Barnes church of Christ

Just why are you a member of some church? Do you read the New Testament? Does Jesus and his death mean anything to you? Just how important is the salvation of your soul to you? Yes, you are right, this a lot of questions to start an article with, but each question should be of interest to you! You see, we are living in a world that is changing faster than most of us can keep up with; and to say that our heads may be spinning round and round, may be an understatement.
So, let us take the above questions one at a time and slowly think about each one. First, “Just why are you a member of some church?” This really requires a second question: Why are you a member of the church you are a member of? Do you think it makes any difference which church you are a member? Many times people are a member of a church because their parents are members, or a good friend is a member. Here is a good question to think about: Did you become a member of this church because of something you read in the New Testament? Maybe you read where Jesus said: “I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18) and you believe you are a member of this church. It sure would be the right reason to be a member of this church; and if Jesus did not build this church, it sure would be a good reason not be a member! Therefore, here is a another question: Does truth matter to you?
The second question was: “Do you read the New Testament?” If so, why do you read it? Just what are you looking for when you read it, or are you looking for anything? As you read the New Testament, did you ever read where Jesus said: “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Then, as you read more, maybe you read these words of Peter: “Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth …” (1 Pet. 1:22). If you have both of these passages, did you add the two thoughts together, “free” and “purified?” Just to help your thoughts, the word “purified” (the Greek hagnizo) means: to make pure, to cleanse. To be “pure” and “cleanse” is to be “free” from sin and Jesus said: “the truth shall make you free.” However, is it clear that he meant as truth obeyed will make one free from sin! Did the thought ever enter your mind as you read the words: “the truth shall make you free,” that it required your obedience to the truth?
The third question was: “Does Jesus and his death mean anything to you?” It is hard to think of some reading the New Testament while the death of Jesus means nothing to them. So, as you read the New Testament, did you read that Jesus purchased the church with his own blood? Paul wrote these words when speaking to the elders of the church located in Ephesus: “to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). Does this make the church as important as Jesus’ blood? In other words, is the church worth the price Jesus paid for it? Here is a good place to give some thought to another question: Does this make one church just as good as another, or does it make the church Jesus purchased with his own blood better, worth more, than any other church? Before concluding this thought, give a moment to these words: “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for her” (Eph. 5:25). If you are going to be a member of any church, why not desire to be a member of the church Jesus loves and gave himself for? Keep in mind, Jesus said, “I will build my church!” Would Jesus’ church wear his name or just any name people may come up with?
The fourth question was: “Just how important is the salvation of your soul to you?” Allow me to point out, that these questions are all related. First, they are all related to truth; therefore, our subject: “IF IT IS NOT TRUTH!” I have never understood how anyone can relate to Christianity, and not be interested in truth. In fact, I have never been able to understand why anyone would settle for anything less than truth! “If it is not truth,” just what do you have? Isn’t the salvation of your soul/spirit worth more than the whole world? Remember the words of Jesus: “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (Mark 8:36-37). Just how important is the salvation of your soul?
Is the salvation of your soul/spirit worth knowing the truth? Not what someone may have said to you, be it friend, family member, or preacher! Paul expressed the desire of God for you: “(God) Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). Truth and saved go together!

