Translations: Should We Insist on the King James Version Only?

by L. G. Butler
1990 Preacher Study Notes

To "prove all things" is essential and noble. But for many people this may be a difficult, if not impossible task due to their limited reading ability. For years I, like others, have preached to audiences: "prove all things;" "search the scriptures to see whether those things are so." Some recent experiences have illustrated to me, however, that it is not safe to assume that all listeners have sufficient reading ability to do so.

Some examples will illustrate. A few years ago a mother in her mid thirties brought her daughter to the Reading Lab which I direct for help with reading. After I explained how I felt we could help her daughter, the mother looked at me with tears welling in her eyes and asked, "Do you think you can help me learn to read?" On another occasion a thirty-five year old man came and said "I can't read. Can you help me? I want to be able to read to my six year old daughter." We did, and I shall never forget the joy he expressed when he read his first simple children's book to her. Another time I was getting onto a middle aged, fellow Christian pretty good for not studying his Bible more. He hesitated, then in sort of a broken voice said, "L. G., I can't read very well." I had known him for five or six years, and never knew. We just cannot assume, even among Christians, that all can read well enough to "search the scriptures" and "prove" as needed.

Moreover these are not just isolated cases. Research indicates that approximately 25 million American adults are functionally illiterate; that is, they lack sufficient reading ability to meet the demands of current society.1 This represents about one out of every six Americans. We are talking about a major problem! But, while I am concerned about their ability to read, I am more concerned about their having access to the Word of God.

This concern, I learned from Brother Richard Bunner, was shared by the restoration preachers in the early 1800s. Many of them argued that new translations were needed so the common people of their day could be able to read God's Word with understanding. It is almost ironic that there are more than twice as many functionally illiterate adults in the United States today than the entire population of the United States in 1820 when the restoration preachers were making their plea on behalf of those who had limited reading ability.

But do these "common people" who cannot read or cannot read well want to read the Bible? The data indicate yes. In fact many people who sign for adult literacy programs indicate they do so in order to read the Bible.2

Readability and normative test data indicate that about 4-5% of college graduates (1 out of 20) and 9% (or 1 of 11) high school graduates would have difficulty reading the King James Version of the Bible with understanding. This is of major concern to me that millions of persons in the world cannot gain access to the word of God, "the bread of life."

Three options appear to be available. We can get easier to read material, easier to read translations. Or, we can help increase the reading level of people to match the difficulty level of the material through adult literacy programs to teach those to read. In fact, the primary reason that schools were founded in the colonial period of the United States was to teach the citizens to read so they could read the Bible.3 A third option is just to say "The King James Bible does not seem all that hard to me; this is no problem of mine." I am concerned that we cannot let it go at that.

We are at a pivotal point. Speakers in many congregations are changing translations whether we want to or not. I see many speakers using various translations: the Amplified, the New King James, the American Standard Version, the New International Version, and the Revised Standard. Bible sales also indicate a change. The New International Version is quite popular. Statistics from an evangelical group indicate that no other version of the bible has ever out sold the KJV. This fall, for the first time in the history of this country, the NIV is outselling the KJV this 1990 Christmas season. [Thiatwas over 25 years ago! Pdc] That tells us something. We cannot ignore this important topic.

I have difficulty dealing with this topic, however. Let me illustrate. There is an intellectual side of this topic and an emotional side. The intellectual side of me tells me that we need to change to a more readable version, and to do so quickly. The emotional side says, hold back. I find it not easy to change. When the back came off of the KJV Bible I have used for over thirty years, I elected to have it rebound. It is familiar. For me this is not an easy task.

Using more than one translation/version in the worship service can cause a lot of confusion and make it difficult for people to follow along in the reading and to "prove all things." Recently I read from another version during a chapter study. As I announced the chapter and started to read, I observed many persons in the audience reach for a pew Bible (which is KJV). Not long after starting to read from the other version, many people started to look confused, then closed their bibles, and leaned back. In a business meeting one of the brethren asked "I wonder if we are going to read from one of the other translations, should not we have copies of that translation for the audience to be able to follow along?" That is a compelling argument to me. This situation is not good. The big question is which version do you get? I do not have an answer to this one, yet. First, we have to decide whether we are going to change to another version; then, we must decide which version.

My thesis today is that we need to make a change from the KJV for a number of reasons to be noted later. I am perplexed, however, as to what to change to, even after an intensive study of this topic for the past several months.

This is a very sensitive topic. After the topic of this presentation was announced I have received phone calls arguing for staying with the KJV, with strong feelings being expressed. In fact, what I have to say may press a "red button" for some of you. By that I mean cause negative reactions. I just appeal to you to be open minded and examine the evidence. Then, "prove all things."

The primary reason we have the Bible in written form (like other written material) is because people have a tough time remembering things that are heard. We tend to get things confused; so we write them down. But once written there is a lot more permanence to the ideas.

In view of this fact a lot of prayer and thought have gone into preparing these materials. Like Tyndall put in the preface of his translation, “if you find anything that is not right, let me know.” This is also my plea. If I know my heart, and I think I do, there is nothing more that I want to do than to please God. In dealing with this topic I feel like I am treading on ground where angels fear to trod. I tell you; I have prayed much about this. I solicit your prayers as we examine a very, very important topic. What we are dealing with is how we define or identify our "north star"; where we get our bearings. What is really, valid, true? For when we "prove all things" we must have something that we can rely on, have confidence in it that it is true-on which we can anchor our souls.

Let us now examine the reasons some people insist on using only the King James Version, why we should consider some other version, and review the evidence in relationship to this crucially important topic. We are dealing with issues that affect peoples' souls. On the one hand it needs to be readable, but it also needs to be doctrinally sound. The thing that scares me right now is that I see other translations that are being used because they are more readable, but are not safe. I am afraid that some people are getting materials primarily because they are easier to read without adequate thought to their doctrinal soundness And in the final analysis many people are going to change to others no matter what we do. It concerns me, however, that we may select a bad version by default. And that is scary. Included in this study are some guidelines for selecting a translation/version.

Why Some People Insist
on the KJV Only For many people the KJV is "The" Bible, the Word of God or truth. Hence , anything else is seen as "not truth." Like Timothy they have heard it from childhood. It just rings in our ears. The KJV is an outstanding translation. It has a majestic quality about the language. It inspires readers. it has been unequaled over the years. This is why it has stood for over 379 years. So, for many people it is "The Bible."

Many people hold to it because of tradition. Not all traditions are bad. Tradition means something that has been handed down. Traditions can be either good or bad. Many people have used it all their life. Anything else sounds unfamiliar. The problem with this reason is that persons have not really examined the issue carefully to determine the soundness of the reasons Doing something just because that is what we have always done does not make it either right or wrong.

Some people hold to the KJV because they have responded to what we have preached, but have mistakenly applied it. We have taught: "Do not add to nor take from" the Word of God. A warning that is worth. hearing: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we . said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other. gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8-9)4

So if any thing does not sound "right", does not ring true or does not sound like what I know in my Bible, or if it does not look like my Bible, that is, the version I am accustomed to using. I remind us that "wolves in sheep's clothing look mostly like sheep. It is only when we see what might look like a tail, a paw instead of a hoof, one is alerted that something may be amiss. So any time there is any variance in the wording it may be viewed as error, although it may be saying the same thing; just worded a little differently.

Others consider it to be the only "Authorized" version. Indeed the KJV is referred to as the "Authorized Version." This is printed in many Bibles. However, there appears to be no evidence that it was ever officially "authorized" by anybody.5 It appears that the printers put this on it because “it sells”. King James indeed commissioned the translation, but there is no evidence that this version is any more authorized than any other translation.

Other arguments for the KJV include that it has stood the test of time --- 379 years, and is still popular. We owe much of our spiritual heritage to the KJV. It has worked well in converting thousands, and indeed it has. This could also have been said of earlier translations/versions prior to the KJV (e.g. Latin Vulgate, Septuagint). Some people believe it to be from a better Greek text (The Received Text) than many of the more recent versions. This is an area that I believe we really need to study. Some of our brethren are doing some work in that area. My topic does not deal with textual criticism, and I am not prepared to pursue that issue today. But this is an important issue. For it appears sufficient now to note that all translations are not from the same Greek text. The American Bible Society Chart6 shows various translations from the Greek and Hebrew. It may appear from the chart that these may be from the same text but they are not.7 Indeed, many of the New Testament translations were from the Greek language, but they were from at least three or four Greek texts8. We have no original Greek manuscripts of the Bible, only copies.9

Some people feel that the KJV uses more reverent language (e.g., thee, thou in reference to God). There is no evidence that "thee" and "thou" were any more reverent in 1611 or in Bible times than other pronouns such as "he" or "you."

Some say, "Why Change? I do not have any trouble understanding it," This is to ignore some information we noted earlier about the difficulty the KJV presents to persons with low reading ability. Others are not changing because of expedience. Some feel we should change, but do not want to offend others. Others feel we should change, but have not found an acceptable alternative. I am at that point right now. I feel we should change, but I have not found a version that is acceptable, yet.

