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

Daily Devonational

When To Not Bid Godspeed
Kevin Cauley ---http://preachersfiles.com/

The passage from which the title of this article originates is found on 2 John 9-11. John writes, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” It is clear from this passage that Christians are not to provide aid and comfort to (nor even greet) those who are not preaching the gospel within the boundaries of the doctrine of Christ. While John was dealing with the specific problem of gnosticism and the denial that Jesus came in the flesh (2 John 7), the principle applies to any who would deliberately pervert the gospel of Christ (Galatians 1:6-9). This means that we need to understand what John is speaking about to not be guilty of supporting false doctrine. Let us examine some of these things that the Bible clearly does not include within John’s prohibition and then focus on what John specifically includes when speaking concerning these individuals.

First, Christians may not withhold fellowship based upon personal disagreements. We find one such personal disagreement mentioned in Acts 15:36-41. Paul and Barnabas had decided to go on another missionary journey. Barnabas wanted to take Mark with them, but Paul did not. Each was adamant and the Bible says that there was “sharp contention” between them. However, the result of the disagreement was that Paul chose Silas whereas Barnabas took Mark and each went to the work. This matter was simply a personal disagreement. The Bible never indicates that either man sinned. In fact, the efforts of preaching the gospel doubled. Later, we find that Paul changed his opinion regarding Mark. In 2 Timothy 4:11, Paul tells Timothy to bring Mark because he is profitable for the ministry. Both Paul and Barnabas continued to preach the gospel despite their personal disagreement. While they parted ways physically, there is no hint in the New Testament that breech of spiritual fellowship occurred rather Paul continued to see Barnabas as a fellow worker in Christ (see 1 Corinthians 9:6 and Colossians 4:10). Matters of personal disagreement do not fall under the umbrella of 2 John 9-11.

Second, Christians are not to withhold fellowship in matters of personal conscience. Paul addresses this in Romans 14. There were certain brethren in the early church who disagreed regarding eating meat offered to idols. Paul deals with this as well as the issue of observing religious holy days. These issues, Paul says, are not to be treated in such a way so that 1) we bind upon our brethren things that God has not bound 2) we interrupt the fellowship that exists between brethren and 3) we judge our brother unrighteously. Paul writes in verse three of this chapter, “Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.” Matters of personal conscience are just that. They are personal and conscientious. It would be contrary to the teaching of scripture to apply 2 John 9-11 to such matters. In fact, it would be sinful, because we are not to reject one whom God has received.

Third, Christians are not to withhold fellowship from unknowledgeable brethren who are willing to be taught. One example of such a man is Apollos (Acts 18:24-28). The text makes it clear that he learned about the Lord during his earthly ministry, but evidently had to depart before that ministry was complete (possibly to Alexandria where he was from). As a result, he did not know the baptism of Christ as given in the great commission. He only knew the baptism of John. When Aquila and Priscilla heard about this, they might have said, “Apollos, you are a false teacher and we are going to withdraw fellowship from you” and done so. This, however, was not the approach they took. I want to emphasize that they did NOT allow him to continue teaching incorrectly. They did, however take Apollos aside and teach him the way of God more perfectly. Had Apollos rejected their teaching and continued to preach an incorrect baptism, they then would have been justified in applying the principle of 2 John 9-11. However, Apollos did NOT reject the correction. He accepted it and so they went forward in the work. We learn from this that before we apply the principle of 2 John 9-11 to people with whom we have not had prior contact, we should study with the person involved in the hopes that they will learn of their error.

Finally, we see that the category of those to whom we are not to bid “Godspeed” becomes focused. Christians are to withhold fellowship from deliberate false teachers seeking to cause division within the church (Romans 16:17). By giving such individuals aid and comfort one would be allowing them to sow the seed of discord among the brethren in the local church. It was customary for preachers to stay in the homes of brethren as they passed through these ancient cities. For one to deliberately open one’s house to a false teacher would be to allow that false teacher to gain a foothold in the community. The false teacher would then cause trouble for the local church. By observing John’s warning regarding these false teachers, they would not be able to gain a foothold and sow discord. Obviously the person who provided aid and comfort for the false teacher also provided the means of encouragement for that false teacher to continue sowing discord in the community, hence, they become partakers of (or have fellowship with) the evil that the false teacher is perpetuating. In fact, John says that we should not even greet such a person. What if a person does not know whether someone is a false teacher or not? John deals with this problem in 1 John 4:1 “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” All Christians have a responsibility to try or test the one who would come to them preaching in the name of God. If their preaching is not according to the doctrine of Christ and they refuse to accept correction, then they should not be supported.

In conclusion, 2 John 9-11 is definitely applicable to us today. However, we must apply these verses appropriately and scripturally. These principles should never be applied in matters of personal disagreement of opinion, matters of personal conscience, or to unknowledgeable teachers who are willing to accept the truth of God’s word when presented in a clear and loving manner. These principles should be applied to false teachers who deliberately cause division within the brotherhood. We should not accept these false teachers into our house, nor even bid them greeting. To do such would be to personally engage in destroying the church.

With permission to use as stated on the preachersfiles.com webpage.

Now Playing: Daily Devonational

John 3:16 and Salvation:
Faith Only or Obedient Faith?

 

Have you ever heard someone say, "John 3:16 tells us everything we need to know about salvation"? This verse says, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." This verse is true in everything it says.

Folks who say that John 3:16 is all you need to be saved, however, are really saying that all you have to do to be saved is to just believe on Jesus. They conclude that obedience, especially baptism, is not necessary to salvation. This is the doctrine of "salvation by faith only." But is this doctrinal really what the Bible teaches?

Acts 3:22,23 refers to Jesus as a prophet saying: "...Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you. And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people." Now this says that we must pay attention to everything Jesus says, yet the Bible says much more about salvation than just John 3:16. How then can John 3:16 be "all we need"? If we need just one verse, why did God give the rest of the Bible? To take only part of what God teaches about a subject, while ignoring other inspired teaching, is to endanger our souls.

In Mark 16:15,16 Jesus told His disciples to teach everyone that, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved..." According to Jesus, both faith and baptism are essential in order for one to be saved.

John 3:16 truly teaches us that faith is essential. But when we learn "all things" that Jesus taught, we understand that we have a saving faith only when our faith leads us to be baptized for the purpose of having our sins forgiven (Acts 2:38; 22:16).

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, 4/1996

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

Daily Devonational

WHY JESUS CAME TO EARTH--Truth for the World

Excerpt: There are two main reasons why Jesus left Heaven to come to earth. It is important we know these reasons. The first reason was to give men an opportunity to have their sins forgiven. Why do men need a Savior? They need a Savior because of sin. The Bible clearly says, "For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). Every person who can tell right from wrong commits sin (1 John1:6-10).
Read the rest of the lesson here:http://www.tftw2.org/Articles/Jesuscametoearth.htm