The Bible Says It, I Believe It
No matter the teaching, no matter the offense—if the Bible says it, we ought to believe it. Period. We should never apologize for what the Bible says.
Society is saturated with apologizers. Every which way we turn, someone is apologizing for something because it offended someone. It’s a vicious cycle. And Christians are, in part, included in this mess. We may not necessarily say, “I’m sorry” for a particular doctrine or Bible verse, but we sometimes may try to downplay it in order to soften its blow. Don’t soften the blow.
Sometimes we don’t stand up for what we believe in. And, when we do, we then cave if there is pushback. We don’t want criticism thrown our way; we are afraid of any name-calling or slander. So, instead of planting our feet even further, we draw back. We backtrack. We apologize.
Christian, we should never apologize for what the Bible teaches.
Our attitude should be what the late R.C. Sproul spoke about:
I’ve mentioned many times my reaction to the Christian bumper sticker: “God says it. I believe it. That settles it.” Huh? God says it. I believe it. Now, it’s settled? No, if it’s going to be a Christian statement, you say, “God said it. That settles it.” It doesn’t matter whether you believe it or not. If it’s God’s Word, beloved, it’s settled, and this is what the psalmist understood, and he says, “It has been settled in heaven from eternity.”
You Might also like
-
3 Ways People Responded to the News of Jesus’ Birth
If the wise men experienced great joy when they saw the star leading them to the child Jesus, what greater joy must they have felt when they saw the King of the Jews. They were so overcome that they “fell down and worshipped him,” and then offered him their treasures. As you read Matthew’s account, you can sense the jubilation of the scene. This is the celebration of a heart touched by the life of Jesus Christ: joy, worship, and gift giving.
Christmas is a wonderful time with all the joys of family and friends, festivities, and fantastic food. The grandeur and celebration that surround this holiday is fitting as it commemorates the birth of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world. Yet, the Christmas story isn’t just about Jesus. His birth impacts all our lives now just as it did two thousand years ago for the first people who heard of his birth. The Christmas account in the second chapter of Matthew showcases three groups of people and how the birth of Jesus revealed their hearts, also teaching us today how Jesus’ life should affect ours.
1. Earnest Outsiders
Matthew 2 tells of unorthodox searchers for the child Jesus. “Wise men from the east came to Jerusalem” (Matt. 2:1). First of all, these “wise men” were not from the people of Israel; they were considered outsiders, and their knowledge of the Scriptures may have been limited. Their vocations were also taboo in Israel (cf.1 Sam. 28:9). In Daniel 2, they were referred to as magicians and lumped together with those interested in reading stars, understanding dreams, and those interested in the occult.[1] These men looked to natural phenomena to enlighten difficult situations.
Yet, God opened their minds to recognize the cosmic sign he had sent to declare the birth of his Son. These magi, steeped as they were in their Eastern ways, were enlightened by God’s grace to see the sign pointing to God’s love; and once their eyes were opened, they were determined to find the King of the Jews—even if it meant entering a city and posing questions to a blood thirsty tyrant. The cosmic sign only took them so far. They had to ask questions and learn from the Scriptures so that they might encounter, bow down, and worship the King.
2. Apathetic Insiders
Unlike the earnest outsiders seeking answers, boldly pursuing the good news in order to worship the King, the priests and scribes of Israel were apathetic insiders who did nothing when they heard the good news that the King of the Jews was born. The chief priests and scribes were religious leaders in Israel. They had the Jewish scriptures and they knew them well.
The people of Israel had been waiting for their King for years, and yet, the chief priests and scribes did not even voluntarily do any research when they heard that he was born. They inquired about the details of the new king at the request of Herod. Their apathy is astounding.
These are the people who were chosen by God to be his special people.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Shall We Respect the Elders?
We are all called to honor the gray hairs, to be grateful for God’s gifts to the church, and to sit at the feet of our elders with reverence, respect, and deference, like the fathers in the faith that they are. This will also teach our children, it will teach our churches, it will teach society outside the church how we deal with things: with the principle of grace, respect, forgiveness, redemption and mercy.
It can be an inglorious task to say anything about the current generation. Some concepts that would have been considered “conventional wisdom” a few years ago and wouldn’t require a lot of explanation are now under scrutiny and being reframed in an impressive and frightening exercise of deconstructing ideas that we see today.
I want to reflect on something that seemed like commonplace knowledge not so long ago, but is now under this sort of re-signification, which is the respect for the elderly.
It seems that we live in a time when the elderly represent a way of thinking and doing things that no longer works in our society (and, to our astonishment, in some churches) and therefore it is necessary to distance oneself from them (or from us). My subject is brief and I want to deal with it in the context of the Christian faith, for my concern is with the state of the church, I mean, the state of those who professes faith in Jesus Christ.
A huge number of young people from the “Z” generation, that is, people born from 1995 and on, seem to be leading a relentless patrol to everything that stands in the way of the new ethics that the so-called “woke” movement established as the immutable clause of our society. This new ethics is comprehensive and incorporates practically all the ideas that have emerged from the progressive narratives of the last 25 years that give new guidelines on what it means to live well in society. The escalation of change in core values was very fast, and, it seems it started to be implemented even more aggressively after the 2020 pandemic. From areas related to the environment to complex issues in medicine, science, politics, sexuality, psychology and religion, in short, for everything there is a new norm that does not accept any discussion. Its imposition becomes violent, whether due to the cancellation culture, very strong in the press and social media environment, or, even more dangerous, as we see in Western governments, due to the creation of new bills and jurisprudence that criminalize public opinion and the discussion of ideas. Thinking in an old-fashioned way in the 2023 can be very dangerous and even get one arrested.
