IS HAND CLAPPING IN WORSHIP WRONG?

Hand clapping while singing in worship has become popular in some churches across the Brotherhood.  Some have asked,  “what is wrong with clapping hands while singing in worship?”  The proper question is, “what is right with the practice?”  May we go to the Bible for an answer to the problem.

“Worship” is defined as “homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ...” (Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, p. 548).  Jesus said, “God is a spirit; and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24).  God is the object of our worship and we must worship as He directs.  To worship according to our own desires is to worship in vain (Matthew 15:9).  How we worship must be determined by the authority of Scripture or it is vain.

The New Testament authorizes singing as the type of music to be rendered in Christian worship. (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16)..   Anything else is a human addition and is condemned just as surely as were Nadab and Abihu who offered that “which He had not commanded them” (Leviticus 10:1).  There is no authority for humming, whistling, clicking, snapping the fingers or hand clapping in New Testament worship.

The whole tenor of New Testament worship is one of beauty and solemnity.  We are to worship God in “reverence and godly fear” (Hebrews 13:28).   Clapping the hands while singing is just another addition like instrumental music.  One may as well be beating on a tambourine or a drum!  It does not add to the beauty of worship or express reverence for the Almighty.

In reality, there are several observations one might make regarding hand clapping in worship:

1.      It is childish.  There comes a time when childish ways must be put away (1 Corinthians 13:11).  Shall we continue to sing the songs of our childhood with the hand motions and catchy tunes?

2.      It is a false front.  Jesus condemns hypocritical and showy religion (Matthew 6:5; 23:5).  The Pharisee sought to be seen of men.  The hand clapping and swaying back and forth are not evidence of one’s spirituality but rather evidence of one’s effort to be seen and heard.

3.      It is a symptom.  The whole idea of hand clapping is a symptom of the inordinate desire on the part of some “to be like those round about.” It is a symptom of the desire on the part of some to “change for the sake of change.”

May we come before our God with true reverence and godly fear.  Let us render homage to Him in Scripturally proscribed ways.  May we learn “not to go beyond that which is written but rather “hold to the pattern of sound words” (1 Corinthians 4:6; 2 Timothy 1:13).

--Dan Flournoy

MIRACLES TODAY?

Abundant are the claims for modern day miracles.  One claims he has been given a “word” from God.  Another claims God uses him to heal the sick.  Another says the gibberish he babbles at a worship service is the miraculous gift of tongues spoken of in Scripture. 

The purpose of miracles in both the Old and New Testaments was to confirm the truthfulness of the words spoken by the prophet of God.  Moses, for example, was able to convince the magicians of Egypt by the use of miracles (Ex. 7:10-12; 8:16-19), even though they could perform certain magic tricks themselves.  Philip was also able to confirm the words he spoke and convinced even Simon the sorcerer by the signs which he performed (Acts 8:6-13).

Miraculous powers were received  (as far as the New Testament is concerned) either through Jesus himself, through the laying on of the apostles’ hands or through the baptism of the Holy Spirit.  Jesus conferred certain spiritual gifts to the 12 and the 70 (Matt. 10; Luke 10) to aid them as they heralded the approach of his kingdom.  Only the apostles and the house of Cornelius received the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:1-4;10:44-48; 11:4,15).  The baptism of the Holy Spirit was a promise to the apostles (acts 1:5) and was fulfilled on Pentecost (Acts 2).  It was administered by the Lord to the household of Cornelius as a sign to the Jewish Christians that Gentiles were subjects of the gospel (Acts 11:15-18).  This leaves only the laying on of the apostles’ hands as a means of imparting miraculous gifts.

After Jesus’ ascension, only the apostles had the power to impart miraculous gifts to others.  This is evident by the fact that: (1) miraculous gifts were promised to believers (Mark 16:17ff); (2) but believers had to send for the apostles before receiving them (Acts 8:14ff): (3) believers saw that gifts were imparted by apostles (Acts 8:18ff); (4) Paul gave a gift to Timothy (2 Tim. 1:6 cf. 1 Tim. 4:14); (5) Paul wished to impart gifts to those at Rome (Rom. 1:11).  Since only the apostles had the power to impart spiritual gifts to others, it follows that when the last apostle died, the ability to impart spiritual gifts ceased.  When the last person with spiritual gifts died, miracles ceased.

Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 teaches that miraculous gifts would cease with the coming of “that which is perfect.”  The miraculous gifts were “in part.”  That is, only part of the church had spiritual gifts and even then, the revelation of God’s word through them was only partial.  Thus, the apostle is looking forward from his point in time to a day when the partial would cease and the revelation of God’s word would be complete.  When the written New Testament was completed, toward the end of the first century, the various miraculous gifts listed in 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 ceased.  The New Testament now furnishes the Christian with everything essential for acceptable service to God (2 Pet. 1:3; 2 Tim. 3:16).

--Dan Flournoy

On March 6, 1857 the US Supreme Court in the “infamous” Scott vs. Sandford case (commonly called the Dred Scott decision), ruled that a slave was the “property” of his owner, not a citizen and therefore could not be protected by the laws of our nation.  Fortunately in 1866 the US Congress passed the 14^th amendment which overturned the Dred Scott decision .  In essence Congress said the Supreme Court was wrong and guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to all persons regardless of race or color.

On January 22, 1973 the US Supreme Court, in the infamous Roe vs. Wade decision ruled that “only viable human beings who have the capability of meaningful life” may, but need not, be protected by the State.”  Furthermore, the Court ruled that the word “person” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the unborn.  Since the US Supreme Court was obviously wrong in the Dred Scott case, is it possible that the Court is wrong in the Roe V Wade case as well?

The wording of the Court’s ruling raises several important questions.

1.       If “viability” means the ability to survive outside the womb, how can this be an indicator of who should live and who should die?  A perfectly healthy newborn infant cannot survive outside the womb without the aid of its parents.  Is it not still considered murder to destroy such a child?  What about a two year old left without care?  Our laws still protect them don’t they?  How about a diabetic without insulin?  The “viability doctrine” carried to its logical conclusion is dangerous to say the least!

2. Who is to decide what is meant by “capability of meaningful life?”  Suppose a child is born handicapped or mentally retarded?  Are such persons capable of meaningful life?  What about those injured in accidents who must spend the rest of their life confined to a wheelchair or hospital bed?  What of a stroke victim left unable to speak or feed himself?  Is there capability of meaningful life?  Who gets to decide?

It is time we faced the ramifications of the Roe v. Wade decision.  It is not just the fact that millions helpless babies have been murdered since 1973.  It is not just the fact that a woman and her doctor are given the right to take an innocent life.  We must face the fact that behind the Roe v. Wade decision is the philosophy of the “utilitarian ethic” which is Godless to the core!  It is the idea that we must do “whatever brings the greatest good to the greatest number.”  Those who hold this view might say that all mentally handicapped people should be terminated for the greater good of society.  Likewise, all over a certain age should be terminated to make room for those who are younger.  Or, as in the case of Nazi Germany, all in a certain ethnic group should be eliminate for  the greater good. 

Friends, every four years we have an opportunity to vote for a new president.  Listen carefully to those running for this high office.  Consider that the president has an opportunity to appoint judges to the US Supreme Court.  The vote you cast may determine the destiny of millions yet unborn.  Study, think, pray and act.

POSTMODERNISM AND THE CHURCH

     Are you amazed that someone would question the definition of the word “is?”  How can someone say they believe baptism is essential to salvation and at the same time accept people who have not been baptized as though they were saved? How can one claim, on the one hand, that Jesus is the Saviour of the world, and on the other hand, say that one may be saved without ever hearing of Jesus and the gospel plan of salvation?  The answer to these questions is found in the word postmodernism.

     The “modern age” was the age of logic, reason and rational thought.  The “postmodern age” will have none of that.  It has outgrown such old foggyism.  This philosophy or world view is much like what we used to do as children playing and making things up as we go along.  Things can be simply what we want them to be.  Logic and reasoning are not required.  In fact, logic and reasoning must not be used or postmodernism will not work 

     Politically,  postmodernism attempts to redesign government to circumvent the guidelines of the constitution and the rule of law.  These are based on logic and reason and cannot be trusted according to postmodern thinking.  To postmodern politicians, truth is what they say it is.  Furthermore, what may be truth one day, may not be truth the next.  Words such as truth, family values, tolerance and forgiveness are simply redefined to mean what they want them to mean.  This may help to explain how politicians can speak of family values while committing adultery.  They can speak of the sanctity of human life while continuing to support partial birth abortion.  They can “repent” of immorality while remaining immoral. 

