If you read last week’s bulletin, we dealt with the text of I Corinthians 5. The church at Corinth was rebuked for not exercising church discipline. The church is to be pure and kept unspotted from the world (Eph. 5:25-27). Therefore, when a member of the church is walking in sin (unwilling to repent), that local body of saints must deal with it the Lord’s way.

Without repeating the whole article, Christians need to deal with these situations. It might seem cut and dry as to what should be done with a wayward member who acts like all is fine because Christians know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump (I Cor. 5:6). However, brethren are often tempted to neglect their duties. This is especially true when a member just walks away and leaves. If they are no longer around to leaven the whole lump, is the church still expected to exercise discipline?  Absolutely. Let’s take a closer look at this.

It may be technically true that you cannot really “withdraw” yourself from one who is no longer around, but discipline still needs to be taken. Consider Galatians 6:1. Paul wrote, “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in the spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.”  James pretty much said the same thing when he spoke of brethren that wander away and how faithful brethren should try to bring them back (James 5:19-20).

We need to see that fallen brethren need to be dealt with whether they act as if nothing is wrong or if they walk away and stop assembling. A member who walks away is sinning, and it would be wrong for a local church to ignore. But what is a church to do? They should do the very same thing as when someone sinfully walks among them.

If a person leaves a church, they have “withdrawn” themselves. However, the Bible speaks about “marking” or “noting those” who are walking disorderly. The Thessalonians were told, “And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother,” (II Thess. 3:14-15). This is the same idea presented in Romans 16:17-18.

Our goal is to help the fallen return. This is true whether they recognize that they have fallen or not. If a brother walks away and calls me up and acts as if nothing has changed, he would be wrong. If I act as if nothing has changed other than not seeing him at church services, I am not fulfilling my duty of marking him to inspire the godly shame necessary for repentance.

Today’s Christians need to be particularly careful about making the wayward comfortable in their sin. Social media is called “social” for a reason. Still, we should never stop loving our fallen brethren. We should continue to pray for them and, as the II Thessalonian text above mentions, we should never treat them as an enemy. The wayward should be greeted cheerfully rather than being ignored. However, we need to be careful that we do not use social media to accidentally praise those walking in rebellion against God. 

A member of the church who no longer accepts what we teach might say, “You can’t withdraw from me, I withdraw from you.” Fine. But Christians still have the duty to try and bring them back. If they refuse to repent, we must note them and not keep company with them. This is true for all who go back into the pollutions of the world (II Pet. 2:20-22). As children of God, we must remember that sin is sin!

                                                                                                Chuck

In a recent Bible class, we studied the subject of church discipline. In I Corinthians 5, Paul rebuked the church at Corinth for not dealing with a brother who was caught up in sin. They were told to deliver such a one to Satan in order to hopefully save him if he repented (verse 5). The faithful brethren were told not to even eat (socialize) with him (verse 11).

To help illustrate this, let me present a scenario. A husband and wife have a young son who is eight years old. One day, the son and his mother get into an argument and the boy slaps his mom in the face. Later that day the husband (dad) comes home from work and hears what the son does. Aside from being punished, the father says to his son, “I want you to go to your mother and apologize to her.”

What if the boy does not apologize but wants to go fishing with his dad as planned – should the dad take him fishing? I know we would all say no! What if the son still refused to apologize to his mom the next day but wanted to go play ball with his dad as planned – should the dad take him and play ball? Again, I know we would all say no!

Why are we consistently saying no? Why should the father not take the son and do those fun things? The answer is obvious. If the father did that, he would be minimizing the severity of what the son did to his mother. It might even communicate approval. This is the lesson we need to learn concerning Christ and His church.

When someone sins, it can affect the rest of the members of the local church. As Paul said, “A little leaven leavens the whole lump,” (verse 8). Let us not forget that it is also a sin against the Lord and brings reproach upon His church (Eph. 5:27). When a Christian sins and does not repent, they are to be loved and admonished as a brother, not as an enemy (II Thess. 3:14-15). Although the father wants his son to apologize to his wife, it does not mean that the father hates his son until the apology is given. The father should not hate the son, but there must still be consequences for both the error and refusing to apologize. As Christians, we must all recognize this valuable lesson.

Chuck 

I do not mind studying the Bible with anyone. The problem comes when people throw out all common sense when handling the scriptures. Such happened to me this week, and I found it frustrating. I think there are many lessons we can draw from this experience.

I was asked if the event described in John 16:25 had happened to me. The person I was studying with said it had happened to him. “These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father.”

I explained that in this text, Jesus is specifically dealing with His apostles. He is describing what is going to happen after the Holy Spirit comes upon them. This was mentioned earlier in the chapter (verse 13). The Lord brought this event up a number of times in the previous couple of chapters (14:26; 15:26).

Did this happen to me? Yes and no. The promise was given directly to the apostles, but everyone after them (including me) benefited from the inspired message that they recorded. In Acts 2:1-4, the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles and then they spoke the word of God (verse 6). Everybody who has heard the gospel of Christ had heard this plain message about the Father described in John 16:25. But did this happen to me in a literal sense? No, I was not alive when Jesus gave this premonition, nor was I in the audience.

However, the message that the apostles spoke was not a mystery. Paul wrote: “How that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)” (Eph. 3:3-4).  The reveals that God’s message is plain and understandable by all, which is consistent with John 16:25.

