Ever notice how two people can be saying the exact same thing but mean two totally different things? You can have two people both quote John 3:16, where it says that those who believe will not perish. One says it means faith only, where the other says it is an active obedient faith (Jas. 2:24). If a person doesn’t see the difference he can be following false doctrine.  Here are a few others to be aware of:

John 9:29  Knowing no one can be plucked from the Father’s hand, two people will say you can be once saved always saved. It is true a person can be saved and stay that way by being faithful until death (Rev. 2:10). It’s something else to teach when a person is saved they can never so sin as to lose their salvation. That is not true. Yes, no one can pluck us from the Father’s hand, but we can leave it on our own (Jas. 5:19-20). We better see the difference.

Acts 2:38  Knowing that a person must repent and be baptized for the remission of sins, two people can say we must have the remission of sins. It is true that all mankind needs the remission of sins, but there is a difference in saying repent and be baptized for the remission of sins and repent for the remission of sins and then you can get baptized. The word “and” makes repentance and baptism essential for salvation. We better see the difference.

Matthew 16:18  Knowing that Jesus said He would build His own church, two people will say there is only one church. It is true that both can acknowledge Jesus didn’t say churches. However, there is a difference in saying Christ’s church is His of which He is the Head and His doctrine must be adhered to (Col. 1:18; II Jn. 9), and saying Christ’s church is made up of various denominations.  We better see the difference.

Psalm 51:5  Knowing that in sin David’s mother conceived him, two people will say that mankind is born in sin. Yet, it is vital that we see the difference between teaching children are born sinners and a child is born into a sinful world (Ezek. 18:20). We better know the difference.

Chuck

We all know people who are always negative. They never have anything good to say. They complain all the time. They rarely smile, and life is generally a downer for them.  Is such behavior approved of by our God? No! I am not implying that it is wrong to express disappointments. Jesus did, and He lived a sinless life (Matt. 26:38-39). What we are talking about is a constant, negative disposition.

Consider Christ’s admonition in Matthew 5:13-16. He speaks about letting our light shine. The goal is to get people to glorify our Father in heaven. Why would anyone see a constantly-negative Christian and conclude, “Wow, I want to be like them, they have such a peace that passes all understanding.” Rather, this attitude will turn people away.

Bad attitudes discourages brethren. It divides husbands and wives and their children. It builds walls and prevents friendships from being created. Consider this wisdom from Proverbs: “A man who has friends must himself be friendly, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother,” (18:24). If we think that no one notices our grumpy disposition covered up by a small grin, we are sadly mistaken.

A proper attitude is essential for Christian living because we need to speak to others. Words that edify cannot come from one who is always negative (Eph. 4:25-32). This means that what we say matters to the Lord, but the way we say it also matters. The Proverb writer mentioned that a soft answer turns away wrath (Prov. 15:1). It is hard to imagine a negative person being an effective, influential speaker. This is true in both earthly and spiritual matters.

Picture two negative people being around each other. Each person could easily blame the other for making their life seem worse. Now imagine a whole church of negative people – who would want to be in the middle of that group? It is hard to imagine a congregation like that lasting, much less being successful working for the Lord’s work.

Brethren, we need to be mindful of our example and do the best we can to demonstrate the joy we have in being a Christian.

                                                                                             Chuck 

There is no question that Christians need to remember the Lord’s death every first day of the week by taking the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7; I Cor. 11:23-26). When gathered, should Christians use just one cup though? After all, Jesus did take “the” cup and give it to His followers (Matt. 26:27).

The need for consistency is clear. If Christians are to uniformly do exactly like Jesus did, then we had better be consistent across the board. Should one person pass the cup to seated recipients as Christ did? Should they follow Jesus’ pattern of picking up the cup first, praying, passing it, and then saying what it is for? (Matt. 26:27-29).

Let us not forget about the bread when dealing with this question of consistency. We read in the previous text that Jesus took the bread in His hand, gave thanks, broke it and then passed it around (I Cor. 11:23-24). There is no mention of a plate or even a table to set it on.

My point is that questions of consistency can be taken so far that people fail to see “the forest for the trees.” Essentially, we can lose focus on what Jesus was emphasizing. For example, Jesus breaking the bread logically left pieces in His right and left hands. He then said “take, eat.” Should we eat the piece in His left or the piece in His right? It does not matter – both represent His body.

Concerning “the” cup, should we just use one cup when serving the Lord’s Supper? If more than one cup is allowed, should the Lord have picked up two or three cups? If the number of cups was a specific instruction, Jesus would have said “These are the bloods of the new covenant…” or at least “These are the blood…” Obviously, He did not say either of these things.

Do we see that Jesus was focusing on the contents of the cup? Look at I Corinthians 11:27. “Therefore, whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord…”  Notice “this” bread, even though Jesus broke the break in Matthew 26 into multiple pieces. Notice “this cup” even though they did not consume the cup itself, nor did they break off pieces of the cup as it was passed around. Again, the focus is clearly on the contents.

In Luke’s account, the fruit of the vine is “divided” up before it is consumed just as the Lord did with the bread. In Luke 22:17, Jesus said to take the cup and divide it among yourselves. He then takes the bread and gives thanks (verse 19). He finally takes a cup while all of them had their own in hand and gives thanks for it (verse 20).

Moreover, do we think that when Jesus said “this” cup that he meant a particular cup? If we used a single cup this Sunday, someone could correctly say, “Hey, that’s not the cup the Lord used!” Keep in mind that the brethren at Corinth were just one of many churches that gathered to take the Lord’s Supper (I Cor. 11:23-26; Rom. 16:16; Acts 20:7). Logically, Jesus must have authorized the use of many different cups to be used in the future.