     Religiously, postmodernism attempts to redesign the church to circumvent the Bible.  It attempts to appeal to those who may not feel comfortable with a logical and well reasoned exposition of scripture.  Thus, they substitute “user-friendly,” “touchy-feely” sermons designed to make people feel good.  While making up the rules as they go along, they preach as if the Bible has nothing to say about worship, differing roles for men and women in the church, congregational organization or the terms of pardon.  This is why we hear of “unity in diversity.”  For the postmodernist, this is not a contradiction in terms.  In reality unity in diversity is simply the age old lie of unity in error!  I believe baptism is necessary and you believe it is not and we will both be right.  Pay no attention to the logical inconsistency and never mind what the Bible says (Acts 2:38).

     Postmodernism is a false philosophy which destroys.  It may spell the downfall of our freedom as a republic.  Time will tell.  As applied to religion, it will spell doom for those who embrace it, but it can never overcome the eternal kingdom of God’s dear son (Dan. 2:44; Matt. 16:18).  Postmodernism will destroy the faith of those who espouse it, but it will never destroy those whose faith is in the Word of God which lives and abides forever (1 Peter 1:23).

~~Dan Flournoy

OLD TIME RELIGION  VS.  SHOW-TIME RELIGION

The extent to which some brethren have gone in an effort to fill the pews would almost defy belief.  We are being told that the church must adampt its message to meet the challenge of our entertainment oriented society.  One church defends its  “drama ministry” saying

Our prime objective is to teach.  Not everyone is comfortable with drama, but there are others who can understand forgiveness, healing, and faith through drama when sermons don’t touch them.  Others can see themselves and their sins in such a way they they cannot run from them anymore.  And there is always Jesus there to forgive and take them in  His arms, wipng away their tears.  For some people, this is something no preacher can do.

We wonder why the Lord overlooked this marvelous medium?  After all,  first century society was steeped in drama.  Rome, Corinth and Ephesus all had huge theatres accomadating thousands of spectators.  However, there is no evidence whatever to suggest the  use  Christian “drama.”   

Some brethren are not detered by the lack of biblical authority for substituting performance for preaching. Here is a sampling of  what is being done by some in the church today:

The minister comes out to announce that  “Today’s theme is pressing toward the goal.  We have a skit prepared to help us make application...”  Lights are dimmed, two  spot lights are pointed to two men with wireless microphones dressed for the roles of high school football coaches.  Then a 70’s style Howard Cosell type announces “The Game of Life.”    Three high school football players (with jerseys, pads and tight pants) come out to play their parts.

One is carrying the weight of sin (a black cloth partially draped over his jersey) being tackled...caught from behind and dragged down by sin as he looses sight of the goal.  Another, having received a long pass, droped the ball before he could reach the goal.  Finally, there is a missed field goal.  Now on to the locker room where there are heated exchanges between players.  The coach settles everyone down and exhorts each to press toward the goal.  This is done by focusing on the goal, throwing off the weight of sin, etc.  The assembly claps enthusiastically at the conclusion and the re-illumination of the auditorium.

Friends, all of this emphasis on dramatic productions is just another way to attract the worldly minded.  These productions may entertain, but they are not sanctioned by the God we are to glorify.  Short plays  may be helpful in illustrating Bible truths to the immature mind of a child, but here comes a time when folks must “put away childish things” (1 Corinthians 13:11). 

Another church has decided to use their dramatic arts in the name of “outreach.”   This consists of excerps from the musical adaption of  Victor Hugo’s classic tale of the French Revolution, Le Meserabel.  Their justification for this extraveganza is that it is just too hard to get non-Christians to attend worship.  At least with this kind of production, outsiders may become accustomed to coming into their church building.

The chief problem with the entertainment based approach is that it is man centered rather than God centered.   It is concerned with what people want, not what God demands.  It sees the church existing for people’s sake rather than for God’s sake.  The very idea that this generation is so simple minded that they can’t understand the love of God from a sermon but must have a dramatic production to get the point accross is not only obsured but insulting!