Why Some People Insist on Using Other Versions They find the other translations much easier to understand. There is a scriptural basis for being concerned about ease of reading, that is understanding. Note Paul's instruction to the Christians in Corinth. it is true that he is not talking about translations, but he is talking about communicating in the church. "So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.”10 Note-- "utter words easy to be understood."

In the early church there were people endowed with a gift to be able to "interpret." We have talked a lot about tongues over the years, the ability to speak to people in their own language. We know very well on the day of Pentacost when the apostles stood up to speak, the people later asked, " And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?"11 This has been a theme throughout time. I am not unaware of the fact that Peter said of Paul: "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some12 things hard to be understood.”13 It is instructive to note however that it says "some" and not "all." The thesis is that generally words are easy to be understood. And in every case, if it be hard to be understood, there were put into the church individuals whose responsibility it was to interpret.14 It may be for dealing with hard words or foreign language. They were to translate the message so that everyone would be edified.15 Therefore, we have biblical reasons for making communications so that the people can understand—"easy to understand."

Language Change Language change has made the King James Version no longer easy for the common person to understand. Sometimes I hear persons say that mistakes were made in the KJV translation, because some words mean this or that –i .e. redefining words in the KJV. In 1611 some words had a different meaning than they do today. It is important to note that some of the problems today are due to the fact that the language has changed and not that a bad translation was made in 1611. [see Appendix D, pdc] It is important to note that in 1611 the King James Version was a very good translation. It is not that it was a bad translation. The translators of the King James Version all of whom were prominent scholars, including deans and professors of Greek and Hebrew at Cambridge and Oxford Universities, recognized the fact that language changed. This is noted in the preface to the original King James translation. Note their words:

“But it is high time to leave them, and to shew in brief what we proposed to ourselves, and what course we held in this our perusall and survey of the Bible. Truely (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good. . . but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principail good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark. 16

They also stated "But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand?"17 Further, “Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel!; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered. Indeed without translation into the vulgar18 tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacobs well (which was deep) without a bucket, or something to draw with: or as that person mentioned by Esay, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion. Read this, I pray thee, he was fain to make this answer, I cannot, for it is sealed.”19

This was printed in every copy of the original King James Bible. It has long since been removed from most copies of King James Version bible.

Through the years many people have seen the need for translating the Bible into the language of the common people of their day. Let us examine this from a historical perspective. See Appendix A for the Time Line: Language Change, Bible Translations, and the Common Man. Let us start from today and move backwards on the chart. It is important to keep in mind while examining this evidence that "the word of God endureth forever."20 Some people have problems thinking that if a translation is made that it is actually changing the word of God. In fact, some people have the mistaken notion that the apostles must have used the King James Version, not realizing that the KJV did not come into existence until nearly 1600 years after the apostles lived. On the chart note the center reference point of B.C./A.D.

Let us begin in 1990 and follow the bottom line for the KJV to note how little a distance back in history it goes. Note at the bottom of the table that the KJV only goes back to 1611. There are centuries prior to that during which no person, including the apostles could have had access to the KJV. There were English translations prior to 1611 as are noted on the chart going back to as early as A.D. 1380.21 1 In fact, prior to about A.D. 449—four hundred years after Christ lived—there was not even the English language much less a translation of the Bible into English. We are so culture bound!

It is important for us to view the use of English language in a proper perspective. Because English is so prominent today we may be seduced into thinking, mistakenly that it has always been so prominent. For example, English is spoken all over the world today. There are more copies of the Oxford English Dictionary sold in Japan than in the United States; and there are more people in China studying English than, the total population of the United States today. With the prominence that the English language occupies today it would be easy for us to think that this may have always been the case, but it is not. As one follows the chart, it may be noted that prior to A.D. 449 there was no English language, instead the language of the common people was primarily Latin. And prior to Latin, Greek was the language of the common people, dating back to the 1400s B.C. And prior to it Hebrew was the language of the common people.

Note on the time line going from left to right that God has spoken to His people from the very beginning using the language of the common people. He spoke to Abraham and others nearly 2000 years B.C. using their language, Hebrew. For shundreds of years Hebrew was their primary language until after the Babylonian captivity. When the Israelites, God's people, were dispersed throughout the world, the language of the common people was primarily Greek. The Greeks had gained primary control throughout the world; God was setting the stage for the coming of Christ. As may be noted, the Greek language had developed by around 1400 B.C. By around the third century BC the Jewish people were speaking Greek primarily.

This is the way language works; we learn the language of the people around whom we work. There developed a need for people to have a Bible in the language of the common people. The Septuagint translation of the Old Testament was made from Hebrew into Greek language. The primary reason for this translation was so that God's Word could be read by the common person. The Greek language was the universal language at the time of Christ, and that is what they preached in, and I understand that New Testament quotations of the Old Testament were in the Greek, although the original was in Hebrew. This provides evidence that the Word of God is not in any particular language or particular word.

The Word of God is ideas, His will. It does not matter the language. But it was brought over into Greek from Hebrew. As is illustrated on the time line, the Greek language lost its prominence with the rise of the Roman Empire. Latin became the primary language of use. By around A.D. 150 there was a need again to translate God's Word into other languages. They translated it into Coptic, which is an Egyptian language; they translated it into Old Latin. And by around A.D. 300 there was a great need for another translation because most people could not read the Greek Bibles. Jerome was commissioned to refine the Old Latin Bible, and the Latin Vulgate was developed. I had heard of the Latin Vulgate all of my life, but one day I thought “Vulgate" sounds an awful lot like "vulgar.” I wonder if they are related? Sure enough, they are both from the Latin word vuaris which means "of the mob, vulgar, & volgus mob, common people"2 Vulgar, used to mean common or of the masses, rather than "filthy" as it does today. Thus, Vulgate was a bible for the common people, or masses, hence the name "vulgate"

It is no longer the language of the common people of today, but it was at that time. It appears to be instructive to note that about 300 years after the Latin Vulgate was translated, peoples' language changed, and it got so that only the preachers and the clerics (who were generally well educated people) could read it, but not the common people The priests said "trust me, trust me." You know what happened in the A.D. 600s: the rise of the papacy, the first pope and the Roman Catholic Church. This appears to be educational. When the common people cannot get access to (i.e. read with under-standing) the Bible, they can be controlled by others. The church went into the dark ages. Alter a number of years, some preachers were beginning to argue that they needed to have the Word of God so the common people can understand it. Some preachers, the priests-mostly Catholic-were writing in the margins of the Latin Bibles the Anglo-Saxon translation.23 In effect they were making an interlinear.

To illustrate the degree of language change, see Appendix B for a reprint of how the Bible looked in A.D. 950. The bottom line is Latin and the top is the English translation.24 By 1384, the Wycliffite Bible (C) is somewhat easier to read, but still illustrates how much the English language has changed since then. By comparing it to the Lindisfarne Gospels, C. 950 one can see how much change can occur in approximately four hundred years. As may be seen in Tyndale's translation, it is getting easier still. Not onl did the visual printing change, but its sound (pronunciation) changed, too.25

I do not know whether English language will change as much in the future as it has changed in the past. The point is this: language is changing; we cannot modify this. Instead we must address it.

As may be seen on Appendix C (Time Line: Bible Translations, English Language and Church History), many translations came out at about the time of major historical movements. Note on the time line all of the events that occurred during the reformation period starting in the 1400s. Note in the right hand column of the time line the first printed book: Gutenberg Bible, England Breaks with Rome (1534), Tyndale's translation (1535), in 1534 Henry VIII, then the Great Bible (1539), incidentally the Geneva Bible was the one used by the Puritans in contrast to the Bishop's Bible. I understand the Pilgrims brought the Geneva Bible to Plymouth Colony, America in 1620.

Effects of Language Change
on the KJV Let us examine some examples of potential sources of reading problems due to 379 years of language change. [See Appendix D.

Words:
The following are examples of words used in the KJV which are no longer in current use. Many people would likely have difficulty reading these with understanding. For example: “chapt, habergeon, stacte, wimples, ouches, ambassage, neesed.”26 See Appendix D for other examples.

Sentences:
Consider examples of sentences which may be extremely difficult, if not impossible for many readers to understand. "The noise thereof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapour" (Job 36:33). "Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia" (2 Cor. 8:1). For other examples see Appendix D.

Familiar Words, But, Different Meanings
But perhaps of more concern are words that are still in use today but had different meanings in 1611 when used in the KJV. This appears to be the most scary area of all. When it says "fetched a compass," I do not know what that means. But when it says nephews I may say that I know what nephews are, but not realize that the word "nephews" in 1611 was used to refer to "grandchildren, nephews or other descendants.”27, 28

As may be seen in the "Comparison of various translations of selected KJV terms" in Appendix E, some of the other translations make it much clearer, easier to understand. Wisdom requires that we consider some alternatives to the KJV.

All of these examples suggest that the KJV may present many comprehension problems for twentieth century readers. As has been noted historically, when language has changed, making it difficult for the common man to be able to read it with relative ease new translations have been made. It is suggested therefore that a new translation is needed. But the big issue is what translation. As may be noted in Appendix F, there are numerous English translations available. From among all of these translations, how does one select one or more that may be safely used for Bible study?29 To assist in such a selection process, I have developed some guidelines for selecting a Bible translation [see Appendix H] It appears extremely important to keep in mind that doctrinal soundness is more important than readability, but this is not to take away from the importance of readability. May God help us in this crucially important endeavor.