— Frank R. Williams

In this fifth and final article in this series, we will focus our attention on the subject of “grace.” By way of recalling what has brought us to write these articles, we quote: “A second minority group has moved away from legalism to a more orthodox position consistent with other Protestants. This second group emphasizes, like most other Christians, that salvation is by grace.” These words come from a webepage called “Faith Fact” (No name was found on this page, but for your information, there is more than one such page.). The writer, when he says, “A second minority group,” and by “This second group,” he is referring to a group within the churches of Christ. It is these words that has caused this series of articles.
The subject of “grace” is so misunderstood, it is hard to start an article addressing the subject. One of the first things in studying the subject of grace is to know beforehand that the word is not always used to refer to the same thing. This is true both of the Greek and English word! Here are a few: 1) “If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward” (Eph. 3:2). First, notice the word “dispensation” (oikonomia) which is best understood by the word stewardship; and second, this helps us understand the word “grace” that it refers to Paul’s apostleship. Thus, the word “grace” is used in connection with Paul receiving the gospel to preach to the Ephesians! 2) “Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia; How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality” (2 Cor. 8:1-2). Here the word “grace” refers to the opportunity which the churches of Macedonia, Gentiles, had in sending physical relief to the Hebrew brethren in Judea. And 3) “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world” (Titus 2:11-12). Clearly here the words “the grace of God” teaches and refers to “the teaching of Christ,” or the gospel of Christ. This naturally brings us to Paul’s words: “And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified” (Acts 20:32). “The word of his (God’s, frw) grace” the gospel of Christ, which is “the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16). The conclusion here is simply, the person who believes that he can separate the grace of God from “the word of his grace” is sadly mistaken!
Just what is grace? It is the favor of God! Of course, our subject is that of salvation and grace; if we are saved, it will be by the grace of God! However, within the word “grace” is everything related to our being saved. Yes, every “little” part necessary to our salvation is included in the word “grace.” Keep in mind, it is God who put all the parts within “grace!” Is the blood of Jesus necessary to our being saved? Yes, then it is included in the word “grace.” Is Jesus’ death upon the cross necessary to our being saved? Yes, then it is included in the word “grace.” Is faith that God exist and that he will reward us necessary to our being saved? Yes, then personal faith is included in the word “grace.” Is repentance necessary to our being saved? Yes, then repentance is included in the word “grace.” This helps us understand Paul’s words: “And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.” The “word of his grace” teaches us “that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works” (Tit. 2:12-14). There is grace as revealed in “the word of his grace!” If not, just what is it? Therefore, when one preaches “the word of grace” he is preaching “grace!”
You see, God did not owe any of us the opportunity to “repent,” but he gave us out of his love, which produced his grace, the opportunity to “repent!” How beautiful are the words: “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). Is this “grace?” Yes, but it is all that is included in the word “grace,” when Paul wrote: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). Please notice that being “saved” is not by grace only, for Paul wrote: “through faith,” and here it is “the faith!”
Therefore, our salvation is made possible by God’s grace, appropriated by means of “the faith” which is “the word of grace” and being saved is not of ourselves, but neither is it without obeying “the word of his grace” and to emphasize one over the other is only to fail the charge to: “Preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:2).
With these words we bring to a conclusion this series of articles which have been written in trust that eyes may be opened to see some of the dangers facing the churches of Christ; that those who love the truth may “having done all, to stand. Stand therefore!”