After nearly 2,000 years, it is still “God’s good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe” (1 Corinthians 1:21).  The growth of the church in the first century  has nothing to do with entertaining the populace but everything to do with preaching the gospel.  Paul asked: “For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? or am I striving to please men?”  Notice his startling conclusion: “If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ” (Galatians 1:10).   Let us remember that the power to save the lost is in the gospel (Romans 1:16) not in entertainment.

Dan Flournoy

The “illumination” view is not new; actually, it is a part of the residue of the old concept of human hereditary depravity. This is the idea that man is so hopelessly depraved by virtue of Adam’s fall, that the Scriptures are incomprehensible to his blighted mind. This dogma was popularized most prominently by John Calvin (A.D. 1509-1564).

Some of the early “church fathers” introduced the idea that the guilt of Adam’s sin was contracted by all of his descendants. Tertullian (A.D. 150 – 222) contended that a person inherits both his body and his spirit from his parents (De Anima, chps. 23-41). Later, Augustine (A.D. 354-430) taught a similar idea. Cyprian (A.D. 200-258) had alleged that new-born infants inherit “the infection of the old death” from Adam (Epistle lviii). Origen (c. A.D. 185-254) suggested that a child is polluted with sin “though [its] life be but the length of one day upon the earth” (Homily in Luc. xiv). On this account he argued that no Christian should celebrate the day of the birth (Hom. in Leviticum , viii.3).

And so, due to man’s supposed “corrupted” nature, he cannot understand the Scriptures without direct divine guidance. Calvin, cited Paul’s statement that “no man can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3) as proof of this dogma (see Calvin’s Institutes, II,II,20-21).

But this Corinthian passage merely asserts that belief in Christ’s lordship is dependent upon the revelatory mission of the Spirit. To suggest that it affirms that each individual must have a direct, personal enlightenment of the Spirit, is to assume more than the text states. The Holy Spirit is the author of the Scriptures; apart of that body of information, no man can declare Christ’s lordship. Hence, ultimately, this precious affirmation must be attributed to the Spirit. But this by no means establishes the “direct illumination” theory.

Calvin likely borrowed the “illumination” idea from Augustine, for, as Norman Geisler has noted, the north African theologian not only taught that the Holy Spirit is “the means by which we receive God-written revelation (Confessions 7.21), he is necessary [also] for illuminating and confirming its truth” (Homily VI) (quoted in: Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999, p. 331).

Other reformers, e.g., Luther and Zwingli, taught similar ideas respecting the need for some special power of the Holy Spirit in order that one might be empowered to comprehend the Scriptures. This notion has filtered down to many in the modern world of sectarianism.

Henry C. Thiessen, a Baptist writer, wrote:

“[T]he illumination of the Holy Spirit ... is vouchsafed to every believer ... [which will] enable us to understand the revelation God has already made of Himself, especially that revelation of Him in the Scriptures” (Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949, p. 45).

Roy Zuck, a former Bible professor at Dallas Theological Seminary (whom this writer highly regards), has authored a book titled Basic Bible Interpretation (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1991). In this otherwise valuable volume, Zuck contended mightily for the idea that “[n]o one can fully comprehend the meaning of the Bible unless he is regenerate” (p. 22). He further affirmed that even the Christian “must also depend upon the Holy Spirit” for a correct view of the Scriptures. He quoted H.C.G. Moule who wrote: “The blessed Spirit is not only the true Author of the written Word but also its supreme and true Expositor” (p. 23; emp. WJ).

An Analysis

The doctrine of the “illumination of the Holy Spirit” is not defensible – either on a scriptural or logical basis. Consider the following points.

1. The passages that are appealed to as proof for the dogma are grounded either in unwarranted assumptions that are imposed upon them (see the reference to 1 Cor. 12:3 cited above), or else the alleged proof-passages are extracted from their original contexts and misapplied.

For example, John 16:13 frequently is employed to prove the idea of special “illumination” (see Zuck, p. 24). “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth....” But this text refers to the apostles (and, by implication, others who were to be endowed with miraculous teaching powers). Those so empowered would be proclaiming the gospel in that time-period preliminary to the completion of the New Testament canon. This promise from the Lord does not have a direct application to Christians today (see 14:16-17; 26; 15:26-27; 16:12-16; cf. also Mt. 10:19-20; Lk. 21:14-15). It is a travesty to misuse these contexts in such an irresponsible fashion.