Having said all of this, why did this man ask me the question in the first place? They are many who think mankind needs divine intervention today to help us understand the message given by the apostles (the Bible). This logic is weak – why would our Lord send the Holy Spirit to guide His disciples into all truth if everyone else would not be able to understand the message that the apostles would then be preaching?  

To help this gentleman rightly divide the word, we read I Corinthians 1:26-27. As Paul said, not many mighty, noble or wise according to the flesh would be called. Few of these people would respond to the gospel because they considered it beneath them.  Consider also these words of Jesus: “I thank you Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes,” (Matt. 11:25).

Knowing this, I then answered “yes” to the original question. I can plainly understand the heavenly message. I do not need the Holy Spirit to help me understand what the Holy Spirit revealed. Why? Because the message was revealed in a way that was already understandable to those who are looking for the truth. We already noted that the message is hidden to those unwilling to see it. It is not because they cannot see it – rather because they do not want to!

I finally asked the person if he could pick up serpents and not be harmed as Jesus stated in Mark 16:18. He said that verse was not meant for him. Even though I agreed, it caused me to wonder – why consider the context surrounding the Mark passage but not the John passage? For this man, the only rule is apparently “no rules”.

Chuck

Over the years, I have heard all kind of arguments to defend the use of instrumental music in worship. In the end it usually comes down to, “Well I like it, and I can’t see God not liking it.” For many, the passages that teach Christians to simply sing (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:17) fall on deaf ears. Perhaps it will help to draw a parallel to another invocation the early saints were guilty of doing.

In I Corinthians 11, the apostle Paul discussed how that local church decided to change the Lord’s Supper into a feast (verses 20-22). There is no question that the brethren were coming together as a church (verse 18). What does it matter if the congregation decided to make a feast out of the memorial of Christ’s death? These people enjoyed themselves by having their hunger pangs satisfied. God knows the heart, right? Why did Paul feel he was able to judge their actions? They would have needed to eat anyway – why is this a big deal? The Bible contains answers for all of these questions.

Paul made it clear that this was not what they did in the beginning (verse 23). Rather, this was something that evolved over time. Someone introduced this concept. This is our first parallel to instrumental music, which was  introduced into a variety of religious groups around 670 AD. In other words, it took approximately 650 years to introduce the instrument to the worship service. Keep in mind that these religious groups were not the church you read about in the Bible.

There are several other parallels between the abuse of the Lord’s Supper and instrumental music in worship. Consider these points as you weigh the scriptures:

1. Introducing a different form of worship divides the church (verse 18).
2. Even if you say you are coming together for the Lord, you may still be coming together for the worse (verse 17).
3. Even if you say you are coming together to take the Lord’s Supper, you may not actually take it (verse 20).
4. A person can do nonsinful activities like eating on their own time. It is not necessary to add these things to worship (verse 22).
5. If you think you are going to be praised an addition to worship, you would be wrong (verse 22).
6. This change was not harmless as they were despising the church by not respecting authority (verse 22).
7. It is incorrect to think that what I do in worship has no bearing on others (verse 21).
8. The apostle was correct to tell them they were in the wrong (verse 17).

A review of these points will show that every argument made against modifying the Lord’s supper can be made against instrumental music in worship. Personal opinions on the matter need to be subjected to God’s word. If you say to yourself, “I just don’t see the similarities between the abuse of the Lord’s Supper and the abuse of singing psalms and hymns and spiritual song”, then you have closed your mind.

                                                                                                Chuck

Where in the Bible does it teach the concept of “Pope”? The term cannot be found. If anything, you learn from the scriptures that no apostle was above any other (Matt. 20:20-28). As a matter of fact, we are told that the foundation we are to build our faiths upon is the apostles with Christ being the chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:20). Peter is not specifically listed or called out in any way!

Consider Peter for a moment. He was the one that Paul had to confront due to his hypocrisy (Gal. 2:11-13). I do not want to suggest that Peter was not forgiven – he was. After all, he even became an elder within a local church (I Pet. 5:1-4). When you read the qualifications of an elder (I Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:6-9), we know he was married and had children. This is consistent with what we learned about him early in Christ’s earthly ministry when Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt. 8:14).

Peter’s role as an elder raises another interesting fact. Local churches were to have multiple, qualified elders. There were to be elders in every church, not a singular elder (Acts 14:23). An apostle could become an elder, but being an apostle was not a prerequisite. Why is that important? This means that when Peter worked with other elders, he as not the “head” elder. Why not? Because elders are to shepherd the flock/church of which Jesus is the head (I Pet. 5:2-5).

The reason why the false concepts about Peter even rose up in the first place was due to a misunderstanding of Matthew 16:17-18. In this text, Jesus asked all of His apostles a question (verse 13). We are told “they” answered Him (verse 14). When Jesus asked “them” another question (verse 15), Peter spoke up and answered (verse 16).  Christ then said “upon this rock I will build My church” (verse 18). It was “upon” this confession of faith Christ was talking about – not Peter specifically! If another apostle spoke up first, would the church have been built upon him?  These lines of questioning illustrate the problems with the non-Biblical concept of “Pope.” This just goes to show that all children of God need to handle His word properly and avoid elevating men beyond their intended roles.

                                                                                             Chuck