Don’t Judge

Posted on February 22, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

“Judge not that you be not judged” (Matthew 7:1; Luke 6:37).

“He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first” (John 8:7).

“There is one Lawgiver… who are you to judge another?” (James 4:12).

We often hear these verses quoted.  We, out of concern, try to reason with one living a life contrary to God’s word, only to have these words directed against us.  We turn on a television or radio talk show.  A moral issue is being discussed.  If the Bible is mentioned, the retort is “Judge not that you be not judged,” or, “He who is without sin… let him cast the first stone.”  I think that these must be among the most quoted Bible verses.

Let us consider these verses a bit closer in their context.

1.  Matthew 7:1-6.  The immediate context concerns hypercritical and hypocritical judging, “And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye” (Matthew 7:3)  “Hypocrite!” (Matthew 7:5).

The immediate context is not forbidding all judging.  (a) Matthew 7:5: “First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”  Do not be a hypocrite.  Get your life in order.  Then, you will be in a better position to help your brother.  “Therefore, you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things” (Romans 2:1).  Do not be like the one who says, “Do as I say, not as I do.”  (b) Matthew 7:6: “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before the swine.”  This is said in the same context.  We are to judge some to be “dogs” and “swine.”

There is also the matter of self-contradiction.  Those who think Matthew 7:1 forbids all judging, and who are quick to quote this passage to others whom them perceive as judging, are in fact, judging others to be in violation of Matthew 7:1.  Consistency, thou art the jewel!

2.  Luke 6:37-38.  This is the parallel passage to Matthew 7:1. However, there are some additional things I wish to consider.

The immediate context concerns how we treat others.  (a) Jesus has set the “Golden Rule” (Luke 6:31).  (b) He has instructed that this is to be practiced even towards those who are enemies, an towards those who cannot repay their kindness, or benefit them in some way (Luke 6:32-35 cf. Luke 14:12-14).  (c) Finally, He sets forth the principle of reciprocity.  That is, in general the way you treat others is the way they will treat you in return.  Notice the wording found in the King James Version, “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye hall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven; give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, running over, shall men give into your bosom.  For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again” (Luke 6:37-38 cf. Proverbs 11:26-28; Ecclesiastes 11:1-2).

The remote context does not forbid all judgment.  (a) We are to discern between right and wrong (Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; Hebrews 5:12; 1 John 4:1).  (b) We are to practice church discipline (Matthew 18:15-17; Romans 16:17; 1 Corinthians 5; 1 Corinthians 6:5; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-ff; 1 Timothy 6:3-5; Titus 1:10-11; 3:10; 2 John 9-11).  (c) We are to judge whether a man is qualified to serve as an elder or deacon (1 Timothy 3:1-ff; Titus 1:5-ff).  (d) We are to identify and help those who are in sin (Galatians 6:1-2; James 5:20).  (e) We are to “judge not, according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).

3.  John 8:1-11.  History should be considered.  The Jews, at this point in time, were being ruled by Rome, and had no legal right to execute capital punishment on their own (cf. John 18:31).  The scribes and Pharisees are trying to entrap Jesus in a dilemma.  (a) If he refuses to allow the execution, they no doubt are going to try to paint him as one who does not respect Moses’ law.  (b) If he agrees to her execution, then they no doubt plan to report such to Roman authorities, and paint him as lacking respect for Roman authority.

Moses’ law should be considered.  The scribes and Pharisees’ trap was not much of a trap for they had not followed Moses’ law in the matter.  (a) The law required two or more witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6; Deuteronomy 19:15).  One wonders if there were actual witnesses.  (b) The law required that both the man and the woman be brought into judgment (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22).  Where was the man?  Why had they not brought him to Jesus? Was the man one of them? (c) The law required that the witnesses cast the first stone (Deuteronomy 17:6-7).  No one was willing to do this.  Where there any real witnesses?  (d) Why bring the woman to Jesus?  Was Jesus an earthly judge?  (cf. Luke 12:13-14).

What did Jesus mean when he said, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her”?  (a) He may have meant “without sin in how this matter had been handled”.  They had not followed the law.  (b) He may have meant “without sin in the same matter.”  (cf. Romans 2:1-3).  Had some of them been in sin with her?  Or, at least been guilty of the same sin?  (c) It certainly does not mean that one cannot condemn another, if one has ever been guilty of any sin.  Governments may enforce laws (cf. Romans 13).  Church discipline is to be practiced (1 Corinthians 5; 2 Thessalonians 3, etc.).

Some seem to think that Jesus simply overlooked this woman’s sin.  He did not.  He told her, “go and sin no more” (John 8:11).

4.  James 4:11-12.  The kind of judging under consideration here is very likely the kind addressed previously in this book.  James 2:2-4: “If there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him, ‘You sit here in a good place,’ and say to the poor man, ‘You stand there,’ or ‘sit here at my footstool,’ have you not shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?”  Evil judges show partiality (cf. Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:17).