2. If the Holy Spirit illuminates the mind of the Christian student, is he as infallible as an “expositor” as he was initially in his role of “author” of the sacred message? If not, why not? Furthermore, how would one know if, or when, he has been “illuminated”? If he affirms that he has been illuminated with reference to a particular passage, may he ever alter his view of that text? If so, did the Spirit misdirect him earlier?

If one has been illuminated regarding a passage, are all others who take a different view in error? If two people, both of whom claim illumination, differ on the interpretation of a passage, how could one know which of these is correct – or if either is? If the Holy Spirit could not make the Scriptures comprehensible the first time around (by the “revelation” process), how could one be confident that He could do so the second time around (by the “illumination” process)?

Note Zuck’s concession. He says that the Spirit’s role in illumination “does not mean that one’s interpretations are infallible” (p. 24). This is woefully inconsistent with the esteemed professor’s endorsement of Moule, namely that the Spirit is both Author and Expositor of the Scriptures for the believer. And why is it that many of these men, who accept this position, are at such variance with one another in their doctrinal positions? Common sense says that something is seriously wrong with this theory.

3. If the Holy Spirit provides illumination to men today, why do scholars, who subscribe to this ideology, write books instructing folks as to the proper methods of Bible interpretation (as professor Zuck has done)? Such efforts would not be of value to the unbeliever, who has “no spiritual capacity for welcoming and appropriating spiritual truths” (Zuck, p. 22). And they should not be needed by one who has the illuminating Spirit, the alleged “Expositor” of truth.
4. What if one proposed the following. Select two spiritual Christian people and put them in separate rooms. Provide them with a difficult biblical text, with which each person is equally unfamiliar. Let one of them have access to a good library of reference works, and provide the other with nothing but an empty room and the “illumination of the Spirit.” Allow each several hours of concentration. Then have each of them write his explanation of the obscure text. It can be guaranteed that the person with the library will have a better grasp of the passage than the one who has relied solely on the “presence” of the Spirit.

If someone should object to such a test, one need only appeal to the admonition of Christ’s apostle.

“Beloved, believe not every spirit [i.e., every person making a religious claim], but prove [test – ESV] the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 Jn. 4:1).

Indeed, and some of them are teaching that the Spirit directly “illuminates” them!

5. The doctrine of special illumination contradicts the clear testimony of Scripture, namely the explicit affirmation that the devout student is able to understand the Word of God as given originally.

When Paul wrote to the Ephesian brethren he affirmed that “when you read, you can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4). The apostle did not suggest that “reading” – plus a special intervention of the Spirit – would be required.

Later, he admonished these saints: “Wherefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). If the theory under review is true, and if the Christian does not understand the will of the Lord – even though he studies diligently – the responsibility must be laid at the feet of the Holy Spirit.

6. Finally, Paul’s testimony could not be clearer. The inspired Scriptures are

“profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction, which is in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

The Scriptures alone are sufficient for man’s understanding of the divine will.

Conclusion

We have no doubt but that many of those who advocate the theory of “special illumination” are sincere. But sincerity does not guarantee accuracy (Acts 23:1; 26:9).

Moreover, it should be a matter of great concern to church leaders that so many of our people are beginning to use this sort of language, reflecting unsound beliefs that they have adopted regarding the Spirit’s operation.

The problem is this. We have numerous Christians these days who have a most superficial knowledge foundation in New Testament doctrine. Combine this fact with the reality that many constantly are feeding themselves (or are being fed by others) on sectarian literature that is rank with such ideas. There is an inevitable result in the wake of such a course.

Surely it is time for some serious teaching in the church of the Lord on matters pertaining to the Holy Spirit.

“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith” (1 Timothy 6:20-21 KJV).

Recent headlines announced: “Pope calls evolution ‘more than theory’” (Dallas Morning News, October 25, 1996).  The article, written by Laurie Goodstein, points out that the Pope’s comment on evolution is a major change in the official Catholic position. However, the statement by the Pope varies only slightly from the Papal encyclical issued by Pope Pius XII in 1950 which said that evolution was a “serious hypothesis worthy of a more deeply studied investigation and reflection on a par with the opposite hypothesis.”  So, there is really nothing new in the Pope’s statement as far a Catholic teaching is concerned. The article went on to point out that the Roman Catholic Church has taught the false theory of evolution in its schools for years.  All of this is just another indication of how far from the Word of God the Roman Catholic has erred.  It clearly demonstrates the fact that Roman Catholicism is nothing but a pseudo religion.

