SOUND IN THE FAITH
Articles intended to Strengthen and Challenge the Reader
How Do I Support My Local Church? By Terry L. Coomer
1. Look at it as the gift of God to my life. It is the place I am called to serve. It is the place I worship the living and true God.
2. Look at it as a place where I learn what God wants me to learn. If we have a life that has a submissive right spirit with God we will desire to learn. The Pastor is to feed me so I can learn. He is the shepherd. The Pastor must have a spirit that wants to: “Help them learn!”
1 Peter 5:2-4, Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; (3) Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. (4) And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
3. Look at the church as a place where each of us learns humility. Are you desirous to serve, then it requires humility.
1 Peter 5:5-6, Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. (6) Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:
4. Look at the church as a place to learn how to have a real relationship with God. This is a maturity issue, your spiritual maturity. http://hopebiblicalcounselingcenter.com/2016/05/how-to-have-a-real-relationship-with-god-the-work-of-the-holy-spirit-in-a-persons-life/
1 Peter 5:7-10, Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you. (8) Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: (9) Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. (10) But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.
5. Look at the church as a place where you learn how to be faithful. Hebrews 10:24-25, And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: (25) Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
The Jews who had gotten saved had been following Old Testament law practices. Paul is raising the question with them not to try to go back under the law and to not forsake the assembling together of the saints for instruction and edification. It is the easiest way to apostatize by forsaking the house of God. They need to be faithful to the assembly to encourage one another, learn what they need to learn, and if they choose to go back to the old way after they have come unto the knowledge of the truth, then they leave God no other alternative but to judge their life. It is the same way for you and me.
Hebrews 10:26-27, For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, (27) But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Be faithful and be an encouragement to others!
The Negative and Positive of My Church Attendance
Someone sent this to me back in 2008). I do not know who the author is, but I think it is helpful.
What My Absence From Church Did
1. It caused some people to question the reality of my faith.
2. It made some think that I was a pretender.
3. It made many think that I consider my spiritual welfare and that of others a matter of small concern.
4. It weakened the effect of the church service.
5. It made it harder for the preacher to preach.
6. It discouraged other church members and robbed them of a blessing.
7. It made it harder for me to resist the temptation of the devil.
8. It gave the devil more power and influence over lost people.
9. It encouraged me to become more irregular in church attendance.
What My Presence At Church Did
1. It caused people to have confidence in me.
2. It made people realize that I regard my spiritual welfare and that of others, matters of great importance.
3. It had a good effect on the services.
4. It made my friends feel more welcome.
5. It encouraged other church members and helped the pastor in his work.
6. It caused others to come to Christ.
7. It made my life stronger for another week.
8. It removed stumbling blocks for the sinner's path.
9. It pleased God.
10. It caused others to say, "He practiced what he preaches."
6. Support Your Local Church By Inviting Others. When was the last time you invited someone to church? When was the last time you led anyone to the Lord? Have you ever led anyone to the Lord? Many people blame the church for that. If you’re local church has taught you how to lead people to the Lord and they should have done that, then you should know how to do so. If not ask the Pastor to teach you. Most of the time folks it is not a lack of instruction, but seeing the need to do so. If you are critical of others on this issue, ask yourself, “What have I done to lead others to Christ?”
7. Support your local church by Giving Regularly. Keep your commitments. Give when you get paid. Don’t give after everything else is paid. You give first and you do not rob God.People who are not mature enough to give regularly and systematically can never move up in service for God and should not.
2 Corinthians 9:6-8, But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. (7) Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. (8) And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work:
8. Support Your Local Church By Praying For and Supporting the Other Church Members. Get to know each other, be concerned for each other. You can tell a lot about body language. Have you ever noticed when a church has a handshaking time and there are people who never go to anyone else? Walk over and say hello! If your church has a time in prayer meeting where you can pray with people, pray with different people. Care enough to get to know other people. The difference is a selfish person verses a serving Spirit controlled person.
9. Support Your Local Church By Not Fellowshipping In The Negative. Every church has immature non Spirit controlled people who gossip, are negative, and nothing is ever right. You cannot be a Spirit controlled person and be involved in always finding fault and fellowshipping with people who are negative all the time. They can wake up when the sun shines and it is too hot! Or, it is too cold! Life is hard, drudgery, never good! They bring that attitude over to the church. They always have a better idea. They are never focused on the betterment of the church, or others, just their pride, selfishness, and themselves.
Psalm 15:3, He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour.
Galatians 5:15, But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
Support your local church by being positive about it at home, in the community, and to others.
10. Support Your Local Church By Being On Time And Behaving Yourself In The Service. Be on time for the services. Get there a few minutes early, find you seat, and get situated. Have time to go to the bathroom. Unless ill or it is and emergency stay seated during the service. Don’t be walking around. Don’t go outside! Don’t write notes to one another during the service. Show respect for the preacher and others around you! Sit up properly! Open your Bible and follow along. Do not whisper and talk to each other while the preaching and teaching is going on. Participate when you are called upon to participate in the service. (Do not take it personally when you are not called upon). Do not sleep, go to bed early enough on Saturday evening that you are alert on Sunday morning.