Watch the fact that the kind of judging mentioned is connected with being a lawgiver (James 4:11-12).  We should not judge others unfairly, or by some self-created unjust standard.  “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24).

One commentator added this thought, “The Christian must judge right and wrong on the basis of the word of God.  But he must not judge his fellows out of hatred, pride, or some other false motive” [Shelly, What Christian Living is All About (Studies in James, p. 54].

Posted in Church discipline, Fellowship, Judgment, sermon on mount, Textual study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Making It Understandable

Posted on February 19, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

It is sometimes frustrating for preachers, and members of the church, who are trying to teach the Bible to others.  People can think technically, and deeply when they want.  If the job, or school demands that they learn something new, i.e. – learning a new operating system, people apply themselves, and learn what they need to.  But, they won’t think very deeply when it comes to the Bible.  They want to be spoon-fed.  This frustration is not new (Hebrews 5:11-12).  Oh that men would think more deeply, and seriously!  Oh that they would use their God-given brains! (none of us use more than a small percentage of that grey matter that we are capable of using!).

On the other hand, there are some preachers and teachers that make things more difficult and technical, than needed.  Sometimes in teaching others, we assume that the listener knows certain things, when they do not.  We assume, and even take for granted, that they know what we know, and we forget all those many hours and years that we’ve spent studying.  In such cases, the listener may be awed by our knowledge, but, still comes away not really understanding what we were trying to get across.  They may be impressed with the messenger, but they miss the message.  I heard someone say after listening to a well-known speaker, “I don’t know what he said, but it sure must have been good.”  Let’s be honest.  If the message is not understood, no matter how fine a sermon it may have been, the preacher, or teacher, really has not accomplished what he needs to.

Now, having said this, let’s consider how some great Bible teachers, and even how the Master teacher Himself, presented their lessons.  By so doing, perhaps we (each and every one of us) might become better evangelists for the Lord.

First, let us consider the manner of presentation of the Apostle Paul.  Do we realize how many times Paul quoted from uninspired sources, and even pagan religious material, to relate himself to his audience, to lay some common ground that might be built upon, and in order to make a point?  In Titus 1:12, we find the words, “One of them, a prophet of their own, said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons’ This testimony is true.”  Understand, that Paul here-in, is quoting Epimenides, a Cretan poet who lived in the 6th century B.C..  Why does he do this?  He does this, no doubt, to show Titus what he is up against; And, he may have done this to demonstrate to those at Crete just what their reputation was, a reputation that had been well-known for 600-plus years.  In 1 Corinthians 15:32, Paul reasoned: “…If the dead do not rise, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.'”  Paul’s point is this, “If men think that they’ll, in the end, die like beasts, then they’ll live like beasts; And, if there is no hope of an afterlife, then why do we endure the things we do?  Let’s not hold to the hardships and demands of first century Christianity; Let’s just enjoy life.”  Again, I ask you to understand that in making this point, Paul quotes from an uninspired source.  He quotes  an Epicurean maxim that had been around since the 4th or 3rd century B.C. Greece.  Also, by implication he refutes such a philosophy by arguing for, and producing proofs of an afterlife.  Next, let’s go to Acts 17:28a: “for in Him we live and move and have our being.”  Paul is in the middle of his great sermon on Mars Hill (or the Areopagus).  Right in the midst of that sermon he quotes from Epimenides (a 6th century B.C. poet).  Epimenides’ actually originally applied these words to Zeus, who was supposed to be the “father of gods and man.” The entire context of the original quote reads: “They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one… But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever, For in thee we live and move and have our being.”  Was Paul, by appealing to this quote, saying that these Athenians were right in their worship to Zeus?  Certainly not!  But, he was showing them that he was familiar with what they believed, and that certain concepts that they had about God were correct.  He is alive.  He is the originator and propagator of Heavenly beings, and mankind.  He is the sustainer of life itself.  Finally, look at Acts 17:28b, “For we are also His offspring.”  This line is a quote from the poem Natural Phenomena. It was written by Aratus of Cilicia.  His poem is dated from the 3rd century B.C..  It was a poem about Zeus.  Watch the words:

                        “Let us begin with Zeus; never leave him unmentioned, O mortals.                                                      All roads are full of Zeus and all men’s meeting places;                                                                                the sea and the harbours are full of him.                                                   In all our ways we all have to do with Zeus; for we also are his offspring.”

Now what Paul is doing by quoting this is saying, “I am familiar with what you believe, and what you teach about Zeus, some of those things are not so different from what I teach about God.”  Paul is laying out common terminology, and common concepts to reach his audience, and teach them about the true God.  F.F. Bruce has said, “It is, in fact, quite consistent with Paul’s outlook to allow that these writers’ expressed thoughts which, despite the pagan context in which they were conceived, indicated a real, if limited apprehension of the true God.”  Paul always tried to relate himself to his listeners.  He even used native language to do so (Acts 21:37; Acts 22:2).