The Christian has no quarrel with true science.  It is that which is falsely called science that Paul warns against in this passage.  The word translated science in 1 Timothy 6:20 is from a Greek word meaning knowledge and is so translated in some of our English versions.  The theory of evolution is nothing but “pseudo science.”  It is a theory (guess) as to the origin of life on this planet.  It is fostered, not by those who love science, but by those who hate God. 

Anyone who accepts the Bible as the inspired word of God cannot accept the theory of evolution.  Please note the following contrasts: 

1.       The Bible teaches that God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).  Evolution teaches that the universe is best explained by an explosion (big bang) or perhaps it has always been here (steady state theory). 2

2.       The Bible teaches that life came from God (Genesis 1:1-31).  Evolution teaches that life began in some kind of primeval soup as a single cell and through eons of time (“billions and billions of years” - a la Carl Sagan) that single cell developed itself into higher forms of life including man.  In other words, evolution teaches that life came from non-living material. 

3.       The Bible teaches that God created the first man and woman.  Evolution teaches that the first humans evolved from apes. The apostle Paul plainly contradicted the evolutionary scheme when he said “Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13).

4.       The Bible teaches that man was created on the sixth day of the first week of the earth’s existence (Genesis 2:24ff.).  Jesus said “have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them ‘male and female?’”  Evolution teaches that man is of recent origin, and has been on the earth for only 50,000 years of the 20 billion years claimed by evolutionists. 

We have nothing to fear from pseudo-science and pseudo-religion.  Evolution is a false theory that cannot be proved.  Neither Popes, councils, nor encyclicals can stand against the all-sufficient Word of God.  Let us therefore avoid both false religion and false science and hold fast to the Word of God which endures forever (1 Peter 1:23-25).

--Dan Flournoy

December 2, 1996

We need to realize that the church grows in direct proportion to the amount of teaching being done.   Luke records: ”Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7).  It is a proven fact that congregations with an active, attentive and attractive Bible School program grow.  Likewise, those with half-hearted efforts either simply “hold their own” or fall into decline.  When the Bible School is strong it means that the other areas of work such as visitation, personal teaching and benevolence will be strong as well.

The formula for a successful education program in the Lord’s church is a simple one.  There are no tricks or twists.  It is not an easy formula, but it is sure.  The success formula for the Bible School is spelled with just four letters -- WORK!  To be sure, there are other things involved such as wise planning, good organization, adequately equipped classroom, well-trained teachers, etc.  However, the fundamental formula for success is WORK.

May we offer a few practical suggestions to help the Bible School to grow:

1.      Each member determine to be present for Bible class both Sunday and Wednesday.

2.      Encourage others to attend...tell them about the lesson, the teacher and the class.

3.      Talk the Bible class up...don’t run it down.

4.      Make constructive suggestions to the elders.

5.      Encourage the teachers and pray for them.

6.      Determine to bring someone with you each week. Concentrate on one person or family at a time.

7.      Call or visit those who visit your class and encourage them to return or set up a home Bible study.

8.      Do not grow weary in well doing  (Galatians 6:9).

There is no substitute for WORK.  To have a successful Bible School program, it takes each member doing their best.  The Bible is the greatest book in the world.  It is the only book that tells where man came from, his purpose on earth and his destiny in eternity.  Therefore, let us put forth the maximum effort to make our Bible School a success.

Concerning heaven it can be said, like the wisdom of Solomon, “The half has not been told!”  While we cannot fully comprehend what heaven is like, the Bible does reveal certain things about heaven so that we might have a desire to go there.

1. Heaven is real!  Scripture depicts heaven as a place.  Shortly before his return to heaven, Jesus promise: “I go to prepare a place for you” (John 14:2).

2. Heaven is where Christ is.  Two apostles, Paul and John were privileged to view heaven.  In the great Book of Revelation, John recorded his vision of heaven and how that he saw the King on His throne (Revelation 4:1-4).  Paul, on the other hand, was caught up into heaven but was forbidden to tell what he had seen (2 Corinthians 12:4).  Later, he exclaimed that he had a desire to “depart and be with Christ” (Philippians 1:23).