Summary and Conclusion Jesus has assured that His "words shall not pass away" (Mk. 13:31) even when people hear them in the tongue wherein they were born (Acts 2:8). But the challenge for the future is to make sure that God's Word always is spoken in "words easy to be understood" (1 Cor. 14:9) lest his message be lost. Language change requires new translations. If we are wise, we will not wait too long. As the wise man, Solomon, has said: "Where there is no vision, the people perish" (Prov. 29:18).

Appendixes Included in this Study
*** IN THE PROCESS OF LOADING THESE APPENDIXES AT PRESENT --- SHOULD BE DONE THIS WEEK ****

Appendis A: Timeline --- Language Change, Bible Translations, and the Common Man

Appendix B:The Lord's Prayer in Historic English Versions

Appendix C:Timeline --- Bible Translations, English Language, and Church History

Appendix D: Potential Sources of Reading Problems Due to 379 Years of Language Change

Appendix E: Comparison of Various Translations of Selected KJV Terms

Appendix F: Chronological List of Bible Translations/Versions

Appendix G: Guidelines for Selcting Bible Versions

End Notes 1. Kozol, Jonathan. Illiterate America. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1985.
2. Jonathan Kozal in a speech delivered at Texas Tech University, 1989.
3. Smith, Nila Banton. American Reading Instruction. Newark, DL: International Reading Association. 1965, 1986. One chapter discusses the role of religion and the Bible in reading instruction in the United States.
4. See also Revelation 22:18-19; Galatians 1:6-9; 2 John 9; 1 Peter 1:21. 5. Opfell, Olga S. The King James Bible Translators. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 1982.
6. American Bible Society. A Ready-Reference History of the English Bible (1971 Revision). New York: American Bible Society, 1971.
7. Bruce, F. F. History of the Bible in English (Third edition). New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. Also, Lightfoot, Neil R. How We Got the Bible (Revised edition). Abilene, TX: A.C.U. Press, 1986. An excellent introductory work on this topic.
8. op cit.
9. op cit.
10. 1 Corinthians 14:9
11. Acts 2:8
12. italics mine, LOB.
13. "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16).
14. 1 Corinthians 14:27-28
15. 1 Corinthians 14:5, 26
16. Preface to the KJV: "Translators to the Reader" in Opfell, Olga S. The King James Bible Translators. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 1982, p. 157.
17. op cit., p. 147.
18. In 1611 vulgar meant common or of the masses.
19. Opfel, op cit, p. 148.
20. “But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you” (1 Peter 1:25).
21. Wycliffe Translation.
22. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Company, 1976, p. 1314.
23. Lightfoot, Neil R. How We Got the Bible (Revised edition). Abilene, TX: A.C.U. Press, 1986. An excellent introductory work on this topic.
24. American Bible Society. A Ready-Reference History of the English Bible. (1971 Revision). New York: American Bible Society, 1971, p. 38.
25. The reader is referred to an audiotape, "A Word in Your Ear" for what scholars believe to be the way the Lord's Prayer sounded between A.D. 1000 and A.D. 1300.
26. From Lewis, Jack P. The English Bible From KJV To NIV: A History and Evaluation, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1981, 1982, p. 55. [Young's or Strong's concordances may be used to locate verses in which these words are used.]
27. Burchfield, Robert W. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press, 1971. The Oxford English Dictionary, First edition, together with the Supplements and the Secon edition (20 volumes) published in 1989, are outstanding sources of information regarding the meanings of English words during the various periods. This is an excellent reference for checking meanings of words as they were commonly used in 1611. It is expensive. Many, if not most public or university libraries have it. Vines Dictionary of New Testament Words.
28. Oxford English Dictionary provides the meanings of words in different periods of history.
29. In view of the current state of affairs, it appears wise to consult multiple versions. By making comparisons, and then using appropriate references, we will more likely arrive at God's intended message. Parallel Bibles, such as Comparative Study Bible (Zondervan), which uses the KJV as the base, are highly recommended.

Read more!

Table of Contents

1990 C.E. Preacher Study
*** PLEASE NOTE: IF YOU SEE AN ARTICLE LISTED THAT IS NOT POSTED YET --- THAT YOU WOULD LIKE POSTED PLEASE CONTACT ME AND I WILL DO SO ASAP, Dennis at BibleTruths@hotmail.com ***

“ ”Prove All Things" ** Don McCord
Journey Out or Time Terry Haze
The New Birth (John 3:3-5)** Joe Hisle
The New Age Movement Alan Bonifay
Sanitation and the Lord’s Supper Bruce Word
How Defined Are the Lines of Fellowship?Allen Bailey
Saving Our Children** Joe Norton
The Effect of Television on Children * James Orten
Drunkenness: A Bible Definition Ronald Courter
Fasting: “When,” Not “if”’** Don Pruitt
Old Testament Quotations George Battey
“This Cup Is the New Testament” Wayne Fussel
Imputed Righteousness Johnny Elmore
Islam Smith Bibens
Translations Used During the Restoration Richard Bunner
Translations: Should We Insist on the King James Version Only? G. Butler
Return to the Main Menu -- Home

Read more!

Sanitation and the Lord’s Supper

by S. Bruce Word This subject is not new. But every once in a while, it rears its head and must be discussed once again. There are many things that I cannot say — would not be prudent for me to say.

I am going to go about the study in a little different way today than I had originally planned. I cannot possibly answer all of your questions, but I do hope to impart some information to you that may be helpful in dealing with the subject.

The focus of our study is going to be on sanitation in communion “in light of recent developments.” That, of course, primarily has reference to a disease called AIDS. Before we can understand the issue, we must be able to understand what it is we are dealing with. Fear exists even among Christians! This fear is not so much a fear of the disease itself, but the stigma attached to it!


“AIDS” stands for the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, a disease which is a sever breakdown of the body’s immune system. This disorder leaves the body vulnerable to a variety of unusual, life threatening illnesses. It is these diseases, not the AIDS virus itself, which can result in death. The common cold becomes a killer to the person with the AIDS virus. The most common illnesses found in people with the HIV virus are: PCP, a type of pneumonia, and KS a form of cancer; both, killers!

AIDS cases have been documented as early as 1977, although now we know that a similar disease was documented in 1951. And as far back as 1827, similar diseases have been known to exist (although people did not know what to call them.) Since 1977, the illness has been diagnosed around the world with increasing frequency. Scientists expect the AIDS epidemic to continue to spread. There is no known cure or vaccine for the disease (although one lady did say that Nature’s Sunshine herbs was a sure cure). Understanding how the virus is contracted, how it is spread, and how to prevent its transmission; are the only ways to slow the epidemic at this time.

I want to preface all my future statements with this one thing. The disease is the result of sin, and I refuse to use the word “gay” in this study. There is nothing “gay” about the sin of homosexuality, and the Bible specifically condemns this sin. I will not soft sell the sin, and I refuse to call it an alternative lifestyle! It is not. It is an abomination unto the Lord (Leveticus 18:22; 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:17)!

What Causes AIDS?The disease is caused by a virus known as Human Immuno-deficiency Virus (HIV) and it attacks a particular type of cell. The immune system becomes defective, resulting in serious infections and cancers. The HAV virus has been known for a long time as Herpes.

Who Gets AIDS?Those who are susceptible to this disease are classified in the following way:

Homosexuals, 64%
I.V. (intravenous) drug users, 18%
heterosexuals, 4% rising to 9% in 1991
Hemophiliacs 3%;
(and it is known that 93% of all aids victims are men).

Aids was initially identified as an epidemic in 1981 and was first seen in homosexual and bisexual men. Shortly thereafter, I.V. drug users began accounting for a high percentage of all AIDS cases in the U.S. Others who are at risk for developing AIDS are children born to parents who are infected with the virus, and people who have other blood disorders who must receive blood. (Just as a side note, of the cases that I am personally familiar with, the people have the HIV virus as a result of blood transfusions.)

How Is the AIDS Virus Spread?HIV is spread from person to another in several ways:

(1) through intimate sexual contact;
(2) through shared needles and syringes, a problem especially prevalent among I.V. drug users;
(3) through receiving blood or blood products that have been contaminated with the virus (but this risk has been greatly reduced by testing all blood donors for antibodies to the virus);
(4) through infected mothers passing the virus to their infants through the blood stream before and, or, at the time of birth.

Can the AIDS Virus be Casually Transmitted?
The biggest question on our minds is, “Can this disease be transmitted by or through casual contact with a person who has it?” There are no reported cases of AIDS or HIV infection as the result of casual contact. Ordinary household and work-place contact with people infected with HIV is safe. (This is very important to our sanitation issue.) You CAN NOT become infected with HIV by sharing eating and drinking utensils or bathrooms. Just for your information, I was concerned about the cleanliness of public restrooms, elevators, busses and other public facilities long before I knew anything about AIDS.

