Barnes church of Christ

You know, as you read the title under which this article is written, you may be thinking, “We do have but one life to live!” The thought is, so many folks live as though they believe that they have many lives to live! In other words, if we do not get it right this time, if there is such a thing as right, we will get it right the second or third time; “So eat drink and be merry!”
Of course, the truth is we have but one life to live! It is not that we don’t have opportunities, however. For the most part we all have days, weeks, months, and years, and these all give us the opportunities to improve and correct mistakes we make. However, James did write to those who so thought otherwise: “Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain” (James 4:13). James then wrote these sobering words: “Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away” (verse 14). Clearly, we have no promise of tomorrow; therefore, James would have us know: “For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that” (verse 15). The fact is, we do not know what tomorrow holds, or if there is going to be a tomorrow for us! This puts a new light on, “If I only had one life to live!”
More than likely you have read or heard, “eat, drink, and be merry.” We may not know who said them nor where we may have read them; but most have heard them. Generally the word that gets all the attention is the word “drink” and it is read as though it refers to alcohol. However, the Greek word used here is “pinō,” not “methuskō.” The difference in these two words may be seen in the following: “And be not drunk (methuskō) with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18). This word means: “1) to intoxicate, make drunk 2) to get drunk, become intoxicated.” On the other hand, the word “pino” means “to drink” and has nothing to do with alcohol. Give thought to the following: “For John came neither eating nor drinking (pino), and they say, He hath a devil” (Matt. 11:18); this was said of John, the one who baptized. Now, consider the following, and the same Greek word is used: “The Son of man came eating and drinking (pino), and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children” (Matt: 11:19). What was the difference between John and Jesus? John did not socialize and his “meat was locusts and wild honey” (Matt. 3:4); while Jesus was in and out among the people and he did socialize even with “publicans and sinners” as the Jews regarded them! Yet, the text does not mean that either was drinking alcohol. Therefore, the words “eating and drinking” refer to life in general!
Now, let us take up these words: “And he saith unto them, Ye (the apostles, frw) shall drink (pino) indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father” (Matt. 20:23). Here the word “drink” is used figuratively and is related to the figurative “cup.” Jesus is pointing to his death and yes some of them would “drink indeed of” that cup. James is the first that comes to mind, as Herod had him put to death, and is recorded in Acts 12. Tradition of men has all the apostles, other than John, being put to death. Therefore, the word “drink” (pino) is used to refer to death!
For the most part the words “eating and drinking” just refer to everyday life! This is the context of Jesus’ words as he addresses his second coming: “For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking (pino), marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark” (Matt. 24:38. Jesus is not speaking of the moral state of the time, as so many think. He is just saying that at his second coming people will be doing what people generally do, “eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage!” So, what are people doing today? It is understood that some generations are more immoral than others, certainly this was true of those in the time of Noah. It is generally regarded that the 1920’s were highly immoral and known as the “roaring twenties!” We think of our time as a very immoral time; we generally start this time with the 1960’s.
So, this brings us back to our question, “If you only had one life to live?” Of course, we all know that we do have “only one life to live!” Question, what would you do different? Would you do anything different? Or, would your life be summed up in these words: “they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage?” Or, would we live more closely to this: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4)?
One thing for sure, we must be aware of this truth: “Boast not thyself of to morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth” (Pro. 2:1). Keep in mind, you have but one life to live! So, how are you living it?