Further, he admonished Christians to “seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated on the right hand of God” (Colossians 3:1).

3. Heaven is where God is.  Moses prayed to God saying, “look down from Thy holy habitation, from heaven, and bless Thy people Israel” (Deuteronomy 26:15).   Later, Solomon said: “for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth” (Ecclesiastes 5:2).

4. Faithful servants of God from ages past will be in heaven.  Jesus said “that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 8:11).  Furthermore, the faithful of this age and those who are faithful at the coming of the Lord will be in heaven (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).

5. Infants and all unaccountable for sin will be in heaven.  Jesus said, “suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:4).  At the death of his infant son, David said, “I shall go to him; but he shall  not return to me” (2 Samuel 12:15).

Just knowing  who will be in heaven should be enough to cause one to want to go there.  A man who was dying asked his doctor to tell him about heaven.  “I do not know anything about heaven,” said the physician, “except that my Master is there, and that is enough.”  As he said this he opened the door, and in leaped his dog and sprang into his arms in gladness.  The doctor said to his patient, “This dog has never been in this room before, but HE KNEW HIS MASTER WAS INSIDE.  That was all that mattered!”

In the words of James, “Be patient therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord” (James 5:7).  As the dog waited anxiously for the door to open--so may we wait patiently for the Lord until He comes or calls us home. 

--Dan Flournoy

A VISION OF GOD

Isaiah 6:1  “In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple.”

     One of the greatest needs in the church today is to see God clearly.  Without a clear vision of God we cannot have a clear vision of life.  When we have the right perspective of God then we can have the right perspective on everything else in life including ourselves, our material possessions, our service to God and our fellowman, human relationships, etc.

            Scripture records several great visions of God.  One we call the Book of Revelation  where John, isolated on the Isle of Patmos, saw of vision of God (Rev. 1:1-11).  Another is the vision of Ezekiel, prophet of the Babylonian Captivity, recorded in Ezekiel chapter one.  Yet another vision of God is recorded by Isaiah in the sixth chapter of the book that bears his name.  It is this vision that we wish to briefly consider.

            In Isaiah’s vision of God he saw the Throne Room of the Universe with “the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple” (Isaiah 6:1).  When he saw the Lord God, Isaiah’s life was changed forever.  Hopefully, the same thing will happen when we “see” God through Biblical revelation.  When Isaiah saw the Lord God he was driven to his knees in prayer and was caused to recognize his own weak and sinful condition.  He was moved to confess his sins saying: “Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, Jehovah of hosts” (Isaiah 6:5).

            Most are all too content with who and what they are.  Like the self-satisfied Pharisee, it is easy to compare ourselves with others and exclaim “God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are” (Luke 18:11).  We tend to think of our selves as being pretty good if we are industrious, basically honest, mind our own business, etc.  Few have any conviction of personal sin until they are confronted with the “vision” of the nature of the true, pure, holy and just Creator and Ruler of the universe.  Once one has a clear concept of God’s absolute perfection, he cannot help but be driven by the contrast to recognize his own imperfection, weakness, and unrighteousness.  The Publican of Jesus’ parable stood with bowed head and said “God, be thou merciful to me a sinner” (Luke 18:13). 

            Isaiah, having seen the contrast between himself and the Almighty, was convicted of sin in his life.  He was moved by a contrite heart to confess his sins.  Upon his confession God’s seraph cleansed the unclean lips of the penitent prophet.  He was assured of pardon when he heard “thine iniquity is taken away and thy sin forgiven” (Isaiah 6:7).

            May we learn the lesson that life works better when we have the proper view of God.  Seeing Him clearly helps to put all other things into perspective, including our own need.

--Dan Flournoy

©2001www.Christian-Family.net

Peter – A Roman Catholic

Paul – A Methodist

John – A Mormon

Matthew – A Baptist

James – A Presbyterian

Judas – A Pentecostal Holiness

Andrew – A Jehovah’s Witness

Thomas – Held to Judaism

Philip – A Quaker

James – A Seventh Day Adventist

Simon – Unitarian

Bartholomew – A Lutheran

Judas Iscariot – Thought one church was as good as another

Jesus said: “Upon this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18).

The apostle Paul said: “The churches of Christ salute you” (Romans 16:16).

