| Author | Message | ||
| Denisegilmore Registered user Username: Denisegilmore Post Number: 154 Registered: 10-2000 |
REFLECTIONS by Al Maxey Issue #166 ------- January 3, 2005 ************************** It is a custom more honor'd in the breach than the observance. William Shakespeare (1564-1616) Hamlet ************************** Conforming to Jewish Custom Did Paul Sin by Yielding to the Advice of James and the Jerusalem Elders? It was the spring of 58 AD. Paul had earlier bid a tearful farewell to the elders from Ephesus at the port city of Miletus. He had chosen to "sail past Ephesus in order that he might not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hurrying to be in Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost" (Acts 20:16). After kneeling and praying with them, they then accompanied him to the ship. Several weeks later, and after repeated warnings from inspired prophets that he would face imprisonment at his final destination, Paul arrived in the city of Jerusalem where he was received by the brethren with great gladness (Acts 21:17). Paul wasted no time setting up a meeting with James, the brother of our Lord Jesus, and the Jerusalem elders, at which time he "began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry" (Acts 21:19). The past several years had been a very successful period of ministry for Paul. Through a series of three separate missionary journeys he had proclaimed the gospel of God's grace to countless men and women throughout many nations. The church had been established in numerous cities, and the borders of Christ's kingdom had been expanded to the glory of God the Father. Although a great many Jews had been converted to Christ Jesus, Paul was especially successful in bringing the Gentiles into the One Flock. When James and the elders of Jerusalem heard this report, "they began glorifying God" (vs. 20a). Posing the Problem to Paul James and the Jerusalem elders were concerned, however. Paul's presence in Jerusalem at this time posed a potential for serious turmoil among some of the believing Jews, many of whom had yet to fully appreciate the fullness of their freedom in Christ Jesus. It especially posed a problem among those of the non-Christian Jewish community, who were very much opposed to the "traitorous" exploits of this former Pharisee on behalf of this Jesus he proclaimed to be the Messiah. Many of these non-believing Jews continued to harass their fellow Jews who had accepted Jesus. Thus, James and the elders said to Paul, "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law" (vs. 20b). Paul could certainly identify with this strong sentiment, as he himself had previously been "advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions" (Gal. 1:14). To the saints in the city of Philippi Paul wrote that he was, "as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless" (Philp. 3:5-6). Paul could certainly "bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge" (Rom. 10:2). Seeking justification, sanctification and salvation through the avenue of law, custom and tradition was a path destined to lead those who walked it to certain ruin. Paul had become the chief proponent of Truth over Tradition, Christ over Custom, Liberty over Law. Now, years later, he finds himself back in the city of Jerusalem, faced with the reality that countless Jews who have come to Christ Jesus are still "zealous for the Law," with a good many more Jews who not only were zealous for the Law, but who were also zealous in their opposition to Jesus Christ. Paul had his work cut out for him, as did these concerned leaders from the church in Jerusalem. Word would soon get out that Paul was in town, and everyone knew what a controversial figure Paul had become. Things could get out of hand very quickly. Paul was a proclaimer of freedom in Christ, and thus was not viewed favorably by those still steeped in legalism. Those who were still bound to Law would soon begin informing the populace, as well as these Jewish Christians who still had loyalties to Law, that Paul, the "liberal troublemaker," had come to corrupt their faith with his "false teaching," as well as defaming and defiling Judaism. Indeed, James and the elders warned Paul of this --- these Jews zealous for the Law "have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs" (vs. 21). Isn't it interesting how such persons are quick to distort one's true teachings, and, in the process, seek to defame one's character and ministry?! Such have always been the tactics of those who would oppose responsible change, and who seek to defend the "old paths" of their tradition. They stirred up the crowds against Jesus with such twisted tales; they roused the rabble against Stephen with similar lies; and now they are once again seeking to defame Paul with such distortions. I suppose we should not feel too badly when it happens to us, "for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you" (Matt. 5:12). We're in good company! The spiritual leaders in the Jerusalem church were concerned that Paul's presence would be the source of serious problems. After informing him of the situation, they said, "What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come!" (vs. 22). It's interesting to note that although they pose this question