Those who visit the wayward often hear the above statement. The one who has been out of service and irregular in attendance will often say that he plans to "come back", yet, after weeks pass, the one who said he was coming back to church services never does. Obviously, this is not true in every case. Sometimes, the erring child of God follows through and returns to the Lord. But, far too often the words "I'm coming back," are spoken with no resolve.

Some who make this statement add, "but I don't know when." In effect, they are saying, "I know I'm lost; for now, I'm making a deliberate choice to remain lost and I have no specific time in mind when I will be restored." Think about the rationale of such a reckless declaration! How could one who is reasoning properly, willfully and consciously remain lost? How could he ever feel at ease, knowing that if he died in his present condition he would be eternally lost? Surely, if one thought seriously about being lost for eternity he would repent.

Why, then, do erring church members sometimes say they are coming back but never do? There are several reasons. Some are just saying what they think the one who is visiting wants to hear. They say they plan to be restored, but never intend to do so. Others feel that they must work out all their "problems" before they can return to the Lord. They do not seem to realize that many of their problems would work out if they would only be restored to their first love. After restoration, the child of God can look to the Lord and brethren for strength. Then, others say they are coming back but never do (and this is the main reason) because they know they should come back, but their faith is too weak to move them to action. Yes, in the final analysis, it is a faith problem. The unfaithful one must make a decision to get out of his spiritual rut and begin growing in faith once again.

The Lord, however, does not approve of one who only "says" he will follow Him. Jesus told of one who, seemingly, had good intentions. The man said, "Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house." Notice Jesus' response: "No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:61-62). The lesson taught here is: the Lord comes first. One cannot put Him on hold. Jesus demands that we follow Him - now!

One cannot afford to procrastinate; there are dangers involved. One's heart may become so hardened he cannot be reached (Heb. 3:13). It gets easier to dismiss the pleas of brethren by saying, "I'm coming back one day." Also, one never knows the day of his death. Isaac said to Esau, "Behold now, I am old, I know not the day of my death" (Gen. 27:2). Death is certain, while life is unpredictable (Josh. 23:14; Proverbs 27:1). Isaac did not know the day of his death... no one does. No, one cannot afford to procrastinate.

If those who say they are coming back would do so, congregations would have more in attendance, families would be strengthened, elders would be encouraged, the church would grow, and the time spent trying to restore the wayward could be used in teaching those who have never heard the gospel.

In view of these thoughts, if you are wayward, will you please come back - now?

Several years back I ran an article in the local newspaper entitled, "A Controversial Question." In response to the article I received a letter from a kindly gentleman in the community which initiated correspondence that lasted for several months. Below, for your interest, I include the original article, his letter, and my first response to him.

Immersion, sprinkling, or pouring? Infants or those who can understand the gospel? Because of forgiveness of sins or in order to obtain remission? Controversial and intriguing questions, no doubt, and certainly ones that have divided many sincere, religious people. Should we, as some suggest, simply throw up our arms and say, "It doesn't matter anyway. God isn't concerned with the particulars, as long as we're sincere"? But if tempted to make that statement, we ought to be aware of the fact that if God isn't concerned about the particulars of obedience, it marks the first time in history that such has been the case just ask Cain, Naaman, or Nadab and Abihu!). We should remember that these examples are written for our learning and serve as illustrations of God's nature (see Romans 15:4). From them we learn that God is a God Who expects us to obey Him in the way He's commanded us.

Now... back to our original question. Immersion, sprinkling, or pouring? Certainly God wouldn't leave us in the dark about a matter as important as baptism, and indeed He didn't. The translators of the King James Version of the Bible, when rendering the Greek word baptizo, didn't translate the word; they transliterated it, which means they simply changed the Greek letters into English letters. Thus, they created a new word - i.e., baptize. Greek lexicons unanimously agree the word means "to dip, plunge, or immerse" (see Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich's Greek-English Lexicon, a highly respected work, for a representative definition). Consider also the fact that baptism is frequently described as a "burial" (Rom. 6:3-4), an action that is symbolically reenacted by immersion.