Second, let us consider the preaching and teaching of the Master teacher – Jesus Himself.  We are told that “the common people heard Him gladly” (Mark 12:37).  The word “common” means literally “much varied, manifold” according to Thayer or “much diversity” according to Arndt-Gingrich.  It is a word that is used of the masses.  Now watch the fact that when Jesus spoke, His sermons were not directed to just the intellectuals, but to the masses.  His sermons had wide appeal in spite of the fact that those people were from a diverse background.  How did He do this?  He did this by using illustrations that were of familiarity to them.  He spoke of sheep (e.g Luke 15:4-5).  He spoke of sowing seed (e.g. Luke 8:5-ff). He spoke of fig trees (e.g. Luke 13:6-ff; 21:29-31).  He spoke of fishing (e.g. Matthew 4:19; 13:47-ff).  The Bible also is filled as a whole with illustrations from agriculture (e.g. 2 Timothy 2:6; James 5:7), and sports (e.g. 1 Corinthians 9:24-27; 2 Corinthians 5:9; Galatians 5:7; Philippians 3:13-14; 2 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 12:1).  Jesus built  upon truths that He knew they already accepted to help make His greater point (e.g. Luke 15:4, 8; Luke 14:5).

Third, consider the example of Ezekiel.  He used visual aids in his teaching.  Just read Ezekiel 4:1-3, or Ezekiel 12:1-7; or Ezekiel 24:1-14.  This method of teaching was not limited to the Old Testament.  The prophet Agabus uses the same method under the New Testament period (Acts 21:10-11).

Now here are some lessons from these three examples that we might apply when teaching others.  (1) It may help to know what other people believe.  It may make teaching them so much easier. It is good to know what others believe, and how they use their terminology. (2) It may help to try to couch your words in language and illustrations with which they are familiar.  (3) We should not make it more difficult than it has to be. Try to keep thing simple. Unless they are intellectuals, or scholars who want to get technical, and are making technical arguments.  (4) We do well if we find truths that they accept to build upon, and drive home the point being taught.  (5) Sometimes visual aid helps get the point across. It is acceptable to use such.

Posted in Preachers, Preaching, Textual study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Unpardonable Sin

Posted on February 16, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

I was studying with an eighty-seven year old woman.  She was a Methodist, who had never been baptized in the right way, or for the right reason.  She wanted to be, and later would be, but at this point she hesitated.  Her hesitation was due to the fact that she thought she had, when she was a young woman, committed “the unpardonable sin,” and thus, could never be forgiven.

What a sad thing.  She thought that she was without hope.  I believe that she misunderstood the following words: Matthew 12:31-32: “Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.  Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him: but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or the age to come.”  Mark 3:28-29: “Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation.”  Luke 12:10-11: “Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but to him who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven.”

What is This Sin?

1.  Murder?  Some have so thought.  The Mormon book Doctrine and Covenants proclaims “The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood…” (132:27); “Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come (42:18).

However, this does not fit.  (a) Murder is not the topic of the immediate context.  (b) Murder can be forgiven.  David was (2 Samuel 12:9, 13)  Paul was (Acts 8:1; 9:1; 22:4; 26:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:15; 2 Timothy 4:8).  The multitude who cried out “let him be crucified,” were offered forgiveness (Acts 2:36-38; 3:14-15, 19).

2.  Fornication, adultery, homosexuality, or some sexual sin?  Some have so thought.  Some refuse to forgive those who repent.  The Mormon book Doctrine and Covenants declares “he that has committed adultery and repents with all his heart, and forsaketh it, and doeth it no more, thou shalt forgive; But, if he doeth it again he shall not be forgiven…” (42:25-26).

However, this does not fit.  (a) No sexual sin is under consideration in the immediate context.  (b) Such can be forgiven.  Paul wrote, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived.  Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.  And such were some of you.  But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).  Also consider the man who sinned with his father’s wife (1 Corinthians 5, cf. 2 Corinthians 2:3-11).

3.  Backsliding?  Some believe that once one decides to follow Christ, he must not sin, and that if he does, then there is no more opportunity for forgiveness.

Others have said that one is allowed to repent and be forgiven only once.  One ancient writing said, “there is but one repentance given to the slaves of God… Whoever is tempted by the devil and sins after that great and reverend calling has one repentance.  But if he should sin and repent repeatedly it is of no benefit to him” (The Shepherd of Hermas 29:8; 31:6).

However, this does not fit.  (a) It is not the subject of the immediate context.  (b) One can be forgiven for falling away.  Peter denied the Lord three times (Matthew 26:69-75).  We are to help brethren out of sin (Galatians 6:1-3; James 5:19-20).  Even multiple times can one repent (Luke 17:3-4).

4.  Blasphemy, that is – speaking against God or His message, in general?  Some might think this.  However, this does not fit.  Paul was once a blasphemer (1 Timothy 1:13).