11. Support Your Local Church By Praying For the Services and The Preacher. Pastors are human beings and so are their families. Pray for the pastor and his family. Ask God to use them and fill them today with His Spirit! Pray that God will speak to your heart today and others around you. Pray that the service will be glorifying to God in all aspects. Pray that you will be an encouragement to others. Pray for souls to be saved.
Most of all make sure you deal with any sin in your life daily, submit yourself to God, and be a Spirit controlled person.
1. Look at it as the gift of God to my life. It is the place I am called to serve. It is the place I worship the living and true God.
2. Look at it as a place where I learn what God wants me to learn. If we have a life that has a submissive right spirit with God we will desire to learn. The Pastor is to feed me so I can learn. He is the shepherd. The Pastor must have a spirit that wants to: “Help them learn!”
1 Peter 5:2-4, Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; (3) Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. (4) And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
3. Look at the church as a place where each of us learns humility. Are you desirous to serve, then it requires humility.
1 Peter 5:5-6, Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. (6) Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:
4. Look at the church as a place to learn how to have a real relationship with God. This is a maturity issue, your spiritual maturity. http://hopebiblicalcounselingcenter.com/2016/05/how-to-have-a-real-relationship-with-god-the-work-of-the-holy-spirit-in-a-persons-life/
1 Peter 5:7-10, Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you. (8) Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: (9) Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world. (10) But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you.
5. Look at the church as a place where you learn how to be faithful. Hebrews 10:24-25, And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: (25) Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
The Jews who had gotten saved had been following Old Testament law practices. Paul is raising the question with them not to try to go back under the law and to not forsake the assembling together of the saints for instruction and edification. It is the easiest way to apostatize by forsaking the house of God. They need to be faithful to the assembly to encourage one another, learn what they need to learn, and if they choose to go back to the old way after they have come unto the knowledge of the truth, then they leave God no other alternative but to judge their life. It is the same way for you and me.
Hebrews 10:26-27, For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, (27) But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Be faithful and be an encouragement to others!
The Negative and Positive of My Church Attendance
Someone sent this to me back in 2008). I do not know who the author is, but I think it is helpful.
What My Absence From Church Did
1. It caused some people to question the reality of my faith.
2. It made some think that I was a pretender.
3. It made many think that I consider my spiritual welfare and that of others a matter of small concern.
4. It weakened the effect of the church service.
5. It made it harder for the preacher to preach.
6. It discouraged other church members and robbed them of a blessing.
7. It made it harder for me to resist the temptation of the devil.
8. It gave the devil more power and influence over lost people.
9. It encouraged me to become more irregular in church attendance.
What My Presence At Church Did
1. It caused people to have confidence in me.
2. It made people realize that I regard my spiritual welfare and that of others, matters of great importance.
3. It had a good effect on the services.
4. It made my friends feel more welcome.
5. It encouraged other church members and helped the pastor in his work.
6. It caused others to come to Christ.
7. It made my life stronger for another week.
8. It removed stumbling blocks for the sinner's path.
9. It pleased God.
10. It caused others to say, "He practiced what he preaches."
6. Support Your Local Church By Inviting Others. When was the last time you invited someone to church? When was the last time you led anyone to the Lord? Have you ever led anyone to the Lord? Many people blame the church for that. If you’re local church has taught you how to lead people to the Lord and they should have done that, then you should know how to do so. If not ask the Pastor to teach you. Most of the time folks it is not a lack of instruction, but seeing the need to do so. If you are critical of others on this issue, ask yourself, “What have I done to lead others to Christ?”
7. Support your local church by Giving Regularly. Keep your commitments. Give when you get paid. Don’t give after everything else is paid. You give first and you do not rob God.People who are not mature enough to give regularly and systematically can never move up in service for God and should not.
2 Corinthians 9:6-8, But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. (7) Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. (8) And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work:
8. Support Your Local Church By Praying For and Supporting the Other Church Members. Get to know each other, be concerned for each other. You can tell a lot about body language. Have you ever noticed when a church has a handshaking time and there are people who never go to anyone else? Walk over and say hello! If your church has a time in prayer meeting where you can pray with people, pray with different people. Care enough to get to know other people. The difference is a selfish person verses a serving Spirit controlled person.
9. Support Your Local Church By Not Fellowshipping In The Negative. Every church has immature non Spirit controlled people who gossip, are negative, and nothing is ever right. You cannot be a Spirit controlled person and be involved in always finding fault and fellowshipping with people who are negative all the time. They can wake up when the sun shines and it is too hot! Or, it is too cold! Life is hard, drudgery, never good! They bring that attitude over to the church. They always have a better idea. They are never focused on the betterment of the church, or others, just their pride, selfishness, and themselves.