Peter said: “And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, werein we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

Many are alarmed at the changes taking place in the church these days.  They are alarmed because they see many of these changes as apostasy.  Those who believe in the authority of the Word are concerned that the work, worship, organization and mission of the church will be so corrupted that the Lord’s church can not be recognized.

On the other hand, there are those who see change as the only answer for the survival of the church.  Without change, they see the church stagnating into oblivion.  “We must change in order to attract the modern world” is their plea.  The old traditions and forms must be swept away to make way for a new and better way for the church of the 21st century. 

Are these “old traditions and forms” the problem?  Or could it be that some brethren want to sweep away the authority of the Bible and replace it with the modern theology of subjectivism?  May we reflect on what changes are being made today and bring them to the test of the Scripture.

1.   A new interest in denominationalism.  Some in the church are expressing a newly discovered enchantment with denominationalism.  Sectarian clergymen such as Chuck Swindoll and James Dobson are being described as “brothers in the Lord” by some of our preachers and schools.  Some churches have begun the practice of dedicating babies much the same as denominational churches have a “christening ceremony.”  Denominational seminars such as Promise Keepers and Walk to Emmaus are actively promoted by numerous churches.  Can you imagine the apostles encouraging brethren to attend a seminar conducted by the devotees of the goddess Diana?  Those who promote such denominational meetings demonstrate that they either do not understand the nature of the Lord’s church or that they do not care.  Paul was clear and unyielding when he wrote: “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Ephesians 5:11).

2. A change in the role of women.  Some in the church are clamoring for women to take on leadership roles.  In some churches, women are called upon the lead prayer in the worship assembly in violation of 1 Timothy 2:8-15 and 1 Corinthians 14:33-35.  Several church of Christ have appointed “women elders” and “deaconess’s.”  They totally disregard the teaching of Scripture regarding the qualifications of male leadership (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9).

3. A change in the “style” of worship.  We hear a lot being said about “contemporary worship styles.”  Some churches are engaging in two separate worship services, one “traditional” and one “contemporary.”  The contemporary worship usually incorporates some kind of “praise team” composed of both men and women leading the congregational singing.  Often choirs, solos and “vocal bands” are brought in to enliven the worship.  Along with this entertainment oriented worship comes a lot of hand clapping, and hoopla.  What ever happened to 1 Corinthians 14:40 “let all things be done decently and in order?”  The New Testament is totally void of any authority for solos, choirs and “vocal bands.”  Rather, congregational singing is commanded (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16-17).

Conclusion.  The chief problem with these changes is that they are man centered.  They are designed to cater to the whims and fancies of men.  May we ever follow the admonition of Paul: “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God”(1 Cor. 10:31). 

--Dan Flournoy

©2004www.Christian-Family.net

“Search me O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting” (Psalms 139:23-24).

This psalm has been called “the crown of all the psalms” because it so dramatically describes the nature of God.  Jehovah is described as an all knowing, all powerful, and ever present deity. 

In these verses, David prays for God to search his heart and to lead him in the way of everlasting life.  This ought to be our prayer as well.  The apostle Paul admonishes:

“Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves” (2 Cor. 13:5).  Self-examination is a valuable exercise, yet it is sometimes misleading.  Sometimes our estimation  of ourselves is faulty.  There are many good people who feel bad about themselves, and many bad people who feel good about themselves.  Paul wrote of himself saying, “For I know nothing against myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judges me is the Lord (1 Corinthians 4:4).”  Thus, our self-examination must be done in light of what God has said in His word.

Concerning the word of God, consider Heb 4:12 “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”  As we allow the word of God to penetrate our hearts, to dwell richly within, it has a way of shedding light upon our character (Colossians 3:16). 

God’s word is able to show us where we need to make change: “And see if there is any wicked way in me...”  However, there are those who refuse to submit to the “searching”

word of God.  As Jesus said "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.  But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”(John 3:19-20).

The object of this search is not to give God information, but to give us information about our selves.  As the Word searches our heart through daily study and application, we learn to “Abhor what is evil...love the brethren...be fervent in spirit...rejoice in hope...be patient in tribulation...continue to pray...repay no one evil for evil...live peaceabley with all men...” (Romans 12:9-18).

If we, like David, will submit to the search we can change our lives and we will be led in the way everlasting.

©www.Christian-Family.net