5.  A heart so hard that it rejects the evidence that God provides?  I believe this is the answer.

This fits the context.  (a) Matthew 12:31 begins with, “Therefore I say to you…”  This points one back to the context of Matthew 12:22-30.  The fact that Jesus performed a miracle could not be denied.  They knew that it was by supernatural power that this was done.  However, they suggested that it was “by Beelzebub” and not by the Holy Spirit that this was done.  (b) Mark 3:30 explains Jesus’ words about “unpardonable sin” by saying “because they said ‘He has an unclean spirit.’”  J.W. McGarvey commented, “The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit here denounced is the evil speech just made by the Pharisees, in which a work performed by the Holy Spirit was attributed to Satan” (Commentary on Matthew and Mark, p. 109).

It seems to me that the reason that this sin was unpardonable is that they had proven themselves beyond reach.  They had rejected the strongest evidence that Jesus offered, miraculous evidence.  How then could they be reached?

One might wonder, “are there any unpardonable sins today?  One certainly can still possess a heart that is so set against Jesus that no evidence can convince the person.  Furthermore, there are many sins that remain unpardonable due to lack of repentance, confession, and obedience to the Gospel.  These, one day, will become unpardonable.  The decisions we make in the life will become irreversible in the next.

“O do not let the word depart, and close thine eyes against the light; Poor sinner harden not thy heart: Be saved, O tonight/Tomorrow’s sun may never rise to bless thy long deluded sight; This is the time, O then be wise: Be saved, O tonight/ O why not tonight? O why not tonight? Wilt thou be saved?  Then why not tonight?” (Song: O Why Not Tonight by Elizabeth Reed)

Posted in Evidence, Forgiveness, Holy Spirit, mormon, Mormons, Plan of salvation, Sin, Textual study, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“…Considering Yourself”

Posted on February 12, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

Galatians 6:1 reads: “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.”

Now, what do the words, “considering yourself, lest you also be tempted” mean?  Some have thought that the warning here is this: (1) When someone sins you are to approach them and try to mend them up; (2) But, when you do this make sure that their sinful ways do not tempt you too, into this life of sin(cf Jude 23).  Now, it is certainly true that people can influence us and tempt us to do sin (1 Corinthians 15:33; Proverbs 22:24-25; Proverbs 13:20).  We must be very careful in this matter, not to be so influenced.  But, this is not what Galatians 6:1 is addressing.

What then, is the context?  In Galatians 5:26, Paul warned that they (we) were not to be striving to bring glory to self (cf. Matthew 6:1-2).  But, instead the Bible is clear, our ambition should be to bring glory to God (Matthew 5:16; 1 Peter 2:12; etc.).  They were also told not to be envious of one another.  Instead of being concerned about one another, they should have ultimately been concerned about showing themselves approved unto God (2 Timothy 2:15).

Then, we come to Galatians 6:1 (and remember that the chapter breaks are man-made, not God-given).  Look at the context closely.  Paul is saying: (1) Instead of gloating and saying, “I’m better than you” when your brother stumbles, (2) Use your spiritual strength to help your brother out of sin when he stumbles.

This context becomes much clearer as one continues to read, especially when one reads Galatians 6:3-5. Paul cautions them not to think themselves something, when comparing their life with the weaknesses of their brother.  One is not a spiritual giant just because his brother is weak.  “One does not become a saint by another’s sins.”  Our standard of spiritual assessment is not to be one another.  There is an objective standard we each will be measured by in the end.  Paul said, “For we dare not class ourselves or compare ourselves with those who commend themselves.  But they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise… For not he who commends himself is approved, but whom the Lord commends.”  (2 Corinthians 10:12, 18).

Lessons to learn from the text: (1) People will stumble and be overtaken with sin from time to time.  (2) I do have a duty and responsibility to strive to help them in such times of need.  (3) When I do so, I should not gloat or think myself a better person than they.  I should, out of concern, humbly strive to help them; (4) I should not say, “I would never do what they do, and therefore, conclude – I am approved of God.”  The standard in judgment will not be me in comparison to you.  The standard in judgment will be the word of God. The real question is not how do I compare to another concerning this one sin (Galatians 6:1), but how do I compare to the totality of God’s revealed will.  Let us each look into “the perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25) as our measure of righteousness, and let us not look unto one another for such comparison. “But let each one examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another” (Galatians 6:4).

Posted in Sin, Soul Winning, Temptation, Textual study | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

We’ve Been Duped!

Posted on February 10, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

Valentine’s Day is near, you know that day that men (and women) are expected to show that special someone how much they love them.  Sometimes this is shown with the purchase of diamonds.

Diamonds are mentioned four times in the pages of the Bible.  (1) They adorned the priest’s garments (Exodus 28:18; 39:11).  (2) They were used for engraving (Jeremiah 17:1).  (3) They were descriptive of the wealth of the King of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:18).