Frank R. Williams

Over the last year we have heard and read more than desired about the election that is only days away as you read this article. So, at the beginning let it be known this article is not about any party candidate. This article is about the Christian and our relationship to those in authority in this world: government! Unlike the world of Jesus’ day, and unlike a number of nations today, in America we have freedoms which they did and do not have. Those who left other nations to come to this land, did so for the most part, to be free! There were a number of freedoms they had in mind but one stood out above others and it was religious freedom! They desired to be free to worship and live according to what they believed the Bible taught! That they were wrong in what they believed the Bible taught in some areas, does not change their desire; it does not change the foundation upon which they determined to build a new nation!
It is good to remember Paul’s words to the Christians about the government of his day, the Roman Caesars! Here are his inspired words: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Rom. 13:1-4). If we understand only a little about the cruelty and wickedness of this “government,” we will see the hardship the Holy Spirit has put upon the Christian when he commanded them to “be subject unto” it! That government fails its responsibilities does not change the responsibilities given to it by God, nor does it change the responsibilities of the Christian to it! For even in the “name” of Christianity have those in authority been just as evil! However, this evil did not change the relationship, nor did it change the responsibility of the Christian to the government!
With these few thoughts in mind let us here recall Paul’s words to Timothy about the Christian and government: “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” (1 Tim. 2:1-2). In the first set of verses (Rom. 13:1-5), we learned that the Christian is to be subject to the government and in this second set of verses we learn that Christians are to pray for those in authority. Now get this, the reason for the prayers are, as we put the two passages together; we are able to learn, on the one hand, it is the responsibility of government to protect its citizens and the citizens, which includes Christians who are to be subject to (obey its law, while keeping in mind Acts 5:29) it; then, on the other hand, in the second passage we have learned that Christians are to pray for those in authority: “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty!” Therefore, we are to do and to pray!
In the middle of this, the doing and the praying, we are also able to learn from the actions of the apostle Paul, that we can appeal to government; yes, even an evil and wicked government. The case is well known how false charges were made against Paul, a number of “trials” were gone through, and no justice was found for Paul; therefore, Luke informs us that Paul appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:11). Yes, even to this most evil and wicked government Paul appealed for justice! He desired, he prayed, for that he might live “a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty;” therefore, he used government to this end!
In this world, let it be understood, we will always have an “evil and wicked” government to one degree or another! Christians are always going to be in the minority; therefore, we must pray and as we pray we must work in harmony with our prayers, which requires that we do the best we can with each opportunity we have!

Frank R. Williams

To those who understand, there is no name sweeter than that of Jesus! John Henry Newton (July 24, 1725 – December 21, 1807) in 1774 (or 1779) wrote the words to a beautiful song entitled: “How sweet the name of Jesus Sounds.” Some of the words are:
“How sweet the Name of Jesus sounds, In a believer’s ear! It soothes his sorrow, heals his wounds, And drives away his fear, … It makes the wounded spirit whole, And calms the troubled breast; ’Tis manna to the hungry soul, And to the weary rest,… Dear Name! the Rock on which we build; Our shield and hiding-place; Our never-failing treasury, filled, With boundless stores of grace, … Jesus, our Savior, Shepherd, Friend, Our Prophet, Priest, and King; Our Lord, our Life, our Way, our End, Accept the praise we bring,… Weak is the effort of our heart, And cold our warmest thought; But when we see Thee as Thou art, We’ll praise Thee as we ought, … Till then we would Thy love proclaim, With every fleeting breath; And triumph in that blessed Name, Which quells the pow’r of death,..”
No wonder the name Jesus is the “Sweetest name on mortal tongue!” We are thinking positive, of course, from the Christian point of view! It might be of interest that John Newton also wrote the words to the song: “Faith’s Review and Expectation.” Of course, you have never heard of the song, but wait a moment; you have not only heard of it, it is one of the best known and most favorite songs the world over! It is just not known by the original title, but it is known as “Amazing Grace!” It was written to illustrate a sermon on New Year’s Day of 1773. However, it debuted in print in 1779. These songs have appeared in at least 1,377 hymnals!
Nearly a thousand years before the birth of Jesus, David wrote by means of the Holy Spirit: “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool” (Psa. 110:1). These words express total victory to the one David calls his “Lord,” the one who was said to “sit thou at my (Jehovah’s, frw) right hand,” while of speaking “Jehovah’s “right hand!” The age old question, “How could Jesus be both David’s Lord and son?” In Deity he is David’s Lord and in the flesh he is David’s son; therefore, when it was time, “in the fullness of the time” (Gal. 4:4), at the birth of Jesus, “The sweetest name on mortal tongue,” it was said of Mary: “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1;23). In this announcement the answer is given why the name is so sweet. The name Jesus means “Jehovah is salvation.” He came to save that which was lost!
This brings us the question, just who is lost? We shall allow Paul to answer the question; first, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23); and second, “For the wages of sin is death; …” (Rom. 6:23). Death equals being lost, separated from God! This requires that we cover a third point; just what is sin? John will answer here: “All unrighteousness is sin:..” (1 John 5:17). This means by implication, that doing “righteousness” is not sin! But, what is righteousness? Let us hear the words of the Psalms: “My tongue shall speak of thy word: for all thy commandments are righteousness” (Psa. 119:172). The commandments of God are righteousness! If one is to be righteous, he must keep the commandments of God! With these truths in mind, let it be noted just here, that Paul turns to “the sweetest name on mortal tongue:” “but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). Once more we have come to why the name Jesus is so sweet, “eternal life” is “through Jesus Christ our Lord.” These words can be written of no other; not in truth, as they can of Jesus of Nazareth; who was both David’s Lord and son! Yes, the words of the song express it so well, “the sweetest name on mortal tongue … It makes the wounded spirit whole, And calms the troubled breast; ’Tis manna to the hungry soul, And to the weary rest!”
Yes, eternal “rest” comes only through “the sweetest name on mortal tongue!” “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man” (Heb. 2:9). Friends, no one did, as no one else could, die for you as Jesus did! What does his death mean to you?