to Paul, they don't wait for his response. They immediately inform him of the "solution." In other words, they had discussed this whole scenario long before Paul ever arrived in Jerusalem. One can just imagine the "brain storming" that must have gone on in their meetings prior to Paul's arrival. "He's on his way here! The non-believing Jews are going to have a fit! The legalistic believers are going to be stirred up! What are we going to do?!" In these meetings they had devised a plan. "Therefore, do what we tell you" (vs. 23). Initially, they ask Paul "What is to be done?," and then in the very next breath they say, "Do what we tell you." In short, this had already been worked out to their satisfaction; a plan had finally come together, and if Paul would just put it into action, all would be well ... or so they hoped. Essentially, it was an effort to appease Jerusalem's non-believing Jews, as well as those still zealous for Law within the church, by projecting the appearance to both groups that Paul was still "one of them," at least in some key areas regarding law and tradition. "As they saw it, they were providing Paul with a way of protecting himself against a slanderous accusation floating about that he was teaching Jews to apostatize from Judaism" (The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 9, p. 520). "It was freely rumored among the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem that Paul not only refused to impose the requirements of the Jewish law on his Gentile converts, but that he had actually dissuaded Jewish believers, it was being said, from continuing to practice their ancestral customs, which had been handed down from Moses: he even encouraged them to give up circumcising their sons. It would take more than a verbal assurance to convince the myriad 'zealots for the law' in the Jerusalem church --- probably a description of those 'of the sect of the Pharisees who believed' (Acts 15:5) --- that they had been misinformed" (Dr. F.F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts, p. 430). Presenting the Plan to Paul The plan which was presented to Paul that day is outlined for us in Acts 21:23b-24 --- "There are four men with us who have made a vow. Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the Law." The identity and nature of this vow has been the subject of some speculation among scholars, but the vast majority feel it was most likely the Nazirite Vow. The particulars of this dedicatory vow can be read in Numbers 6. Some of the wording of our text in Acts 21 lends itself very readily to this interpretation, which a comparison of the two readings will quickly reveal. The fulfillment of this vow, however, required certain ritual acts be performed and certain animal and grain offerings be made at the temple. Some believe that engaging in such activities is in direct conflict with the Christian faith, and thus they regard Paul's yielding to James and the elders as sinful. To the dismay of many brethren today, Paul agreed to the proposed plan. "The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them" (Acts 21:26). Thus, we find the apostle Paul, that leader in the church against legalism, going to the temple and seemingly submitting to LAW .... even apparently participating, to some degree, in the offering up of animal sacrifices, or at least paying for such. Needless to say, Paul's example here has troubled many, with some declaring it to be nothing less than a betrayal of the gospel message. Reflecting Upon Paul's Actions Brother W. Terry Varner, in a newsletter called Bible Light (published by Frank Starling out of Paducah, Kentucky, an acquaintance of Gobel Music, who wrote Behold the Pattern some years back), penned an article titled "Did Paul Err In Keeping The Law?" (July/August, 2004, p. 6-7). In this article the author takes the position that not only Paul, but also James and the Jerusalem elders, committed SIN in the sight of God by returning to the observance of Law. Varner wrote, "I do not see HOW one can conclude anything other than Paul sinned in keeping the Law in Acts 21:20-36." He further noted, "I do not believe what James suggested and what Paul did, under the circumstances, even if they believed themselves to be correct, was correct in God's sight." Varner declares that these men "compromised their faith." Bro. Varner was additionally concerned with how Paul's compliance with the terms of this vow would impact his observance (or lack thereof) of the Lord's Supper. One of the conditions of the Nazirite Vow was that during the "days of purification" one must refrain from drinking wine (the fruit of the vine). "When a man or woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to dedicate himself to the Lord, he shall abstain from wine and strong drink ... neither shall he drink any grape juice, nor eat fresh or dried grapes. All the days of his separation he shall not eat anything that is produced by the grape vine, from the seeds even to the skin" (Numbers 6:2-4). "Afterward the Nazirite may drink wine" (Numbers 6:20). If indeed this was a Nazirite Vow in Acts 21, as most believe it to have been, then during the period of purification (which Josephus indicates was customarily a period of 30 days) Paul and these four brethren would have been forbidden