However, let’s consider more recent history.   (1) Prior to the mid-nineteenth century, diamonds were rare and very expensive.  They came primarily from India.  Borneo and Brazil also eventually became major sources.  (2) Then, diamonds were discovered in South Africa in 1866.  So many were found that the value plummeted.  Cecil Rhodes of England, and his DeBeers company bought out other miners and eventually controlled the South African supply.  (3) He then convinced most countries that mined diamonds to sell exclusively to him.  In return, he would hoard the diamonds to keep prices high around the world.  DeBeers soon controlled 80% of the world’s market.  (4) Through great marketing DeBeers convinced America and the world that a diamond was “a girl’s best friend.”  Prior to this time, diamonds were for the rich and powerful.  Now they were for everyone. Demand went up and DeBeers continued to be careful with how many diamonds they released on the market.  (5) Large diamonds were especially valued.  However, Russia began to mine large supplies of small diamonds.   DeBeers fulfilling its contract with Russia bought these up as promised.  Then they marketed the idea of an ‘eternity ring’ a ring with lots of small diamonds on it.  (These basic facts are set forth in John Stossel’s book Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity, p. 150-153).  John Stossel writes, “Diamonds only mean love, and cost more than gold, because one brilliant company convinced people that diamonds were special” (ibid, p. 150).  The truth is they are greatly overpriced.  If DeBeers ever released its entire hoard at once on the market, diamonds would be worth little. It is brilliant business management, and marketing.

If you want to give her diamonds, do so.  I am sure it will be appreciated.  They are beautiful.

However, we should all strive to give our mates something even far more valuable.  Let us give them the love and respect that the Bible teaches (Proverbs 31:10-31; Song of Solomon; 1 Corinthians 13:1-7; Ephesians 5:22-33; Colossians 3:18-19; Titus 2:4-5; 1 Peter 3:1-7, etc.).

Posted in Dating, Love, Marriage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

A Humorous Story on Infant Baptism

Posted on February 7, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

“Raccoon” John Smith lived from 1784-1868.  He was a very colorful and influential preacher in Kentucky.  Louis Cochran wrote a novel entitled “Raccoon John Smith,” which was based upon Smith’s life.  I want to give you an excerpt which provides a powerful point to be considered about infant baptism.

“In passing a Methodist camp meeting one day in September he stopped to watch a young Methodist preacher baptize a howling, rebellious infant by sprinkling water on the squirming body.  When the service was concluded, he stepped to the front of the crowd and identifying himself, took the preacher firmly by the arm and attempted to lead him toward the creek a few yards away.

“‘What are you trying to do, brother Smith?’ the young preacher protested.  ‘Are you out of your mind?’

“‘What am I trying to do?’ John affected deep surprise.  ‘Why sir, I am going to baptize you by immersion into the death, resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, according to his commandment.’

“‘But I have no desire for such baptism.  I know of you; you are called ‘The Dipper.’  But you are not going to dip me.  I am a Methodist; let me go!’

“John tightened his hold on the man’s arm while the crowd watched, some in apprehension, others in amusement.  ‘That is a scoffer’s blasphemy of the holy ordinance,’ he said sternly.  ‘Are you a believer?’

“‘ Of course I’m a believer,’ the preacher said indignantly.  ‘But I’m not willing to be immersed.  It would do no good for you to baptize me against my will.  It would be wrong!’

“‘I don’t understand,’ John said.  ‘Only a few minutes ago you baptized a helpless baby against its will, although it screamed and kicked.  Did you get its consent first?  Come, come along, sir, we will have no more of this foolishness.’

“The crowd broke into open laughter, and John gave the young preacher a quick pull toward the creek, and then suddenly released him.  He waved to the people for silence.

“‘ Brethren and friends, I shall be in the neighborhood for a little while visiting among you; let me know if this poor, misguided man ever again baptizes another without his consent.  For you have heard him say it would do no good, that it would be wrong.’

“…’Let me tell you something of the Lord’s plan of salvation’ …For almost an hour he talked, the people listened closely, only a few of them seeming to note that the young preacher had stalked toward the hitching rail and mounted his horse, riding away in a cloud of dust.  When John extended the invitation, seven young people, all from Methodist families, responded requesting baptism by immersion” (pp 324-325).

Note: The issue is not strictly one of the infant’s will.  The issue is what does the Bible teach?  Moises Pinedo has written, “Some well-meaning people who disagree with infant baptism have opposed it strictly because they see it as an imposition of one’s will on someone who is incapable of making his or her own decisions.  While making one’s own choice is critical in regard to salvation, the argument against imposing the wishes of others on someone else should not be the determining factor in whether or not infant baptism is practiced.  The only determinant should be whether God authorizes or requires it.”  (What the Bible says about the Catholic Church, p. 144).  Remember that God once instructed the descendant of Abraham to circumcise their children.

What Does The Bible Say?

1.  The need for belief.  “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16).  “When they believed Philip as he preached the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized” (Acts 8:12).