Frank R. Williams

One of the sweetest thoughts is that of forgiveness! It is learned at an early age and we never outgrow it. If you will “forgive” me I will use a personal story to help make the point. The earliest event I remember wherein I desired forgiveness occurred when I was about five or six years old. These years are like muddy water in my mind, as it is very hard for me to get the years and the events in order. I remember the exact location where it took place, however, and other events that also took place there. One of them was very funny, though it was not so funny at the time, but it will be saved for another time.
The event here took place while I was at my grandmother and step-grandfather’s house just outside of Plainview, AR. My dad and mom had brought me to their house, with whom my younger brother lived. I was of the mind to leave and go with my dad and mom, but for some reason, which I had no understanding, they determined that I was to stay with my grandmother. This made me very unhappy! While I was demonstrating my unhappiness, as an immature child might, my mother trying to make me happy, gave me a pencil and paper to draw on. Needless to say, I was not in the drawing mood and I proceeded to poke holes in the paper! Now this may sound and read like a total innocent action on my part. However, to this day, I wish I could hear my loving mother say, “Son, I forgive you!”
You see, my mother was doing something she knew that I liked to do; something that normally would make me happy! But, I was not going to be happy, no matter what! Yet, this is not the whole story. I wish I could fill those holes up again; I wish that I had never put those holes in that paper in the first place! Why is this little event so important to me? You see my mother would die in a few years and I would never see her again; and I would never hear those loving words: “Son, I forgive you!” Of course, in my mother’s mind there was no need of forgiveness, but in my mind, even to this day, I regret putting holes in that piece of paper!
It was not then, but later, when the act could not be undone that I came to feel the need of forgiveness! It was an event so unimportant by the standard of events, but it is big in my mind and still is! Forgiveness! I can feel with the apostle Paul when he writes, though as we measure things and see things, the event of which I write has no place; but Paul wrote: “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief” (1 Tim. 1:15). Paul had been forgiven, but he still remembered the sins he had committed; and in humbleness he saw himself as “sinners; of whom I am chief.” The consequences of some of his sins could not be undone! For he stood by giving his consent as Stephen was stoned to death (Acts 8:1); yet, he “heard” the blessed words, “thy sins be forgiven,” as when Ananias said to him: “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:6). Yes, Saul/Paul arose and was baptized and his sins were washed away: forgiveness!
How sweet the words, “Thy sins be forgiven!” However, standing between sins unforgiven and sins forgiven, is repentance! Standing before repentance is “godly sorrow!” Yes, Paul wrote these words: “For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death” (2 Cor. 7:10). Please understand, repentance is not “godly sorrow,” but “godly sorrow worketh repentance!” The “repentance” acceptable to God, is “worked out” by “godly sorrow!” Now, get this please, repentance (metanoia) is “a change of mind,” worked out by “godly sorrow!” A person may “change” his mind, for any number of reasons, but “repentance” that brings about “forgiveness” is produced by “godly sorrow!”
Yes, sweet are the words, “thy sins be forgiven!” How I have wished through the years I could have heard my dear mother say, “Son, I forgive you!” Even though in her mind, no forgiveness was necessary! However, when we sin against God, forgiveness is absolutely necessary! Unforgiven sin stands between us and salvation now and later eternal salvation!