Psalm 15:3, He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour.
Galatians 5:15, But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
Support your local church by being positive about it at home, in the community, and to others.
10. Support Your Local Church By Being On Time And Behaving Yourself In The Service. Be on time for the services. Get there a few minutes early, find you seat, and get situated. Have time to go to the bathroom. Unless ill or it is and emergency stay seated during the service. Don’t be walking around. Don’t go outside! Don’t write notes to one another during the service. Show respect for the preacher and others around you! Sit up properly! Open your Bible and follow along. Do not whisper and talk to each other while the preaching and teaching is going on. Participate when you are called upon to participate in the service. (Do not take it personally when you are not called upon). Do not sleep, go to bed early enough on Saturday evening that you are alert on Sunday morning.
11. Support Your Local Church By Praying For the Services and The Preacher. Pastors are human beings and so are their families. Pray for the pastor and his family. Ask God to use them and fill them today with His Spirit! Pray that God will speak to your heart today and others around you. Pray that the service will be glorifying to God in all aspects. Pray that you will be an encouragement to others. Pray for souls to be saved.
Most of all make sure you deal with any sin in your life daily, submit yourself to God, and be a Spirit controlled person.
REFUTING THEISTIC EVOLUTION by David Cloud
Most professing Christians believe in theistic evolution. They believe in a Creator God and they believe in salvation through Christ, but they don’t believe the Bible’s account of six-day creation. They accept evolution’s teaching about the ancient age of the earth and the gradual evolution of creatures.
Consider Billy Graham. He says it doesn’t matter what one believes about creation and evolution. “Either at a certain moment in evolution God breathed into one particular ape-man who was Adam, or God could have taken a handful of dust and created a man just like that” (United Church Observer, July 1966).
Theistic evolutionists believe that it is possible to reconcile the Bible with evolution, but in reality this is an impossibility.
First, the early chapters of Genesis are written as history rather than poetry or allegory. The days of creation are 24-hour days with “an evening and a morning” (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).
Second, the Genesis account of creation is cited as history by Jesus. He mentions the first man and woman as historical people (Mat. 19:4-6). In Matthew 19:5 Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24. Christ always treats Genesis as history, and it is impossible to honor Him as Lord and Saviour and disregard His teaching. In Matthew 19:4-5, Christ mentions both “accounts” of creation in Genesis 1 and 2. These are not two contradictory accounts of creation. Genesis 1 and 2 are two accounts of the same creation viewed from different perspectives.
Third, Genesis 1-11 is cited as history by seven of the New Testament writers. The first eleven chapters of Genesis are quoted from or referred to 100 times in the New Testament, and Genesis is always treated as historical. Adam is named nine times in the New Testament (Lk. 3:38; Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:22, 45; 1 Tim. 2:13-14; Jude 14).
Fourth, Genesis 1-3 forms the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:3-4). The gospel says that “Christ died for our sins.” If Adam was not a real man and there was no literal sin, the gospel becomes an empty religious myth.
Fifth, Jesus’ human genealogy is traced from Adam (Luke 3:23-38). We know that this genealogy contains the names of real historical people, and there is no reason to treat Adam differently. Further, there is no room within this genealogy for millions of years of time.
Sixth, Adam is compared to Christ (Romans 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:45). It is obvious that the apostle Paul considered Adam an actual man and the Genesis account literal history. If Christ is a real man, so is Adam!
Seventh, the teaching of Genesis cannot be reconciled with the teaching of evolution.
a. Genesis says God created the world and everything in it in six days. The days of creation in Genesis 1 were regular 24-hour days, days with an evening and a morning (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). This is repeated in Exodus 20:10-11.
b. Genesis says everything was made to reproduce after its kind. The statement “after their kind” is repeated ten times in Genesis chapter one (Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). This is exactly what we observe in the world. Dogs reproduce dogs, spiders reproduce spiders, birds reproduce birds, and peanuts reproduce peanuts. Animals can interbreed and adapt within kinds (e.g., dogs can produce different kinds of dogs), but kinds cannot be bridged. This is what the Bible teaches and this is what we can observe everywhere in nature, yet evolution teaches that the kinds are not stable, that the fish evolved into the amphibian, and the amphibian into the reptile, and the reptile into the bird, etc.
c. Genesis says the first man was created directly by God (Genesis 2) and was not the product of gradual evolution from the animal kingdom. The Bible says Adam was the first man (1 Cor. 15:45). And Eve is the mother of all men (Gen. 3:20).
d. Genesis says man is made in God’s image and is not a part of the animal kingdom (Gen. 1:27). Evolution says man is an evolved animal.
e. Genesis says the world was created perfect, then fell under sin and has been deteriorating ever since. This is consistent with everything we can observe. Everything is moving from order to disorder. Everything is deteriorating, running down. This is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics describes. But evolution says that things have gradually evolved from chaos to order.
f. Genesis says everything was designed to fulfill God’s purposes. Wherever we look in nature, from the living cell to the stars, we see the appearance of design by a great Intelligence. This is contrary to the doctrine of evolution. Study the cell, the eye, the ear, the leaf, the bird’s wing, the atom, light, water. Everywhere you find evidence of purpose and design. Even a “simple” microscopic one-celled bacterium (E. Coli) contains DNA information units equivalent to 100 million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and all of that information works together in perfect harmony and is self-replicating! Purpose and design is what one would expect if God created the world as the Genesis record says He did, but if evolution were true, we would find chaos.
