Jesus’ Final Instructions to His Apostles (June 5)

The Lord’s Supper, the Lord’s People (June 24)

THE LORD’S SUPPER, THE LORD’S PEOPLE (JUNE 24) View on Website -- https://wordpoints.com/lords-supper-lords-people-june-24/ "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight" (Acts 20:7). IN THIS VERSE, WE FIND THE CHRISTIANS IN THE CHURCH AT TROAS DOING SOMETHING THAT WAS MORE IMPORTANT IN THOSE DAYS THAN MANY PEOPLE THINK IT IS TODAY. They gathered together on the first day of the week to “break bread,” which in this context is a reference to what we know appropriately as the “Lord’s Supper.” The Lord’s Supper is a partaking of unleavened bread and fruit of the vine in memory of Jesus’ death for our sins. The bread represents Christ’s body which was crucified and the fruit of the vine, the blood which He shed. It was instituted by Christ on the night before His execution (Matthew 26:26-29), and we find more teaching about it in texts like 1 Corinthians 10:16,17 and 11:17-34. IN THE ASSEMBLY. The Lord’s Supper is not a private observance. Every word spoken about it in the New Testament presumes that it is to be done when the Lord’s people have come together. EVERY LORD’S DAY. Just as it is linked to the assembly, it is also linked to the first day of the week — the Lord’s Day — that being the day of the Lord’s resurrection (Luke 24:1-3) and the day, a few weeks later, when the gospel was first preached in its completeness (Acts 2:1-4). And it was every Lord’s Day, as we infer from Acts 20:7 (see also 1 Corinthians 16:1,2; Revelation 1:10). Historically, it was sometime later before the Supper was separated from the Lord’s Day. But this essay is not meant as a general discussion of the Lord’s Supper; it is written to emphasize the connection between the Lord’s Supper and the Lord’s people. Against the argument that one may be a Christian and not have anything to do with a local congregation, this is a point that needs to be pondered. If we reject “organized” religion and adopt the “spiritual but not religious” approach, where does that leave the Lord’s Supper? It is not Christianity that we are practicing today if we don’t take seriously an observance that, in the New Testament, was so extremely important to Christians on the first day of every week. O Father, bless this solemn day, When we assemble, sing and pray, To honor Christ, Thine only Son, Who tasted death for everyone. (Craig A. Roberts) Gary Henry - WordPoints.com + AreYouaChristian.com For more information, visit http://AreYouaChristian.com

God’s Grace Is Not 'Irresistible' (June 23)

GOD’S GRACE IS NOT “IRRESISTIBLE” (JUNE 23) View on Website -- https://wordpoints.com/gods-grace-not-irresistible-june-23/ "Working together with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain" (2 Corinthians 6:1). IN THE SCRIPTURES, ONE OF THE MOST TOUCHING CHARACTERISTICS OF GOD IS THE FERVENCY WITH WHICH HE APPEALS TO HUMAN BEINGS. In many dire circumstances, God is shown pleading with people to let Him save them. But there was always a choice to be made by those needing God’s help: would they receive God’s grace or not? The basic situation of mankind is summed up well in Paul’s heartfelt exhortation to his brethren in Corinth in which he said, “We appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain.” Sadly, there are those (many of whom I admire for their sincerity) who teach that God’s grace cannot be rejected. Believing that we are born with the “original sin” of Adam’s transgression and are so depraved in our nature that we couldn’t even respond to an offer of salvation if we tried, these teachers insist that God must decide who will be saved — and those whom He decides to save, He infuses with the “enabling power” of the Holy Spirit. This grace is “irresistible” by the recipients, or so says the doctrine. God having decided who will be saved, the chosen ones do not have the power to reject the saving influence which God sends upon them. But surely, many have refused God’s efforts to win their hearts. When, for example, Jesus lamented Jerusalem’s rejection of Him (Matthew 23:37), it is woefully inadequate to say that, since they refused, it must not have really been salvation that He was offering them. As with all the concepts that are central to Calvinism, the doctrine of irresistible grace rests on a mistaken notion of God’s sovereignty. The Calvinist argues that if anyone can say no to God, that means God is not sovereign. In other words, if we can, by the exercise of our will, keep God from saving us, that means God is not all-powerful. But actually, that argument is the one which limits God. It says that God could not have decided to make creatures endowed with a free will. But that is exactly what God did when He created us. And the result is that those who accept Him, whether many or few, do so freely and lovingly — rather than under the compulsion of their “irresistible” programming. "It is a denial of the sovereignty of God to say that He could not create persons capable of freely rejecting him" (Curtis Byers). Gary Henry - WordPoints.com + AreYouaChristian.com For more information, visit http://AreYouaChristian.com

Scriptural Teaching About God’s 'Election' (June 22)