2.  Never is infant baptism mentioned in the New Testament.  It is “those who gladly received (the) word” who were baptized (Acts 2:41). “Many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptized” (Acts 18:8b).

3.  Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the Kingdom of God” (Mark 10:14).  Yet, the Bible also says, “No fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and God” (Ephesians 5:5).

Posted in baptism, Catholic, Plan of salvation, Restoration History | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Give Me Something Big To Do!

Posted on February 6, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

“My Father, if the prophet had told you to do something great, would you not have done it?” (2 Kings 5:13).

An Observation

As a preacher, I have met those who seem to get excited about doing some “big thing.”  If the church passed out material at the Billy Graham crusade, setting forth the true plan of salvation, they would be there.  If there was some pro-life march going on in town, they would be there.  If there was a gathering of Christians in the nation’s capital holding signs which proclaimed marriage between a man and a woman, they would want to be there.

However, I have seen some of these same ones very negligent in the “little things”.  In truth, such seems to bore them.

Here is an illustration: Some are ever looking for  some exciting program to be in place to reach the lost.  Yet, they do very little to try to reach the people they know.  They travel air, land and sea to do mission work.  Yet, they never speak of Christ to their family, friends, coworkers, and neighbors.  They wait for the elders to put a system into place to reach the community.  Yet, they fail to realize that God has already has a system in place.  It is each Christian being like salt and light to others around him (Matthew 5:13-16), and quietly working within his sphere of influence (Matthew 13:33; 1 Timothy 2:1-2).  Remember how Andrew brought Simon to the Lord (John 1:40-42), and Philip brought Nathaniel (John 1:43-46).

Do not get me wrong.  I am not opposed to “big things”.  I have no problem with the use of: mass media (radio, TV, internet, newspapers, billboards); city-wide campaigns (mass mailing, door-knocking); foreign mission trips; Gospel meetings, etc.

However, my personal experience is that most of my conversions in the United States have come from the “little things”.  A member of the church has a family member, friend, coworker or neighbor.  This member is concerned about that person.  The member sets up a home Bible study and asks me to teach it, or help teach it. This is not as flashy as doing “something big”.  However, it is very effective.

In some ways it may be more comfortable to do the “big things”.  Typically, such involves strangers.  While reaching out to a family member, friend, coworker, or neighbor involves someone you know and have a relationship.  However, if we love them shouldn’t we reach out to them?

Think about the following passages: “those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word” (Acts 8:4); “You are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness and into His marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9); “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it be seasoned? It is good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.  You are the light of the world.  A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.  Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it give light to all who are in the house.  Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven” [(Matthew 5:13-18) Note: John Shannon once put it this way: We are hens expected to lay eggs.  If we don’t lay, it is off the Campbell Soup factory!]; “having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles… they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation” [(1 Peter 2:12) It is the “little things” being emphasized here]; “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” [(1 Corinthians 10:31) It is the “little things” that are in view here]. “…by this time you ought to be teachers…” (Hebrews 5:12)

 Let us each try to reach someone this year.  “Let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins” (James 5:20). “He who wins souls is wise” (Proverbs 11:30). “Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament, and those who turn many to righteousness like stars forever and ever” (Daniel 12:3).

“Excellence is doing ordinary things extraordinary.” 

Posted in Christian Influence, Soul Winning | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Value of a Wife and Mom

Posted on February 3, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

It is no secret. Women typically earn less income than men. “For American women twenty-five and older who hold at least a bachelor’s degree and work full-time, the national median income is about $47,000. Similar men, meanwhile, make more than $66,000, a premium of 40 percent” (Super Freakonomics, p. 21). Moreover, the income disparity seems to increase with age. “As young beginning workers, British Women’s incomes were 91 percent that of British men but, as mother, their incomes were just 67 percent of that of men who were fathers … In the United States, a study of graduates of the University of Michigan Law School found a similar pattern: The gap in pay between women and men was relatively small at the outset of their careers, but 15 years later, women graduates earned only 60 percent as much as men” (Sowell, Economic Facts and Fallacies, p. 75).

Some have thought that the disparity can be primarily attributed to employer discrimination. This does not seem a reasonable explanation. (a) Such discrimination would put an employer at a competitive disadvantage. “If employers pay a woman only three-quarters as much as they would pay a man for doing the same work with the same skill, this means that those employers who hire an all-female workforce can get four workers for what other employers are paying for three … Even if discriminatory employers do not think things through this way, the competition of the marketplace will tend to force the higher-cost producers out of business, whether they understand why or not” (Economic Facts and Fallacies, p. 73-74). (b) Gender alone does not explain the statistics. “In 1991, women without children earned 95 percent of what men earned, while women with children earned just 75 percent of what men earned. Moreover, even those women without children need not be in the same occupations as men. The very possibility of having children makes different occupations have different attractions to women, even before they become mothers” (Sowell, Basic Economics, p. 199). Moreover, “As far back as 1969, academic women who had never married earned more than academic men who had never married, while married academic women without children earned less, and married academic women with children earned still less. For women in general – that is, not just academic women —  those single women who  had worked continuously since high school were in 1971 earning slightly more than men of the same description. All of this was before affirmative action” (Facts and Fallacies, p. 77). “Among college educated, never-married individuals with no children who worked full-time and were from 40 to 64 years old – that is beyond the child-bearing years – men averaged $40,000 in income, while women averaged $47,000 (Facts and Fallacies, p. 70).

