Daily Devonational
For What Should a Sinner Pray?---Gospel Minutes 2009
Excerpt: . Pray for Grace?
This has been a favorite petition at many
prayer benches and altars. But what has God
aid on the subject? "For the grace of God,
which bringeth salvation hath appeared to all
men, teaching us that denying ungodliness and
worldly lusts, we should live soberly,
ighteously, and godly, in this present world"
Tit. 2:11-12). Why pray for God's grace when it
has already been so abundantly given through
he gospel? And isn't it very foolish to pray for
grace while refusing the teaching which grace
has given? God's grace must be appropriated by
aith which works by love (Eph. 2:8-9). Have
you sufficient faith to obey the teaching of
grace? If not, then have you faith enough to be
effectual in prayer?--Read the rest of the article here:
http://www.wfcoc.org/WFCoC/Minutes_2009_files/gm110609.pdf 

Daily Devonational
Are We Saved By Faith Only?
By Ron Boatwright

         Today the vast majority of the religious world says that they are saved by "faith only".  Many good people erroneously think they are saved when they "accept Jesus as their personal saviour" and say the "sinner’s prayer".  But where in the Bible are we told this?  It is not there.  This may sound good and impressive, but this is false.  This is a lie of Satan.  This is something man has dreamed up.  Then two or three weeks later many churches encourage people to be baptized to join that denomination.  They say that one does not have to be baptized to be saved because they say you are saved before you are baptized.  I cannot think of a more flagrant crime against both God and Man than to teach lost sinners, who want to be saved something different than what God says in the Bible.

         In this case if they are eventually baptized, their sins are not forgiven and they are not saved because their baptism was not for this purpose.  They still have every sin they have ever committed and are still lost because they have believed a lie.  As we read in 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth."

         "Faith only" will not save anyone.  In James 2:19 & 24 we read, "You believe that there is one God.  You do well.  Even the devils believe and tremble….You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."  If all we do is believe, then we are no better than the devils.  We must obey what God says to do, when God says to do it, how God says to do it, and for the reason God says to do it.

         Jesus says in Mark 16:16, "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved".  There is nothing hard to understand about this.  A person has to have help to misunderstand what the Lord says here.  Until people do what Jesus says that one must do to be saved then they are still hopelessly lost.
REF: http://www.netbiblestudy.net/bulletin/
Permission to use as stated on the webpage.

Daily Devonational

How Were People under the Old Testament forgiven? ---Gospelway.com
 

Anyone who is saved, no matter when they lived, will be saved by Jesus. Heb. 9:15 says that, though Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant (Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant), yet Jesus' death was also the redemption for the transgressions under the first covenant. So Jesus died for both the people before He lived and the people after He lived.

However, what that means is that people who lived under the Old Covenant did not have a means of lasting forgiveness as a part of the covenant under which they lived. By contrast, our forgiveness is available to us as part of the new covenant which we have now. This is the sense in which the law came by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ (John 1:17). Under the Old Covenant, people had laws to live by, but they had no sacrifice that could take away their sins permanently. Instead their sins were remembered every year. Study Heb. chap. 10, esp. v1-18. So they lacked grace in the sense that the means of their forgiveness had not yet come.

When Jesus came and died, He removed the Old Covenant (all of it) -- Col. 2:14,16 -- and instituted the New Testament (Heb. 10:9,10; 9:16,17). Under the New Covenant we still have laws and commands to obey. These are the commands and laws of the New Covenant, not those of the Old Covenant (1 Cor. 14:37; Matt. 28:18-20; Heb. 1:1,2; John 14:15; 1 John 5:3). But the difference is that, when we sin, we have a means of forgiveness as a part of the very covenant under which we live. We do not have to look forward to some future event to obtain our forgiveness.

People under the Old Covenant had no lasting forgiveness under their covenant. The only way they could ultimately be forgiven was for their covenant to be removed and replaced by the New Covenant (Heb. 8:7-13). Salvation for all people, regardless of when they lived, is available only through Jesus.

To learn more about the removal of the Old Testament law, see our online article about the Old Testament for Today at our Bible Instruction web site at www.gospelway.com/instruct/. 
 