Should we baptize people in their infancy or when they're mature enough to understand the gospel? Again, if we accept the Bible as authoritative, the answer is clear. In every example of baptism in the New Testament, the ones being baptized are of sufficient age to comprehend the spiritual meaning of their action. In every case, baptism is preceded by such mental actions as faith and repentance. Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized. . ." (Mark 16:16). Peter said, "Repent and be baptized..." (Acts 2:38). Furthermore, there is absolutely no example of an infant's being baptized. Our conclusion, then, must be that only those who are capable of believing and repenting can be scripturally baptized. Practicing otherwise would be to add to scripture and violate its principles - actions that God takes extremely seriously (see Deut. 4:2).

Now, another crucial question: baptism or salvation - which comes first? In other words, is baptism for the remission of sins, or is it because of the forgiveness of sins? Well, our space is limited, so that critical discussion must wait until next time. Thanks again for your interest in spiritual matters. May God richly bless you. 

The letter from a Gentleman within our community:

Good Day Mr. Webster:

I read with interest your, "A Controversial Question," in the [newspaper and date]. I certainly agree with you that God is concerned with particulars. He is a God of order. Holy men of old penned the Holy Scriptures, however unholy men have done exactly what the Scriptures forbade them to do, and yet these same Scriptures tell us that they will do this very thing in the last days.

The Bible is its own commentary and needs no critiquing. I found that you went to three outside sources to attempt to prove your position of water baptism. I would ask you to look in your Bible concordance for the word "immersion", then find the words "sprinkle" and "pour".

Please show me how you find in Acts chapter 2 the things you offer us in your article in the paper. Who administered the water baptism? When were the 3,000 baptized? Where did the baptizing take place? How were these 3,000 devout Jews that were converted to Christianity baptized?

I shall be waiting for your written response.

Yours truly, [Name]

Dear Mr. [Name]

I sincerely thank you for your letter dated [date]. It is good to find people such as you who are interested in biblical truth. I'm glad we agree on the fact that God is concerned with particulars and that He gave us His inspired Word which He expects us to follow. I really want to do and teach what is right, as I know you do, and I take God's Word very seriously. For that reason, I appreciate your pointing out areas in which you believe me to be wrong. Though you didn't state specifically, I'm assuming your main contention with me is over the question, "Is Bible baptism immersion, sprinkling, or pouring?" If that assumption is wrong, correct me, and I'll gladly address other aspects of this topic [Note: future correspondence verified that this was the primary point with which he disagreed.]

I could not identify the three outside sources you said I used. One must have been the Greek lexicon I consulted. I'm not sure what the other two were. I, like you, know that it will be God and His Word that will ultimately judge us at the last day. As you know, the New Testament was originally written in the Greek language, and was later translated into English. With your Bible knowledge, I'm sure you're aware that sometimes translators make mistakes; after all, they're fallible, just as you and I are. For that reason it's helpful to study the language which the inspired writer actually used. With that in mind, I quoted the Greek lexicon to show that the original Greek word (baptizo) means "to dip, plunge, or immerse," a definition which, as I explained in the article, is currently accepted by all Greek lexicons. I encourage you to study the etymology of the English word "baptize." You'll find it originated as a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo. Also, I encourage you to study what the Greek word baptizo means. Since the New Testament was written in Greek, if we know what this Greek word means, we'll know exactly what it is God meant for us to practice.

But of course it isn't essential that a Bible student know Greek in order to understand God's will. Concerning that you wrote: "The Bible is its own commentary..." - a statement with which I completely agree. That's why in the article I explained how baptism is called in the Bible a "burial" (Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12). Of the three modes under consideration (immersion, sprinkling, or pouring), which one best parallels a burial? I would have, if adequate space for the article had been available, also mentioned verses such as John 3:23, where it is said, "And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized" (emphasis added). Why did John need "much water" if he were simply sprinkling or pouring water on those he "baptized"? Acts 8:38-39 is also relevant: "And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing" (emphasis added).

You asked several questions concerning Acts 2. Again, although you didn't state specifically, I'm assuming your reason for asking these questions is that you believe it would have been impossible for 3,000 people to be immersed in one day in Jerusalem. If that assumption is wrong, let me know, and I'll address whatever aspect you have in mind.

"Who administered the water baptism?" The Bible doesn't say, but I would assume it was the apostles, with other Christians perhaps assisting. It certainly would have been possible that the ones who were baptized began baptizing others.