It seems that the gender wage disparity can be explained by several considerations: (1) Educational choices. Women pursue higher education in greater numbers than do men. In the U.S. there are 140 women for every 100 men enrolled in higher education (Facts and Fallacies, p. 56). The 2010 census indicates that 37 percent of employed women have a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 35 percent of men (abcnews.com). However, there are significant differences in what degrees are pursued. “As of 2005, for example, women received more than 60 percent of the doctorates in education but less than 20 percent of the doctorates in engineering” (Facts and Fallacies, p. 67). (2) Career choices. (a) Women compose 74 percent of what the U.S. Census Bureau classifies as “clerical and kindred works.” They are less that 5 percent of “transportation equipment operatives” and less than 3 percent construction workers or loggers. While men are 54 percent of the labor force, they are 92 percent of the job-related deaths (Facts and Fallacies, p. 65). (b) Women tend to spend less time at work. “The average female MBA with no children works only 3 percent fewer hours than the average male MBA. But female MBAs with children work 24 percent less” (Super Freakonomics, p. 45). (c) Women tend to choose jobs which are more flexible, and allow them to spend more time with their children. (d) Pregnancy and staying at home with small children has a huge impact on income. “Interruptions of labor force participation … mean that a woman may have fewer years of job experience than a man of the same age … To drop out of some fields and the return in a few years … can mean having fallen significantly behind developments in these occupations” (Facts and Fallacies, p. 66-67).

Women make less due to their role in the home. In many ways it is the woman who helps the man bring in the income that he does. Thomas Sowell writes, “The earnings of that income can also be a joint enterprise, regardless of whose name appears on the paycheck. Time that a bachelor spends shopping, preparing meals, or going out to restaurants, taking his clothes to the laundry or dry cleaners, entertaining guests … is available to many married men to put into advancing their careers instead, because their wives relieved them of such concerns. Given these and other ways in which traditional wives have freed up the time of their husbands, it is hardly surprising that married men have usually earned higher incomes than single men of the same age and education … Another way of looking at this is that the traditional division of family responsibilities has meant that wives have sacrificed their own income-earning potential possibilities and enhanced that of their husbands, with the resultive income being jointly spent” (Facts and Fallacies, p. 72).

There may be many reasons that women do not earn as much as men. However, one of the reasons, perhaps the biggest reason, has to do with the fact that women make certain choices and sacrifices to rear their children, and for the well-being of the family.

Do you realize how much a wife and mother sacrifices of her personal income potential to contribute to the well-being of the family?

“He who finds a wife finds a good thing” (Proverbs 18:22). 

“Her worth is far above rubies. The heart of her husband safely trusts her; so he will have no lack of gain. She does him good and not evil all the days of her life … She rises while it is yet night, and provides food for her household … She is not afraid of the snow for her household, For all her household is clothed in scarlet … Her husband is known in the gates when he sits among the elders of the lord. She makes linen garments and sells them … She watches over the ways of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness” (Proverbs 31).

 

Posted in Family, Marriage, Parables, Stats | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

In The News: How Many Heard?

Posted on January 31, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

We read in the Bible of Jesus and the apostles speaking before large crowds of people.  Could so many really hear and understand what was said?  This is a question asked by critics of the Bible.  It is also joked about by some.  “In Monte Python’s film, ‘Life of Brian,’ a large crowd showed up to hear Jesus’ sermon, but by the time Jesus’ words made it to the fringes of the crowd some clarity was lost (‘Blessed are the cheese-makers’)” (Fox News, Joel N. Shurkin, How Many People Heard the Sermon on the Mount? Or the Gettysburg Address?, Dec. 10, 2013).  Even sincere Bible students wonder, “How could so many hear?”

Some have suggested that miraculous amplification may have been involved.  This is certainly possible.  [God seems to have so spoken to the children of Israel at Mount Sinai.  “(His) voice shook the earth” (Hebrews 12:6).  “(They) begged that the word should not be spoken to them anymore” (Hebrews 12:18-19), “Then they said to Moses, “You speak with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die” (Exodus 20:19).  Moses said that God did this, “that His fear may be before you, so that you may not sin” (Exodus 20:20)].  However, there is no indication in the Biblical record that this is how Jesus or the apostles spoke to the multitudes.