(c) Copyright David E. Pratte, 2/5/2005

*Permission to use as stated on the webpage

Daily Devonational

IS ANYTHING REALLY WRONG
WITH CHOIRS AND SOLOS?--Truth for the World

     An Excerpt: Choirs and solos have plagued the religious world since their beginning by man, in the fifth century, hundreds of years after Christ established His church.  So why have people, for many years now, been interested in using them to worship God?  Is anything really wrong with choirs and solos?

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.tftw2.org/Tracts/wrongwithchoirs.htm

Daily Devonational

Better Never Born"---Gospel Minutes

Excerpt: "The Apostate - Who Renounces the Lord
Apostasy is defined as: "A renunciation of
faith, defection, turning away from." When one
deliberately turns his back on the Lord, deserts
the principles the Lord gives him to guide his
life, that person is apostate. Not every sinner
falls into this category. We may fall without
falling away (Jer. 3:13; Hos. 14:4; Gal. 6:1). We
are told, "If we say we have no sin, we deceive
ourselves and the truth is not in us" (l John
1:8). Yet verse 7 declares, "If we walk in the
light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship
one with another, and the blood of Jesus his
Son cleanseth us from all sin." Through either
fear or weakness, because of the "pleasures of
sin" (Heb. 11:25), or yet for other reasons, we
may sin. But that is not apostasy.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.wfcoc.org/WFCoC/Minutes_2009_files/gm103009.pdf
(In PdF format)

Daily Devonational

Should We Use Instrumental Music in Worship?
Kevin Cauley--preacherfiles.com

Yes! In fact, we have a divine obligation to use instrumental music in worship! Perhaps you are wondering at this point if this writer is the same Kevin Cauley who preaches for the Berryville church of Christ in Berryville, Arkansas. You know, the church that doesn’t believe in “instrumental music.” Well, it is the same one. Some of you have probably already caught on as to what is coming in the article. To the rest I say, read on dear friend!

Many people today use pianos, guitars, and other similar instruments in their worship. This is NOT the kind of instrument of which I am speaking. But the Bible does teach us to use an instrument to accompany our singing in worship to God. In Ephesians 5:19 we read, “Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord.” Notice the phrase “in your heart” in this passage. The instrument upon which God expects the Christian to “play” is the heart. Colossians 3:16 states this principle in similar words, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” In both Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 instrumental accompaniment is commanded. Singing is to be accompanied with a specific instrument-the heart. Please note that when God specifies something, we must respect God’s instructions. Let’s look at several Bible examples that illustrate this principle.

One great example where God specifies the use of a particular item is Noah and the ark. If we look back at Genesis 6:14, God tells Noah, “Make yourself an ark of gopherwood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and outside with pitch.” We don’t know what gopher wood was, but Noah knew! God specified this type of wood for a reason and Noah was expected to respect God’s specific instructions in that regard. In Genesis 6:22, “Thus Noah did; according to all that God commanded him, so he did.” Noah built the ark out of gopher wood because God told him to do it that way and was saved from the flood.

Another great example is found in Exodus 12, where God gives Moses specific instructions for how to avoid the tenth plague-the death of the firstborn. Part of the instructions were to kill a lamb, take the blood and put it on the doorposts and lintel with a bunch of hyssop twigs (Exodus 12:7, 22). The Bible says that when God saw the blood, He would pass over the house and spare the firstborn. God specified a lamb’s blood. Those who followed God’s specific instructions were spared the life of their firstborn. Those who used anything but the blood of a lamb lost their firstborn that night.

We read of a man named Naaman in 2 Kings chapter 5. Naaman had leprosy, a deadly disease, but through the prophet Elisha, God gave Naaman the opportunity to be healed. God gave Naaman a specific condition. Naaman had to immerse himself in the Jordan river seven times. Naaman was angry because he didn’t want to get into that nasty, muddy, dirty Jordan River, but God had specified THAT river. Naaman wanted to go back to his homeland and immerse himself in one of the rivers of Damascas. He said, “Are not the Abanah and the Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel” Could I not wash in them and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage? (2 Kings 5:12). But those rivers could not have cleansed him. Only after washing seven times in the Jordan did Naaman’s leprosy go away.