Mosquitoes do not transmit the disease, and the common communion cup does not offer a suitable atmosphere for the HIV virus to live. Some tests have demonstrated that the active life of the HIV virus outside the carrier to be up to 15 hours, but these tests were conducted under laboratory conditions, and the virus was virtually kept alive by placing it in the right conditions for it to live.

Now some questions before we more on. “First, How do we respond to those among us who have the HIV virus, or full blown AIDS?” That is a legitimate question and I will at least begin the answer here and continue it in the discussion period. Above all, we must not make any assumptions as to how such individuals contracted the disease! We must then exercise our faith, for dealing with this problem is pre-eminently an exercise in faith. Titus 1:15 says, “to the pure, all things are pure.” If someone here had AIDS, or we converted someone with AIDS, we must act toward them in faith without wavering.

Second, “Is this a plague sent from God to destroy the people involved in the sin?” Some say yes, and point out Sodom and Gonorrah and what happened to them (Genesis 19:1-29). I believe the answer lies in Romans 1:27. It says, “Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which is due.” The penalty is due them as a natural consequence of that sin! Romans 6:23 reads, “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” They get what they deserve for their sinful conduct.

I have heard some say, “sure they sin, but that disease is just too much!” No, I am afraid that is not the case; they reap what they sow! I also want to say that the effects of this disease can certainly visit the children to the third and fourth generation (Exodus 20:5-6). The third and fourth generation may be totally innocent, but still feel the effects of the sins of their forefathers. This is not a plague sent to these people for the specific reason of punishing them, but it is the natural result of their sin. One thing that we must all remember, we will pay the consequences for our sins!

Homosexuality is wrong. It is a sin. But AIDS is not God’s direct curse on those who practice it. In God’s sight, there is no difference in the eternal consequences of different kinds of sin. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:21-30), Jesus equates anger with murder and sexual lust with adultery. Sinful lifestyles have certain consequences.

Third, “What about innocent children who contract AIDS from parents who have the disease?” Answer: They are suffering the consequences of sin in the world. Not God’s wrath! The same holds true for those people who receive contaminated blood during transfusion.

Sanitation and CommunionNow, what about the sanitation aspect of our study with respect to the Lord’s Supper? I want to just refresh your memory a little: Please open your Bibles and read with me. I read out of the New King James (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-26; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 10:16; & 11:23-26).

The first thing that I would like to make clear is that this is not a discussion of the “cup” question. What we have been discussing may be more of an issue in future debates and personal studies, but this is not a discussion of the one cup per se.

Advocates of one communion vessel for the distribution of the fruit of the vine have not really had too much of a problem with the sanitation question as far as the safety of this scriptural method is concerned. That is until now!

In the beginning of the move to individual cups, it was generally stated that the practice was for health reasons. It was just healthier, some argued, to have each person use his or her own cup. The advocates of multiple containers for the distribution of the fruit of the vine felt that for all to drink out of one container would be unsanitary, and that this practice would promote the spread of disease from one to another. However, besides the fact that we are commanded to use one container, scientific proof exists that the risk of spreading (any) disease through drinking from the same container is nil.

I would like to read a quote out of “The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper” by Thomas H. Warner;
“Until near the end of the nineteenth century the chalice, or cup, was used in the distribution of the wine at the Lord’s Supper. At that time more attention began to be paid to hygiene, and the use of the common cup began to be unpopular with communicants. Rev. J. 0. Thomas, who was both a minister and a physician, was the originator of the idea of the individual cups. From his medical practice he learned what he believed to be the uncleanliness and danger of the common cup and felt that the Lord’s Supper could be made more beautiful by the use of individual cups. His first patent was granted in march of 1894. The first service using individual cups was help in a little Putnam county church in Ohio.”

Thus the multi-cup idea was formed and brought into existence. However, it is an established fact that the church existed and prospered for 1900 years without individual cups, and there is no record of any of its members ever catching or dying from a disease as a result of using one cup as the Lord commanded. If the world stands that long, I am sure we will be safe in continuing to do what the Lord says for another 1900 years!

If you are truly worried today about the spread of disease through the communion cup, may I please give you some things to think about. I do not claim to be the expert, but from the standpoint of scientific studies that have been done, it is next to impossible to spread disease through the communion cup.

You may want to pick up a copy of “Sanitation in Communion” by brother Alton Bailey, [at “Strong Meat” site on this blog]. It has some studies listed that you can check out for yourself. One of these is a study conducted by Doctors William Burrows (associate professor of bacteriology) and Elizabeth Hemmons (instructor in the Walter 0. Zollar dental clinic). Their study shows that common communion cups do not spread disease. The only time these scientists were able to detect the transfer of any bacteria was when the first person left as much saliva as possible on the cup and the second drank immediately from the same spot. Then, they said, only .001% of the bacteria were transmitted from the first person to the second.

Notice, as much saliva as possible was left on the cup which is not the case in the communion service. And even then only .001 percent of the bacteria was passed on to the next individual. Monroe, head of the Colorado AIDS Research Project told me, “You cannot get AIDS off the Communion cup!”

The Head of the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia, stated that to have even the slightest possibility of contracting the HIV virus from saliva, a person would literally have to drink buckets. Casual contact does not spread the disease.

The Surgeon General’s Report on AIDS states that one “cannot be transmitted from trace saliva on common communion cup.”

The Minnesota Department of Health, in responding to an Episcopal Bisphop’s question on AIDS, said, “In our opinion, the communion cup is safe.”

A Group called “Living Hope” in Seattle, Washington offers studies on the common communion cup. All say transmission of disease is not going to occur during a normal communion service.

These and many more furnish scientific proof that we should not worry about the transmission of this disease. As a matter of fact, in the case of the AIDS carrier, They are in greater danger than we are. They stand a greater chance of getting a life threatening disease from us than we do of getting AIDS from them. We stand a better chance of getting sick as a result of the air we are breathing than from catching AIDS from the communion cup.

Finally, Dr. G. A. Trott, a preacher, editor, and Medical Practitioner; in an article in the Apostolic Way dated September 1, 1913 said,
“I am willing to stake my professional reputation on the assertion that cultures made from the individual cup, made by a competent biologist, will reveal as many deadly germs as those made from the common cup. Give us the proof of the contention of the deadly danger of the common drinking cup before asking us to ignore the example set by our Lord and Apostles.”

My friends, I feel just like one person who said, “I am more afraid to disobey the Lord than I am of a few germs.”

I leave you with this thought. 1 Corinthians 11:27 reads, “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” This is one passage of Scripture that needs to be used and thought about a lot. Verse 28 talks about how we are to examine ourselves as we eat the bread and drink the fruit of the vine from the cup. One aspect of examining ourselves is to see to it that we do not partake of the loaf or the cup of blessing in an unworthy manner, or as Strong’s says, irreverently!

If our minds are on the possibility of catching some disease while we are partaking of the cup of blessing, then we are not partaking in a worthy manner. As a matter of fact, I would have to examine my faith if I considered anything else but what I was doing! Remember Romans 14:23, “Whatsoever is not faith is sin”!

5875 Urban St., Arvada, CO 80004

Read more!

Saving Our Children

by Joe Norton
Preacher Study Notes 1990 br /> last updated 18 August 2008X When I agreed to do this study, I began with grandiose ideas about being able to find some magic answers — magic formulas — that would resolve the obvious problem that we conceive to be a twentieth century phenomenon, but that has been with the church since her foundation, no doubt. My though was that good study and thorough research should surely reveal to us what we are doing wrong when we do not save our children. While I have leaned a great deal from the reading I have done, I am here to attest to you that there are no magic formulas. There is no easy answer. In fact, there is not an answer to the problem of saving our children, beyond the obvious one of teaching them the gospel, which is God’s power to save.

We have the gospel. Why, then, are many children of Christian parents not saved? Why do our children not know the “Faith of Our Fathers” and realize the “Joy of Our Salvation?”

Throughout my quest for answers to these questions, I have had to ask myself constantly: What is this study?

· Is it just a study of strict scriptural interpretation?
· Is it a study of parenting?
· Is it a study of behavior and behavior modification?
· Is it a study of discipline in the home?
· Is it a study of children obeying their parents in the Lord?

What is the study and what is its purpose? While the study includes all of the above topics, it is really about a somewhat different matter.

It is a study about souls — human beings — who have the decided advantage of learning the truth as a child, if we are only able to communicate it to them. It is a study about salvation. The question is: How can we save our children?

Even in nailing down the topic, I found frustration. There is a massive amount of literature on the market; and throughout that literature, all of the related topics listed above just flow together without distinction. The material was so vast that it was difficult to manage.

So I may not answer you questions today. I may not meet your expectations or your needs as I pass along information to you.

This is my approach to this study: I am passing along this material to gospel preachers who are parents, but also who have many searching, hurting parents needing help and needing answers. Am I qualified to do this? Certainly not. Are you?

Who sitting in this audience this afternoon basks in the floodlight of parental success? Not very many. Do we then throw up our hands and say no one can teach me because no one is qualified? That is not very practical or even very intelligent. Today we study and we learn together. And through that process we grow. We do better tomorrow than we did yesterday. We help others — yes, we pause to try to help others benefit from what we have learned through our own mistakes and failures. In some families, all children have been saved. In others, none have been. And, in even others, some have and some have not.