Consider Billy Graham. He says it doesn’t matter what one believes about creation and evolution. “Either at a certain moment in evolution God breathed into one particular ape-man who was Adam, or God could have taken a handful of dust and created a man just like that” (United Church Observer, July 1966).
Theistic evolutionists believe that it is possible to reconcile the Bible with evolution, but in reality this is an impossibility.
First, the early chapters of Genesis are written as history rather than poetry or allegory. The days of creation are 24-hour days with “an evening and a morning” (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31).
Second, the Genesis account of creation is cited as history by Jesus. He mentions the first man and woman as historical people (Mat. 19:4-6). In Matthew 19:5 Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24. Christ always treats Genesis as history, and it is impossible to honor Him as Lord and Saviour and disregard His teaching. In Matthew 19:4-5, Christ mentions both “accounts” of creation in Genesis 1 and 2. These are not two contradictory accounts of creation. Genesis 1 and 2 are two accounts of the same creation viewed from different perspectives.
Third, Genesis 1-11 is cited as history by seven of the New Testament writers. The first eleven chapters of Genesis are quoted from or referred to 100 times in the New Testament, and Genesis is always treated as historical. Adam is named nine times in the New Testament (Lk. 3:38; Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 15:22, 45; 1 Tim. 2:13-14; Jude 14).
Fourth, Genesis 1-3 forms the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:3-4). The gospel says that “Christ died for our sins.” If Adam was not a real man and there was no literal sin, the gospel becomes an empty religious myth.
Fifth, Jesus’ human genealogy is traced from Adam (Luke 3:23-38). We know that this genealogy contains the names of real historical people, and there is no reason to treat Adam differently. Further, there is no room within this genealogy for millions of years of time.
Sixth, Adam is compared to Christ (Romans 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:45). It is obvious that the apostle Paul considered Adam an actual man and the Genesis account literal history. If Christ is a real man, so is Adam!
Seventh, the teaching of Genesis cannot be reconciled with the teaching of evolution.
a. Genesis says God created the world and everything in it in six days. The days of creation in Genesis 1 were regular 24-hour days, days with an evening and a morning (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). This is repeated in Exodus 20:10-11.
b. Genesis says everything was made to reproduce after its kind. The statement “after their kind” is repeated ten times in Genesis chapter one (Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). This is exactly what we observe in the world. Dogs reproduce dogs, spiders reproduce spiders, birds reproduce birds, and peanuts reproduce peanuts. Animals can interbreed and adapt within kinds (e.g., dogs can produce different kinds of dogs), but kinds cannot be bridged. This is what the Bible teaches and this is what we can observe everywhere in nature, yet evolution teaches that the kinds are not stable, that the fish evolved into the amphibian, and the amphibian into the reptile, and the reptile into the bird, etc.
c. Genesis says the first man was created directly by God (Genesis 2) and was not the product of gradual evolution from the animal kingdom. The Bible says Adam was the first man (1 Cor. 15:45). And Eve is the mother of all men (Gen. 3:20).
d. Genesis says man is made in God’s image and is not a part of the animal kingdom (Gen. 1:27). Evolution says man is an evolved animal.
e. Genesis says the world was created perfect, then fell under sin and has been deteriorating ever since. This is consistent with everything we can observe. Everything is moving from order to disorder. Everything is deteriorating, running down. This is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics describes. But evolution says that things have gradually evolved from chaos to order.
f. Genesis says everything was designed to fulfill God’s purposes. Wherever we look in nature, from the living cell to the stars, we see the appearance of design by a great Intelligence. This is contrary to the doctrine of evolution. Study the cell, the eye, the ear, the leaf, the bird’s wing, the atom, light, water. Everywhere you find evidence of purpose and design. Even a “simple” microscopic one-celled bacterium (E. Coli) contains DNA information units equivalent to 100 million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and all of that information works together in perfect harmony and is self-replicating! Purpose and design is what one would expect if God created the world as the Genesis record says He did, but if evolution were true, we would find chaos.
SIGNS OF TELEVISION ADDICTION by Ken Matto
The Bible says, “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?” (Romans 6:16).
Multitudes of professing Christians today are enslaved to television and movies.
The following list is adapted from one published by Ken Matto:
(1) You enjoy the sinful scenes on the show.