Frank R. Williams

Having failed to examined the word “patternists,” which was intended to be in last weeks article, we will do so in this fourth article in this series. Is there a “pattern” for the church in the areas of: organization, worship, and work? Many in the religious world laugh at the idea, as they see no “pattern” for the church in any area. Thus, they use the word “patternists” which is not really a word, but is used to prejudice the reader against the idea. However, the New Testament does use the word “pattern!”
In the eighth chapter of Hebrews, the writer is addressing the subject of the tabernacle which was built in the wilderness. First, the writer points out the priests: “ Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, (In fact, this was the nature of the Old Law.) as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount” (Verse 5). The Greek word here use is “tupos” which means: “1) the mark of a stroke or blow, print, 2) a figure formed by a blow or impression, 3) form, and 4) an example.” Then, under number four these words are given: “4a) in the technical sense, the pattern in conformity to which a thing must be made.” After reading these, here is a question: “Just how much freedom did Moses have in building the tabernacle?” Or, would “our writer,” referring to the man who wrote: “For simplicity’s sake, we can divide the group into two factions. One group is the traditional faction. This group is sometimes referred to by outsiders as ‘ultraconservative’ or “legalistic” or “legalistic patternists;” thus would you have to call God a “legalistic patternist” because he told Moses to “make the tabernacle … according to the pattern?”
However, the fact that Moses was a “patternist,” does not prove that the church built by Jesus (Matt. 16:18) has a “pattern” in organization, worship, and work! Here is a good place to ask: “Just what is “the teaching of Christ?” Let John answer the question: “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). Clearly, “the teaching of Christ” is that which we must continue to abide within! Is then a “pattern?” Is it a “form” that must be followed? Here give thought to Paul’s words: “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form (tupos) of doctrine which was delivered you” (Rom. 6:17). Note the word “form” is the Greek “tupos,” which is also translated “pattern!” In order to be saved, the Romans saints had “obeyed from the heart that pattern of doctrine (teaching, frw) which was delivered” them. If they had to obey that pattern of teaching in order to be saved; do we think we can do less and still be saved? If so, upon what teaching? Would “our writer” call the Roman saints “legalistic patternists?” Better yet, would he call Paul, the inspired apostle of Christ a “legalistic patternist?”
So, how about the “pattern” for the organization, worship, and work, of the church? Once more it is clear the denominational world see no “pattern” for any of these three areas in the New Testament! However, notice what Luke wrote about the action of the apostle: “And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed” (Acts 14:23). Are the words, “in every church,” strong enough to be a “pattern?” If not, just what would it take to be a “pattern? The same thing can be found when it comes to worship. Just look at what the churches did under the oversight of the apostles and accept it as a “pattern.” If they were not establishing a “pattern,” just what were they doing? The same thing is true about the work of the church. If we cannot read where the church under the oversight of the apostles of Christ did it, just where would do we go to get authority for doing it?
Jesus said: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matt. 28:18). If this authority is not within “the teaching of Christ,” just where is it? Therefore, if one means by using the words, “legalistic patternist,” that I am one who abides within “the teaching of Christ,” just mark me up as a “legalistic patternist!” How about you?

— Frank R. Williams

Two charges are being made against the churches of Christ today by one we are calling “our writer” which we are have been studying in this series of articles. First he wrote: “For simplicity’s sake, we can divide the group into two factions. One group is the traditional faction. This group is sometimes referred to by outsiders as “ultraconservative” or “legalistic” or “legalistic patternists.” In article three, the words “tradition” and “conservative” were studied. In the first part of this third article we will study the last two words: “legalistic” and “patternists.” Notice, when these words are used, generally they are used negatively and to incite prejudice against the one referred to.
First, look at the word “legalistic” and what it means. Just to inject a little humor, would you, if standing before the Judge on the day of Judgment, prefer to be charged with being a “legalistic” or non-legalistic?” Once more we must go to the dictionary to get an answer to what the word means: strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence;” then, you can find: “Overly strict or rigid adherence to the law or to a religious or moral code.” Let us put this in light of a few statements of Jesus: “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). And “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15). Then, the words of John: “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous” (1 John 5:3) and “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). Do the words of Jesus and John point to “strict adherence and principle adherence to “the teaching of Christ?” However, it should be noticed that the dictionary throws in the adjectives “overly” and “rigid,” but these words are used to prejudice one against “adherence” and “principled” obedience to the “moral code” of Jesus! Keep in mind, it is “the teaching of Christ” that is our subject; as it is the law and the moral code! A little food for thought just here, just how would a person obey “the teaching of Christ” while being “overly strict or with rigid adherence?”
Now, let us turn our attention to the second charge: “A second minority group has moved away from legalism to a more orthodox position consistent with other Protestants. This second group emphasizes, like most other Christians, that salvation is by grace.” Here “our writer” is pointing out that within the churches of Christ today, we have two major groups, therefore, we are not “monolithic” in what we believe! Let it be known, that this second group is growing among us and is a present danger! It is most appealing to the young; many of whom have never heard the truth; while others have rejected the truth once taught them! In fact, it is said, if you have to use reason and logic to reach a conclusion, it is not necessary to one’s faith. Any good student of the Bible knows that Jesus used reason and logic to teach the truth! He taught by implication in Matthew chapter twenty-two, in answering the Sadducees about the resurrection. Here is what he said, quoting God: “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Matt. 22:32). So, what is the unstated truth, that can only be reached by reasoning and logic? It is that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were alive as Jesus spoke, though they had been dead physically many years! This means there is life after physical death. However, let us get back to “our writer” and his charge. Is it necessary that you believe that there is life after physical death? If the Sadducee were to answer this question, it required that they use reasoning and logic in order to reach the correct conclusion!
He wrote: “A second minority group has moved away from legalism to a more orthodox position consistent with other Protestants. This second group emphasizes, like most other Christians, that salvation is by grace.” If you will read with care, you will notice that this second group within the churches of Christ are becoming more and more denominational, as they move toward “a more orthodox position consistent with other Protestants.” Sadly, “our writer” is correct in this charge! He has made a correct observation within the churches of Christ today! Second, he wrote, “This second group emphasizes, like most other Christians, that salvation is by grace.” My brethren, through the years, the charge has been made by some among us that the “old time” preachers did not preach on grace! What they did preach is that we are saved only by grace, but not by grace only! On the other hand, this “second group” desires to tell the lost “we are saved by grace” and leave it at this! There is not a denominational person who will disagree with such, but have you brought them any closer to being saved? How about reading to them Paul’s words to the elders of the church in Ephesus: “And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified” (Acts 20:32). Do you think, “the word of his grace,” would include, in order to be saved you must: believe the gospel, repent of your sins, confess that Jesus is Lord, be baptized unto the remission of your sins, and live faithfully until death? If not, you do not understand grace: “For by grace are ye saved through the faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8).
It is sad that some outside the churches of Christ see us better than we see ourselves! Yes, they are so wrong in their overall view of the churches of Christ, but able to identify a present danger among us, that so many of us fail to see at all. It is far past time that elders,who are charged “to feed the church of God” (Acts 20:28), open their eyes and see where the churches of Christ are going!

