You are here: Home / Archives for ARTICLES

PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS

by

principles

 

By Ken Blue
The American Heritage Dictionary gives the following definition of the word principle. I have also added a list of synonyms. 1. A basic truth, law, or assumption. 2. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior. b. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments. 3. A fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action. 4. A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior. 5. A rule or law concerning the functioning of natural phenomena or mechanical processes.” Synonyms: • standard • benchmark • criterion • gauge • measure • touchstone • yardstick • guideline • requirement • prototype • guide • canon.

Since many principles (standards) are manmade and misapplied, the believer must distinguish between those of God and those of men. The Old Testament Law had one set of principles and the Pharisees had another by distortion of the Law. We need only to read the Gospels and the book of Acts to see Israel’s departure from Old Testament principles. Jesus rebuked this self-righteous crowd. Certainly, the religious leaders had their principles, and they expected everyone to live by them.

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]We must have principles to live by, but they must never become legalistic mandates to control others.[/pullquote]

Things have not changed. There are some Christians who think they have God’s principles, and all who do not follow them are apostate and liberal. They are confident they have found the Bible verse which assures them that their principles are established by God. However, where that verse is found in Scripture is of no consequence to them. They have developed a set of standards, and now they must search from Genesis to Revelation to find support for them.

The problem with these men is that they have never learned how to rightly divide the Word of God. They either reach back under the Law or forward into the millennial kingdom for their principles, and then they seek to impose them on everyone else. We must have principles to live by, but we also need to know what part of the Bible to find them. They must match this dispensation of grace.

The principles or standards of dress, hair, days, musical instruments, background music, power point, boots, glasses, etc. have not Scriptural mandates for this dispensation. They are the legalistic mandates of men to control others.

THE LOVE/HATE PARADOX: HATE THE SIN AND THE SINNER

by

Does God hate the sinner?

(Note: The purpose of this article is not to argue with anyone, and I will not. However, if anyone has a better answer to this paradox, it is welcome.)

hate

Among the self-designated “Bible Believers,” there is a group of men who teach that God, not only hates sin, He also hates the sinner. In addition, they teach that the only place and time God ever “loved” the sinner was at the cross. They are very adamant that His love is always in the past tense. Thus, back at the cross only. Now, I am familiar with those verses that says God hates the sinner. That is why I call this subject a great paradox.

In Psalm 51 David confesses his sin of adultery and murder. In verse 5 he says, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Psalm 51:5. David is not speaking of his mother, but of original sin in himself at conception.  Now, my question for the “hate” crowd is this, did God hate David prior to his birth, or at any time afterwards?

Also, David committed many sins before, with, and afterwards, in relation to Bathsheba.

  1. He lusted after her.
  2. He coveted her.
  3. He committed adultery in his heart.
  4. He committed physical adultery with her.
  5. He used deception to hide his sin.
  6. He got her husband drunk.
  7. He had her husband murdered.

All of these are sin, and some required the death penalty. Yet, God did not have him executed as  the law demanded. I know God hated David’s sin. Did God hate David?

Since all are conceived with original sin, does God hate every baby? But, I can hear someone say, “God hates those who commit the acts of sin. David had original sin, but he had not sinned before his birth.”

Well, let’s see how that stands up. God hated Esau prior to his birth. “(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)  It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.  As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” Romans 9:11-13. It must also be noted that God loved Jacob before his birth. So, as we will show, the cross was not the only place God loved the sinner. When we trace the lives of the two brothers, we also find that Jacob was a great sinner. Did God hate Jacob?

Another nail in the coffin of “hate the sinner” theology is seen in the Gospels. In Mark 10 we read, “Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.” Mark 10:21. We will not catalogue the sins of this young man’s response, but many are evident. It will take some Scripture twisting to ignore that Jesus had love for him prior to the cross.

We also read “Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.” John 11:5. Note the word “loved” is past tense.  Was the cross the only time and place Jesus loved this family? They too were sinners, and sin had not been paid for. Also, if we have unsaved parents, should we hate them if God does? If our children are unsaved, should we hate them if God does? If we have an unsaved wife or husband, are we to hate them if God does?

One of the greatest miscarriages of Bible interpretation is how John 3:16 is twisted by the hate crowd. We read, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16. The twisted logic is that the only time God demonstrated His love to sinners was at the cross. Since He “loved” them is considered past tense, He did not love sinners prior to, or after His death on the cross.

Adam ate the forbidden fruit, did God hate him? Abraham lied, did God hate him? Isaac lied, did God hate him?  Jacob “loved” Rachel. Does that mean he stopped loving her? It says he hated Leah.  Rachel and her father had false gods, and no doubt worshipped them. Did God hate them? Noe got drunk, did God hate him? Moses disobeyed God, did God hate him?  Samson had many sins in his life, did God hate him. Solomon had many horses which was forbidden, he married strange wives, and brought idolatry into the land. Did God hate him? Hosea married a whore. Did God hate him and his wife? Time would fail to tell of all the others.