"When were the 3,000 baptized?" Acts 2:41 says that "they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls" (emphasis added). Since believers are "baptized into Christ" (Gal. 3:27; emphasis added), which means being baptized into the church (Eph. 1 :22-23; 1 Cor. 12:13), they were "added" when they were baptized. The answer, then, is they were baptized "the same day." It would have been possible for twelve men (the apostles) to immerse 3,000 in one day. If one apostle baptized one person per minute, the baptizing would have been completed in just a little over four hours. Assuming other Christians helped, including those who themselves were immersed that day, the time would have been much shorter.

"Where did the baptizing take place?" Again, the text doesn't specifically say, but those familiar with the ancient city of Jerusalem tell us that there were several pools in Jerusalem suitable for the task.

"How were these 3,000 devout Jews that were converted to Christianity baptized?" I don't understand what you mean by "How?" You understand that I am suggesting they were immersed in water for the remission of their sins. If you intended something else by your question, feel free to explain it further, and I'll be glad to answer it.

In summary, on the day of Pentecost, 3,000 penitent believers were immersed in water in pools in Jerusalem by the apostles (perhaps others assisting) for the remission of their sins to be added to Christ's church.

Thank you again for your interest in spiritual matters. If I've misunderstood you in any way, or if I haven't clarified my position sufficiently, please write again, and I'll do my best to give you a Bible answer.

For His Cause,

Chuck Webster

If one were to believe everything that the scientific community has offered regarding man's origins, we would find that very few theories include acts by a supernatural Creator. In fact, scientists are quick to point out that the universe took billions of years to form, and thus it would be absurd to believe that it was created in just six days. For instance, consider what Thomas Hayden recently wrote when he added another "certainty" of life, besides taxes and death. His effort to shore up the ever-faltering theory of evolution was the cover story of the July 29, 2002 issue of U.S. News & World Report. In explaining "how evolution works, and why it matters more than ever," Hayden stated: "It's an everyday phenomenon, a fundamental fact of biology as real as hunger and as unavoidable as death" (2002,133[4]:43).

Sadly, this type of grandstanding and propagandizing in the media occurs all too often. And people by the millions accept it as the "final word" on the subject - without any real knowledge as to what the evidence truly reveals. Even within the church, Christians often subconsciously find themselves favoring science over the Bible. We have forgotten the Truth on the matter, which can be summed up simply with the first ten words that appear in the Bible: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1, emp. added). If this is not true, then every word that follows should be called into question.

Because of the prevailing idea of an ancient Cosmos, many people have tried to find ways to fit evolution and its "billions-of-years" time frame into the biblical account of creation. In essence, they still espouse belief in God and the Bible, but they also pledge a great deal of allegiance to science and the evolutionary theory. As the old adage says, they want to "have their cake and eat it too." But can both the Bible and evolutionary theory be true? People clinging to both the Bible and evolution are commonly known as "theistic evolutionists." "Theistic" comes from the Greek theos, which means "God." Thus, theistic evolutionists believe God does exist, but they also hold to the theory of evolution as true. They rationalize their beliefs by stating that "yes, God created the heavens and the Earth," but then He used (or allowed) evolutionary processes to produce the universe we see today.

Thus, "Bible believers" find themselves in the awkward position of compromising the opening chapters of the Bible. If Genesis 1-11 is tossed aside as merely a mythological story, then we must toss out the entire Bible because the one major theme that is taught throughout the Bible is redemption. Man's relationship with God started at the pinnacle of creation week in the garden, and degenerated from there. Christians need to be fully aware that theistic evolution teaches that man started out at the bottom and worked his way to the top (via the old "amoeba-to-man" story). Therefore, either man started at the top and fell, as the Bible indicates, or he started at the bottom and rose to the top, as evolution indicates. Both cannot be correct! The prophets long ago declared the fall of humans, and the resulting need for a Savior. Scripture indicates that this was the reason for Christ's death - to bring men back into a covenant relationship with God. If men truly did not fall as described in the creation account, then why did Jesus Christ, the Son of God, come to this planet and suffer a cruel death on the cross? Additionally, consider the following:

Surely evolution will not have to reverse itself and concede that it reached its zenith with the birth of the Christ child a long, long time ago. Surely this colossal system will not have to concede that it is less able now to produce a greater than Jesus than it did produce two thousand years ago. If evolution is not now able to produce a greater than Jesus. then it seems the system has ceased to be evolution and has become devolution, at least in one sense (Taylor, 1974). Today, this theory appears more like "devilution" than devolution.

