half a tennis court.

>You inhale 23,000 times a day or 630 million times in your lifetime.

>Each of your ears have a million moving parts that vibrate 20,000 times a second.

While waiting in my doctor's office several months ago I was watching the TV on the wall, which showed advertisements for prescription drugs. To keep me watching they occasionally asked a question, one of which was, "Which organ in your body, if stretched out, would reach twice around the earth?" The answer took me by surprise. It was our blood vessels.

>Your 60,000 miles of blood vessels, if stretched out, would reach around the earth at the equator over two times.

>Your heart will pump 60 million gallons of blood around your body almost three billion times in a 75 year life span.

>One of your brain cells talks to 10,000 others.

>If you are using 10 % of your brain at this moment, it is making a thousand, trillion computations a second.

>Your eye makes 100,000 separate motions a day.

>Your eyelids will blink over 400 million times in your lifetime.

>Your iris possesses 266 identifiable characteristics, compared to the rather scant 35 displayed by your fingerprint.

>After focusing is accomplished by the lens of your eye, light and images strike the retina. The cells of the retina translate light photons into electrical impulses and send it to your brain. The retina's continuous "exposure" and "development" of its pictures would take a Cray supercomputer 100 years to simulate what is occurring in the eye every second.

For some reason my wife has a chart about feet (from SAS Shoemakers in San Antonio, Texas) hanging in our laundry room. From this chart I learned that:

>You have 26 bones in each foot that are moved by muscles and tendons and held together by ligaments.

>Each foot has 33 complex joints and four arches.

>When you stand 50% of your weight is on the heel, 25% at the base of your big toe joint and 25% spreads across the ball of your foot.

>In an average lifetime, your feet will carry you between 150,000 and 200,000 miles, a distance of six to eight times around the earth. That entire distance your feet will be your levers, balancers and shock absorbers.

I cannot read all of this without thinking of Psalm 139:14, "I will praise thee: for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Marvelous are thy works, and that my soul knowth right well."

These few facts won't even scratch the surface of the wonders of your body. The body is so complex that doctors often specialize in only one area. Even then a doctor never understands all there is to know about even his specialized area.

While I was traveling through a back road in Georgia a couple of years ago I passed a grove of large pecan trees. It was obvious that years ago someone had planted them in rows, not in just one direction but in both directions. The trees all lined up perfectly both ways. I do not think there is a sane person on earth who could look at this grove of pecan trees and not admit that a real person at some time in the past designed that grove.

What is beyond my understanding is the fact that some people can look at the above facts about the human body and not see a designer. To me it would take more faith to believe that the pecan trees in that grove grew that way by accident than it would to believe that someone planted them in that configuration.

Quite frankly, I don't have enough faith to believe blind chance produced that pecan grove or a human body.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

# About the Author

Raymond McAlister was born in Arkansas and attended the University of Arkansas in Little Rock and the Missionary Baptist Seminary. He received a Bachelor of Arts degree and an honorary Doctor of Divinity. degree from Florida Baptist College in Lakeland, Florida, and a Master of Arts and Doctor of Ministry degrees from the Heritage Baptist University in Greenwood, Indiana.

He was pastor of two churches in Arkansas and was pastor of the Landmark Baptist Church in Indianapolis for over thirty years. He worked with the Macedonian Missionary Service of Lakeland, Florida, for nine years and was president of Emmaus Baptist College of Brandon, Florida, for eleven years. In over 50 years of ministry he has lectured or preached in eighteen states and six foreign countries.

He is the author of _A Biblical Study of Tongues_ and two Bible study books that have been translated into over a dozen languages.

He may be contacted at RaymondMcA@msn.com.