The doctrine that God “hates sinners as well as their sin” is a doctrine built on the abuse of the word “loved” and “hate.” Those who espouse this doctrine take the “literal interpretation” to the extreme. However, they will adjust the above examples to save face.

Perhaps the following quote will help clarify the paradox to those seeking an honest answer to the hate doctrine.

Jesus said His affection for the lost inhabitants of Jerusalem was like a mother hen’s affection for her chicks. Such a statement obviously denotes love for the sinners in Jerusalem.

In one of the most well-known “love” verses in the Bible, Jesus said: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). God’s love for the lost world was shown before the lost believed in Jesus. John further explained this when he wrote: “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10). From these verses it is clear that God loves lost sinners, and proved that love by sending Jesus.

How, then, can one reconcile the verses that seem to suggest that God hates sinners, but loves them at the same time? One of the most plausible solutions is that the Bible writers are using a figure of speech called metonymy when they write that God hates sinners. Metonymy is defined as: “A figure by which one name or noun is used instead of another, to which it stands in a certain relation” (Bullinger, 1898, p. 538). Bullinger further explains that metonymy can be “of cause,” when the person acting can be put in place of the thing that is done (p. 539). For instance, in Luke 16:29, the text says: “They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them.” In reality, they did not have “Moses” or the “prophets,” but they did have their writings. The name Moses is a metonymy that stood for his writings, since he was the cause of the writings. In modern times, that would be like saying, “I hate Shakespeare.” Would the person who said that mean that he hated Shakespeare’s personality? No. We understand he would be saying he does not like the writings of Shakespeare, with no comment on the playwright’s personality.

If we apply that same figure of speech to the passages about God “hating sinners,” we can see that the sinner is put in place of the sin. Thus, when God says He hates “a false witness who speaks lies” (Proverbs 6:19), if metonymy is being used, then God hates the lies, and the one who is doing the lying (the cause) is put in place of the lies (the effect). It is interesting to see how clear this feature can be in other contexts. For instance, Proverbs 6:17 says that God hates “a lying tongue.” Does that mean that God hates a physical tongue, made of muscle and body tissue? No. It means God hates the sin that a tongue can perform. In the same context, we learn that God hates “feet that are swift in running to evil” (6:18). Again, does that mean that God hates physical feet? No. It simply means that God hates the sin that those feet can perform. It is interesting that while few, if any, would suggest that God hates physical tongues or actual feet, they would insist that God hates actual sinners and not the sin done by them.

When studying the Bible, it is very important to keep in mind that the Bible writers often used figures of speech. When we look at the idea that God hates sin, but loves sinners, the figure of speech known as metonymy clears up the confusion. Just as God does not hate physical feet or tongues, He does not hate sinners. These nouns are put in the place of the things they cause—sin.”

REFERENCE

Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 1968

By Kyle Butt, M.A. APOLOGETICS PRESS  http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=2035

 

 

 

 

THE IMPLODING CHURCH

by

  imploding church

By Ken Blue

How do you keep from having an imploding church? Let’s assume you are going to start a church from nothing. The one thing you must consider is, where are we going to meet? Will we meet in a home, a barn, or some other facility?

Next, on your priority list will be soul winning. You can’t have church without people, and you can’t have people without some form of contact. Therefore, every thought, and effort will be on how to reach others, and get them into the new church. This will be the driving force at the time, and rightfully so.

As new families come into the church, you have the challenge of how to teach the different age groups, and provide child care for the infants. These are just a few of the growing pains, but you learn how to solve them.

New growth brings new needs. People need real discipleship. They need ministries to serve in. At this point, you may have to consider a new meeting place to care for the growth. So, property is located, buildings are built, and finances are needed. More and more the church adds new demands. The church is humming with excitement.

That is why success may be your downfall. Little by little, the vision shifts. Everyone now has someone to fellowship with. They are becoming one happy family. Everybody knows each other, and pays extra attention to each other.  The growth has brought new demands. Thus, most of the money, time and service is bestowed on the existing congregation. Everyone is busy, but something subtle has happened.

Planning meetings are no longer about soul winning, and growth. All the plans now are about how to feed the monster. The outreach has shifted to programs, and activities.  A new missionary may be added once each year for conscience sake.

The church has now reached its stagnation point. Everything is about the “church family.” The very thing that gave life and growth, is now forgotten and left behind. Most of the members have grey hair. They are comfortable and don’t want to be disturbed.

The death of the church is inevitable. The only way to keep a church alive is to have new, young blood added every week.  Where are all the great soul winning churches of fifty years ago? They are either dead and gone, or dead and being embalmed each year. Your church, too, will die unless you keep outreach hot, and on the front burner. A church must be a maternity ward, or it becomes a museum.  If you neglect these, stand back and watch the implosion.