Frank R. Williams

In this second article noting “What some are saying,” we return to the webpage “Faith facts.” Here the charge is made that the churches of Christ are not monolithic in their views. Before continuing it is necessary to define the word “monolithic”; it means among other things: “consisting of or constituting a single unit.”
First, the churches of Christ (Rom. 16:16) are local autonomous bodies, under the authority of Christ, generally overseen by elders (Acts 14:23; 20:28). Looking at them as a whole, they are “one body” of which Paul wrote: “the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all” (Eph. 1:22-23). Thus, they are “monolithic: consisting of or constituting a single unit.” There was in the first forty years a “monolithic” “faith,” as Paul wrote: “one faith” (Eph. 4:5) and of which Jude wrote: “that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Juke 3). Here is a most important question: “Did these local churches of Christ during the first forty years of existence all believe the same thing?” The answer is no! However, there was one body of truth, called “the faith!” Nevertheless, there were misunderstandings, there were dishonesties, and there were people who taught false doctrines. No local church, of the churches of Christ, were immune to these dangers! It was so bad that Paul wrote to the churches of Galatia: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel” (Gal. 1:6). The letters to the churches addressed many of these problems! Therefore, if “our writer” were to ask the churches of Christ during the first forty years following the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), were they monolithic in what they believed, what would his answer have been?
It is necessary that we look at the first charge made by “our writer.” Here he sees the churches of Christ divided into two factions. The first he describes: “For simplicity’s sake, we can divide the group into two factions. One group is the traditional faction. This group is sometimes referred to by outsiders as ‘ultraconservative’ or “legalistic” or “legalistic patternists.” Just for general understanding, when these words are used, it is to prejudice the hearer, or the reader against the ones referred to! However, a study of the terms, might reveal something else entirely! Is something wrong with being “traditional?” If we are honest, the first thing is to determine what the word means! It is used in the New Testament by Jesus and by Paul. First, Jesus charged the “scribes and Pharisees,” in these words: “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” (Matt. 15:3). The Greek word is “paradosis” and means: “a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc. objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching 2b) of the body of precepts, …” Here I have given a long meaning in order to put before the reader a larger context of the word. In short, it is a handing down of actions or teaching from one generation to another. The question and that which makes the difference, is the word that goes with the word “tradition.” Notice what Jesus said: “your tradition;” here meaning the “traditions of the “scribes and Pharisees!” Second, it must be noticed that these “traditions” “transgress the commandment of God.” Here there are two things wrong with these man made “traditions:” 1) they “transgress the commandments of God; and 2) they were being bound upon others!
Second, the word “traditions” is used by Paul when he wrote: “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us” (2 Thess. 3:6). This is the same Greek word used by Jesus; therefore, it is not the word itself that makes it wrong. No, it is a matter of do the “traditions” “transgress the commandments of God!” This is what makes them wrong, or do they bind something that God has not bound?
Now for the second word, “conservative,” and what does it means? Here we have to go to a dictionary; it means: a person who believes in the value of established and traditional practices (Merriam-Webster). The “traditional practices” being “the teaching of Christ” (2 John 9). Once more, there is nothing wrong, but everything right about being a “conservative” when referring to “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (2 Tim. 3:16-17). The true “conservative” is one who stands upon “the teaching of Christ!” He neither turns to the right nor to the left, but stands in the middle!
The other two words: “legalistic” and “legalistic patternists,” will be considered in a third article, but in conclusion, you can see, even though the two words studied above, though often used negatively, to insite prejudice; while in truth; there is nothing wrong with them. In fact, when applied to “the teaching of Christ” they are desired!