Why?

We do not have an answer to that question because what has worked in one family has not worked in another, even though both sets of parents have thought they were doing the very best in training their children in the Lord.

This one thing we do know: We cannot force our children to be saved. It will not work. We must set up conditions that hopefully will lead our children toward salvation, but we cannot force them. What can we do? First, we can turn to the Scriptures.

What Do the Scriptures Say About Saving Our Children?
Please read: Deuteronomy 6:6-7 and 11:18-21.

In Deuteronomy 6, “to teach” means “to inculcate,” meaning train intensively God’s standards into the child by the use of repetition. It is to be consistent and to be given at every opportunity.

In Deuteronomy 11, “teach” means to “teach by intensive drill.” The same word is used to describe the training of a soldier for war. “The derivative of this word is the word for goad, a sharp stick used for prodding cattle or oxen. A goad was sharp enough to go through the animal’s tough hide and get his attention” (Fugate, p. 55).

Proverbs 22:6 says, “Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart. . .“ The Hebrew word translated here “train” is translated “dedicate” in every other place it is used. To dedicate means “to renew, inaugurate, or initiate” (Fugate, p. 52).

Parents are to initiate their children in a certain path — not just a one-time initiation or dedication, but an extended training process.

The result of this training is for this new way to become the child’s own way of life. When this transpires, the child will not leave the path even as he is growing older and becomes an adult (Fugate, p. 52).

The ancient root of this Hebrew word meant “to make narrow” and even “to strangle.” “In other words, parents are to restrict the path their children may follow” (Fugate, p. 52). They are not to wait until the child is almost grown and then try to exert some influence but to give this direction while he is still in the child state of development — under 13. Parents exert this control while the child is very young but gradually let go so that he can direct his own path by the time he is grown. “A child who has been trained to be obedient to his parents will respect their position of authority and be prepared to accept their instructions” (Fugate, p. 52).

Training of children is necessary, both restraining them from sin and teaching them the right path to follow. Children would prefer following their own ways rather than being led in the right way to go many times, but they cannot be left to their own whims and devices. Proverbs 29:15 teaches, "a child left to himself brings his mother to shame.” The Homiletic Commentary says that a parent should hedge in the pathway of a child.

“If the parent does not set a hedge about his son’s path, he is only making it certain that he will encounter thorns and snares further on in life . . . The child that is accustomed to bend its will to the will of a good father will not find it so hard to yield obedience to the will of God as he who has no such training” (Proverbs, p. 638).

The Homiletic Commentary does not teach that the promise of Proverbs 22:6 has universal application or guarantee; and many other commentators, such as Matthew Henry and Adam Clarke, agree. Henry calls it cruel neglect to let a child have its own way with no restraint and says this passage means, “evangelize them; initiate, keep them under discipline. Train them as soldiers, who are taught to handle their arms, keep rank and observe the word of command” (Henry, vol. 3, p. 917). These commentators believe the application is given as more of a general rule than an absolute guarantee, and they cite Solomon and the sons of Samuel as examples of their reasoning. Solomon, son of David, was trained by a man who was on a personal level with God; yet he went astray, although he is supposed to have come back before death. Another of David’s sons, Absalom, was reared in the same household, but he grew up to martial an army against his father. Samuel surely gave his sons adequate training in things spiritual, yet they were evil (see 1 Samuel 8:1-5). “Yet we cannot suppose that Samuel, who had seen in Eli’s family the miserable fruits of non-restraint, had neglected to train his sons” (Homiletic Commentary, Samuel, p. 639)

Adam Clarke says about this passage:

“Initiate the child at the opening of his path .. . When he comes to the opening of the way of life, being able to walk alone, and to choose; stop at this entrance, and begin a series of instructions, how he is to conduct himself in every step he takes. Show him the duties, the dangers, and the blessings, of the path; give him directions how to perform the duties, how to escape the dangers, and how to secure the blessings, which all lie before him. Fix these on him by daily inculcation, till their impression is become indelible; then lead him to practice by slow and almost imperceptible degrees, till each indelible impression becomes a strongly radiated habit” (p. 546).

And Clarke stresses the necessity of incessantly begging God for help. We cannot overemphasize the power of prayer.

Please read: Ephesians 6:1-4 and Colossians 3:21.

Vine says the word “right” means “that which is in accordance with rule.” Ephesians 6:2 is a repetition of the teaching in Exodus 20:12.

The verse in this passage in Ephesians that directly relates to our topic is verse 4. “Provoke” means “to stir to anger.” The word “nurture” means “chastening, denoting the training of a child, including instruction; hence discipline, correction, chastening —suggests the Christian discipline that regulates character.” (Vine, p. 183)

“Admonition” means “to correct by discipline or to train by act” (Vine, p. 31).

The difference between “admonition” and “teach” seems to be that whereas the former has mainly in view the things that are wrong and call for warning, the latter has to do chiefly with the importation of positive truth (Vine, p. 31).

The young evangelist Timothy is an example of one who had been trained in the Lord (cf. 2 Timothy 1:5). 2 Timothy 3:15 reads, “And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

Jesus Himself is another example of a child obeying his parents (cf. Luke 2:40-52). Jesus was twelve years old at the time. Older women are to teach younger women how to accomplish these goals (Titus 2:3-5).

Why Are the Old Methods of Saving Our Children
Not Working Anymore?
What Are Our Modern Problems?
First of all, let us establish that we cannot prove that they are not working. We have no research or statistics to prove that we are saving fewer children or a fewer percentage of children, than, say, thirty years ago. If our forefathers had enjoyed the overwhelming success that we think they did, the church in America would be much, much larger than it now is.

But, what are the modern problems that cause such a spiritual dilemma for many of our children? Why do they come into some homes and say, “I don’t believe those things anymore,” or “You can’t make me believe what you believe,” or other similar statements?

1. The concepts of good and evil have been blended in our world. This problem raises its ugly head in just about every problem we deal with today: sex, drugs, alcohol, lying, stealing, etc.

It is easy for those opposed to drug abuse to advocate: “Just Say No." The problem is people today have trouble deciding where the good stops and the bad begins. “Just Say No” is disarmingly simple advice. Yet, if it were uniformly practiced today, think what it could do not only for drug use but to all human temptations. “Just Say No” could also be applied to many human problems, including hatred, prejudice, crime, greed, corruption pornography, sexual diseases, alcoholism, eating disorders, the destruction of the environment — all of these could be handled effectively if “Just Say No” would work every time.

2. Television. Brother James Orten will discuss the impact of television on our society and our children in his presentation tonight. Let us just say that research proves conclusively that too much television or the wrong kind of programs can have negative effects on our children.

3. The music our young people listen to. Beyond a doubt, music has become an important part of life, and it was a source of unity in families for centuries. But, today it often divides us. In times past, families could sing together and listen to music together. But today what are we likely to hear in the home about music? “Turn that noise off.”

Just as it is with television, there is no doubt that music influences us. It affects our moods and emotions, and through it we express whether we are happy or sad. Some researchers tell us that music even affects babies in the womb.

A. P. Merriam expressed in his book, The Anthropology of Music, that “through the ages, music has always accompanied every deeply emotional human experience, from mourning to celebration. People have long used music to convey what is inexpressible in words, and all music serves the function of stimulating some kind of emotion” (Plain Truth, October 1989, p. 12).

Different types of songs express different emotions. Songs about nationalism stir love for a person’s country. Love songs help us pour out emotional feelings for another person. Spiritual songs and hymns express our praise to God.

Dr. Joseph Stuessy, professor of music at the University of Texas at San Antonio and author of The Heavy Metal User’s Manual, holds that music does affect behavior. “Any kind of music affects our moods, emotions, attitudes, and our resultant behavior. Music has both psychological and physiological effects on people. That’s why we have choirs and organs in churches and synagogues, bands at football games, Music in business and doctors’ offices, military marches, background music for movies and television programs, Jazzercise where legions of people are motivated to move by rock music, and most important, commercial jingles” (Gore, p. 37).

In past generations, church families always used music as a source of entertainment and a source of unity. It appears that we have lost that source of spiritual unity in many or most church families. Few things in society have contributed to the development or the widening of the generation gap more than modem music. Parents are alarmed by such music as heavy metal, punk-rock, and rap music of the modern generation; and well they might be. Besides the obvious problems of the direct immoral, irreverent, sadistic, and rebellion-stimulating messages in much modern music, there is also the problem of subliminal messages conveyed through the process of back masking.

A real concern of all caring parents and certainly all Christian parents today is expressed in the question, “What kind of music should children listen to?” There is no easy answer to that question. We do know that:
a. Whatever is popular they will want to listen to.
b. There should be a balance as to the type of music allowed.
c. Saying “No” without discussion will cause resentment in some.
d. To some kinds of music (such as the types mentioned above), we must emphatically say, “No.”