by the Law of Moses to partake of the cup in the Lord's Supper. Terry Varner wrote, "Would one reason from this that Paul and the four forsook the Lord's Supper for the 30 days? To me this is a real problem." This just compounds the SIN of Paul and these men, according to Varner. On the other hand, Varner suggests that if Paul went ahead and observed the Lord's Supper during this time when he was supposed to be refraining from consuming the fruit of the vine in any form, then he was still guilty of sin, for he was in violation of the laws governing the Nazirite Vow. Either way, he sinned, suggests Varner --- "If Paul took the Lord's Supper and at the same time was a participant in the Nazirite Vow of the four men and did not sin, I have real problems in understanding how he, and they, could do it." It has also been suggested however, that these men were near the end of their 30 day purification period, and that Paul merely took part, either directly or indirectly, in the final stages of this process. This whole scenario with Paul and these four Jewish believers, who were "zealous for the Law," does seem to pose a difficult doctrinal dilemma. What are we to make of the request of James and these elders? What are we to make of Paul's apparent willing compliance with such a request from them? Did Paul sin? Did James and the elders from the Jerusalem church sin? Was this an abominable lapse in judgment on the part of these otherwise giants of faith? Is Paul's credibility now on the line? Is his teaching and theology now to be called into question? Isn't this completely inconsistent with all his previous doctrine, firmly and boldly delivered, with regard to the preeminence of grace over law? Should the epistle to the Galatians, which was written almost a decade prior to this event, now be cast from the canon as invalid? These are critical questions, and not a few scholars, as well as lay people, down through the ages have asked them. One of the readers of these Reflections from the great state of South Carolina recently wrote, "I would be interested in seeing your analysis of this passage. It is very controversial in many of our assemblies." Indeed it is. Thus, I believe some responsible, and prayerful, reflection is called for! There are two major concerns over the example of the apostle Paul (not to mention James and the elders) in this account from Acts 21 --- (1) That Paul may have sinned by engaging in a Jewish form of worship or service, and (2) there is an almost pathological terror on the part of the patternists that Paul might NOT have sinned by his actions! The ultra-conservative factions within the church are especially concerned over the latter possibility as it seems to suggest, they fear, one may "cross party parameters" with the apparent approval of God. This, of course, would be a death blow to their separatist, isolationist policies of exclusion of all but those who adhere to their own narrow, patternistic perceptions and practices. It is little wonder, then, that they must find a way to condemn Paul's actions in no uncertain terms! To approve them would prove fatal to their dogma. W. Terry Varner, in the article alluded to above, expressed this fear by noting that Paul's actions "have the beginnings of an argument of our being able to associate and mingle with denominationalism." He reasons that if "Paul and the early Christians could do what they did in the text," with no apparent disapproval of this act anywhere in the NT documents, "we could then mingle and involve ourselves," with equal approval, with those of differing convictions and practices today. "If not, why not?!" (Bible Light, July/August, 2004, p. 7). The reader from South Carolina expressed a similar conviction to me in his recent email --- "This passage from Acts was an epiphany to me about ten years ago when I realized that devout, believing Christians could engage in religious services and/or activities of other 'denominations,' even if they did not fully endorse them or believe them to be 'correct' or 'Scriptural.' It is hard for a converted Catholic to toss away the rosary beads, and I doubt a converted Jew or Muslim would eat a ham sandwich at one of our fellowship meals -- neither should we think they MUST just because they now recognize Jesus as their Savior." It is important to note that nowhere in the context of Acts 21, or anywhere else in the NT documents, is this action by Paul, or the advice by the leaders in Jerusalem, condemned. Indeed, there is not even a hint in the biblical record that this event was in any way viewed with disfavor by either God, His inspired writers, or the church. All of which proves even more discomforting and disconcerting to those who must prove it "sinful" in order to maintain their separatist dogma. It is my conviction that Paul, as a Christian, engaged in a Jewish practice at the temple involving animal and grain offerings, and that he did so with God's full approval and without sin. The question that must be addressed, therefore, is how was he able to "return to the law and customs of the Old Covenant" without violating the spirit of the New Covenant or contradicting his teachings regarding grace and law? I believe the answer to be quite simple. The Solution The solution to this apparent dilemma is