Frank R. Williams

Just what does the word “liberal” mean as it relates to “the teaching of Christ?” It is hard to give a definition to the word liberal when it comes to “the teaching of Christ” from a dictionary. This is the case because the word is looked at from a political point of few most of the time. However, the following will help in our understanding as we pursue the subject. A liberal is a person who is: open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways. This definition has its short comings to be sure! Nevertheless, let’s take a look at it.
First, anyone who studies the Bible should be “open-minded,” in that we must be willing to change when we learn that we are wrong in what we believe. So, to be “open-minded” is to be willing to examine the evidence, then, stand with the truth!
Second, if the word “orthodox” means: “accepted as true or correct by most people: supporting or believing what most people think is true;” then, we must we understand it does not matter what “most people think is true;” no, the truth seeker, must be determined to find the truth and stand with it!
Third, the word “traditional” generally means: “based on customs usually handed down from a previous generation.” If this word is used to refer to “manmade traditions,” then, in religion they have no binding place! As Jesus said: “Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition” (Matt. 15:6). Yet, the apostles of Christ used the word, as Paul wrote: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). So, it is not the word itself, but whose “traditions; is the “tradition” of man’s or of God! If of God, then, it is binding; it is truth and we must stand with it!
Fourth, we have “established forms or ways,” and once more, it is a matter of whose “established forms or ways;” if man’s, then they may and sometimes must be changed, but if God’s, then, they must not be changed in any way; for it is truth and we must stand with it!
Finally, the apostle John gives us the best inspired definition of what the word “liberal” means as it relates to “the teaching of Christ,” as he uses these very words. John wrote: “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9). The Greek word from which our English word “transgresseth” is translated, is “ parabainō;” and Thayer gives use four points to help us understand the word:
1) “to go by the side of;” here keep in mind that we are talking about “the teaching of Christ” and one going by the side of it and, therefore, not in “the teaching of Christ.”
2) “to go past or pass over without touching a thing;” in going past or over, a person “the teaching of Christ” he is not in “the teaching of Christ!”
3) “to overstep, neglect, violate, transgress;” here once more, the person “steps” outside “the teaching of Christ;” therefore, he does not abide in “the teaching of Christ!”
4)“so to go past as to turn aside from;” such a person has overrun “the teaching of Christ;” therefore, he has turned aside from “the teaching of Christ” and does not abide in it.
It should be clear to the reader, that the word “transgresseth” goes hand in hand with the word “liberal” when used in a religious context. It means that one has gone out of “the teaching of Christ;” it matters not if it is to the left or right. Finally, just here, it is to advance beyond the limits of “the teaching of Christ,” and this word contains an ironical allusion to the pretensions of the teacher’s having advanced to a higher degree of knowledge!
However, John did not stop with the word “transgresseth,” but he also used the words: “and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.” The Greek word for “abideth” is “menō” and means: “to remain … in reference to place” and the place is “the teaching of Christ!” So, what is the consequence of not abiding in “the teaching of Christ? This person no longer has God; in that he no longer has fellowship with God. He has lost his salvation!
The “liberal” is the person who goes outside “the teaching of Christ,” thus, losing all the benefits of “the teaching of Christ!” No, it is not likely that you will find a liberal who will even identify himself as a liberal, and surely not as one who has lost his salvation! Nevertheless, this is what a liberal is according to John!