Some singing groups promote not only sex but also violence and sadistic behavior on their album covers as well as in the words to the music. Some covers have explicit scenes blatantly pictured on them. Words to some songs are so grossly immoral and perverted that they have aroused the attention of even many parents of the world not connected with religion. Some of the activities of these parents as well as helpful information about what is really in many modern songs are given in a book called Raising PG Kids in an X Rated Society by Tipper Gore. Every parent should read this book, but you should know that it contains the most explicit language that you can imagine. This book contains modem song lyrics so explicit that I cannot read them before this audience. But these words are what many young people of today are listening to many hours a day.

“Plato wrote that music had the power to shape society. Today, those who orchestrate the successful commercial jingle can certainly control social and commercial behavior. Advertisers would not spend billions annually if music and other messages were not persuasive. According to Dr. Stuessy, music aids retention of verbal messages; we are more likely to remember a message if it comes to us in a musical context,” (Gore, p. 37).

If parents of the world are concerned enough to form a national organization to try to deal with the problem, surely we as Christian parents should realize the gravity of the situation and be very much concerned about what our children are listening to because it does make a difference what they listen to.

Music is like television. There is no doubt about the influence it has over anyone who listens—especially young minds still in the impressionable stages. It is bound to be one of the reasons some of our young are being led astray, rebelling against all that is right and good and desiring that which is evil.

4. Humanism has infiltrated our society. “It is safe to say that all public schools in America do indeed teach, to at least some degree, the philosophy” (Newsletter, p. 1).

The philosophy of humanism is credited as being a primary factor in the deterioration of Christian homes. This philosophy has crept into our public schools, television, radio, music, and other areas of our society. Children who have been taught the Bible by faithful Christian parents are coming home from school, in some instances, and announcing they do not believe the Bible any more. Why? Humanism is the answer in many cases.

... humanism has permeated, if not saturated every facet of our culture, including all but very conservative churches, and has become the working philosophy of all our professions and many of our businesses. Its scope is international, being accepted not only throughout the Western World, but also influential upon Third World nations (Waggoner, p. 6).

Humanism is a godless religion which makes man the only standard by which all things are to be judged. Modern humanism is not to be confused with what we often call humanness or humanitarianism. It is rather a militant philosophy which believes that man is but the evolutionary product of nature. It denies the existence of God, the authority of scripture, life after death, sin, heaven, hell, etc. While not a new philosophy, it was somewhat dormant until the advent and acceptance of Darwin’s theory of organic evolution in the Western World. Its beliefs are documented by the Humanist Manifesto I and II, published in 1933 and 1973, respectively. Humanism is the primary philosophy behind such modern social and political issues as the Equal Rights Amendment, the Gay Rights movement, abortion, and the right to suicide (Waggoner, p. 7).

Components of our society are now operating on humanistic rather than on Christian principles. That is not to say that most Americans are humanists, but many are. And it is no wonder since John Dewey introduced the ideas of humanism into our public school system many years ago. In one middle school, a teacher told her students that they should try homosexuality and heterosexuality to see which one they were meant to be. In one first grade classroom, the teacher played “Lifeboat Strategy” with her class. One student came home telling his mother there were two people in a boat: Jesus Christ and the mother. He bragged that he had thrown his mother out of the boat. These are the kinds of problems and decision-making situations used in the Quest program around the country. Underlying the concept of the Quest program is humanism.

5. Satanism. In some parts of the country, Satanism is becoming a big problem and is being promoted even by people in positions of influence. A police officer in our community warned parents to know with whom their children were running, where they were going, and what they were doing at all times because of this problem. Churches of Satan have even sprung up in some areas. Cults are spreading and have a real possibility of influencing our children.

6. Influence of Public Schools. In view of the topics we have discussed already, I think we can see that outside influences are bombarding our homes. The public schools are no exception. Just because something happens at school does not mean it is okay. We need to know what our children are doing at school and what they are being taught.

Parents must understand that it is not just hard-core rebellion against us or God that is the only problem. Some are subtly influenced and begin drifting long before they actually leave.


What Can We Do to Direct Children Toward Salvation?
What Are Some Principles that Have Worked?

1. Teach them the gospel. Our children are just as subject to the Great Commission as any others in the world. It is still true for them that “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16).

We need to restore the family altar and home Bible study if we expect our children to respond to the gospel call. What they are taught in the public assembly of the church is not enough. They need parents in the home teaching them the gospel plan of salvation, too. Family nights create memory pockets for children; and even if they stray for a while, they will remember and, hopefully, return to the beliefs that have been instilled into them in the home. Family nights need not be just Bible reading and study, although these should be at the center. A variety of activities can be planned that will strengthen the family unit and bring it closer together, forming a bond that will carry with children as they go into their adult lives.

In the home and in the congregation, more individual Christians should design activities that will keep young people more actively involved in spiritual development. Recreational activities planned by individuals have their place, but we have too long neglected activities that will enhance spiritual growth.

2. Instill within them a love for the truth. Parents can let their children know that they are firmly grounded in the truth and that they believe in it. Parents should communicate their own love for the truth and their own conviction that they believe in the Bible and in its authority over their lives.

By example, parents can let their children know they are enjoying their Christianity and that it is real to them.

3. Teach values. One of the best ways to teach values is to allow young people the experience of deciding between right and wrong while they are still young. In other words, avoid overprotecting them. Overprotected children many times find themselves at a loss when they are finally confronted with the realities of life. Guide a pre-teen in little things regarding study habits, visiting with a friend, or the amount of time spent watching television. And, hopefully, by age 16, the teen will be ready to make reasonable judgments about such things and others more important for themselves.

The other side of overprotection is lack of guidelines. Many young people today are growing up with few restrictions. Many parents today simply do not know what their teenagers are doing. Not wanting to overprotect a child should not be a cop-out for parents who do not really want to deal with problems. Some parents must reason within themselves that if they do not know what their children are doing, they do not have to deal with the resultant problems. Just because they do not know what they are doing does not mean there are no problems. Teenagers sometimes try to inhibit their parents by demanding their rights to privacy. Parents have a right to know what their teenagers are doing as long as they are under their supervision.

Parents must first accept the fact that teenagers are going to be tempted. They do have feelings, and these will surface as they grow older. If we have not instilled, at early impressionable ages, the difference between right and wrong and the consequences of wrong, we will have a difficult time in the later growing up years. And even if we have instilled these values, we still may go through some rough times.

Parents should be instilling or internalizing God’s values into their children instead of imposing values upon them. “Imposing these values is a Band-Aid over a wound that will grow wider every year” (Lucas, p. 148). Jehoiada’s family learned that sacrificing for a child is not enough. “Love is not enough. Kindness is not enough. Either the values are a part of the child, or they are nothing and will disappear when you disappear” (Lucas, p. 148).

Some are able to produce children that look good on the surface, and there appear to be no problems. The values they have imposed last their children perhaps through high school or even college, but usually they do not last a lifetime.

“Like Pavlovian dogs that respond to the stimulus of the mastermind, your children can be behavior modified and assertively disciplined until their instant and mindless responses impress your friends and family and woo converts to the idea of parental despotism,” (Lucas, p. 148).

But the question is: Will those values disappear with you? It takes more time to internalize than to impose values. “Internalizing is a process, while imposing is simply an act” (Lucas, p. 149). One man taught his son about integrity by teaching him the Scriptures about a man of integrity. He discussed and observed the consequences of lying and the benefits of telling the truth. Then he asked him questions regularly about which kind of person he wanted to be. It was an ongoing process that took time.

4. Let home be a haven. Make home a comfort zone. Give your children pleasant and relaxed time at home. Be there to listen to a child when he needs to talk and to help him when he needs help. If a child is having frustrations at school because he is different, give all of the time he needs to work through those frustrations, all the while letting him feel your caring and your support.

5. Give unconditional love. The Bible is replete with teaching emphasizing that true love is unconditional. We are taught to love the sinner but hate the sin. Jesus dealt firmly with the Scribes and Pharisees; but all the while He prepared to die for them as well as for the rest of the world. As parents we cannot condone the sins of our children and expect to save them. But, on the other hand, we must let them know we love them and care about them and their salvation.

6. Be consistent. This principle is one of the most important and the most difficult.

7. Communicate. Children need someone to talk with even while they are still young. As teenagers they will find someone to talk with, of that we can be assured. If we have developed lines of communication while they are young, they will be much more likely to come to us with their problems in the later growing up years.

Create special times for communication — private communication. Take time away together. Take a child out to eat, take him fishing, take her shopping, engage in some things that will give you time with that child.

8. Pray. Most of all, pray. “Pray without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17) the great Apostle Paul so wisely advised. The most important tool we have in rearing our children in the Lord is prayer. We can use all other means at our disposal and not save our children without the Lord’s blessing. We need the Lord in the awesome task, and we must let Him know that we realize that need.

The power of prayer has made the difference in the saving of more children than we will ever know. The forces we are fighting are powerful, so we need God’s power with us in combating those forces. Paul said, “We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world” (Ephesians 6:12) God has promised to hear and answer our prayers, and we need that assurance as we attempt to bring children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Conclusion
There is no formula for us to communicate to church members that will work in every case. Each situation is different. Each child. Each parent. Each family. But with God’s help, we can be successful in saving our children.