As a last example, many in the religious world today observe the Lord’s supper. Paul tells us that this holy meal is to be observed in remembrance of the death of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:24). Both Jesus body and His blood are represented in this supper. No doubt everyone in the religious world who observes the Lord’s supper can tell you the elements used within it. These elements are the bread and the fruit of the vine. These things were specifically mentioned by Jesus as items that were to be used to in this supper (Matthew 26:26-29). Now ask one who observes this religious practice if Jesus would be happy if we substituted a McDonald’s hamburger for the bread and Coca Cola for the fruit of the vine. The predominant response you would receive would be, “Of course not. Jesus said to use bread and fruit of the vine and that settles that.” To which we reply, Amen.

In each of these Bible examples God specified something and those who wanted to receive the blessings of God were expected to do as God had specified. Noah was to build the ark of gopher wood because that was what God specified. Moses was to use the blood of a lamb because that was what God specified. Naaman was to immerse himself seven times in the Jordan river because that is what God specified. Christians are expected to partake of the bread and fruit of the vine in the Lord’s supper because that is what God specifies. In each of these instances to abandon, substitute, or add something different for what God specified would have lead to disaster. Noah’s ark would have sunk. Moses would have lost his firstborn son. Naaman would have died of leprosy. Christians would have observed “in an unworthy manner” (1 Corinthians 11:29). The principle in each of these examples is the same. When God specifies how He wants something done, we must do it the way God says to do it without deletion, substitution, or addition.

Let me refine my question in the title of this article. What instrument should the Christian use to worship God in song? The heart-God has specified the heart as the instrument the Christian is to accompany song in worship to Him. If we delete the heart, substitute some other instrument for the heart or add some other instrument to the heart, then we worship in vain. Should we accompany our worship to God in song with any other instrument of music than the heart? No, we should not. To do such would be to abandon the blessings that God says we have through worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). Our worship to God must be done as God has specified. To worship God in any other way than the way God has specified is to place our own righteousness above the righteousness of God. Let us humbly submit to God’s will in our songs of worship.

* Permission to use as stated on the preacherfile.com webpage.

Daily Devonational

Paul's Teaching about Baptism and Salvation:
1 Corinthians 1:14-17

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul says in 1 Cor. 1:17 that he was not sent to baptize but to preach the gospel. So some claim this shows that baptism is not essential to salvation. But if that is what Paul is teaching, it would contradict many other passages of Scriptures (for a study of such Scriptures, please go to www.gospelway.com/instruct and study our free articles about the importance and purpose of baptism).

To understand the passage properly, please read the whole context, including at least verses 10-17.
Note what Paul is discussing. He is talking about people who were exalting preachers and dividing over them. Apparently some were especially dividing over the preachers who taught and/or baptized them. So he says he is glad that he did not baptize any more of them than he did.

If this is saying that baptism is not important, then the conclusion would be that Paul is rejoicing that not many people got baptized. So, it must be good to not be baptized! Such a view clearly contradicts Scripture, and it even contradicts the doctrine of those who argue that baptism is not essential to salvation, since they admit baptism is a command and most of them will not accept anyone into their denomination unless they are baptized!

Paul first raised the subject of baptism in v13 right alongside the subject of the crucifixion. If Paul is saying baptism is not essential to salvation, is he also saying the crucifixion is not essential to salvation? But if the crucifixion is essential, then why would Paul introduce the subject of baptism alongside it?

The fact is that in the context Paul has already explained the reason why he made his statements about baptism. He is not saying baptism does not need to be done or is not necessary to salvation. He is saying that, if he personally had done more baptizing, more people would be naming themselves after him (vv 14,15) and exalting and dividing over him. His "clique" would be even bigger. He is not saying that baptism is unnecessary, but that he wanted as little as possible to do with this problem of division over preachers.

Paul's own teaching and example make clear that he both believed and taught that baptism is essential to salvation. 
He had established the church in Corinth, and the people there were baptized as a result (Acts 18:8). He himself was baptized because he had been told what he must do (Acts 9:6), and what he was told was to be baptized and wash away his sins (Acts 22:16). He later taught that baptism is essential to come into Christ and into His death (Rom. 6:3,4; Gal. 3:27).