Frank R. Williams

It is said, you can read most anything these days! Have you ever wondered how others, those not members of the churches of Christ, describe the churches of Christ? You can read some most interesting things if you are willing to wade through the many things people write, until you find something worth reading. Some of their observations reveal that they have really given time and thought to what they write; while other things only reveal a total lack of understanding on the part of the writer.
The first thing I would like to do is express thanks for the words which our writer, under review, started his article with: “Church of Christ members are among the most sincere students of the Bible. They are attempting to bring the church back to a pure biblical faith and obedient practice. This is most refreshing! They are a beacon of light in their effort to restore biblical Christianity. We, as evangelicals, unite with them on the view that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.” These words should cause those not members of the Lord’s church to take an honest look at us!
Second, let me identify who is writing, he identifies himself as an “evangelical,” when he writes the above: “we, as evangelicals.” Let us here take what he writes. First, “We should note that Church of Christ people are not monolithic in their views.” Let me say, “the churches of Christ” of which Paul wrote in the first century (Rom. 16:16) believed in one body. For Paul wrote: “There is one body” (Eph. 4:4), then, he identifies the “one body: “the church, Which is his body” (Eph. 1:22-23). Paul without any doubt is writing of the church which Jesus said: “I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). Here we need to see the church as it is written of upon the pages of the New Testament. There are three views of the church in the New Testament: 1) the monolithic church, the perfect church designed by God; 2) we see those who have obeyed the gospel, the church, trying to live up into that perfect design and we see their failures at times in their efforts; and 3) we see those in the church who do their best to change the church designed by God to fit human desires. It is safe to say, the second group believed in the monolithic church, but their efforts might cause an outsider to write these “people are not monolithic in their view” as they are looking more at their failures than their efforts!
On a second point, the writer’s point is that “the churches of Christ” are divided in what they believe and practice; therefore, they “are not monolithic in their views!” Let us address this point here! When Paul wrote the local church at Corinth, it was very divided! They were so divided, they were calling themselves by different terms; Paul wrote to them: “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? …” (1 Cor. 1:12-13). Today there are some former churches of Christ who have changed their identity; as they are now known as a “Community Church,” and some appear to just use the words “the church;” these fall more within the words of John than anything else: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us” (1 John 2:19). So, in reality, the writer to whom we refer should not count these as among “the churches of Christ!” Nevertheless, as the writer views the churches of Christ today and compares them with “the churches of Christ” found upon the pages of the New Testament, he and we, should realize that we are looking at the same thing! We are seeing: the efforts on the part of honest people who have obeyed the gospel of Christ, who are making efforts to be the perfect church designed by God, but who realize their failures and these failures are seen by all! Yet, the charge that we do not believe in being monolithic is false!
Now, turning our attention to “the faith” which is monolithic! First, let it be understood, you cannot have division without having different faiths; people believing different things! The inspired writers of the New Testament wrote of a monolithic faith; Paul in fact wrote, there is “one faith” (Eph. 4:5) and Jude wrote: I “exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). This is a once for all time delivered faith! Yet, there were some within “the churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16) in the first century who desired, as some do today, to change this “one faith!” Paul wrote of the result as they had come among the churches of Galatia: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:6-7). The problem, as seen in Paul’s words, when you change “the faith,” “the gospel,” you remove its saving power! However, just as we see written upon the pages of the New Testament, the efforts of those who had obeyed the gospel and did their best to live up into the perfect design of God for the church, so it is with the “one faith!” We see those who were willing to give their lives for the purity of “the faith” on the one hand, but on the other hand, we also see those who were determined to change it!
What does this mean to “the churches of Christ” today? It means we are much like what we read about in the New Testament! We can become discouraged, or we can stand with the faithful of the ages! Where do you stand?