(2) You eat your dinner in front of the TV.
(3) You neglect your spouse or family for a TV show.
(4) You look forward to a TV show much more than to the next church service
(5) You miss Sunday Night services or Wednesday evening prayer meeting for TV.
(6) Your conversation is replete with TV reviews and anecdotes.
(7) TV replaces your Bible reading or devotion time.
(8) The family altar has been replaced by a TV program.
(9) You know more about TV than Scripture.
(10) You meditate more about things on TV than about Christ and His will for your life
(11) You begin to start empathizing with the characters the actors are portraying.
(12) You rush home so you will not miss a program.
(13) You watch TV late into the night consistently.
(14) When company visits, the TV remains on.
(15) You turn the TV on the moment you enter a room.
(16) The TV is on when you are doing your chores.
(17) You do not want people to visit when your programs are scheduled to come on.
(18) When people visit, you wish they would leave so you could watch your programs.
(19) You laugh at the very sins which sent Christ to the cross.
(20) You continue to watch even when Christ’s name is used in vain
(21) You have every premium cable channel like HBO, Cinemax, etc.
(22) You begin to adopt ideas and attitudes contrary to Scripture.
(23) You find more pleasure watching TV than being with God’s people.
The Bible says, “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?” (Romans 6:16).
Multitudes of professing Christians today are enslaved to television and movies.
The following list is adapted from one published by Ken Matto:
(1) You enjoy the sinful scenes on the show.
(2) You eat your dinner in front of the TV.
(3) You neglect your spouse or family for a TV show.
(4) You look forward to a TV show much more than to the next church service
(5) You miss Sunday Night services or Wednesday evening prayer meeting for TV.
(6) Your conversation is replete with TV reviews and anecdotes.
(7) TV replaces your Bible reading or devotion time.
(8) The family altar has been replaced by a TV program.
(9) You know more about TV than Scripture.
(10) You meditate more about things on TV than about Christ and His will for your life
(11) You begin to start empathizing with the characters the actors are portraying.
(12) You rush home so you will not miss a program.
(13) You watch TV late into the night consistently.
(14) When company visits, the TV remains on.
(15) You turn the TV on the moment you enter a room.
(16) The TV is on when you are doing your chores.
(17) You do not want people to visit when your programs are scheduled to come on.
(18) When people visit, you wish they would leave so you could watch your programs.
(19) You laugh at the very sins which sent Christ to the cross.
(20) You continue to watch even when Christ’s name is used in vain
(21) You have every premium cable channel like HBO, Cinemax, etc.
(22) You begin to adopt ideas and attitudes contrary to Scripture.
(23) You find more pleasure watching TV than being with God’s people.
KING JAMES ONLY by David Cloud
There is a lot of debate and confusion surrounding the man-made term "King James Onlyism." It has been popularized in recent years by men who claim they are concerned about a dangerous and cultic view of the King James Bible. Rarely do they carefully define the term, though, and as a result a wide variety of Bible-believing men are labeled with a nebulously-defined term.
The term “King James Only” was invented by those who oppose the defense of the King James Bible and its underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. It was intended to be a term of approbation, and it is usually defined in terms of extremism.
I have been labeled “King James Only” because of my writings on the subject of Bible texts and versions. To set the record straight, let me explain what I believe. I know from decades of experience and extensive travels that this is also what a large number of other King James Bible defenders believe.
I WILL ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY” IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has given infallible Scripture in the original Greek and Hebrew writings and that He has preserved that in the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text and that we have a beautiful translation of it in the English language in the Authorized Version, call me “King James Only.”
If “King James Only” defines one who believes modern textual criticism is heresy, call me “King James Only.” Prior to the Internet era, I spent hundreds of dollars to obtain the writings of the men who have been at the forefront of developing the theories underlying modern textual criticism, and I have read them. They are not dependable. They refuse to approach the Bible text from a position of faith in divine preservation. Most of them are out-and-out heretics, and I refuse to lean upon their scholarship. I am convinced they do not have the spiritual discernment necessary to know where the inspired, preserved Word of God is located today.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has preserved the Scripture in its common use among apostolic churches through the fulfillment of the Great Commission and that He guided the Reformation editors and translators in their choice of the Received Text and that we don’t have to start all over today in an to attempt to find the preserved text of Scripture, call me “King James Only.” The theories of modern textual criticism all revolve around the idea that the pure text of Scripture was not preserved in the Reformation text but that the Reformation editors, because of their alleged ignorance and or lack of resources, rejected the pure text and chose, instead, an inferior one. In fact, modern textual criticism is predicated upon the theory that the best text of the New Testament (the Egyptian or Alexandrian) was rejected in the earliest centuries and was replaced with a corrupt recension that was created through the conflation of various manuscript readings (the Byzantine or Traditional text) and that the corrupt text became the dominant text throughout most of church history (for 1,500 years) until the best text was rediscovered in the 19th century. You are free to accept such views if it suits you. I, for one, believe this is absolute nonsense.