Frank R. Williams

“Oh that is just your interpretation!” And with these words many Bible conversations end, when they should be just starting. It is truly amazing how many conversations end when the magical words are spoken. Hid within the magical words is a fatal error which is generally mis-understood by most who use these magical words. So, what is this fatal error?
The magical words are “your interpretation,” which imply that everyone is entitled to have his own interpretation and this leads to the fatal error. If everyone is entitled to his own interpretation of “truth,” then there is no such thing as truth. This is the fatal error! It may be stated, “One faith is just as good as another.” Or, “Everyone is entitled to his own belief!” Or even, “Who are you to question the faith of another?” Logically, each one of these is saying, there really is no such thing as “One faith;” or there is no such thing as truth! Yet, the apostle Paul wrote in his seven plank-platform of “ones;” just assuredly as there is “One God,” there is “one faith!” (Eph. 4:4-6). This is not one of many interpretations, it is the interpretation! It is the very meaning of the word to interpret: “to explain the meaning of (something); to understand (something) in a specified way” (Merriam-Webster). If one can truthfully interpret the words “there is one faith” to mean there is one thousand faiths, then, he can also interpret the words “there is one God” to mean there is one thousand gods! You see, to interpret, is to reach the “meaning,” the “understanding;” the truth in the meaning of the words spoken or written. If we can do this with “One faith,” why is it so hard for us to do it with the words “one God?” When you read the Bible, what are you reading?
Now, let us take a well-know statement made by Jesus: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16). These words have been the subject of many debates, many articles, and many sermons. The words are not hard to understand, for if we just put them in a mathematical form there is no question; there is no debate. Let “believeth” equal “1” and “baptized” equal “2”, making “saved” equal “3.” A beginner in math will have no problem! Now, take the second part of Jesus’ statement: “believeth not” equals “-1, thus, “damned” equal less than “3.” Is it not also true, he that “believeth” which equals “1” and is not “baptized” which equals “-2,” is also less than “saved”, thus, it is not equal to “3!” You see, it matters not which number is removed, be it “1” or “2,” neither by itself can ever equal “3!” So, when you read the Bible, what are you reading?
Here, just for the sake of representing the case fairly, the following quote is given: “Question: “Does Mark 16:16 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation?” Answer: As with any single verse or passage, we discern what it teaches through careful consideration of the language and context of the verse. We also filter it through what we know the Bible teaches elsewhere on the subject. In the case of baptism and salvation, the Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, not by works of any kind, including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, or any other act, is necessary for salvation is a faulty interpretation.” First, one simple truth, the New Testament never refers to baptism as a work! Just what is the person being baptized doing, but yielding to “the teaching of Christ?” Second, filtering the subject of baptism through “what we know the Bible teaches elsewhere on the subject,” let us read what Peter wrote: “… eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us …” (1 Pet. 3:20-21). Did the inspired apostle teach that baptism saves? Taking the words of Jesus and the words of Peter, it is clear to the honest reader “that baptism is necessary for salvation!” So, when you read the Bible, what do you read?
Grace is appropriated by means of “the faith” (Eph. 2:8) and within “the faith” are the words of Jesus: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” So, does your faith stand in “the faith” revealed by the Holy Spirit, written in the New Testament, or does it stand in the words of men who reject the words of Jesus? Remember, it is your eternal salvation which is in the balance!