that Paul, as well as the spiritual leaders of the early church, and many of the members as well, saw no problem with Jewish believers continuing to observe certain aspects of their previous religious tradition, as long as these customs, traditions and lawful practices of the Old Covenant did NOT supplant the atoning work or sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and as long as they were not observed and practiced for the purpose of acquiring or maintaining justification or salvation. If they were merely actions designed to display love and reverence toward their God, or in some way to help them in their walk with Him, then such actions were not condemned. In other words, many of the former customs and lawful practices of the Old Covenant were not forbidden to the Jews who had embraced Christ Jesus, they were merely no longer necessary. Nevertheless, they were NOT sinful if engaged in by these Jews, as long as they understood their lack of efficacy in the process of justification and salvation. Circumcision, for example. Many of the Jewish believers continued to circumcise their children after the custom and law of the Old Covenant. Was this a sin?! Not necessarily! It could be, if one insisted that one must engage in this practice in order to be saved, as the Judaizers insisted. "And some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved'" (Acts 15:1; cf. vs. 24). Peter certainly fell into sin as a result of "fearing the party of the circumcision" (Gal. 2:12), and Paul had to rebuke him. Yet, on the other hand, Paul took Timothy and "circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts" (Acts 16:3). Was this inconsistent with his teaching? Did Paul sin by engaging in this OT act? Of course not .... because he didn't do it for the purpose of either justification or salvation, but merely to avoid placing a stumbling block in the path of those he sought to evangelize. "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing" (1 Cor. 7:19). "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything" (Gal. 5:6). "For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision" (Gal. 6:15). Under our freedom in Christ Jesus, such previous acts of the Old Covenant are no longer spiritually significant with respect to justification and salvation. However, they are not specifically forbidden; they are simply spiritually neutral. The same is true of many practices under the Old Covenant -- instrumental music, incense, fasting, observing Pentecost (which Paul was hastening to Jerusalem to observe, by the way), or even certain offerings associated with the temple worship. These had nothing to do with one's salvation, but neither were they customs or laws which jeopardized one's standing with God, as long as one kept them in perspective. If Paul was guilty of a "return to Law" in Acts 21, with regard to the conditions of a Nazirite Vow, then he was also guilty of a return to law in Acts 16, with regard to the circumcision of Timothy. Scripture makes no such assertion against Paul, however. Neither shall I. When one truly perceives the purpose and motivation for Paul's actions, and when one keeps such customs, traditions and lawful acts in their proper perspective, one will quickly discern that NO sinfulness exists. These are neutral acts, in and of themselves. Guilt can only be assessed in such cases when one's intent violates given principles and precepts of our Father. Paul was not wrong, for example, in circumcising Timothy so as not to cause a stumbling block to those Jews whom he sought to evangelize; the Judaizers, however, were wrong for associating circumcision with salvation, and for seeking to bind their conviction upon others. Freedom in Christ allows us to engage in such activities, but that same freedom forbids us to bind such activities upon others. Romans 14 is a marvelous commentary on the application of this principle in the church. Paul, throughout his ministry, sought to show the Jews "that their ceremonies were useless, but not destructive; that they were only dangerous when they depended on them for salvation" (Adam Clarke, Clarke's Commentary, vol. 5, p. 860). With regard to the four men under a vow (Acts 21), Clarke observes, "Had they done this in order to acquire justification through the Law, Paul could not have assisted them in any measure with a clear conscience; but, as he did assist them, it is a proof that they had not taken this vow on them for this purpose" (ibid). Brother J.W. McGarvey wrote that Paul "never lost sight of the distinction between that which we are at liberty to do for the sake of others, and that which we are bound to do in order to obey God" (Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, p. 207). Paul, therefore, "found no fault with the Jews who continued the observances of the law; instead he had only tried to convince them that the observance was no longer binding on their consciences" (ibid). The legalists, on the other hand, "held these observances to be matters of duty, while Paul held them to be matters of indifference" (ibid). Thus, Paul "denied their necessity to the salvation of souls" (H. Leo Boles, A Commentary on Acts of the Apostles, p. 340). Brother Boles correctly observes, "Since the law of Moses contained some ceremonial