These questions are not foolish – all Christians should seek to be as consistent and respectful as possible concerning the Lord’s Supper. Ultimately though, we have scripturally demonstrated that there is nothing wrong with having more than one vessel containing the fruit of the vine. We must discern the Lord’s body while partaking or else we will be sinning (I Cor. 11:27-30). There is no doubt that Jesus was focusing on the contents and not the container.

                                                                                               Chuck

For the sake of their souls and the effectiveness of the church, unity must prevail among brothers and sisters in Christ (Psa. 133:1; I Cor. 1:10). Even so, we know that Christians will inevitably face differences of opinion on non-doctrinal matters. So what are brethren to do when there seems to be an impasse about a judgment call?

Let’s first establish that there is nothing wrong with having different opinions – it is not a sin (Rom. 14:1-3). We are not talking about doctrinal matters because everyone who follows Jesus MUST abide in His doctrine (II John 9). Therefore, Christians can “agree to disagree” in areas of opinion but not regarding the teachings of the gospel of Christ.

To understand this difference, let’s look to the Bible. Acts 15:36-41 shows Paul and Barnabas disagreeing about whether John Mark should be brought on another journey. The contention between Paul and Barnabas was “sharp” (verse 39), with Barnabas wanting to take him and Paul not wanting to. In the end, Paul and Barnabas could not agree and separated to continue preaching the gospel (verse 39-40).

Let us not read more into this than we should. To think that Paul and Barnabas hated each other is incorrect. Likewise, thinking that Paul hated John Mark is also incorrect. As we read in II Timothy 4:11, the apostle Paul sent for John Mark, saying that “he is useful to me for the ministry.” This does not sound like someone who held a grudge, was full of hate or wanted to avoid him.

The same can be said about Paul and Barnabas. Paul mentions him in I Corinthians 9:6. This was well after the conflict between them in Acts 15. How do we know that? Because Paul first went to Corinth without Barnabas in Acts 18.

Brethren need to be mature enough to accept that there will be differences of opinion. These disagreements should never cause them to act sinfully or say that a brother is no longer faithful. That usually happens when one starts treating their opinion as law. A faithful brother is then accused of sin. Sin has taken place, but the guilty party is actually the person binding their opinion as law!

Let us consider the question of fellowship. Can brethren be in fellowship with God and each other if there are sharp contentions over an opinion? Yes! Both Barnabas and Paul accepted what the other said without sinning. The silver lining in this whole matter was that four people went out to twice as many places as would have originally happened if Paul took John Mark with them. (Paul tool Silas, and Barnabas took John Mark).

The hearts of brethren should always be filled with love and compassion (Rom. 12:10). There is no need for character attacks or to generate strife and division within the local church. Like a marriage, a local church requires a lot of give and take. Everybody recognizes how silly it would be for a husband and wife to divorce over paint colors or some other minor decision - it would be similarly silly for Paul and Barnabas to commit sin because they disagreed about the best way to spread the gospel. Someone might have a strong opinion that the church should meet on Sundays at 10 am and not 9 am. If the majority of the brethren like the 9 am time, that one brother or sister ought to consider giving in for the sake of peace. If the disagreement is very strong, they might also choose to attend at a faithful church that meets at 10 to avoid stirring up trouble.

Ultimately, God’s people need to be recognizing that the devil will use opinions to destroy relationships. Let us be aware of that.      

Chuck                                                     

What is the difference?

 In a Bible class this week, I was asked, “What’s the differences between the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ?” Before we can answer this, we need to see that the baptism of Jesus was the same as John’s before Jesus died (John 3:22-23; John 4:1-2). Both were a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Matt. 3:6,11; Mark 1:4-5; Acts 19:1-5). However, the baptism of Christ changed significantly after His death and resurrection. Consider these differences.

Baptized for the remission of sins

On the day of Pentecost, many Jews were gathered together in Jerusalem. Peter and the other apostle were also there. When the people heard the gospel and asked what they needed to do, Peter said, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins…” (Acts 2:38). The one baptism taught today (Eph. 4:5) is for the remission of sins (Acts 22:16).

Baptized in the name of the Lord

The baptisms conducted by John and Jesus (prior to His death) were not done in the name of anyone. This changed in Matthew 28:19. After Christ resurrected, He gave this commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”  In Acts 10:48, Peter commanded Cornelius and his household to be baptized in water in the name of the Lord.

Paul later discussed the difference between these two baptisms.  “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,” (Acts 19:4-5).

Baptized into the death of Jesus

While speaking to the Roman brethren, Paul made mention of their common baptism: “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?” (Rom. 6:3). Obviously, John and Jesus could not baptize people into His death before He died. The point of Christ dying on the cross was to pave the way for the salvation of mankind. Thus, when one is buried with Christ, they put to death the old man of sin (Rom. 6:6). This person is able to rise up in spiritual newness of life, just as Christ was physically raised from the dead (verse 4).

Baptized the one true way

Earlier in this article, we mentioned the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5. Baptisms conducted prior to the death of Jesus were not valid after He died. Because the scriptures show that we are only to baptize into Christ’s death today, we can logically conclude that we all have one common source of salvation (Jude 3). Multiple types of baptism would contradict scripture. If we know that this baptism saves us (I Pet. 3:21), why would we accept any other baptism?

Beware lest your baptism only get you wet

Remember that John’s baptism, like a baptism into Christ’s death, was an immersion in water. Though the people in Acts 19 were immersed, they only got wet. John’s baptism did not meet the requirements for a baptism into the death of Christ, so they were not saved. Similarly, people today who are baptized without proper understanding and belief can go into the water a dry sinner and come up a wet sinner. Make sure you understand what is necessary for a proper baptism into the death of Christ.

Chuck