As long as we are tossing aside Scripture, we might as well get out our scissors and cut out all references to the creation, starting with the gospel accounts - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Jesus Christ Himself made reference to the creation when He stated in Matthew 19:4 (c.f. Mark 10:6): "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female." These words indicate that Adam and Eve had been on the Earth "from the beginning of creation" (Mark 10:6). Of course we also would have to throw out John, because the first few verses of chapter one review the beginning and creation. Other scriptures such as Acts 4:24, Acts 17:25, Romans 1:20, Colossians 1:16, 1 Timothy 2:13, Hebrews 1:2, 1 Peter 4:19, and Revelation 4:11 also would be called into question if the creation account is merely a nice "story" and not historically accurate. As a matter of fact, the only books that do not refer to the creation in some form are the books of Jude, Philemon, and 2 and 3 John!

Additionally, if we do not accept that God created the Heavens and the Earth in six literal days, then we are making Jesus Christ - our Savior - a liar. Jesus stated: "But from the beginning of the creation male and female he made them" (Mark 10:6), affirming that Adam and Eve were on the Earth since the beginning of creation. Paul affirmed in Romans 1:20-21 that the things God had made had been "perceived" even "since the Creation of the world." According to evolutionists, man did not come into the picture until about 3 to 4 million years ago. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if the Earth is supposedly 5 to 6 billion years old, then the last 3 to 4 million is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "from the beginning." Rather, it is "from the end." Therefore we are left with a choice: either Jesus Christ lied and the evolutionists are correct, or we can believe that the words Jesus Christ spoke are true, and therefore evolution is 100% wrong. The belief in theistic evolution allows for the Savior to be called a liar!

Ah, but you say, "Adam was just a mythological creature. We know today that man originated from a Neanderthal-type creature." However, if this is true, why did the inspired apostle Paul pen these words: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22), and then in reference to Christ write, "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit" (1 Corinthians 15:45)? If Adam and Eve are merely mythological, does this mean that this "last Adam," Jesus Christ, was a mythological creature as well?

Taylor, Robert (1974), "More Problems for Theistic Evolution," Gospel Advocate, January 3.

Finds time for others: Jesus always seemed to find the time to be with and do good to those around Him, even after a "long, hard day at work" (Mk. 6:30-44). Christians are to exercise wisdom in time management especially in spiritual matters so that they may have a good understanding of God's will (Eph. 5:15-17).

Rids himself of pride: Certainly no one would accuse Jesus of being full of pride. To be sure, Paul informs us that although Christ existed "in the form of God, counted not the being on equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself... humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross" (Phil. 2:6-8, ASV). 

Interests himself in the personal lives of others: Curiously enough, nearly every chapter in the account of the life of Christ that John wrote reveals Jesus as one who spent time with a particular individual. I've often wondered what He did during the thirty years or so before He began His earthly ministry outside of His trade of carpentry; perhaps He created a reputation of being friendly to those with whom He came into contact daily; He sure seemed to be well-known and liked until He began teaching the truth (Mk. 6:1-6)! 

Edifies others when the world tears them down: The story of Zacchaeus provides for us a great example of the support Christ gives to those whom the world deems less that honorable. While the greater part of his brotherhood snubbed Zacchaeus because of his occupation of being a tax collector, Jesus knew that he needed the gospel as badly as others. Jesus' friendly approach opened up a door of spiritual opportunity for this "despised" Jew, thus causing him to show fruits of repentance (Luke 19:1-10). Oh, how we need to be more like Jesus (Acts 10:34)!

Never withholds truth from them merely for the sake of comfort: Jesus Christ is, according to fulfilled prophecy, the "Prince of Peace" (Gen. 49:10; Isa. 9:6; 53:5; John 14:27; 16:33; Eph. 2:14). However He Himself declared that He came not to bring peace but "a sword of division" (Matt. 10:34). This could mean nothing but that truth divides right from wrong, and when wrong is exposed often there is turmoil in the lives of those who refuse to change or who do not yet understand God's will. Jesus rightfully accused Peter once of being His "adversary" because of his lack of understanding of God's purpose for redeeming men from sin. Nevertheless He loved Peter and gave Him an opportunity to repent (Matt. 16:21-27; John 21:15). What a friend!