rites, these could be observed for the sake of peace and harmony without violating" any of God's precepts or principles (ibid, p. 342). Paul's freedom in Christ "allowed him both to observe the Law and not to observe it, as expediency might dictate, because he regarded it as no longer necessary to salvation" (The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 18). He himself would write to the saints in Corinth, "To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under law, as under law, though not being myself under law, that I might win those who are under law" (1 Cor. 9:20). "And I do all things for the sake of the gospel" (vs. 23). Paul considered himself free to observe certain aspects of the Mosaic Law, although he did not regard himself as being under that law. Thus, one's freedom does indeed allow one to mingle with those of differing convictions, even participating with them, and yet to do so without sin. Thus, it is not surprising to find even Paul himself, on an occasion previous to the one in Acts 21, apparently taking a Nazirite Vow --- "In Cenchrea he had his hair cut, for he was keeping a vow" (Acts 18:18). Was this also a sinful act on Paul's part? Of course not! Those who say it is, say far more than Scripture does! They speak where God has not ... for God has not declared it to be a sinful action. Thus, by what authority do we? Conclusion Did Paul sin when he followed the advice of James and the Jerusalem elders? Absolutely NOT. "He cannot be fairly charged with a compromise of his own gospel principles. On the contrary, he was acting in strict accordance with his own stated policy in 1 Cor. 9:20. A truly emancipated spirit such as Paul's is not in bondage" (Dr. F.F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts, p. 432). "The ancestral customs were to him religiously indifferent" (ibid). "The practical lesson, therefore," according to The Pulpit Commentary, is that such observance of laws and customs and traditions "is lawful and right, provided no essential truth is sacrificed" (vol. 18). And no essential truth was sacrificed or compromised by Paul's actions. There is application for us today in this instructive example of the apostle Paul. There are many areas of law, custom, and tradition, even aspects of the Old Covenant, that we may observe today without sin. The only dangers associated with such is that we may, in time, tend to view them as necessary to our justification or salvation, and/or that we may try to bind such a false conviction upon others, even severing fellowship with them if they should happen to differ with us. Otherwise, we are free in Christ in such matters, and are neither the better nor the worse for observing, or choosing not to observe, such customs, traditions and laws. A perfect contemporary example is instrumental music as an accompaniment or aid to our singing in a corporate assembly of believers who are lifting up their voices in praise to the Father. We know for a fact that such was approved by God under the Old Covenant (even commanded), however some legalists claim that we must never employ any aspect of that former covenant today. I believe Paul's example shows this premise to be false. I am free to employ it, or not to employ it, as I choose. I am NOT free to try and bind it upon others. It is not a condition of salvation, and thus I don't make it one. But, on those occasions when I have been asked to speak to a group of believers of a different faith-heritage, I have no problem whatsoever in singing praises in their assembly with instrumental accompaniment. I am there to elevate Christ in my message, NOT argue over differing personal practices and preferences. I become all things to all people that I might win some to JESUS. Whether "Bertha tinkles the ivories" in the background or not is completely irrelevant! Sadly, however, "There will always be a party of irreconcilables" (The Pulpit Commentary, vol. 18). "Where there is an arrogant assumption of infallibility, and an overbearing spirit of domination, men prefer the forcing of their own opinion upon others to an equitable compromise, and they love subjugation more than peace" (ibid). There is a spirit of sectarian intolerance alive and well in the One Body, and it is keeping brethren separated from one another. We have divided ourselves into warring camps of contentious contenders for our own narrow perception of "the faith once for all delivered." We have formed countless feuding factions, when we should be promoting family. The cause of this shameful condition is that we have too often sought uniformity of sect, rather than unity of Spirit. Paul knew the difference between essentials and non-essentials, and it expanded the parameters of his fellowship. If only more today could perceive that same truth. ******************** Reflections on CD The 2003 and 2004 archives of my Reflections are now available on two special CD's in your choice of two different formats (HTML or MS Word). To acquire your very own permanent copy of all these in-depth biblical studies for your library (or to give as a gift to a friend or loved one, as several readers have done), go to the URL below for information on how to order: www.zianet.com/maxey/offercd.htm ******************** Reflections from Readers From a Minister