Bibliography
Clarke, Adam. Commentary on the Whole Bible. One Volume Edition. Michigan:Baker Book House, 1967.
______ Newsletter. “Do All Public Schools Teach Humanism?” Building
Better Christian Homes. (September-October 1989), p. 1.
Fugate, J. Richard. What the Bible Says about Child Training. Texas:Aletheia Publications, 1980.
Gore, Tipper. Raising PG Kids in an X-rated Society. New York:Bantam Books, 1987.
Harris, W., et.al. A Homiletic Commentary on the Old Testament. New York:Funk and Wagnall’s Company, n.d.
Henry, Matthew. Commentary on the Whole Bible. Six volumes. Virginia: Macdonald Publishing Company, n.d.
Lucas, J. R. Parenting of Champions. Tennessee: Wolgemuth and Hyatt Publishers, Inc., 1989.
______ “Tune Up Your Musical Taste.” Plain Truth Magazine. (October
1989), p. 12.
Vine, W. E. An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. New Jersey:Fleming H. Revell Company, 1966.
Waggoner, Robert L. What’s Happening to Our Christian Homes?

Read more!

The New Birth (John 3:3-5)

1990 CE Preacher’s Study Notes
by Joe Hisle
last updated 02 May 2008X In the John 3:3-7, we find recorded the words of Jesus concerning the new birth. This is a very important teaching dealing with the salvation of every man’s soul. As is often the case with important verses, there is much misunderstanding and confusion about the requirements of the new birth. Many today profess to be “born again” Christians, yet they have never complied with the requirements of the new birth. Others, I am afraid, do not fully appreciate what is involved in this process called the “new birth.” As we begin the study of these passages, may I impress upon you the importance of this study. Jesus said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

To lay the foundation for our study, let us note the basic facts revealed in verse five: “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” From this verse we learn:

1. There is one new birth. < br />2. There are two elements required:
a. Water
b. Spirit.
3. This birth of water and Spirit occurs at the same time.

It is necessary to keep these facts in mind as we study the various ideas concerning the new birth, and remember, the subject under consideration is “birth.” There is no mention of the process of being begotten. The facts are: There is only one new birth required, this new birth requires the two elements of water and Spirit.

Note also, as I think this is significant, the order of these elements, Jesus said, “water and of the Spirit.” The birth of water and Spirit happens simultaneously. One is not “half’ born at one time and then completes the other half at a later time. With these facts in mind, let us notice various ideas about being born again.
br /> Theory One: Baptism Is Not Taught John Calvin was one of the first to corrupt the teaching of the new birth. Calvin tried to eliminate the need for baptism in water by saying “the water represents the Holy Spirit in a spiritual sense.” He would read verse 5, “Except a man be born of the water which is the Spirit.” Of course, this was just one of many errors that John Calvin made with the Scriptures. Mr. Calvin forgot there are two elements in the new birth, equally important and equally essential: water and Spirit[See endnote].

Theory Two: Baptism of the Holy Spirit Is TaughtA second idea comes from those who believe in receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This persuasion believes that one “gets religion” at the altar. He is baptized by the Spirit, and at some later date he is baptized in water. Thus he is born of Spirit and water.

It is obvious that there are several scriptural problems with this understanding of John 3. First, this forces two births where there is only one. We are born of water and Spirit, not born of Spirit and later born of water. The Bible says “born again,” not again and again; not once at the altar and once at the creek. Please notice also that the order of the command has been reversed. Jesus said, “water and of the Spirit” Jesus did not say, “Spirit and water.”

Theory Three: “Born of Water” Refers to Natural BirthThere is a third theory about the new birth that seems to be the most ridiculous of all. But before you laugh, let me tell you that this is one of the most commonly held of all unscriptural theories. It says that the new birth consists of the natural birth (literally being born in a bag of water), then being born of the Spirit when one “gets religion.”

Here again, there are several practices that violate the basic requirements of the new birth. This theory requires two births: born naturally and born religiously. The new birth of the Bible is one (singular) new birth. This theory also violates the Scriptures in that it does not allow for the birth of water and of the Spirit to take place at the same time. There would be years between the natural birth (in a bag of water) and the birth of Spirit (getting religion). But the real problem with those who hold this view is that they have missed the entire point of the Scriptures. Nicodemus did not inquire, “How is a child born into the world?” but “How can a man be born when he is old?” The subject of the new birth is already a man. Jesus explains that for a man to enter into the kingdom of God, that man must be born again of water and the Spirit.

Theory Four: Begotten of the Spirit and Born of WaterPerhaps the most common way that I have heard these passages taught we are “begotten of the Spirit” and then “born of the water.” The alien sinner is begotten of the Spirit through the Word of God. He is then born of the water when he is baptized. I would like for you to notice that there are several Scriptural problems with this teaching.

First, the required order is reversed: begotten of the Spirit and then born of the water. This is not the arrangement given by Jesus. If the Lord had intended this arrangement, why did He not say, “A man must be begotten the Spirit and born of the water.” The conclusion is obvious. This is not what the Lord intended.

Second, some tell me that the order in this place is not important How do we know when the order is not important? Is the order important in Acts 2:38? Mark 16:16? Matthew 26:26-27? I conclude that if the order is important in these verses (and I believe it is) the order is important in John 3:5. The theory under consideration breaks up the order of the Lord’s arrangement and places the Spirit as far before water as faith precedes baptism.

Third, a more compelling problem with this way of teaching the new birth has to do with the Greek word gennao, here rendered “born.” I understand the word could have been rendered either “born” or “begotten,” but the word cannot mean both born and begotten in the same place and at same time. A word can have only one meaning in one place. This is a rule of language. Ernesti, in his Philosophy of Language, gives two such rules:

1. The sense of a word can not be diverse or multiform at the same time and in the same place.
2. In no language can a word have more than one literal meaning in the same place.

Here is our dilemma: we must decide which word we want to use. Do we want to render the word “begotten”? If so, “begotten” must apply to both the water and the Spirit: “Begotten of the water and of the Spirit.” If this is the case, the process is “all begetting;” there is no birth at all! The Greek word cannot be rendered both born and begotten. Since Nicodemus asked, “Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born,” the subject under consideration is being born, not being begotten.

There are two elements in the new birth, they are water and the Spirit. A man must be born of both to be born again. He is not begotten of the Spirit and born of the water. He must be born of both water and of the Spirit to be born at all!

What Is the Teaching of John 3?Let us look at the process of being begotten and then being born into the kingdom of God. The alien sinner may be begotten by the Word of God. When the gospel is preached to a sinner, the seed, which is the Word of God (Luke 8:11) has been sown. If that Word lodges in a good heart, that person has been begotten by the Word. The sinner has been begotten, but he has not been born, nor has he been “half born” The birth may be minutes or hours away, or even days or years away --- or sadly, he may never be born.

Birth is actually a transition from one form of life to another. A baby is literally delivered in a bag of water When he takes his first breath of air, he has made the transition from one form of life to another. Similarly, a spiritual transition is made by an alien sinner when he is begotten by the gospel of Christ and obeys the gospel to be born again. In the new birth, he is born of water when he is baptized m water and born of the Spirit when he is quickened (made spiritually alive) through God’s Holy Spirit. His sins are washed away in baptism, and he is brought to spiritual life through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Romans 8:11 reads, “But if the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you.”

John 3:6 reads, “Jesus said. . . that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” By this birth of water and of the Spirit, the sinner has made the transition from the life as a sinner to the new life as a child of God. Paul says, “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11).

Will this explanation satisfy the basic requirement of the new birth? The answer is “yes.” There is one new birth, and it involves two elements: water and the Spirit. These elements must occur in the proper order and also at the same time. Following are some parallel verses for your consideration.

Titus 3:5 “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”

Acts 2 38 “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

John 3:5 Born of Water + of the Spirit = entrance in the Kingdom of God

Titus 3:5 Washing of Regeneration + Renewing of the Holy Ghost = Saved

Acts 2:38 Baptism + the gift of the Holy Spirit = Remission of Sin

I hope that we can fully appreciate the opportunity that we have through the grace of God to be born again; to rise above the condemnation that is to reign upon this earth as sons and daughters of our heavenly Father. If you are to have any hope of being righteous in the sight of God, “Ye must be born again!”

EndnotesSee: 2 Peter 1:20-21; 1 Timothy 2:4; John 17:17; 4:23-24; 2 Timothy 2:15 & 16; Acts 17:11; Dueteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 5:5-6; John 18:37; 2 John verse 9; Revelations 22:18-19

Rt. 4, Ada, Oklahoma 74820

Read more!

Prove All Things

by Don McCord
1990 Preacher's Study Notes
last updated 01 May 2008X "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good” --- what a divine, inspired imperative! What a motto for life’s challenges, responsibilities, expectations! This is all-inclusive as to things --- “all things,” nothing left out. This is all-inclusive as to persons --- no one left out. It is indeed possible to “prove all things,” or Paul would not have so plainly enjoined: we are not dealing here with things impossible, rivers uncrossable, an exercise in futility. Indeed, we are concerned with a very practical and fruitful undertaking, though it may appear, and in reality is, an awesome one. I am reminded of Paul’s admonition to the Philippians, “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12). “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good” this down-to-earth, soul-satisfying, strengthening admonition is never out-dated, never obsolete. I do not know of a better, nobler way of spending life’s little day down here; what better, more enduring eulogy would be given a person than “he/she spent his/her days down here proving all things, holding fast to that which is good.” How much more pleasing to God would the church be if all the members did just that; so pursued and applied the kingdom of God could and would defeat the kingdoms of men.