Dies in the place of others to demonstrate love for them: According to the Lord, the ultimate measure of one's love is found in one's willingness to place his very life on the line for another, even if the other is one's own enemy! Christianity involves a great paradox: It is the religion whereby in order truly to live one must first die. Christ died to set men free from the slavery of sin; when we die to self, we can live for God, thereby helping others to see more clearly their need for God and His will for them (John 15:13; Rom. 5:8; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; Gal. 2:20)!

Truly, Jesus is the best example found anywhere of a true friend. Let us endeavor to be the kind of friend that Jesus is to those who love him!

"You are my friends if you do whatever I command you" - Jesus (John 15:14).

The book of Ephesians has been considered by some to be one of the most difficult books in the New Testament. In this book the Apostle Paul requires that the reader join him in venturing into eternity in order to see God's marvelous plan for saving mankind from sin through Jesus Christ and His church. Of course, we all know and are aware of the difficulties we face when we try to step into eternity in any matter. Have you considered the origin of God lately?

In studying the book of Ephesians, one cannot help but be edified and challenged by the sentiments of Ephesians 2:1-10. In this short section of Scripture we see the Bad, the Good, and the Heavenly.

In Ephesians 2:1-3 we definitely see the Bad. Of course, this section of Scripture has at least two purposes for us today. First, if we are Christians we realize just how far we have come. Once we were lost in sin and now we are saved by God's grace and mercy! "But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 15:57).

Second, if you are not a child of God, you can see where you stand in view of God's grace and mercy. Even though God's grace has been provided to all mankind (Tit. 2:11), you have not responded to it; therefore you stand in desperate need of it. You have absolutely no hope in that condition! In essence you are physically alive but spiritually dead. Paul stated, "For the wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23). In this position you stand condemned before the eternal God of heaven (cf. Rom. 8:1 ; Col. 2:13).

In Ephesians 2:4-6, inspiration introduces us to the Great. Yes, God is rich in mercy because of His great love. God truly loves you! Never forget that. God is interested in you and particularly your eternal soul. He wants you to spend eternity with Him in Heaven (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9). Never forget some of these passages that highlight God's love for every individual, "For God so loved..." (John 3:16); and "God is love" (1 John 4:8).

In addition, the apostle Paul directs our attention to the Grace of God. We are saved by the Grace of God! If we ever enter into that "prepared place" (John 14:2), it will be because of God's marvelous grace. Paul bluntly says, "...by grace you have been saved"! However, one must respond to God's grace before he can be saved by God (Col. 2:11-13; Acts 2:38). The "free gift" has been offered but the individual must choose to accept it!

In Ephesians 2:7-10, we can clearly see the Heavenly. Paul says, "...that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 2:7). This is certainly a heavenly thought indeed! Do you remember Ephesians 2:1-3? Every single individual of accountable age has disobeyed God's will but still God is going to show unto His children "the exceeding riches of His grace." Why is God so good to us?

Dear friend, I hope this article has been encouraging to you! Where do you stand with God? Do you love Him? Have you obeyed Him? It seems only natural that we would respond with reciprocal love and adoration for Him. God's love, mercy, and grace should be an overwhelming motivation for our obedience to His will in all things.

Wayne Jackson. Stockton. California

There is a doctrine, quite common in the denominational community, that is making its presence increasingly felt among the people of God. It is the notion that the Christian has the promise of a direct "illumination of the Holy Spirit" in interpreting the text of the Bible.

The theory suggests that the Scriptures, as they presently stand, are incapable of being thoroughly understood (and, by implication therefore, the divine message is incomplete; yet see: 2 Tim. 3:16-17). And so, in addition to the biblical record (as approached with correct methods of interpretation), it is alleged that there must be a direct working of the Spirit of God upon the heart of the Bible student, thus effecting an "illumination" that brings into sharper focus the meaning of the divine text.

The "illumination" view is not new; actually, it is a part of the residue of the old concept of human hereditary depravity. This is the idea that man is so hopelessly depraved by virtue of Adam’s fall, that the Scriptures are incomprehensible to his blighted mind. This dogma was popularized most prominently by John Calvin (A.D. 1509-1564).

Some of the early "church fathers" introduced the idea that the guilt of Adam’s sin was contracted by all of his descendants. Tertullian (A.D. 150 – 222) contended that a person inherits both his body and his spirit from his parents (De Anima, chps. 23-41). Later, Augustine (A.D. 354-430) taught a similar idea. Cyprian (A.D. 200-258) had alleged that new-born infants inherit "the infection of the old death" from Adam (Epistle lviii). Origen (c. A.D. 185-254) suggested that a child is polluted with sin "though [its] life be but the length of one day upon the earth" (Homily in Luc. xiv). On this account he argued that no Christian should celebrate the day of the birth (Hom. in Leviticum , viii.3).