in New Mexico: I am greatly impressed with your Reflections, especially Issue #162 -- Evangelizing the Enslaved -- in which you wrote about the need to break the bonds of sectarian slavery. I wrote a book which brought to full view the very sectarian slavery you mentioned. I am now in the process of writing another book showing the sting and bitter opposition that comes from brethren when we leave the "religious box" where they seek to keep us. In this book I have tried to be as kind and gracious as possible with those who have tried to destroy me and ruin my influence. I have a stack of letters from Christians who have helped me, such as Carl Ketcherside, Reuel Lemmons, and many from Leroy Garrett. I have eight chapters written for this book thus far, and hope you may wish to take a look at the manuscript. If so, I'll make a copy available for you to see. I would most definitely like to preview what you have written. Thank you for the offer. Also, may I applaud your efforts to expose to the light those who are keeping the people of God in bondage. When one seeks to evangelize the enslaved and liberate those held captive by patternists, factionists and sectarians, one will come under an immediate and almost incomprehensible assault. Those who hold the people of God captive to their own theological whims present themselves as "angels of light," but inwardly they are filled with the vile, vicious venom of that Serpent of old: Satan. They are a sly, slithering horde who will one day experience their much deserved final destruction. Until then, they will continue to hiss and spit at all who proclaim God's glorious grace. Remain faithful, brother. The Lord needs courageous warriors if those in bondage are ever to know freedom. --- Al Maxey From a Reader in North Carolina: Al, you wrote, "I'm thankful that such sermons as this one preached by Jonathan Edwards are a rarity in the church today." To that I say a hearty AMEN! However, you and I, as well as many other loyal readers of Reflections, know that many of our narrow-minded brethren continue to feel, even to this day, just as Edwards did, and more than a few still preach it. Growing up, I was consistently bombarded with the teaching that the least little mistake would condemn me to a torturous hell if not quickly confessed and repented of. Often I would lie awake at night and wonder what I had done or said or even thought during the day that I needed to repent of and ask God to forgive. I lived in constant fear that the trumpet would sound at any moment and I would be found lacking and thus would awaken in the flames of hell. However, I now know that I no longer have to live in fear of the Judgment. Thanks be to God! From a Minister/Elder in New Jersey: Hanging Helplessly Over Hell was another insightful Reflections. I agree that faith from fear is not a faith that recognizes what Jesus Christ called the two greatest commandments. Running from Hell is not nearly the motivator as what God has given, and promises to give, to those who run to Him. When we can say like Paul that to die would be gain, then we are evidencing our excited anticipation of the Glory that draws us to the light beyond the end of day. From a Reader in Canada: Al, my wife and I are regular readers of your Reflections. In today's article, you mention that fear, as a motivating factor in conversion, is unfounded. I must take exception to your conclusion. You are wrong. I myself am a testimony to the efficacy of warning people of God's wrath to be taken out on the unbeliever. This is truly a frightening thought and ought to be trumpeted from the pulpits along with the Good News. There is a flip side, and I believe that not enough time is spent on the Bad News. Some people need very much to hear about the consequences of spurning God's great and gracious offer. There are people who very much need to hear about the unpleasant side of God's nature. We are not all motivated by syrupy teaching. Some of us need a little salt rubbed into the wound in order to sit up and take notice. I believe that we have, in our attempt to balance the scales, gone too far in relegating the doctrine of hell to a bland and anemic joke in the halls of spiritual academia. Spiritual liberalism has crept into the church, I'm sorry to say. You will probably disagree with much, if not all, that I have said here, but we are free to differ and still be brothers. At the very least, I trust that you will prayerfully ponder what I have expressed. God bless you, Al. I do not entirely disagree with your points. We must indeed present a balanced message to those who are lost (as well as to the saved). "Behold then the kindness and severity of God" (Rom. 11:22). Yes, we do no favors to the lost, nor to the apathetic brother, if we do not impress upon them the fearful consequences of persisting in their condition. On the other hand, I do not believe fear and terror are healthy motivations for becoming a child of God, nor for remaining in that relationship. If a child submits to his father out of sheer terror of him, he may indeed manifest obedience, but it is nevertheless a sick relationship. Time and time again, in both OT and NT, the people are told, "Be not afraid; Be ye not fearful!" The heavenly Father does not desire a "household" filled with