Furthermore, he says here in 1 Corinthians 1:17 that he was sent to preach the gospel. What does the gospel say about baptism? It says that baptism is necessary to salvation (Mark 16:15,16; 1 Peter 3:21). When Peter preached the gospel for the first time on Pentecost, he taught that baptism was necessary for the remission of sins -- Acts 2:38. Paul taught the same gospel, not a different gospel (Gal. 1:8,9). Hence, when Paul preached the gospel, he also preached that baptism is necessary to salvation. Nothing here or elsewhere denies that.

The discussion in context makes it clear that Paul is discussing cases in which he personally did the baptizing - i.e., he performed the actual baptism himself. 
The topic under discussion is not whether or not baptism is essential to salvation. That issue was settled clearly in numerous other passages, and the Corinthians would already have understood that teaching even before they themselves were baptized. The topic under discussion is who actually did the physical act of baptizing.

In this context Paul says he was sent, not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. The point is not that baptism is not essential, but that it was not the special calling of Paul to perform the physical act of baptism itself. He was an apostle, inspired of the Holy Spirit to receive and deliver the message of the gospel. Preaching was one of his special responsibilities, and among other things he preached that baptism was essential to salvation. But as to who did the actual baptism, that was not his special work as an apostle, and it did not matter who did that.

Compare this to John 4:1,2 -- Jesus taught people and convinced them to become His disciples, but other disciples actually baptized the people. They were baptized in order to be disciples, but Jesus Himself did not need to be the one who did the physical act of baptism. Likewise, Paul taught the necessity of baptism, but it did not matter who did the act of baptism.

Actually, 1 Corinthians 1:17 is one of the many "not ... but" passages in Scripture. 
This is a common expression. The purpose of such expressions was, not to deny the importance of the first point listed, but simply to emphasize the importance of the second point. For other examples, see John 6:27; 12:44; 1 Corinthians 15:10; 1 Peter 3:3,4; Mark 9:37; Matt. 10:20; Acts 5:4; 1 Thess. 4:8; Genesis 45:8; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9.

If Paul's statement that he was not sent to baptize was an absolute, then he should not have baptized anyone. But in fact he clearly states that he sometimes did so, even in Corinth. So Paul is not even denying that he sometimes did do the physical act of baptizing. The point he is making is that his emphasis was on teaching the gospel. As an apostle, that was his special responsibility. In so teaching, he taught the truth about baptism, including the fact that it is necessary to salvation. But when he had so taught people, it did not matter who actually did the act of immersing them in water. This could have been done by Paul or anyone else. And in this case he was glad that it worked out that he had baptized relatively few, otherwise people might have thought he sought to exalt himself and that in turn might have resulted in greater emphasis on him among those who were causing division.

For more information about salvation and what it requires, please visit our Bible Instruction web site at www.gospelway.com/instruct/ and study our in-depth articles about baptism, faith, and obedience.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) Copyright David E. Pratte, 7/3/2006

(permission to use as stated on the gospelway.com webpage)

Daily Devonational

WILL THOSE WHO DIE WITHOUT HEARING THE GOSPEL BE LOST?--Truth for the World

A question often asked is: "Is a person who has never heard the Gospel lost?" Those who believe the one who has never heard the Gospel will be saved argue, "To send an ignorant person to Hell would be unjust and contrary to God's nature of love. Since the alien sinner does not know the law of God, he is therefore not answerable to God." Is this reasoning in harmony with God's Word? Let us consider some important teaching on the subject of ignorance.
Read the rest of the lesson Here: http://www.tftw2.org/Articles/hearingthegospel.htm

Daily Devonational

"There Is One Body"---Gospel Minutes
Excerpt: "Jesus Saves, Not Us
Jesus would lay down His life for the sheep.
The sheep would respond to His sacrifice by
following His voice, His leading. This tells us
that Jesus was the source of salvation for people."

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.wfcoc.org/WFCoC/Minutes_2009_files/gm100909.pdf

Daily Devonational
A Parent Loves The Child He Chastens, and Children Respect a Parent Who Is In Control
by David Powell
This is true of children of any era: they will lack respect because it is not demanded of them. It is the nature of a child to be curious, test the limits, grow evermore to be independent, and yes, even to be rebellious. It is especially true today since modern parents have been convinced that limiting their children in any way is bad. Failing to set limits for children is failing in a parents basic responsibility. Failing to administer punishment when those limits are violated is neglect.
Read the rest of the article here----http://www.thebible.net/study/articles/AParentLovesTheChildHeCh.html