If a body of Christians were trying to discern how often the Lord’s Supper should be observed and were therefore seeking guidance by examining evidence that might indicate what the normative practice was among the earliest Christians (as to how often communion ought to be taken), what would they find?
Continue reading On the Frequency of CommunionAll posts by bobmccollough
Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?
Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?[1]
By Clement of Alexandria
I. People who praise & flatter the rich are rightly judged as despicable men-pleasers, but they are also godless and treacherous. They are godless, because neglecting to praise and glorify God, they heap divine honors upon men who live detestable lifestyles and who, as a result, are subject to the condemnation of God. They are treacherous, because even though wealth alone can puff up & corrupt the souls of its possessors and turn them aside from the path of salvation, these flattering men-pleasers stupefy the rich even more by inflating their minds with the pleasures of extravagant praises, and by making them utterly despise all things except wealth—on account of which they are admired. Praising the rich brings fire to fire, pours pride upon pride, and adds conceit to wealth—thus adding a heavier burden to that which is already by nature a weight, a portion of which should rather be removed and taken away as being a dangerous & deadly disease. Because for those who exalt and magnify themselves, a change and downfall to a low condition will surely follow just as the Scriptures teach. Therefore, it appears to me to be far kinder—rather than to hatefully flatter the rich and praise them for what is bad—to aid the rich in working out their salvation in every possible way. We should ask for God’s assistance with this, who will surely and sweetly help His own children. Whosoever attains to the truth in this matter and obtains this grace and thus distinguishes himself in good works shall gain the prize of everlasting life.
Continue reading Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?The Historical Perversion of Baptism
THE HISTORICAL PERVERSION[1] OF BAPTISM
A person only needs to read the New Testament in order to see that as the church originally practiced water baptism, it was only believers who were being baptized. Those who claim to use Scripture alone as a guide to faith and doctrine and yet argue that the N.T. evidence is such that it also allows infants as being proper recipients of baptism try to prove their arguments by using uncertain Scriptural proofs combined with theological “justifications” that are not in accord with the Scriptural meaning or purpose of baptism. Lasting unity will never be achieved on this issue unless we are willing to put aside everything but the words of God to determine truth and cease to teach as doctrines the commandments of men. The practice of infant baptism cannot be established on the authority of Scripture alone, and as demonstrated in the footnote below, the case commonly made by appealing to the “household” texts (Acts 11:14; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16; 2 Tim 1:16; 4:19) does not stand up to an examination of the texts themselves[2] and neither does it stand up to the test of reason.[3]
But as we seek to discern baptism’s original purpose, when we examine both the N.T. and a few quotations from the 2nd century Christians dealing with baptism’s purpose, we see that both sources agree that originally, people were being baptized in order to have their sins washed away (Acts 22:16), to get into Christ (Rom 6:3), to put on Christ (Gal 3:27), to be added to the church (Acts 2:41) or to be placed into the one body (1 Cor 12:13), to receive initial salvation (Mark 16:16, 1 Pet 3:21, Tit 3:5), to be buried with Christ and raised with Him (Rom 6:3-4; Col 2:12), to obtain initial forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38[4]), and it was closely linked with receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38, John 3:5, Tit 3:5, etc.) as well as initial justification and initial sanctification (1 Cor 6:11)—and that is just to mention a few of baptism’s more obvious Scriptural purposes. Paul did not minimize baptism[5] and neither did any of the other early Christians who were considered to be orthodox. In fact, the earliest Christians believed that, in the normal course of things, the salvation process was not complete without water baptism. And they often used very strong language in refuting those (like the Gnostics) who said differently—even going so far as to speak of them as being heretics, apostates, and unbelievers. Here are a couple examples taken from The Ante-Nicene Fathers collection[6]:
Continue reading The Historical Perversion of BaptismArticle on Divorce from the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity
Divorce: Dissolution of Marriage
(A short, but accurate 800-word article found in the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity[1]; all bolding is mine.)
The attitude of ecclesiastical authors of the first Christian centuries toward divorce is of great importance, for they were the closest heirs of the thought of the apostles and they lived in a period like our own, when the civil law accepted divorce and divorce was commonplace among the upper classes. Tertullian, at the end of the second century, contrasts the first 600 years of Roman history, when there was not a single divorce, with the morals of his own time, when women “long for divorce as though it were the natural consequence of marriage” (Apol. 6).
Continue reading Article on Divorce from the Encyclopedia of Early ChristianityThe Biblical & the Early Christian Position on Divorce & Remarriage
By examining the Biblical & the early Christian historical evidence that is provided in the body of this article (and in the many endnotes), the reader will quickly discern that most professing churches in existence today are no longer teaching these precepts, if they ever did to begin with. If a person would seek to deny that the church has drifted away (Heb 2:1) from the truth on this issue, although they might choose to interpret the relevant Scripture passages a bit differently than how they are interpreted in this article, it is very difficult to ignore or deny what the historical evidence demonstrates.