terrified children who are there more out of fear of hell than love of heaven! Yes, some do indeed grow out of fear into love, but this is the exception rather than the norm. We must indeed present both sides, as was suggested, but when we motivate people to embrace the Father it ought to be out of LOVE, not TERROR. The latter is simply not the proper motivation for coming to Christ, nor for remaining in that relationship. The aged apostle John tells us that "there is no fear in love" ... "fear hath torment" (KJV) ... "the one who fears is not perfected in love" (1 John 4:18). A little child tormented by fear in the house of his father is a pathetic sight indeed. This is not God's desire for His children, whether it be in their motivation for seeking Him out or in their motivation for staying! We do Him and them no lasting favors by proclaiming and promoting such! I just watched a two hour special on the History Channel titled "Hell: The Devil's Domain." It was quite interesting! It is amazing the lengths men have gone to in order to terrify people into the arms of the Lord. It even had a segment on Jonathan Edward's sermon. It seems to me that LOVE is a far better motivation! --- Al Maxey From a Ministry Leader in California: Brother Al, As eloquent as Jonathan Edwards undoubtedly was, I still think Christ's message of "Sinners in the Hands of a LOVING God" is much more pleasing, persuasive, and powerful than "hanging helplessly over hell" -- (great alliteration, by the way). The concept of eternal damnation for those who reject God certainly has an important place in the gospel message, but it's a terrible way to begin a discussion of God's love for man! I think we're always better off sticking with Christ's approach instead of man's approach. From a Missionary in Columbia: Dear Al, I am a missionary to Colombia. Please subscribe me to your weekly Reflections. I like these kinds of studies, and have enjoyed the things of yours I have read. From a Reader in California: Dear Al, Your help in times past has been so gratefully appreciated. I have told everyone I can at church, and even outside of church, about your web site. My minister said he has been reading your articles and agrees whole-heartedly with all you have said, and also the manner in which you approach each topic. ******************** If you would like to be removed from or added to this mailing list, contact me and I will immediately comply. If you are challenged by these Reflections, then feel free to send them on to others and encourage them to write for a free subscription. I would also welcome any questions or comments from the readers. A CD containing these articles may be purchased. Check the ARCHIVES for details & past issues of Reflections: http://www.zianet.com/maxey/Reflect2.htm | ||
| Denisegilmore Registered user Username: Denisegilmore Post Number: 155 Registered: 10-2000 |
And I meant to mention that nobody is on a mailing list on the above link unless you chose to recieve these 'Reflections.' It was left there so I wouldn't be accused of taking liberty with someone else's words by omitting them. Hope that makes sense. These are great Reflections that come once a week and Al Maxey is very good about getting back to you with an answer--usually within a day or two at most. Hope you enjoy them! Denise | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 361 Registered: 7-2004 |
Thank you, Denise. I do not have time to read all of this right now and am printing it off. I have had an excellent study of Acts and the writings of Paul this year. I am very interested in reading what you have posted. Thanks for sharing. | ||
| Denisegilmore Registered user Username: Denisegilmore Post Number: 156 Registered: 10-2000 |
Dd, You may wish to print this one out also for this is a very good one with the theme out of Isaiah 61, which Jesus read in the Synagogue in the beginning of His ministry. The theme of 'Proclaiming Freedom and Liberty to the Prisoners and Captives!' These sure edify me and hopefully they will in turn edify you and others. http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx162.htm In Christ. Denise | ||
| Dd Registered user Username: Dd Post Number: 364 Registered: 7-2004 |
Thanks, again. I loved the Frederick Douglass quote - "I have found that to make a contented slave, it is necessarty to make a thoughtless one. It is necessarty to darken his moral and mental vision and as far as possible, to annihilate the power of reason." SO TRUE! | ||
| Tracey Registered user Username: Tracey Post Number: 235 Registered: 9-2004 |
Good article! This idea I just learned about this weekend in doing a study with C... I will print this and give him a copy. Really good! Praise God! | ||
| Denisegilmore Registered user Username: Denisegilmore Post Number: 161 Registered: 10-2000 |
Dd, Yes, that quote is another great one. Every one of these 'Reflections' have a quote at the beginning that are very good to hang on to. I'm so happy that you are enjoying the studies! Peace to your household, Denise | ||
| Denisegilmore Registered user Username: Denisegilmore Post Number: 162 Registered: 10-2000 |