Frank R. Williams

The question has appeared in a number of forms, “Can we understand the Bible alike?”. Then, someone says, “If we understand it, it will be alike!” It is true, if two people read the same thing but reach two different conclusions as to what it is saying, it is true that at least one of them has failed to understand it. It may be the case that both have failed to understand it!
Let me here relate a sad story, but true in my life. I was too young to remember all the dentails, but enough will be recalled to make the point. When I was about seven or eight years old my mother wrote a letter in which she let it be known that she wanted me to live with my father’s mother, my grandmother. This was just before she died. My aunt and I, who was/is but two years older than me, both read the letter and concluded that my mother wanted me to stay with my mother’s step-father and my aunt. My aunt, was/is more like a sister, as we were raised together much of our younger years. My uncle, my father’s brother, came to get me, and take me to my grandmother but we let it be known that my mother had written that she desired that I stay with her step-father and my aunt/sister. We made no impression on my uncle, as he knew what the letter had really said. You see, he understood the letter and my aunt/sister and me had read the letter incorrectly. I think we read the letter from our desires, more than with a view to what it really said.
It is sad, but many people read the Bible as my aunt/sister and I did the letter my mother had written! Therefore, the question: “When you read the Bible, what are you reading?” As we think about this subject, ponder this, have you ever heard someone say, “That is just your interpretation!” It is said as though no part of the Bible must be interpreted! So, just what does this word mean? The word “interpreting” means: “to explain the meaning of (something) and to understand (something) in a specified way.” (Merriam-Webster). Therefore, interpreting and understanding go together! We can take some of the simplest statements in the Bible, such as: “And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Gen. 1:5). What is Moses saying in these words? Let us interpret them. Why? Because I desire to understand them! Interpretation and understanding go hand in hand; as one and the same thing.
First, Moses wrote on the “post” side of the children of Israel crossing the Red Sea; after the Law of Moses had been given to Israel. Thus, he is writing in the language, using words they would know; words they would understand! Second, notice that Moses wrote, “And the evening and the morning were the first day.” If I were writing today, I would write, “And the morning and the evening were the first day.” However, Israel started their day in the “evening,” thus, “the first day,” is counted from “the evening and the morning.” I can just see the “bright” student over in the corner raising his hand and asking, “How can you have an evening before you have a morning?” Please notice there was “darkness” before there was “light!” Thus, “evening” (darkness) and “morning” (light). God never said, “Let there be darkness,” as it was already dark!
Second, the words “evening and morning” include the whole day. The “evening” including darkening and darkened hours; while the “morning” includes the lightening and light hours. So this brings us to the age old question: “How long was a day in creation?” Having already noticed that Moses is using words which the Hebrew nation would understand, as they got their understanding of what a day was from creation; is there any reason to think that the Hebrews were to interpret the word “day” in any other way than a twenty-four-hour day? No, not one! Just think about it, why would this new nation, which had just received the “Law,” have any reason to think of the “day,” which is described by the words “the evening and the morning were the first day,” in any other why than a twenty-four-hour day? There is not one reason!
Yet, volume upon volume has been written trying to prove that the word “day” is anything but a twenty-four-hour day in the opening chapter of Genesis! Remember, the first people to read/hear these words were those who died in the “wilderness.” Was Moses, through the Holy Spirit, writing a great mystery to them, or was he writing in simple words easy to be understood? Through the years the effort is to misinterpret more than to interpret the opening chapter of the Bible. Therefore, when you read the Bible, what are you reading?

Frank R. Williams

Did you know that we take some things for granted? Think about it this way, how many churches do you know that assemble on the first day of the week, Sunday to us, for worship? Most churches in what is called “Christendom” gather upon Sunday to worship! Ever wonder why? It is just taken for granted that there is a reason; it is taken for granted that there is New Testament authority; and it is taken for granted that there is authority in “the teaching of Christ,” in that there is a command for Christians to assemble to worship God on “the first day of the week:” Sunday!
Well, stop for a moment and think! Run the New Testament through your mind and look for one commandment that says anything like, children of God are to assemble to worship on the first day of the week! Did you recall one such commandment? As the old song says it: “No, not one!” Are you surprised? More than likely you are, as you have just taken it for granted that somewhere in the New Testament, in “the teaching of Christ” there is such a commandment! Now you may be asking, how is it that the disciples of Christ, who were “called Christians first in Antioch” (Acts 11:26), always assembled on the first day of the week to worship God?
That they did this is clearly revealed in the New Testament. Those who were the first converts on that great Pentecost following the resurrection of Jesus, did so! Luke wrote of them: “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:41-42). Pentecost was always on “the first day of the week!” Moses wrote in establishing the day: “And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, (Saturday, frw) from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths (7X7=49, frw) shall be complete: Even unto the morrow after the seventh Sabbath (7X7+1=50, frw) shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD” (Lev. 23:15-16). There is the day of Pentecost and how it always came on “the first day of the week!” Now, what does this mean to our subject? It means that the first worship of the church, done by the “about three thousand souls,” was on “the first day of the week!”
Yet, we have no commandment! Many times we have heard preachers quote these words: “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching” (Heb. 10:25). Yes, this is a commandment! And it is generally applied to ‘the first day of the week” assembly of worship. However, Barnes in his notes says: “It properly means an act of assembling, or a gathering together, … The command, then, here is, to meet together for the worship of God, and it is enjoined on Christians as an important duty to do it.” However, read with clarity and notice the words, “the first day of the week,” do not appear in the text. Without doubt, “the first day of the week” assembly of worship is included in the “not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together,” but they are not limited to “the first day of the week” assembly of worship! Therefore, to this point we have a command for “assembling of ourselves together,” but no direct commandment to assemble on “the first day of the week.”
So, how do we ascertain New Testament authority, with responsibility, that carries the weight of a commandment, to assemble to worship God on “the first day of the week?” My friends and brethren, you look for a pattern! We have already seen the first point in the pattern in Acts 2:42; therefore, let us now add to this and make the pattern firm and sure! Luke also gives us the second point in the pattern: “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight” (Acts 20:7). Paul gives us a third point in the pattern: “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come” (1 Cor. 16:2). Finally, we have that general command, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together,” which includes the pattern of “the first day of the week” assembly of worship!
Therefore, we have ascertained New Testament authority, authority within “the teaching of Christ” for the first day of the week assembly of worship!