Similarly, if “King James Only” defines one who rejects the theory that the “preserved” Word of God was hidden away in the Pope’s library and in a weird Greek Orthodox monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai (a monastery which has a room full of the skulls of dead monks) for hundreds of years, call me “King James Only.”
If “King James Only” defines one who believes it is important to have one biblical standard in a language as important as English and who believes that the multiplicity of competing versions has created confusion and has weakened the authority of the Word of God, call me “King James Only.”
ON THE OTHER HAND, I WILL NOT ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY” IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the KJV was given by inspiration, I am not “King James Only.” The authority of the King James Bible is the product of preservation, not inspiration. The term “inspiration” refers to the original giving of the Scripture through holy men of old (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). At the same time, I agree with the Pulpit Commentarywhen it says, “We must guard against such narrow, mechanical views of inspiration as would confine it to the Hebrew and Greek words in which it was written, so that one who reads a good translation would not have ‘the words of the Lord.’” To say that the King James Bible is the inspired Word of God in the English language because it is an accurate translation of the preserved Hebrew and Greek is not the same as saying that it was given by inspiration.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes the English KJV is superior to the Hebrew and Greek texts upon which it was based, I am not “King James Only.” In fact, I believe such an idea is pure nonsense, as it would mean the preserved Word of God did not exist before 1611.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible is advanced revelation over the Hebrew and Greek texts that God gave through inspiration to holy men of old, I am not “King James Only.”
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that we do not need to study Greek and Hebrew today or that it is not proper to use lexicons and dictionaries, I am not “King James Only.” God’s people should learn Greek and Hebrew, if possible, and use (with much caution and wisdom) study tools. When the Bible says that “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” we know that the words they spake were Hebrew and Greek words. But foundational to the study of the biblical languages is a thorough understanding of the textual issue. We must study the right Greek and Hebrew, and we must also be careful of the original language study tools, because many of them were produced from a rationalistic perspective and with great bias against the God-blessed Received Text.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes the preserved Word of God is available only perfectly in English, I am not “King James Only.” The Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and Greek Received New Testament translated correctly into any language is the preserved Word of God in that language, whether it is German, Spanish, French, Korean, or Nepali.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that translations in other languages should be based on English rather than (when possible) Greek and Hebrew, I am not “King James Only.” (I do believe that a good translation can be made directly from the King James Bible when necessary if it is done by men who are capable in the use of dictionaries so that they understand the somewhat antiquated language of the KJV properly.)
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that a person can only be saved through the King James Bible, I am not “King James Only.” It is the gospel of Jesus Christ that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), and even a Bible that is textually corrupt contains the gospel.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible’s antiquated language is holy or who believes the KJV could never again be updated, I am not “King James Only.” I doubt the KJV will ever be replaced in this apostate age, but to say that it is wrong to update the language again after the fashion of the several updates it has undergone since 1611 is not reasonable, in my estimation. Having dealt constantly with people who speak English as a second or third language, I am very sympathetic to the very real antiquation problem in the King James Bible. At the same time, I am not going to trade an excellent Bible with a few problems due to old language for a Bible filled with error due to a corrupt text and/or a corrupt translation methodology (e.g., dynamic equivalency).
If “King James Only” defines one who believes he has the authority to call those who disagree with him silly asses, morons, and jacklegs, and to treat them as if they were fools because they refuse to follow his (or her) peculiar views, or if it defines one who threatens to sue those who challenge him (or her), I am not “King James Only.”
There is a lot of debate and confusion surrounding the man-made term "King James Onlyism." It has been popularized in recent years by men who claim they are concerned about a dangerous and cultic view of the King James Bible. Rarely do they carefully define the term, though, and as a result a wide variety of Bible-believing men are labeled with a nebulously-defined term.
The term “King James Only” was invented by those who oppose the defense of the King James Bible and its underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. It was intended to be a term of approbation, and it is usually defined in terms of extremism.
I have been labeled “King James Only” because of my writings on the subject of Bible texts and versions. To set the record straight, let me explain what I believe. I know from decades of experience and extensive travels that this is also what a large number of other King James Bible defenders believe.
I WILL ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY” IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has given infallible Scripture in the original Greek and Hebrew writings and that He has preserved that in the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text and that we have a beautiful translation of it in the English language in the Authorized Version, call me “King James Only.”
