MORALITY AND MORONS

by

MORALITY AND MORONS

monkeysBy Ken Blue

“Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.” 2 Timothy 2:14.

Words have no meaning without a context, and the context is determined by the culture, or the text under discussion. This rule must be followed when reading any article or the Bible. There are standards in the Old Testament, and in Middle East today that would be abhorred in other cultures. The possession of multiple wives was practiced from the beginning of time, and still practiced in some parts of the world. We, in western society today, would abhor such practices. The same may be said of slavery. Our greatest error may be our interpretation based, not on Scripture, but on our own culture.

In Islam, the only acceptable dress to be worn in public is the hijab. Women of the Old Testament may have worn something similar. One could not be accused of immodesty who adhered to that custom. They were modest in dress.

Every person should be modest in appearance, and moral in behavior. We have no argument about that.  However, the only acceptable rule for this is the Bible, rightly divided.  It ought to be evident to the reader that one can make the Bible teach anything he or she likes, or dislikes, when right divisions are ignored.

It is such a weariness of the mind when we see how men ignore right division. Such words as modesty, morality, godly, standards, glorify, dress, hair, etc. must be interpreted within the context of right divisions, and the culture in question.

Every Christian makes divisions in Scripture when it suits his purpose. Right divisions may be the KEY to right understanding of Scripture, and we are commanded to do so. “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” 2 Timothy 2:15.  “Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:”
1 Corinthians 10:32.

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Such words as modesty, morality, godly, standards, glorify, dress, hair, etc. must be interpreted within the context of right divisions, and the culture in question.[/pullquote]

We must know what is written to/for the Jew, to the Gentile, and to the Church. Some will quote, “Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.” 1 Corinthians 10:11. True, all the Bible is written for our learning. But, not all is an ensample for us to follow. The context is about Jews in the wilderness.

The word “ashamed” in 2 Timothy 2:15 is clarified in verse 18.   Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching that the resurrection of the Saints had past. This was an example of wrong division. If these two were saved, they, along with  all they had deceived will be ashamed at the judgment. Right division would correct this error.

One can see that the Bible is not chronological, but divided by subject matter. For example, the first five books are Law.  The next 12 are history.  The next five are poetry. The next five are major prophecy. The last 12 are Minor Prophets. The division is 5-12-5-5-12=39. In the Gospels through Acts, the five books are history in transition. They are Jewish, with the exception of the last half of Acts. Following these, you have the writings of the Apostle Paul. Paul was called and commissioned like no other man. He also wrote all the church epistles. It is from these the church receives all doctrine for itself. Doctrine from any other scripture must agree with these epistles, when we make application.

This bring us to another truth; Paul never put one day above another, neither did he dictate any dress specifics, nor any diet for the Gentiles. Paul was the Apostle of the administration of grace. This is not a license to sin, but it is liberty from the laws and commandments.

Many pastors are on a “power trip.” They act as if an infallible Bible makes them infallible. They have this need to have followers and to control of others. This is best illustrated through their mishandling of the Word of God. That is, by ignoring right divisions.

This brings us to our last point, the matter of using Scripture under the Law to tell women how to dress, while ignoring what it says in the context to men. God has made the husband the head of the wife. Thus, the husband and father should deal with these issues. It is these wrong divisions that has, and is creating division and animosity among the brethren. I have found that those with whom you don’t agree on Deut. 22:5 can’t practice 1 John 4:20. “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?” 1 John 4:20. I am aware that I have taken 1 John out of context, but no one will notice.

Morality and modesty is right and expected. But, we need to stop pretending that the West is the standard. God said, concerning days and diets, “For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” Romans 14:2-5 . Our misuse of Scripture, and inability to make right divisions, makes us look like morons now, and will make us ashamed at the judgment.

ANTI-SCRIPTURAL AND UN-SCRIPTURAL

by

Scriptural “un” or “anti”

scripturalBy Ken Blue

Some preachers are slick as a Philadelphia lawyer. Others are simply followers. In former days when one said a behavior or teaching was un-scriptural he understood it was contrary to the clear teaching of the Word of God and not acceptable. In fact, the prefix “un” means not. So, un-scriptural meant an action or teaching was not scriptural or acceptable. However, another word has been resurrected to counter that idea. That word is, anti-scriptural. The prefix, “anti” means opposed.

This allows us to justify everything we approve or condemn. I may argue that soundtracks are not un-scriptural because there is not a Bible verse that specifically deals with that subject. But, another may counter saying, “they are anti-scriptural because they are worldly, thus we are opposed to them.” If I say there are no musical instruments forbidden in Scripture, the anti-scriptural argument will show that men of the world use them, and we oppose them.

Another example is having screens and Power Point. By accusing those churches of becoming movie theaters, they are like the world and therefore are anti-scriptural.

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]By using the argument that a thing is or is not anti-scriptural, one can slip anything under the door, or block it as they please.[/pullquote]

At Open Door we install an espresso stand, and tables so members could visit and fellowship after the services. Since opponents could not find a Bible verse condemning it as un-scriptural, they deemed it as anti-scriptural since the world has established espresso stands everywhere. That’s how it works?

By using the argument that a thing is or is not anti-scriptural, I can slip anything under the door, or block it as I please. I am sure that many of the brethren who use this argument have not thought it through.
Therefore, we may say an action is not un-scriptural, because there is not a verse against it. However, another may counter by saying, it is anti-scriptural because we oppose it.