Tracey, It is wonderful that you are reading these studies as well. God is so good to us. And I'll keep 'C' in my prayers, along with you as you study. Oh, I wanted to mention that in the first post on this thread with Issue #166 that if you go to the archives and find #166 it has many other links that Al Maxey put on there for another woman struggling with the Law and Grace issue. They are all links to very good articles that would benefit most everyone on this forum. Praise God is right! Blessings to you and yours forevermore in Christ Jesus. denise | ||
| Tracey Registered user Username: Tracey Post Number: 240 Registered: 9-2004 |
Thank you Denise! God Bless you and your family also as you grow in the knowledge and wisdom of Christ Jesus, our Lord! Love, Tracey | ||
| Tracey Registered user Username: Tracey Post Number: 247 Registered: 9-2004 |
Denise, Is Al Maxey well, who is he? Is he a former SDA? Tracey | ||
| Tracey Registered user Username: Tracey Post Number: 248 Registered: 9-2004 |
Boy, that second link you gave was really good! This man's words are so strong, full of conviction -- like a slave who has been set free. God Bless him! Checking out #166 now... Tracey | ||
| Tracey Registered user Username: Tracey Post Number: 249 Registered: 9-2004 |
Denise, I don't see the link that you say Al put on for the woman struggling with law and grace. I went to #166, but there were no links that I could find. Could you try to find it for me? Thanks, Tracey | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1684 Registered: 11-2002 |
Does the SDA church acknowledge Penticost? I can't recall ever hearing a sermon about the importance of Penticost in an Adventist church. What is the SDA position on this great event? | ||
| Denisegilmore Registered user Username: Denisegilmore Post Number: 197 Registered: 10-2000 |
Tracey, Try Issue #33 and #33a for starters. I'll look for the rest of them. http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx33.htm http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx33a.htm Blessings! Denise | ||
| Denisegilmore Registered user Username: Denisegilmore Post Number: 198 Registered: 10-2000 |
Tracey again, Here's two more: http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx36.htm http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx37.htm Hope they bless you and others! In Christ. denise | ||
| Susan_2 Registered user Username: Susan_2 Post Number: 1703 Registered: 11-2002 |
Once again, What is the SDA churches position on the significance (or insignificance) of Pentiscost? I know at the Lutheran Pentiscost is a real big deal and often throughout the year this great event is mentioned in sermons as well as in discussions and conversations even outside the church walls. I can not remember ever hearing mention of Penticost in a SDA setting or even with a SDA person. | ||
| Praisegod Registered user Username: Praisegod Post Number: 267 Registered: 3-2004  |
No, I never heard a sermon about Pentecost in my over 50 years as SDA. Neither did I ever hear an explanation of John the Baptist's words in Matthew 3:11 ìI baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. I never understood the Holy Spirit while SDA. And I can't be the only one that slow. I believe it's because once I DID start understanding what it means to walk in the Spirit, the veil was removed and I'm no longer SDA. They have a strong vested interest in denying the power of the Holy Spirit to speak to us. How did/do the rest of you interpret that Jesus is to baptize "with the Holy Spirit and with fire"? Praise God... | ||
| Freeatlast Registered user Username: Freeatlast Post Number: 314 Registered: 5-2002 |
The Holy Spirit testifies to the truth about Jesus Christ, and that is bad for business if you're SDA... | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 1226 Registered: 3-2004  |
When I stop to reflect on what I learned in my SDA schooling about the Bible and what it says, it was not much. I do not remember any sermon about Pentecost or what Matthew 3:11 means. I have not studied this a lot, but from what I have read God sends the Holy Spirit to us to help us with all things and teaches us. As for the "fire" I will just have to study some more. Diana | ||
| Belvalew Registered user Username: Belvalew Post Number: 233 Registered: 7-2004 |
I've heard sermons, in SDA churches about John the Baptist, and I've heard a couple about Pentacost, but most of the talk about pentacost had to do with explaining that the talking in tongues was talking in "real" tongues, not "heavenly" tongues. I don't think I've ever had the two types of baptism mentioned in the same sentence. Last week, in my Women's Bible Study we discussed Romans 7, and Romans 7:4 has always been a verse that confirmed for SDA's that baptism was necessary for salvation. First, let me quote the verse: Rom. 7:4 (NIV) "So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God." Adventists see this verse saying we must imitate Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection via baptism in order to be saved. In our study we reasoned it out that since Jesus died for our sins, all of them, our man of sin died with Jesus, was buried with him, and our born-again condition rose from the grave with Jesus. All of this is very literal, but doesn't necessarily mean that in order to be saved one must be baptised. Does any of this make sense to anyone else? Thanks for your opinions. Belva |