Frank R. Williams

This is the last article in this series as the reader may be growing tired of the subject. However, these articles have given us the opportunity to see what some in the denominational world think of the churches of Christ and what they have to say. In this case it has been a Lutheran “Pastor” expressing his own created views and thoughts for the most part. The writer is Dr. Keith W. Schweitzer (Pastor, Immanuel Lutheran Church, 505 NE Dodge Street, Greenfield, Iowa 50849) and the quotes have been taken from his thirty-page article, which he called: “Various Doctrinal Positions of The Campbellite Church of Christ And a Lutheran Response to Those Positions.” His entire writing may be found on the internet by searching these words.
In this final article, let us take up the subject of worship as addressed by “Pastor Schweitzer. He writes: “Campbellite Church of Christ Position: “We believe only five acts of worship are authorized in the Bible: 1. Acappella singing, 2. Praying, 3. Taking a collection, 4. Taking communion, 5. Preaching. To do anything else during the worship service is not authorized and is thus sinful and vain worship.” He does not give any place from which he is quoting; however, THIS WRITER totally agrees with his words! This agreement is based upon the fact that New Testament authority can be given for each of these five acts of worship as they are found in “the teaching of Christ” given by the apostles of Christ.
First, before getting into the “acts of worship” which the “Pastor” says cannot be traced to any reliable historical source; a few words are in order about his continued use of the words “the Campbellite Church of Christ.” This is an insulting term to every member of the churches of Christ! No member of the churches of Christ to my knowledge has ever used these words! There never has been a “Campbellite Church of Christ!” Keep in mind, these words come from a man who is a member of the Lutheran Church which is named after a man, Martin Luther, and he freely wears this man’s name!
However, before giving such authority, let us notice the “Lutheran’s Response” which we look at in two parts. The first part: “These “acts of worship” cannot be traced to any reliable historical source within the Campbellite Church of Christ. They are more likely part of the “oral tradition” originating from a preacher’s pulpit and circulating to eventually become “orthodox” teaching. Again, there is no location in the Scriptures that identifies these acts of worship as the only acts ordained by God apart from any others.”
The first part, the acts of worship which he so decries! The apostle Peter wrote: “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 2:5). The only “spiritual sacrifices” Christians as a “holy priesthood” “offer up” to God is our worship! Those on that great Pentecost day, who “gladly received his (Peter’s, frw) word” “were baptized;” then Luke wrote that the first things saved souls did, was offer up their “spiritual sacrifices:” “And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:41-42). Here we have: 1) prayers; 2) breaking of bread (the Lord’s Supper); 3) fellowship (giving); and 4) the apostles’ teaching. This is a “reliable historical source” of the best kind, the word of God! One act of worship of the five is not listed here, but is found elsewhere; Paul to the church in Colosse: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord” (Col. 3:16). Now we have the fifth act of worship, singing! Thus, we have given New Testament authority for the five acts of worship from the only “reliable historical source,” the inspired “the teaching of Christ!”
The second part, a few words about the “Pastor’s” remarks: “Again, there is no location in the Scriptures that identifies these acts of worship as the only acts ordained by God apart from any others.” Let it here be known, there are no “others” acts of worship ordained by God in “the teaching of Christ!” However, there is a price to be paid by those who would go beyond “the teaching of Christ; John wrote: “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (2 John 9). With these words we conclude this nine-part series of articles.