Frank R. Williams

The title under which we write might seem like the “understatement of a lifetime!” Is there any debate that Jesus is the subject of the Bible? One writer said about the Bible: “Although the Bible is a great reference book, it is not like other books you may be familiar with. The Bible isn’t written like an encyclopedia, a dictionary or a textbook. It is composed of 66 shorter books written by dozens of people over about 1,500 years—yet they all have a unified message.” Knowing this, just how would we go about to answer our question: “What is the subject of the bible?” Did the writers give a list of subjects, or a table of contents? These would be questions generally asked, if we were looking at a “normal” book, but the Bible is not “normal,” in that it is unlike any other book ever written.
Why is this so? First, the writers of many of the books do not identify themselves. For instance, this article has a title and at the end will appear the name of the writer. It may be a matter of ego, as we desire everyone who looks at the article to know who wrote it! The writers of the Bible were more concerned that the reader understand the words being read were being written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, than any reference to himself. Peter in fact wrote: “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:20). The word “prophecy” is of interest, it is the Greek “propheteia” and means: “a discourse emanating from divine inspiration” (among other things), whether it has the predictive element or not; but if any writing has reference to Jesus, it would by its very nature be predictive! Just how much time there is between the creation of the man and the first sins committed is unknown; nevertheless, Jesus becomes the subject of the Bible in chapter three, when God speaks to Satan: “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it (he -FRW)shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:15). This is known as the Protoevangelium of the Bible: the first pronouncement of Christ. With the words spoken by God to Satan: “it (he -FRW) shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel,” the subject of the Bible is announced! Thus, in the third chapter of the Bible the inspired writer Moses identifies the subject; he has started the “golden thread” which would run through the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament. Jesus said: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me” (John 3:46).
Jesus said after his resurrection: “These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me” (Luke 24:44); thus, Jesus identifies the subject of the “law of Moses,” “the prophets,” and the “psalms,” which covers the whole Old Testament, and he said, they wrote “concerning me!” Then, he said: “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39). Peter also said, when writing about the Old Testament Prophets: “Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow” (1 Pet. 1:10-11). Clearly the Prophets wrote of “the sufferings of Christ,” and Moses is the first of these Prophets to so write! It should be noted in Peter’s words, that he ties salvation and Jesus (Christ) together; as he wrote: “of which salvation” and “the sufferings of Christ.” It is not too much to say, every reference of Christ is a reference to salvation!
You do remember, Jesus said: “For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10); then, the name Jesus itself, as Matthew reveals means saviour: “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). So, Jesus is the subject of the Bible and the name Jesus means salvation; therefore, one may just as truthfully say, salvation is the subject of the Bible.
Therefore, the Bible gives us everything we need to be saved! Is everyone going to be saved? If you answer no, then, what makes the difference between those who will be saved and those who will not be saved? Many folks answer there is nothing that we must do in order to be saved. For we are not saved by works! Have you not read: “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” (John 6:29). Let’s be honest now, is “belief” a work? For sure, it is an act of obedience!