If “King James Only” defines one who believes modern textual criticism is heresy, call me “King James Only.” Prior to the Internet era, I spent hundreds of dollars to obtain the writings of the men who have been at the forefront of developing the theories underlying modern textual criticism, and I have read them. They are not dependable. They refuse to approach the Bible text from a position of faith in divine preservation. Most of them are out-and-out heretics, and I refuse to lean upon their scholarship. I am convinced they do not have the spiritual discernment necessary to know where the inspired, preserved Word of God is located today.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has preserved the Scripture in its common use among apostolic churches through the fulfillment of the Great Commission and that He guided the Reformation editors and translators in their choice of the Received Text and that we don’t have to start all over today in an to attempt to find the preserved text of Scripture, call me “King James Only.” The theories of modern textual criticism all revolve around the idea that the pure text of Scripture was not preserved in the Reformation text but that the Reformation editors, because of their alleged ignorance and or lack of resources, rejected the pure text and chose, instead, an inferior one. In fact, modern textual criticism is predicated upon the theory that the best text of the New Testament (the Egyptian or Alexandrian) was rejected in the earliest centuries and was replaced with a corrupt recension that was created through the conflation of various manuscript readings (the Byzantine or Traditional text) and that the corrupt text became the dominant text throughout most of church history (for 1,500 years) until the best text was rediscovered in the 19th century. You are free to accept such views if it suits you. I, for one, believe this is absolute nonsense.
Similarly, if “King James Only” defines one who rejects the theory that the “preserved” Word of God was hidden away in the Pope’s library and in a weird Greek Orthodox monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai (a monastery which has a room full of the skulls of dead monks) for hundreds of years, call me “King James Only.”
If “King James Only” defines one who believes it is important to have one biblical standard in a language as important as English and who believes that the multiplicity of competing versions has created confusion and has weakened the authority of the Word of God, call me “King James Only.”
ON THE OTHER HAND, I WILL NOT ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY” IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the KJV was given by inspiration, I am not “King James Only.” The authority of the King James Bible is the product of preservation, not inspiration. The term “inspiration” refers to the original giving of the Scripture through holy men of old (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). At the same time, I agree with the Pulpit Commentarywhen it says, “We must guard against such narrow, mechanical views of inspiration as would confine it to the Hebrew and Greek words in which it was written, so that one who reads a good translation would not have ‘the words of the Lord.’” To say that the King James Bible is the inspired Word of God in the English language because it is an accurate translation of the preserved Hebrew and Greek is not the same as saying that it was given by inspiration.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes the English KJV is superior to the Hebrew and Greek texts upon which it was based, I am not “King James Only.” In fact, I believe such an idea is pure nonsense, as it would mean the preserved Word of God did not exist before 1611.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible is advanced revelation over the Hebrew and Greek texts that God gave through inspiration to holy men of old, I am not “King James Only.”
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that we do not need to study Greek and Hebrew today or that it is not proper to use lexicons and dictionaries, I am not “King James Only.” God’s people should learn Greek and Hebrew, if possible, and use (with much caution and wisdom) study tools. When the Bible says that “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” we know that the words they spake were Hebrew and Greek words. But foundational to the study of the biblical languages is a thorough understanding of the textual issue. We must study the right Greek and Hebrew, and we must also be careful of the original language study tools, because many of them were produced from a rationalistic perspective and with great bias against the God-blessed Received Text.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes the preserved Word of God is available only perfectly in English, I am not “King James Only.” The Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and Greek Received New Testament translated correctly into any language is the preserved Word of God in that language, whether it is German, Spanish, French, Korean, or Nepali.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that translations in other languages should be based on English rather than (when possible) Greek and Hebrew, I am not “King James Only.” (I do believe that a good translation can be made directly from the King James Bible when necessary if it is done by men who are capable in the use of dictionaries so that they understand the somewhat antiquated language of the KJV properly.)
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that a person can only be saved through the King James Bible, I am not “King James Only.” It is the gospel of Jesus Christ that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), and even a Bible that is textually corrupt contains the gospel.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible’s antiquated language is holy or who believes the KJV could never again be updated, I am not “King James Only.” I doubt the KJV will ever be replaced in this apostate age, but to say that it is wrong to update the language again after the fashion of the several updates it has undergone since 1611 is not reasonable, in my estimation. Having dealt constantly with people who speak English as a second or third language, I am very sympathetic to the very real antiquation problem in the King James Bible. At the same time, I am not going to trade an excellent Bible with a few problems due to old language for a Bible filled with error due to a corrupt text and/or a corrupt translation methodology (e.g., dynamic equivalency).
If “King James Only” defines one who believes he has the authority to call those who disagree with him silly asses, morons, and jacklegs, and to treat them as if they were fools because they refuse to follow his (or her) peculiar views, or if it defines one who threatens to sue those who challenge him (or her), I am not “King James Only.”
SOLIDIFYING THOUGHTS REGARDING THE CHURCH
by Kent Brandenburg
“Church” (ekklesia) in Matthew 16:18 is a singular noun. That does not mean there is one of them in the entire world. If I say, “I answered the phone,” I’m not saying there is only one phone in the world, since I wasn’t referencing a particular phone. The singular noun can only be used two ways: a particular or a generic. Often, the singular noun is used in a generic way in the New Testament. It is used that way all the time in Greek and in English and in many other languages. This is very basic. When Jesus says, “I will build my church,” we don’t assume that He means there will be just one. He could be talking about the church generically. I think that He was, but it isn’t easy to conclude whether it was a particular, the Jerusalem church, or His church as an institution, the generic use, by the context. It could be either and could be both. We certainly shouldn’t make any conclusions about what “church” means from a passage ambiguous in its context.