And so, due to man’s supposed "corrupted" nature, he cannot understand the Scriptures without direct divine guidance. Calvin, cited Paul’s statement that "no man can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3) as proof of this dogma (see Calvin’s Institutes, II,II,20-21).

But this Corinthian passage merely asserts that belief in Christ’s lordship is dependent upon the revelatory mission of the Spirit. To suggest that it affirms that each individual must have a direct, personal enlightenment of the Spirit, is to assume more than the text states. The Holy Spirit is the author of the Scriptures; apart of that body of information, no man can declare Christ’s lordship. Hence, ultimately, this precious affirmation must be attributed to the Spirit. But this by no means establishes the "direct illumination" theory.

Calvin likely borrowed the "illumination" idea from Augustine, for, as Norman Geisler has noted, the north African theologian not only taught that the Holy Spirit is "the means by which we receive God-written revelation (Confessions 7.21), he is necessary [also] for illuminating and confirming its truth" (Homily VI) (quoted in: Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999, p. 331).

Other reformers, e.g., Luther and Zwingli, taught similar ideas respecting the need for some special power of the Holy Spirit in order that one might be empowered to comprehend the Scriptures. This notion has filtered down to many in the modern world of sectarianism.

Henry C. Thiessen, a Baptist writer, wrote: "[T]he illumination of the Holy Spirit... is vouchsafed to every believer... [which will] enable us to understand the revelation God has already made of Himself, especially that revelation of Him in the Scriptures" (Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949, p. 45).

Roy Zuck, a former Bible professor at Dallas Theological Seminary (whom this writer highly regards), has authored a book titled Basic Bible Interpretation (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1991). In this otherwise valuable volume, Zuck contended mightily for the idea that "[n]o one can fully comprehend the meaning of the Bible unless he is regenerate" (p. 22). He further affirmed that even the Christian "must also depend upon the Holy Spirit" for a correct view of the Scriptures. He quoted H.C.G. Moule who wrote: "The blessed Spirit is not only the true Author of the written Word but also its supreme and true Expositor" (p. 23; emp. WJ).

The doctrine of the "illumination of the Holy Spirit" is not defensible – either on a scriptural or logical basis. Consider the following points.

1.) The passages that are appealed to as proof for the dogma are grounded either in unwarranted assumptions that are imposed upon them (see the reference to 1 Cor. 12:3 cited above), or else the alleged proof-passages are extracted from their original contexts and misapplied.

For example, John 16:13 frequently is employed to prove the idea of special "illumination" (see Zuck, p. 24). "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth...." But this text refers to the apostles (and, by implication, others who were to be endowed with miraculous teaching powers). Those so empowered would be proclaiming the gospel in that time-period preliminary to the completion of the New Testament canon. This promise from the Lord does not have a direct application to Christians today (see 14:16-17; 26; 15:26-27; 16:12-16; cf. also Mt. 10:19-20; Lk. 21:14-15). It is a travesty to misuse these contexts in such an irresponsible fashion.

2.) If the Holy Spirit illuminates the mind of the Christian student, is he as infallible as an "expositor" as he was initially in his role of "author" of the sacred message? If not, why not? Furthermore, how would one know if, or when, he has been "illuminated"? If he affirms that he has been illuminated with reference to a particular passage, may he ever alter his view of that text? If so, did the Spirit misdirect him earlier?

If one has been illuminated regarding a passage, are all others who take a different view in error? If two people, both of whom claim illumination, differ on the interpretation of a passage, how could one know which of these is correct – or if either is? If the Holy Spirit could not make the Scriptures comprehensible the first time around (by the "revelation" process), how could one be confident that He could do so the second time around (by the "illumination" process)?

Note Zuck’s concession. He says that the Spirit’s role in illumination "does not mean that one’s interpretations are infallible" (p. 24). This is woefully inconsistent with the esteemed professor’s endorsement of Moule, namely that the Spirit is both Author and Expositor of the Scriptures for the believer. And why is it that many of these men, who accept this position, are at such variance with one another in their doctrinal positions? Common sense says that something is seriously wrong with this theory.