Frank R. Williams

You do not hear much about it, neither do you read much about it, but it is “at the heart of being a Christian! So, what could be “at the heart of being a Christian,” that preachers do not write or preach about? Someone says, “I thought preachers preached about everything; yet, here you are telling us that preachers have generally failed to write and preach about something that is “at the heart of being a Christian.” How can this be?
First, because it is a “hard saying,” and not an easy thing to do! Jesus taught somethings that are hard to do, then, somethings that are only perceived to be hard. Some of those who followed Jesus perceived that these words were hard. Here is what he said: “Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. (John 6:53). Then, John wrote: “Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” (verse 60). So, what was the result? “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him” verse 66). So, truly hard, or only perceived to be hard, the result may be the same! But, let us understand, “the teaching of Christ” separates us from the world and it is not always easy!
Second, some of “the teaching of Christ” is hard! In the above case, the disciples failed to understand what he was teaching. They thought he was talking about his literal flesh and blood, and that Jesus was teaching that they had to literally eat his flesh and drink his blood; but he was in fact talking about this teaching. Remember in the “Sermon on the Mount,” Jesus used the physical, “hunger and thirst” but applied it spiritually, “after righteousness: for they shall be filled” (Matt. 5:6). This is the case with these words: “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood;” there must be an eagerness on the part of the disciple to “to eat his flesh” and “drink his blood.” But, one must keep in mind, the Jew was forbidden to drink blood. Some of them may have spoken of eating his flesh. Others may even have pressed this to: “Eat His flesh! Shall we, then, drink His blood too?” In no less than seven passages of the Pentateuch had the drinking of blood been forbidden (Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17; Leviticus 7:26-27; Leviticus 17:10-14; Leviticus 19:26; Deuteronomy 12:16; Deuteronomy 12:23-24; Deuteronomy 15:23); and we find in later times the strength of the feeling of abhorrence of drinking of blood (1 Samuel 14:32, and Ezekiel 33:25). Then, read these words of Jesus: “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him” (John 6:56). What is so important about these words? The “eth” on the end of “eateth,” and “drinketh,” reveals that these verbs are in the present tense, implying continuous action; they were to keeping on eating his flesh and drinking his blood; then, the word “dwelleth,” denoting continuous Devine presence! Friends, Jesus is not speaking of his literal flesh and blood, neither is addressing the Lord’s Supper, but his teaching! Here recall the words of Jesus to the discouraged disciples: “… If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him” (John 14:23). The words, “make our abode” is equal with Devine presence and it is in the keeping of “the teaching of Christ” that God and Jesus “make” their “abode” is us! Nevertheless, some of the disciples failed to understand the truth, and falsely concluding, “This is an hard saying; who can hear it?”
Now, having made the point that some perceived that “the teaching of Christ” is hard, because they failed to understand it; let us get to our point: “at the heart of being a Christian” lies a “hard teaching!” In the “Sermon on the Mount” Jesus said: “Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee” (Matt. 5:23). Get this now, you have come before God seeking forgiveness, but you remember a “brother hath ought against” you. If your brother has “ought against” you, you must have done something wrong. So, what are you do to? Here is the hard part! Jesus said: “Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother,…” (verse 24). My brethren, this is not a suggestion, it is a command!
Yes, the setting is an Old Testament one, but does this change the principle? Let us put it into a New Testament setting; you have come before God, you are asking God to forgive you of your sins; then, you remember that a brother has “ought against” you. Can you not see the principle? While you are asking God to forgive you, should you not also: “Leave there thy gift (your request of forgiveness) before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to they brother.”
This is “at the heart of being a Christian” and it is hard to do! However, if we expect God to forgive us, we must be willing to go and make peace with our brother, seeking his forgiveness!