THE POWER OF A PURPOSE STATEMENT

by

THE POWER OF A PURPOSE STATEMENT

PURPOSE STATEMENT

As a young preacher I attended Dr. Jack Hyles’ Pastor School on several occasions. Each year he reiterated their purpose statement by saying First Baptist is “The Church With A Heart.” He would spend the rest of the evening marching each of their ministries across the platform, illustrating their purpose. It took me some time to fully understand that action. But, I finally came to the place where I got it. Because they had a heart for all people, the church was committed to identifying all classes and groups and then developing a strategy to reach them for Christ.

I am convinced that every church should determine its true purpose; create a statement and then let that statement become their northern star to direct them. This should not be hastily done. One should take several days or weeks to think this matter through. If done properly, this becomes the hub around which all your ministry activities will revolve.

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]I am convinced that every church should determine its purpose so that all future planning knows what direction to go.[/pullquote]

Your purpose statement should state what your ministry will be about. Most Christians have heard of Focus on the Family. That purpose statement tells you where their effort and finances will focus. At Open Door Baptist we created the following purpose statement: “Open Door exist to bring families from spiritual infancy to spiritual maturity.” That purpose statement tells us exactly what our emphases and efforts will be. Every ministry should be started and structured with the whole family in mind.

Once a statement has been accepted it should be dissected and each part developed with action verbs to accomplish the purpose. All future planning should be done to move the church toward your purpose or northern star; as you do, you will begin to experience the power of a purpose statement.

Many churches create a purpose statement and then put it in a drawer, and  forget it. That is a sign the leadership is not serious, and has a fear of failure. The purpose statement should be on every piece of literature, and posted where everyone sees it. It must be your guiding star. How many people really know what your purpose is? That will tell you how your are doing.

WHY NO ONE SHOULD BELIEVE IN PURGATORY

by

purgatory

“Purgatory, according to Catholic Church doctrine, is an intermediate state after physical death in which those destined for heaven ‘undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1030).  Only those who die in the state of grace but have not in life reached a sufficient level of holiness can be in Purgatory, and therefore no one in Purgatory will remain forever in that state or go to hell. This theological notion has ancient roots and is well-attested in early Christian literature, but the poetic conception of Purgatory as a geographically existing place is largely the creation of medieval Christian piety and imagination.” -Wikipedia.

REASONS WHY NO ONE SHOULD BELIEVE IN PURGATORY:

 

  • NOT ONE OF THE APOSTLES BELIEVED OR TAUGHT IT.
  • THERE IS NOT ONE VERSE IN THE BIBLE THAT TEACHES PURGATORY.
  • PRAYING FOR, AND WORSHIPING SPIRITS OF THE DEAD IS A CULTIC TRADITION GOING BACK BEYOND EGYPT. Jesus said the Pharisees were, “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.” Mark 7:13.
  • JESUS PURGED OUR SINS “ONCE AND FOR ALL.” “And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:  But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.  For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” Hebrews 10:11-14. If you are saved, you are “perfected forever….”  The wafer has no power, nor is there need for it.

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] If the pope has power over purgatory, then why does he not release all saved souls from it? [/pullquote]

  • PURGATORY IS AN INVENTION TO “BIND” THE LIVING AND THE DEAD TO THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. Anyone who believes his loved ones are suffering in Purgatory, will never abandon the church, and will give unlimited amounts of money to get them out. This effort to release a loved one from purgatory requires special service to the Church. However, giving of money works best. This is one of the reasons the reformers, like Luther, forsook the church.  The Martin Luther Trial Homepage comments. “How did the practice of dispensing indulgences begin? The first known use of plenary indulgences was in 1095 when Pope Urban II remitted all penance of persons who participated in the crusades and who confessed their sins.  Later, the indulgences were also offered to those who couldn’t go on the Crusades but offered cash contributions to the effort instead.  In the early 1200s, the Church began claiming that it had a “treasury” of indulgences (consisting of the merits of Christ and the saints) that it could dispense in ways that promoted the Church and its mission.  In a decretal issued in 1343, Pope Clement VI declared, “The merits of Christ are a treasure of indulgences.
  • WHEN A SAINT DIES, THEY GO DIRECTLY TO HEAVEN TO BE WITH JESUS. “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is  But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.  For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:” Philippians 1:21-23. To be absent from the body, is to be in heaven with Christ. To die is not “gain” when you know you are going to burn in purgatory. Furthermore, no one knows how long he must be there suffering hell fire, nor when one is released.
  • PURGATORY WAS NOT AN OFFICIAL CHURCH LAW UNTIL 593 A. D. If the pope has the power, why not release all saved souls from purgatory? Could money be a factor?

Now you see why no one should believe in Purgatory.