3.) If the Holy Spirit provides illumination to men today, why do scholars, who subscribe to this ideology, write books instructing folks as to the proper methods of Bible interpretation (as professor Zuck has done)? Such efforts would not be of value to the unbeliever, who has "no spiritual capacity for welcoming and appropriating spiritual truths" (Zuck, p. 22). And they should not be needed by one who has the illuminating Spirit, the alleged "Expositor" of truth.

4.) What if one proposed the following. Select two spiritual Christian people and put them in separate rooms. Provide them with a difficult biblical text, with which each person is equally unfamiliar. Let one of them have access to a good library of reference works, and provide the other with nothing but an empty room and the "illumination of the Spirit." Allow each several hours of concentration. Then have each of them write his explanation of the obscure text. It can be guaranteed that the person with the library will have a better grasp of the passage than the one who has relied solely on the "presence" of the Spirit.

If someone should object to such a test, one need only appeal to the admonition of Christ’s apostle. "Beloved, believe not every spirit [i.e., every person making a religious claim], but prove [test – ESV] the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (1 Jn. 4:1). Indeed, and some of them are teaching that the Spirit directly "illuminates" them!

5.) The doctrine of special illumination contradicts the clear testimony of Scripture, namely the explicit affirmation that the devout student is able to understand the Word of God as given originally. When Paul wrote to the Ephesian brethren he affirmed that "when you read, you can perceive my understanding in the mystery of Christ" (Eph. 3:4). The apostle did not suggest that "reading" – plus a special intervention of the Spirit – would be required. Later, he admonished these saints: "Wherefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is" (Eph. 5:17). If the theory under review is true, and if the Christian does not understand the will of the Lord – even though he studies diligently – the responsibility must be laid at the feet of the Holy Spirit.

6.) Finally, Paul’s testimony could not be clearer. The inspired Scriptures are "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction, which is in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17). The Scriptures alone are sufficient for man’s understanding of the divine will.

We have no doubt but that many of those who advocate the theory of "special illumination" are sincere. But sincerity does not guarantee accuracy (Acts 23:1; 26:9).

Moreover, it should be a matter of great concern to church leaders that so many of our people are beginning to use this sort of language, reflecting unsound beliefs that they have adopted regarding the Spirit’s operation.

The problem is this. We have numerous Christians these days who have a most superficial knowledge foundation in New Testament doctrine. Combine this fact with the reality that many constantly are feeding themselves (or are being fed by others) on sectarian literature that is rank with such ideas. There is an inevitable result in the wake of such a course.

Surely it is time for some serious teaching in the church of the Lord on matters pertaining to the Holy Spirit.

Question: "How are we, as Christians, supposed to feel about the death penalty of a convicted person?"

Answer: If the accused died while still in rebellion to God, we should be sorry that he lost his soul - the same emotion we feel when any unbeliever dies. This sadness, however, is not to be equated with opposition to the death penalty. In fact, it is mitigated by our appreciation of the fact that God's charge to punish evildoers has been properly rendered.

God gave this "life for life" principle after the flood: "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man" (Gen. 9:6). The Mosaic covenant makes repeated references to capital crimes:

• Hitting one's parents (Ex. 21:15).
• Kidnapping (Ex. 21:16).
• Cursing your father and mother (Ex. 21:17).
• Killing an unborn child (Ex. 21:22-25).
• One who owns a violent animal that kills someone (Ex. 21 :28-29).
• Witchcraft (Ex. 22:18).
• Worship of false gods/goddesses (Ex. 22:20).
• Working on the Sabbath (Ex. 35:2).
• Adultery (Lev. 20:10).
• Incest (Lev. 20:11-12,14).
• Sodomy (Lev. 20:13).
• Bestiality (Lev. 20:15-16).
• False prophesying (Deut. 13:1-10).

We are no longer bound by the Old Testament, of course, but the principle is reiterated in the New Testament by Paul, who recognized this God-given responsibility of governments: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God... For he [the ruler] is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil" (Rom. 13:1,4). One does not "slap wrists" with a sword-the implication is clear: governments are obligated to respond to capital crimes with appropriate measures.

Some, however, object to this principle by suggesting that the Old Testament command, "You shall not kill," forbids all killing. As Jason Jackson suggests, "The Sixth Commandment is no real objection to capital punishment. The commandment is a prohibition against murder. In the next chapter, the law of Moses authorized Israel to execute the murderer (Ex. 21:12). To use the Sixth Commandment as an objection to capital punishment is a misrepresentation of Scripture"

("Timothy McVeigh and Capital Punishment," Christian Courier on the Web, 28 May 2001, ).