Continue reading The Biblical & the Early Christian Position on Divorce & RemarriageSerious Thoughts Upon the Perseverance of the Saints
By John Wesley[1]
1. Many large volumes have been already published on this important subject. But the very length of them makes them hard to be understood, or even purchased, by common readers. A short, plain treatise on this subject is what serious men have long desired, and what is here offered to those whom God has endowed with love and meekness of wisdom.
2. By the saints, I understand, those who are holy or righteous in the judgment of God himself; those who are endued with the faith that purifies the heart, that produces a good conscience; those who are grafted into the good olive-tree, the spiritual, invisible Church; those who are branches of the true vine, of whom Christ says, “I am the vine, you are the branches; [Jn 15:5a]” those who so effectually know Christ, as by that knowledge to have escaped the pollutions of the world; those who see the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, and who have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost, of the witness and the fruits of the Spirit; those who live by faith in the Son of God; those who are sanctified by the blood of the covenant; those to whom all or any of these descriptions belong, I mean by the term saints.
3. Can any of these fall away? By falling away, we mean, not merely falling into sin. This, it is granted, they may. But can they fall totally? Can any of these so fall from God as to perish everlastingly?
Continue reading Serious Thoughts Upon the Perseverance of the SaintsInterview with Dr. Leslie McFall on Matthew 19:9
This is a discussion of Divorce & Remarriage, focusing on the so-called “exception clause” of Matthew 19:9. It was originally recorded on 20 March 2010 with TalkShoe and was entitled “Covenant Warriors—MARRIAGE IS FOR LIFE.” Made available by Timothy Sparks @ Dr. McFall: Audio of Matthew 19:9 | Learning from God’s Word (timothysparks.com)
Christ Did Not Send Me to Baptize
There is an unfortunate trend that is popular among professing Christians these days where so-called Christians aggressively deny & preach against the expressly stated purposes of Christian baptism as they are found in the pages of the New Testament. Professing Christians brazenly & openly dare to oppose, devalue and disparage the very ordinance ordained by Jesus to enroll people in the school of Christ (Matt 28:18-20)! But God gave this “sacramental-ordinance” to the Church for us to USE it–and we are to use it for the purposes for which God has clearly stated and meant it to be used for. Does the New Testament teach that baptism is merely for looks or for show? Is baptism of any real importance according to the New Testament? Are we safe to just dispense with it altogether? Did the apostles place a high value on it or did they devalue it?
Continue reading Christ Did Not Send Me to BaptizeGay Church?
Lest this article come across as “gay-bashing” or “hate-speech,” some introductory words are in order before getting to the main content that is to be put forward for the reader’s examination. Much to the credit of the lesbians & homosexuals in the LGBTQ ‘community’ (and to the everlasting shame of the so-called ‘Bible-believing’ churches), the gay community is not unaware of the hypocrisy and partiality that is being shown in so many ‘conservative, Bible-believing’ churches concerning the types of sexual sin that are allowed to be practiced by those with whom they maintain communion. The LGBTQ ‘community’ is fully aware that many heterosexual members of these churches (including their ‘pastors’ and ‘spiritual leaders’) are living in sexual sin. They know that the modern church has basically become a whorehouse and that most ‘Bible-believing’ churches are willing to tolerate heterosexual sin, and that the heterosexual ‘Bible-believing’ Christians conveniently excuse their brand of sexual sin by employing sayings such as, “we’re all sinners” or “nobody’s perfect,” etc. But the ‘gay’ community also knows that many of these churches suddenly become very willing to take a stand for holiness and to resort to the much neglected, age-old practice known as church discipline whenever one of their regular attenders enters a lesbian or homosexual relationship. In short, the gay community knows that these so-called Bible-believing churches purposely exercise partiality concerning dealing with sexual sin in the lives of those who attend their gatherings.
Continue reading Gay Church?How We Worship Vs. How We Live
Many Christian preachers & ministers make a habit of exhorting people to “go to church.” They will often appeal to Hebrews 10:25 to stress that it is the duty of every professing Christian to regularly attend “worship services,” and to warn the flock about the sin of “forsaking the assembly.” And I certainly agree that we should be intentional about seeking the fellowship of other Christians! But the problem that I see with these preachers who show so much concern for professing Christians “forsaking the assembly” is that when the flock has gathered together, many of these same preachers will confidently tell all their hearers that “we’re all sinners” (who supposedly can’t stop sinning), and that “God does not accept us on the basis of anything we do, but only on the basis of what Jesus has already done. And He has already done all that is necessary! After all, Jesus clearly said, ‘It is finished!’ (John 19:30).” But is this message Biblically accurate? And does such a message amount to “wholesome words” (1 Tim 6:3), or does it amount to paving the way to hell?
Continue reading How We Worship Vs. How We Live