It is curious, however, that the method of this new ethics takes place through the fragmentation of truth, through the end of empiricism and common wisdom and through the use of broken narratives, disconnected of a metanarrative in favor of a broad pluralism. This has been called post-truth and means that each person or social group has its own truth and values, which can never be questioned.
It is very disconcerting to realize that this trend has infiltrated the Christian church as well. Many among God’s people are strongly influenced by this new post-truth ethics and begin to confuse Christian ethics with the new (and suffocating) ideas that regulate the life of Western society in this 21st century. Alisa Childers, American Christian author, addressed this issue in her moving testimony published in book form under the title Another Gospel? A response to progressive Christianity, and also in here more recent title, Live your Truth.
But I digress. Let me get back to the point. Elders are being canceled left and right and it is happening in the church too, right under our nose. So, let me first bring the biblical principle to tackle this issue.
The fifth commandment of the Decalogue, written by God’s own hand (and spoken before His people in the Sinai) says: “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you”.
In this commandment, God’s people are called to love and obey their parents. A first and important element that must be highlighted is that the commandment is not addressed to children only, but to all who have living parents (Proverbs 19:26; 23:22). This commandment, in distinction from most commandments in the Decalogue, is put in positive terms and, furthermore, is bound up with a promise. The promise has to do with the effects of obedience. As we see in the wisdom books of the Bible, taking good advice from our parents, listening to and respecting our elders, dealing respectfully with authorities are generally attitudes that will prolong one’s days and make life easier. Add to this the fact that God himself promises to bless those who seek to keep the fifth commandment and preserve its spirit.
The expression “honor” comes from the Hebrew kabod and has a sense of weight, importance, glory and prestige. It is the respect that an inferior offers to a superior. The Westminster Larger Catechism, in question 126, proposes that the scope of the fifth commandment is the performance of those duties which we mutually owe in our several relations, as inferiors, superiors or equals.
The Reformers went even further and expanded the understanding of this commandment to all who are in authority over us—primarily and immediately our parents, but also the elderly, the magistrate, educators, and spiritual fathers. French reformer John Calvin, commenting on the fifth commandment, highlighted three expressions of honor—“reverence, obedience, and recognition”—and demonstrates how the principle of honoring parents can extend to all in position of authority: magistrates, elders, fathers in faith, pedagogues. In his elaboration, Calvin will condition this obedience to obedience “in the Lord” (Ephesians 6.1).
A very important point of the commandment is that honor, respect and consideration begin in the heart. Reverence for our parents and other authority figures should be a reflection and evidence of our honor and reverence for God in the first place.
We also read in Leviticus 19:32: “You shall stand up before the gray head and honor the face of an old man, and you shall fear your God: I am the Lord.” Proverbs 16:31 and 20:29 reinforce the teaching of Scripture that elders should be honored. This principle is there because normally the elderly are associated with maturity, experience, wisdom, and the accumulation of knowledge and a better sense of realism of life. In the Bible, the elderly are treated as a reservoir of tradition, of family history, as the living archive of a society that lives through oral tradition.
The influence of the Christian faith in the world did a good job of carrying this principle of life forward. Societies that preserve the value of respecting their elders are usually prosperous and very well organized.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Where Are All the Heretical Bishops in the Second Century?
Written by Michael J. Kruger |
Wednesday, December 29, 2021
Despite all the buzz about diversity in early Christianity, we have no reason to doubt that the mainstream church during this time period was still one that could be generally identified as “orthodox.”I’ve noticed that Michael Bird has recently posted an article on heresy and orthodoxy in early Christianity. From what I can tell (I can’t see the entire article because it’s behind the paywall), he is pushing back against the popular narrative, originally suggested by Walter Bauer in his 1934 book Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, which insists that Christianity was wildly diverse in the earliest centuries and that the heretics outnumbered the orthodox. It was not until the 3rd and 4th centuries, according to Bauer, that the orthodox began to turn the tide.
But I think there’s an additional way to test Bauer’s theory. Let’s ask a simple question: who were the bishops in second-century Christianity? If heresy was as widespread as orthodoxy, we should expect to find a number of bishops that are openly Marcionite, Ebionite, Gnostic, and beyond.
The problem for Bauer’s thesis is that this is precisely what we don’t find.
When we examine bishops from the second century we find a litany that fit nicely within the orthodox camp: Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Papias, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch, Anecitus of Rome, Polycrates of Ephesus, Victor of Rome, Demetrius of Alexandria, Melito of Sardis, Theophilus of Caesarea, and Dionysius of Corinth.
While these leaders certainly did not agree on everything, it is evident from their writings, or from historical reports about them, that there are no reasons to identify them with heterodox groups like the Marcionites, Gnostics, or Ebionites.
What is particularly noteworthy about the above list is that they represent a wide geographical range: Lyons (Gaul), Smyrna, Antioch, Hierapolis, Rome, Sardis, Ephesus, and Corinth. In other words, these orthodox leaders were not cordoned off into some small outpost of early Christianity.
Read More