Those choosing a title for a study such as this can do no better than lift it right out of the Scripture text itself. Our title of this study and this lesson is just that. The Amplified phrases it, “But test and prove all things until you can recognize what is good; to that hold fast.” The New American Standard has it this way: “But examine everything carefully, hold fast to that which is good.” The New International Version renders it, “Test everything . . . Hold on to the good.” Marvin Vincent in his Word Studies of the New Testament says of our title, “a general exhortation not confined to prophesying.” The interlinear says, “All things prove, the right hold fast.” Dr. William Barclay in his translation has it this way: “Test everything, hold fast to the true thing.”

The context of any text is so necessary if we are to understand and implement it properly. With this in mind I implore your patience while I read verses 12-28, with a brief exposition; listen, please --- what a compendium, brief though exhaustive, of what it is all about down here:

“And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you [beseech, that is, I beg you, please; he is, as it were, on his knees]; and to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake. And be at peace among yourselves. Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded [discouraged], support the weak, be patient toward all men. See that none render evil for evil unto any man: but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men. Rejoice evermore. Pray without ceasing. In every thing give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil. And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it. Brethren, pray for us. Greet all the brethren with a holy kiss. [If you want to read the finest commentary on the “holy kiss” that I have read, you need Brother Irvin Barnes’ booklet on the subject --- scriptural, logical, easy to apply.] I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.”

It is my sincere conviction before God the Father, Christ the Son, the Holy Spirit and the angels, and you, that the Word of God provides for us guidelines, criteria whereby we may “prove all things.” Surely, this is the case in view of the command itself. We are not left to wander in a maze of doubt and confusion as to this great undertaking; there is a way of doing what we are told to do. Here we tread cautiously, prayerfully, carefully. These scriptural criteria are as follows:

• Is the thing tested lawful?
• Is the thing tested lawfully expedient?
• Is the thing tested a matter of liberty, indifference?
• Is it a violation of the witness the Spirit bears with our spirit?
• Is the thing tested a violation of conscience?
• Is the thing tested a violation or disruption of unity?
• Is the thing tested a violation or disruption of fellowship?
• Is the thing tested a violation of the law of consistency?
• Is the thing tested a substitution for the divine pattern?
• Is the thing tested a violation of types and shadows?

Is the Thing Tested Lawful?There is indeed a law to govern us as we “prove all things.” James assures us in James 1:25, the New International Version, “But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it --- he will be blessed in what he does.” This must be the law of Christ. In Psalm 119, David speaks repeatedly, in this the longest psalm of them all, and the longest chapter in the whole Book, of “the law of the Lord,” “His testimonies,” “His ways,’ “precepts,” “statutes,” “commandments,” and “judgments,” and how binding they are. When a thing tested is contrary to the law of Christ, it cannot be right. Example: Baptism --- immersion, sprinkling, pouring? Tested by the law, we determine that baptism is immersion, and not sprinkling or pouring: we “hold fast that which is good,” therefore. A divine pattern sanctioned by law cannot be set aside, ignored; commandments, as part of law, are to be kept; binding examples, as part and parcel of law, are to be followed. Any practice when tested by law that comes up short is not right. There is a reason why we list being lawful as the first criterion for testing things in religion; a thing, a practice, has to be lawful of necessity. This will be amplified as we proceed.

Is the Thing Tested Lawfully Expedient?There are indeed expedient things, but they can never impinge upon law in our testing, we must ever bear this in mind. Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, College Edition says of “expedient:’ “Useful for effecting a desired result; advantageous, convenient.” W. E. Vim in An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words says: “Intransitively, to be an advantage, profitable, not merely convenient.” Example: At the Lord’s Table, age-old arguments have been made, some are good, and some an not. The plate for the loaf is an expedient matter. No law is impinged upon there is no interference with the divine pattern --- and there is a pattern. Some who apparently do not understand lawful and expedient things, get confused --- it is argued by them that both the plate and the cup are expedient Not so, simply because the cup comes under law, commandment, binding example, and cannot therefore be expedient. The plate for convenience, an expedient, is used; the cup, as a matter of law, is used --- to do otherwise is to violate law. This meeting house is a matter of expediency; the church must have a meeting place, be it a building like this, a private home, an “upper room,” a rented facility --- no law is hereby infringed upon.

Is the Thing Tested a Matter of Liberty or Indifference?Matters of liberty cannot, must not, go counter to law; in practice, matters of liberty must not violate a divine pattern. Let us observe the chart:

The Divine Pattern Vs. Liberty in Four Particulars

PatternBaptism -(immersion) (burial)
Mark 16:16; Romans 6:4

Music — singing;
Ephesians 5:19; Colosians 3:16

Communion — cup, loaf, fruit of the vine;
Matthew 26, Mark 14; Luke 22; 1 Corinthians 11

Teaching — one assembly, one man
at a time, women silent;
1 Corinthians 14LibertyBaptism - baptistry, river, outside, inside, lake, river, ocean

Music — books, notes, directing, number of songs

Communion — material, size, time, plate, cloths

Teaching — blackboard, notes, pulpit, meeting
house, pews

Is the Thing Tested a Violation of the Witness ---
the Spirit Bears With Our Spirit?Paul says in Romans 8:16, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God”; this is the King James Version. The Amplified says: “The Spirit Himself thus testifies together with our spirit, assuring us that we are the children of God.” The New International Version says, “The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.” Paul says in Ephesians 6:17, “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” Surely, His Spirit witnesses with our spirit through the Word. In 1 Corinthians 2:11, Paul observes, “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.”

Bearing Witness: Romans 8:16; Ephesians 6:17; 1 Corinthians 2:11

Is the Thing Tested a Violation of Conscience?The word “conscience” appears in something like thirty-one New Testament verses, it does not appear in the Old Testament. Conscience is defineth as that faculty by which we apprehend the will of God; that process of thought which distinguishes what it considers morally good or morally bad, commending the good, condemning the evil. Paul speaks of a “good conscience” (Acts 23:1); a “pure conscience” to Timothy, and “a conscience void of offense toward God, and toward men”(Acts 24:16) He warns, when we wound a brother’s weak conscience, we sin against Christ. Surely when a thing tested is found to violate the conscience, it cannot be the “good.”

Is the Thing Tested a Violation or Disruption of Unity?“Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity,” the Psalmist said (Psalm 133:1). “He that soweth discord among brethren” is to the Lord abominable (ProverbS 6:19). Surely, the thing tested that would cause division, disunity in the Lord’s church cannot be good. There is surely a ground of unity upon which all can unite.

Is the Thing Tested a Violation or Disruption of Fellowship?If so, the thing tested cannot be right.

Is the Thing Tested a Violation of the Law of Consistency?Again, if so, the thing tested cannot be right. Example: The use of the instrument to accompany singing in the assembly has been tested, and found time and time again to be wrong. The law of consistency demands that if the instrument is wrong in the church, such innovations as the Sunday School, individual cups are also wrong; they all stand or fall together. Tested, they fall; the use of all three is not good. One cannot be wrong and the others right. God’s plan is always consistent.

Is the Thing Tested a Substitution for the Divine Pattern?Note again the chart, “The Divine Pattern vs. Liberty in four particulars.”

Is the Thing Tested a Violation of Types and Shadows?Paul writes in Hebrews 9:24, “For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true . . .“ This is the King James Version. The New International Version says, “only a copy of the true one;” the Amplified says, “only a copy, and pattern and type of the true one.” The church must be under consideration; the old tabernacle must have been a type of it, a mere shadow. Example: In the tabernacle there was the table of shewbread, a type of the Lord’s table. On the table of shewbread were twelve loaves of unleavened bread. There was a sane, sensible reason for twelve—there were twelve families or tribes of the Lord’s chosen; so, on the Lord’s Table one loaf of unleavened bread. There is a same, sensible reason for one, not twelve or two, but one --- there was one lamb to a house, a type of the loaf, one loaf to a house of worship. The blood of the one lamb to the one house was caught in one basin. Interestingly, the Hebrew word from which we get “basin” can be translated “cup.” No wonder on the Lord’s Table in one congregation of believers there is one loaf of bread, and one cup of the fruit of the vine. The thing tested must not violate types and shadows, when they are evident.

ConclusionMatthew Henry, in commenting on “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good,” has this to say:

“This is a needful caution, to prove all things: for, though we must put a value on preaching, we must not take things upon trust from the preacher, but try them by the law and the testimony. We must search the scriptures, whether what they say be true or not. We must not believe every spirit, but must try the spirits. But we must not always be trying, always unsettled: no, at length we must be settled, and hold fast to that which is good. When we are satisfied that any thing is right, and true, and good, we must hold it fast, and not let it go, whatever opposition or whatever persecution we meet with for the sake thereof.”
Box 1773, Covina, California 91722

Read more!