SCRIPTURAL TEACHING ABOUT GOD’S “ELECTION” (JUNE 22) View on Website -- https://wordpoints.com/scriptural-teaching-gods-election-june-22/ "Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies" (Romans 8:33). TO “ELECT” IS TO “CHOOSE.” So if we were talking about our salvation by God and we said that it’s a matter of His “election” or “choosing,” what would we mean? John Calvin (and various others before him) argued that before God created the world He chose which individuals would be saved. Yet it goes far beyond the truth concerning God’s election in Romans 8:33 to teach that God unconditionally elected some individuals to salvation. Each of these terms makes a difference. Let’s take them in reverse order: SALVATION. The Scriptures teach that, before the boys were born, God chose Jacob and not his twin brother, Esau, to father the family through whom the Messiah would come into the world (Romans 9:10-12). So yes, God did choose some persons to play specific roles in His plan to bring about salvation. But that is very different than choosing those persons to be eternally saved or lost. INDIVIDUALS. Paul spoke of the Colossians as “God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved” (3:12). Salvation is surely a matter of God’s choice, and His divine prerogative is where the emphasis should always be kept. It was God who chose whom He would save, but what He chose was a class of people defined by a criterion: the “obedience of faith” (Romans 1:5). This group is open to all who will obey. No one is barred by an eternal, unchangeable edict of God. UNCONDITIONAL. In the New Testament, people decided whether they would obey the gospel or not (Acts 2:40,41). Yet without any conditions that can be accepted or rejected, the gospel “call” is not really an invitation. Indeed, the whole enterprise of evangelism is meaningless if God has ordained who will be saved and salvation is not contingent on anyone’s decision as to the gospel’s requirements. If the Bible teaches anything about God, it teaches that He acts with justice — He “shows no partiality” (Acts 10:34). But if Calvinism is true, T. W. Brents was correct when he said that God cannot possibly be considered a fair and righteous judge. "But if the doctrine . . . is true — that before the foundation of the world was laid, according to an immutable and eternal purpose of His own, without any foresight of faith, good works, or any thing else in man, God unconditionally elected some men and angels to eternal life, and at the same time foreordained the residue to dishonor and eternal wrath — then we know not how to avoid the conclusion that He is a respecter of persons" (T. W. Brents). Gary Henry - WordPoints.com + AreYouaChristian.com For more information, visit http://AreYouaChristian.com

The Fallacy of Original Sin (June 21)

THE FALLACY OF ORIGINAL SIN (JUNE 21) View on Website -- https://wordpoints.com/fallacy-original-sin-june-21/ "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:20). IN THIS OFTEN-QUOTED TEXT, A PRINCIPLE OF GREAT IMPORTANCE IS ENUNCIATED: THE PRINCIPLE OF INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY. Our eternal destiny will be determined not by the deeds of others but by our own. As for righteousness, we won’t go to heaven just because we’re in a group of good people, and as for sin, we won’t be sentenced to death because of someone else’s ungodliness. Physically, we die as a consequence of Adam’s removal from access to the tree of life (Genesis 3:22-24). The false doctrine of Calvinistic “original sin,” however, goes much further than this. It teaches that we are all born guilty of the sin that Adam committed. Standing under the condemnation of God for what Adam did, we are in a lost spiritual condition because of our eldest forefather. If original sin were true, there is no reasonable way the principle found in Ezekiel 18:20 could be said to be valid. In the world we presently live in, it’s an obvious fact that we can be impacted by other people’s sins. Every day, people are hurt by the deeds of others, either directly or indirectly. But to say that even as infants we are guilty of Adam’s sin and are in a lost spiritual condition because of what Adam did is to make a cruel joke out of Ezekiel’s statement, “The wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” The wickedness of Adam would not only be “upon” us; it would be upon us in a much more devastating way than is ever the case when we suffer in this life as a consequence of someone else’s sin. To make matters worse, the doctrine of original sin is part of a package of other beliefs, as we will see in the next two readings. These doctrines, if true, would mean we are cosmic game pieces, moved around by a God who decides who will be saved and who will not. But thankfully, the gospel of Christ tells a different story. "Behind these errors is the long history of a misconception of the grace of God that denies man has free will, and accepts the doctrine of total hereditary depravity. The idea is that man is so depraved and wholly separated from God that without miraculous aid he can do nothing to bring about his redemption. The idea finally ends in the doctrine of preservation: once God has saved a person, He could never allow him to be lost" (Robert F. Turner). Gary Henry - WordPoints.com + AreYouaChristian.com For more information, visit http://AreYouaChristian.com

Lessons from Naaman (June 20)

LESSONS FROM NAAMAN (JUNE 20) View on Website -- https://wordpoints.com/lessons-from-naaman-june-20/ "So Naaman came with his horses and chariots and stood at the door of Elisha's house. And Elisha sent a messenger to him, saying, 'Go and wash in the Jordan seven times, and your flesh shall be restored, and you shall be clean' . . . So he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God, and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean" (2 Kings 5:9,10,14). NAAMAN WANTED TO BE CLEANSED FROM HIS LEPROSY, BUT HE DIDN’T LIKE WHAT HE WAS TOLD TO DO. When Elisha told him to dip himself in the Jordan River seven times, not only would such a menial act have been a blow to his pride, but he would not have seen any logical connection between the command and the benefit he hoped to receive. So he balked. But when his servants persuaded him to humble himself and obey Elisha, “his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.” If we’re honest, we probably see something of ourselves in Naaman. If God were to require of us something grand and glorious, our obedience would be prompt. And if we think we see why God would require something (the instruction “makes sense” to us), we are willing to go along with Him. But when God commands things that seem lowly, arbitrary, or irrational, we dismiss those items as “works” only a legalist would view as “required.” The fact is, it takes humility as well as trust to do things God’s way. If we only obey when it suits us and when the act commends itself to our sense of logic, we are not really obeying God — we are doing as we please. And such self-will is what got us into trouble in the first place. If God is ever going to be allowed back on the throne of our hearts, obedience is the thing we must learn. Naaman’s obedience certainly did not earn him the cleansing of his leprosy. It had no “merit” that would cure him. But there is no denying this: if he had not been humble enough to accept the conditions that were stipulated, his leprosy would have remained. An old adage says, “Understanding can wait; obedience cannot.” Abraham wouldn’t have understood why he should offer up Isaac, Noah wouldn’t have understood what a flood was, and Israel wouldn’t have understood going in circles around Jericho. But it was in their obedience that God would have started making sense to them. "Obedience is the key that unlocks the door to every profound spiritual experience" (Dorothy Kerin). Gary Henry - WordPoints.com + AreYouaChristian.com For more information, visit http://AreYouaChristian.com