Frank R. Williams

This is a continuation of article number seven, which was dealing with the charge made by Dr. Keith W. Schweitzer (Pastor, Immanuel Lutheran Church 505 NE Dodge Street, Greenfield, Iowa 50849) and his so-called: “Campbellite Church of Christ Position” as it related to the teaching that baptism is unto remission of past sins. He believes this is a totally ridiculous teaching.
The reason he believes it is ridiculous, is because he believes in the doctrine of “original sin.” Here is what he writes: “As the Campbellite Church of Christ stresses the absolute necessity of being baptized, rejects the biblical doctrine of original sin, and yet affirms an “age of accountability,’ baptism in the Church of Christ, by definition, must cover only a very small portion of a person’s sins during his lifetime.” He has a real problem with the “age of accountability,” and writes in another place, dealing with the same subject: “The doctrine of an “age of accountability” is a doctrine of subterfuge within the Campbellite Church of Christ. It is a doctrine which was created out of necessity to reconcile the paradox the Campbellites created for themselves between the doctrine of the essentiality of baptism in order to be saved and their denial of the doctrine of original sin.” The reason he has this problem is because he believes in the doctrine of “original sin.” This doctrine does not allow for such; for according to the doctrine of “original sin,” a baby is conceived in “original sin” that must be forgiven! Thus, the so-called baptism of babies!
Therefore, let us deal with the subject of the doctrine of “original sin.” First, this is not a biblical teaching, but a necessary subject to study as much of the denominational world believes in such! The “Pastor” then makes this statement: “This doctrine states that a child is only held accountable by God for his sins once he reaches the age of his being cognitively aware of his sins. The Scripture passage held out to support this doctrinal position is Isaiah 7:16: “For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.” May I say here, in my forty-eight years of preaching, I have never used this verse, nor have I heard it used, as Dr. Schweitzer so charges! This does not mean, that some preacher has never done so, however.
So, how do you go about to prove the doctrine of “original sin” is not a biblical teaching? First, the words never appear in the inspired text! It is always best to use biblical words when addressing biblical subjects; though it is understood at times it is necessary to use words not found in the Bible. Before addressing the subject, let us notice another statement made by the “Pastor:” “There is no point in a person’s lifetime here on earth when he is not accountable to God for that life and the conduct of his life.” Just how would you go about to defend such a teaching? Just how is a baby, who has no ability of understanding, no ability to believe, and no ability to repent, held “accountable to God” for anything that he might do? But, keep in mind, the doctrine of “original sin” does not involve any sin personally committed. No, it is an inherited sin! This doctrine teaches that a baby is conceived a sinner through the flesh from Adam onward. Here is a major problem in such a teaching; Luke wrote what the angel said unto Mary: “And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS” (Luke 1:31). Add to this the words of John: “And the Word was made flesh ,…” (John 1:14). It should be clear that Jesus was conceived in a fleshly womb, and was “made flesh,” therefore, he was “flesh” when conceived just as are all babies! Yes, the “original sin” folks have an elaborate doctrine in an effort to get around this conclusion. But, was Jesus a flesh baby through the lineage of Adam, or not? Was Jesus born of a woman, just as all other babies? Therefore, whatever all other babies born of the flesh are, so was Jesus! However, this is just an inconvenient problem for the “original sin” folks to deal with! Don’t forget that the inspired Luke gave the fleshly genealogy of Jesus back to Adam (Luke 3:23-38), which would make Jesus guilty of “original sin,” if there was such!
Is there one case of a baby being baptized in the New Testament? No not one! However, our “original sin” folks have an answer to this question. They just point to the case of Lydia where Luke wrote: “And when she was baptized, and her household, …” (Act 16:15). So, what is this supposed to prove? According to the “original sin” folks, a “household” has a baby within it! In order to make their case, it would have to be, that all households have babies, for if one household did not have a baby, then, it just might be that the household of Lydia did not have a baby within it and their proof case is lost! The preacher who taught me, once in debating such folks, stated that Lydia had two red headed daughters! His “original sin” opponent questioned him: “Where did you did the two red headed daughters?” To which Clint Lovelady replied: “The same place you got the babies!”
Yes, of course, they have much more to say on the subject, but this will show their “proof” text is no proof text at all. It is the case that baptism is in order to have your past sins, sins actually committed, forgiven (Acts 2:38)!

Frank R. Williams