 

A few examples of how the anti-scriptural can be used when there is no specific verse making it un-scriptural. Are the Scriptures opposed to the following?

  1. Smoking cigarettes.
  2. Coffee and diet Coke.
  3. Driving over the speed limit.
  4. Hunting to kill animals for sport.
  5. Gambling and playing cards.
  6. Spending money on sports and entertainment.

I’m sure that each person will decide for himself what is anti-scriptural. That’s what others do, and that statement is neither un or anti.

ARE YOU RIDING THE LAODICEAN SCAPEGOAT?

by

rich

 

By Ken Blue

” Leviticus 16:21-22 “ And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:  And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.”

Two goats were chosen. One was sacrificed, the other was led into the wilderness and released. Both were a type of Christ. One died for sins, the other carried them away. We use the term, scapegoat, today when the blame is placed on another person, or for some excuse.

One of the reasons churches are not winning souls today is found in the “Laodicean” scapegoat. That is, we are supposed to believe we are now living in a period, supposedly prophesied in the seventh church of Revelation 3.

Some are so sure these veiled prophecies exist that they have assigned dates to each one. I will not waste our time listing them. Our concern is with the last one, the so called “Laodicean period.”

I am very familiar with the teaching and the logic behind these. I have done some research on the subject. E.W. Bullinger sees these as periods in Old Testament history.

Since there is not one verse of Scripture that teaches these are seven epics of church history, there must be another reason some see these as hidden prophecy.

The major error lies at the first verse of Revelation. That is, the assumption that chapter one through three are in this church dispensation. The reason for that conclusion is the use of the word “church” and “churches.” Next, John is seen as a “type” of the church being raptured in chapter four. One other argument is that the word “church” doesn’t appear again until the end of the book. Each argument is erroneous, and impossible to prove. However, our purpose is to show that, in most cases, the church ages are a fabrication, and that pastors use this as an excuse for the lack of soul winning.

One writer says, “The Laodicean Age began around the turn of the Twentieth Century, perhaps 1906. How long will it last? As a servant of God who has had multitudes of visions, of which NONE has ever failed, let me predict (I did not say prophesy, but predict) that this age will end around 1977.” The Laodicean Church Age – 1 – Bible Believers  www.biblebelievers.org.au/7ch045.htm.

Another writer, Don Koenig, says, “The age of Laodicea has arrived next comes the rapture and the tribulation.  Most Bible prophecy teachers would say the Laodicean church age started around AD 1900. This is correct but when Laodicea appeared among Thyatira (Catholics), Sardis (the near dead denominational churches) and Philadelphia (the Church of true believers), she was not the predominant church of that era. That is no longer true. By what we see taking place in Christianity today there should be no question that Laodicea is now the predominant church type of our age (for those of us who believe that there are seven church ages).

Laodicea is the final church age before Jesus comes for His Church. When Christ comes for His spiritual body He vomits this Laodicean church out of His body into the tribulation. I am not saying that Laodicea was ever part of His body to start with but only that this church type was identified with His body. After Jesus stomachs the lukewarm condition of this church, He spews them out implying that those identified with Laodicea have no place in His spiritual Body unless they repent and see.”

[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Revelation is a book of prophecy to Israel. It was not written to or about the body of Christ.[/pullquote]

There are so many problems with the above, one hardly knows where to start. Assuming that these ages have existed, there were “Laodicean Churches” in every one of them. A study of church history confirms that. In fact, they existed in Paul’s day. The next error is the interpretation of church history in a particular geographic location. If you lived in Muslim countries, you would conclude that you were in the” Smyrna period.” If you were in some Asian countries, you would believe you were in the “Philadelphia period.”

It ought to be evident that no one could understand these as epochs of church history until the Laodicean epoch arrives. Also, we need to ask, if the first three chapters are written to and about the church/churches of this dispensation, to whom is the rest of the book written? Where is the salutation to the recipients of the rest of the book

Revelation is a book of prophecy to Israel. It was not written to or about the body of Christ. Individual churches possessing some of these characteristics have existed since the birth of the body of Christ, the church. All of these will exist in the churches in the Tribulation. It is to these, the book is written. One hint, and there are many, these churches must “overcome” something or someone. Could it be the Antichrist and the mark of the Beast?

Very few pastors today would admit that they are the pastor of a “Laodicean” church. To them, the rebuke applies only to the spirit of religion in general, or to another pastor and another church.

If you are riding the “Laodicean Scapegoats,” get off, and start winning souls. People can be saved, even today!

 

 

 

 

BOOK: The Parables of Mathew 13

by

The Parables of Mathew 13
The Parables of Mathew 13

When he opened his eyes he read, “That thou doest, do quickly”. The reader can see that any attempt to read the Bible as this novice did leads to confusion and destruction. Had he not read God’s Word? Didn’t the verses appear to support each other? Is not “all Scripture profitable for instruction”? Then what would he do with what he had read this day? The only way he could avoid hanging himself was to ignore the text altogether, which he did, or spiritualize it, which most believers do. (That is how they hang themselves.) Context is vital if we are to understand God’s Word. This is especially true when it comes to the parables of Jesus.

Contact [email protected] and request a copy.