What would be good to do is to look at how Jesus uses the word ekklesia in His 20 other usages of it in the Bible, and what you will find is that the other usages are plainly local. That is good hermeneutics, that is, taking the ambiguous usage and interpreting in the light of every other single usage by Jesus. There is no reason to believe that Jesus wasn’t using ekklesia in Matthew 16:18 like He was in the other 20 usages, beginning in Matthew 18:15-17. And if ekklesia was ever supposed to be an entity other than local, where is the passage that explains that usage of the word. Where? There is no where, and the reason is because it has only the one meaning.
A generic use of the singular noun doesn’t change the meaning of the word. An ekklesia is still an assembly, the way that Tyndale translated the word in every usage of it in his translation — “congregation.”
When Jesus said “my church,” He was distinguishing His governing institution from others. This was His. His ekklesia was different than the meeting of the Greek city state, the Sanhedrin, the congregation of Israel. He would be the Head of this one. However, it was still an assembly. Assemblies assemble. If they don’t assemble, they are not an assembly. If it isn’t a particular assembly, then Jesus is speaking of it in a generic way, which is common in the New Testament. Cloud doesn’t mention this, perhaps because he doesn’t know. If he did know, he should at least have talked about it. If you don’t know the two usages of the singular noun, you can be confused when it comes to interpreting singulars.
There is no mystical or spiritual or platonic usage of the singular noun. You’ve got two choices: particular or generic. If Jesus was using it as a generic, that doesn’t change the meaning of ekklesia. He is talking still about an assembly, not just a particular one. He’s talking about it as His institution. If I say, “I will write with my pen,” “pen” doesn’t suddenly become universal and mystical without warning. It retains the meaning, even though it isn't talking about or distinguishing a particular pen. It is "my pen," so that narrows it down, but it doesn't create something that is a different meaning of pen. It's still a pen.
by Kent Brandenburg
“Church” (ekklesia) in Matthew 16:18 is a singular noun. That does not mean there is one of them in the entire world. If I say, “I answered the phone,” I’m not saying there is only one phone in the world, since I wasn’t referencing a particular phone. The singular noun can only be used two ways: a particular or a generic. Often, the singular noun is used in a generic way in the New Testament. It is used that way all the time in Greek and in English and in many other languages. This is very basic. When Jesus says, “I will build my church,” we don’t assume that He means there will be just one. He could be talking about the church generically. I think that He was, but it isn’t easy to conclude whether it was a particular, the Jerusalem church, or His church as an institution, the generic use, by the context. It could be either and could be both. We certainly shouldn’t make any conclusions about what “church” means from a passage ambiguous in its context.
What would be good to do is to look at how Jesus uses the word ekklesia in His 20 other usages of it in the Bible, and what you will find is that the other usages are plainly local. That is good hermeneutics, that is, taking the ambiguous usage and interpreting in the light of every other single usage by Jesus. There is no reason to believe that Jesus wasn’t using ekklesia in Matthew 16:18 like He was in the other 20 usages, beginning in Matthew 18:15-17. And if ekklesia was ever supposed to be an entity other than local, where is the passage that explains that usage of the word. Where? There is no where, and the reason is because it has only the one meaning.
A generic use of the singular noun doesn’t change the meaning of the word. An ekklesia is still an assembly, the way that Tyndale translated the word in every usage of it in his translation — “congregation.”
When Jesus said “my church,” He was distinguishing His governing institution from others. This was His. His ekklesia was different than the meeting of the Greek city state, the Sanhedrin, the congregation of Israel. He would be the Head of this one. However, it was still an assembly. Assemblies assemble. If they don’t assemble, they are not an assembly. If it isn’t a particular assembly, then Jesus is speaking of it in a generic way, which is common in the New Testament. Cloud doesn’t mention this, perhaps because he doesn’t know. If he did know, he should at least have talked about it. If you don’t know the two usages of the singular noun, you can be confused when it comes to interpreting singulars.
There is no mystical or spiritual or platonic usage of the singular noun. You’ve got two choices: particular or generic. If Jesus was using it as a generic, that doesn’t change the meaning of ekklesia. He is talking still about an assembly, not just a particular one. He’s talking about it as His institution. If I say, “I will write with my pen,” “pen” doesn’t suddenly become universal and mystical without warning. It retains the meaning, even though it isn't talking about or distinguishing a particular pen. It is "my pen," so that narrows it down, but it doesn't create something that is a different meaning of pen. It's still a pen.