-Chuck Webster

Question: "I've heard members of the church of Christ say that a Christian can sin and fall from grace. Could you cite an example from the Scriptures of where this actually occurred?"

Answer: There are a number of examples which we might study. Here is one:

1.) "Simon the sorcerer" met the conditions of salvation and became a Christian. Having heard the preaching of Philip concerning Christ as well as being an eye-witness to the miracles which he performed, Simon, like many of his fellow-Samaritans (Acts 8:12), believed and was baptized. "Then Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip..." (Acts 8: 13). Jesus taught, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved. . ." (Mk. 16:16). Hence, Simon was a Christian.

2.) However, being a new convert [and thus a spiritual babe], Simon fell from grace when he offered Peter and John money for the ability to perform miracles. "Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, saying, 'Give me this power also, that anyone on whom I lay hands may receive the Holy Spirit'" (Acts 8:18-19).

3.) Peter in turn responded to Simon's fall by urging repentance and prayer. "But Peter said to him, 'Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money! You have neither part nor portion in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you. For I see that you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity'" (Acts 8:20-23).

Consider:

• Who would perish with the money?
• Why would Peter urge repentance and prayer for forgiveness if Simon had not fallen?
• What did Peter say about Simon's heart?
• Why would Simon request prayer on his own behalf if he had not fallen? Note the progression: A.) Simon became a Christian (cf. Acts 2:38), he B.) fell from grace (cf. Gal. 5:4;1 Tim. 1:19-20; 2 Tim. 4:10), and was therefore told to C.) repent and pray (cf. 1 John 1:7-9).

"In order to account for the infamous proposal of Simon, we must remember his former mode of life, and consider the mental habits which it generated. As a sorcerer, it had been his business to increase his stock in trade by purchasing from other sorcerers the secret of tricks which he could not himself perform, and watching for opportunities to make such purchases. When he saw the apostles impart to men the power to work real miracles, he at once perceived that here was a chance for profit far beyond that which he had abandoned. His overruling avarice, mingled with a passion for popular applause, a passion which his former habits had also cultivated, prompted him to make the offer; and the blinding effect of these passions prevented him from seeing the wickedness of either offering money for this power, or of intending to sell it to others" [1. W. McGarvey, "A Wicked Proposal by Simon," New Commentary on Acts of Apostles, p. 146].

- Mike Benson

We sing the words quite often, usually at the conclusion of a worship service: "If the name of the Savior is precious to you; if His care has been constant and tender and true; if the light of His presence has brightened your way; Oh will you not tell of your gladness today?"

How do we approach that song? Do we sing it only to others? We might be thinking, "Look, that trained Bible class teacher over there needs to share the gospel with his neighbors." We might be thinking, "Isn't this the preachers' or the elders' responsibilities?" Both of those thoughts, of course, are true. The person sitting across from you needs to be sharing the gospel, as do the preachers and the elders. But so do you!

When Jesus gave the Great Commission He did not say, "Send out a few of you to tell people about Me." He gave us marching orders to be followed. We are to go into "all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15-16). No single person can do that. It takes all of us.

Peter said that we are a "royal priesthood" (1 Pet. 2:9). In the Old Testament, the priests were the chosen caretakers of God's commands. They were to see that things were done in the proper way. When done correctly, it was an honorable and exalted position.

What a wonderful thought! In the Christian age, we are all priests. God has entrusted you and me with the charge of making sure things are done in His ways. It is true that elders are to lead, or shepherd, each individual congregation. It is also true that evangelists are to proclaim publicly God's Word. It is true that deacons are to be special servants. But all of us (including elders, evangelists, and deacons) are takers of God's Word - or we should be.

What are you doing with God's saving message? Do your neighbors know where you attend worship? Do they know of God's love for them? Do you show them your concern and love for them? We have been given marching orders. They are to be followed!

Let us not just sit back and wait for people to come to us. We must take the saving message with us "as we go" (Matt. 28:19). Do you know someone who needs to hear the gospel? Set up a Bible study. Invite him or her to worship. Make it a point to fulfill your role as a New Testament priest.

"If the light of His presence has brightened your way, Oh will you not tell it today?"

Back