Frank R. Williams

The subject of atheism is not easy to understand at first, as even the atheist define it differently. In other words, like most of us, we like to put the best light on ourselves and the atheist is no different! Therefore, let us take a look at the subject.
One writer put it this way: “Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.” Another writer said: “Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.” Now, as you are working your mind around these two expressions, read with care a third statement: “The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings.” So, is atheism a “disbelief in gods,” or a belief that God does not exist? When does “disbelief” become a “belief” system? However, the word “atheist” itself, has a meaning!
The word “atheist” comes from the negative “a” which means “no,” and “theos” which means “god.” Hence, atheism in the most basic term means “no god.” When you talk with atheists, and ask them to prove that there is no God, most will tell you that it’s logically impossible to prove that God doesn’t exist. Ann Druyan (the wife of the late Carl Sagan) was asked: “What most people mean by “atheist” is: “belief that there is no God…” So, is atheism a belief system, or not? It is a belief system; the atheist says: “I belief that there is no God!” It is not a system based upon evidence but a “leap in the dark,” it is a rejection of God! By-the-way, the word “faith,” the word “believe,” is not so used this way in the New Testament as it is based upon evidence!
Now, contrast this with Paul’s inspired words: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20). Paul is addressing “the invisible” which comes from the Greek “aoratos” and means: “that which can not be seen.” So, how do you prove “that which cannot be seen?” Paul answers: “by the things that are made.” In essence Paul is simply saying, by the things you see! These words bring us to the words of Psalms: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork” (Psa. 19:1). The word “declare” implies that the heavens “inscribe the glory of God;” while the word “sheweth expresses “acting as a cause of God’s handywork” as they announce it. Therefore, the heavens are there to be read as evidence of the “invisible” God that he exists!
The atheist is one who denies the evidence that proves that God exists! He long ago gave up the claim that he can prove that God does not exist! Therefore, the “atheist” in truth is not an atheist, but an agnostic! Yet, he will not give up his claim to being an atheist! So, what does this say about his honesty?
This naturally brings us to the agnostic. What does this word mean? First, the word just means: “a person who does not believe or is unsure of something.” But second, when applied to God, it means: “a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not” (Merriam-Webster). However, allow Ann Druyan to answer our question: “Literally yes, we do not know. Not that we can’t know, but at the moment in the present state we know so little about the universe. We’ve only been at this exploration of the universe in any sort of systematic way for what, four centuries? That’s such a tiny fraction of history. Carl (Sagan, frw) would say ‘we just don’t know,’ and the more we acknowledge how much we don’t know, the less chance we have of assuming things that turn out not to be true.” (The interview was done by Michael Shermer of SKEPTIC). It should be clear that the so-called “atheist” and the agnostic both stand on the same quicksand: “we do not know!”
If the foundation of atheism-agnosticism is “we do not know,” and it is; here is a natural question: “Just where does all their boldness come from?” It came through the field of philosophies; such as: existentialism, secular humanism, Marxism, feminism and the general scientific and rationalist movement. Proponents such as Bertrand Russell emphatically rejected belief in God; Ludwig Wittgenstein and A. J. Ayer, in their different ways, asserted the unverifiability and meaninglessness of religious statements; J. N. Findlay and J. J. C. Smart argued that the existence of God is not logically necessary; naturalists and materialistic monists such as John Dewey considered the natural world to be the basis of everything, denying the existence of God or immortality. (History of Atheism).
But, keep in mind, it was not and is not based upon a field of philosophies of proof, of evidence, but “we do not know!” Whereas the inspired writer pointed to the heavens and said: “see!” and “I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well” (Psa. 139:14).

— Frank R. Williams