Some have thought that the answer may be at least partially found in the acoustics of the chosen locations for their sermons.  This seems reasonable.  Some locations form natural amphitheaters.  The hill where Jesus supposedly preached The Sermon on the Mount is one such place.  Jesus spoke from a boat on more than one occasion (Luke 5:3; Matt. 13:2, 3).  Sound is said to travel well over calm water.  Paul once spoke on Mars Hill (or the Areopagus).

However, let’s ask how many under good circumstances could hear a man speak without aid of a public address system?  (1) Benjamin Franklin conducted an experiment.  In the year 1739, he listened to George Whitefield address an audience of 6,000 people in Philadelphia.  He then measured out an area in which one could hear with understanding, about 23,000 square meters.  He concluded that, “More than 30,000” could hear (Fox News, Joel N. Shurkin, How Many People heard the Sermon on the Mount? Or the Gettysburg Address? Dec. 10, 2013).  (2) Two researchers, Braxton Boren and Agnieszka Roginska, at the NYU’s Music and Audio Research Lab replicated the Franklin experiment.  They concluded Whitefield could be heard by 20,000 – 30,000 on a good day, a perfectly still crowd, no wind or carriage clattering” (ibid).

Let us not forget the style of the speaker.  “The style of the speaker was different in the past… the speakers stood up straight and might have raised and stretched their arms so their diaphragms were extended.  Speeches of the past also had an entirely different cadence.  Orators often spoke in bursts of four or five words with considerable emphasis instead of long phrases” (ibid).  Modern speakers have grown dependent on P.A. systems.

Joel N. Shurkin writes, “Have you ever wondered how many people in the audience actually heard the Gettysburg Address?  How about the Sermon on the Mount or Moses at Sinai?  The answer to those questions, according to New Your University researchers, is more than you think” (ibid).

Today, we have the benefits of a Public Address system.  The question is: are we listening as we should? Clearly, the audience has a responsibility to discipline themselves to carefully listen, be attentive and engaged, and not be thoughtless or lazy in their hearing. Consider: “Speak, LORD, for your servant hears” (1 Samuel 3:9, 10).  “The ears of all the people were attentive to the Book of the Law” (Nehemiah 8:3).  “All the people were very attentive to hear him” (Luke 19:18).  “The common people heard him gladly” (Mark 12:37).  “We are all present before God, to hear all the things commanded you by God” (Acts 10:33).  “Take heed what you hear” (Mark 4:24).  “Take heed how you hear” (Luke 8:18).  “Let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath” (James 1:19).  “The ear that hears the rebukes of life will abide among the wise” (Proverbs 15:31).  “He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him” (Proverbs 18:13).

Posted in Apologetics, beatitudes, Preachers, Preaching, science, sermon on mount | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Document Difficulties

Posted on January 29, 2014 by Bryan Hodge

One does not need to expose the Mormon documents to refute them as being from God. All one needs to do is establish that revelation was completed with the New Covenant Canon.

 Moreover, taking the introduction of The Book of Mormon one does not seem to need latter-day revelation. It reads in its opening paragraph “It is a record of God’s dealing with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fullness of the everlasting gospel.” Grammatically, this does not say that The Bible plus The Book of Mormon equals the fullness of the gospel. Instead, it says that just as the Bible contains the fullness of the gospel, even so, does The Book of Mormon. This may not be what they believe, but it is what their introduction says.

However, in this writing we do want to expose some difficulties with Mormon documents.

1. The Book of Lehi

The Book of Lehi was to be a part of the original collection of books which make up The Book of Mormon. It is missing. Its loss should raise some serious doubts about the genuineness of Joseph Smith’s work as a prophet.

The story goes that in the summer of 1828, Martin Harris (an early supporter of Joseph Smith) asked permission to take the book home to show to his wife and family members, who were skeptics. The request was twice denied by Smith, after prayerful inquiry was made to the Lord. Permission was granted by the Lord on the third appeal. The book disappeared while in Martin Harris’ possession. It was suspected that Mrs. Harris had hidden the book. Her motive? It was thought that she was testing the prophet to see if he could reproduce it word for word. Moreover, it was thought that if he did produce it, she would alter the original and use it to discredit him. She may have been tired of the financial support her husband was providing Smith. Whatever the case, the missing book, 116 pages long, was never found.

Smith did not reproduce the book. In the preface to the 1830 edition of The Book of Mormon, Smith explained “The Book of Lehi…some person or persons have stolen and kept from me…and being commanded of the Lord that I should not translate the same over again, for Satan had put it into their hearts to tempt the Lord their God, by altering the words, that they did read contrary from that which I translated and caused to be written: and if I should bring forth the same words again…they would publish that which they had stolen” (recorded in Don Simpson’s The Golden Myth of Mormonism, p. 87). Doctrine and Covenant reads “Behold, they say and think in their hearts – we will see it God has given him power to translate; if so, he will also give him power again; and if God giveth him power again, or, in other words, if he bringeth forth the same words, behold, we have the same with us, and we have altered them; therefore they will not agree, and we will say that he has lied in his words, and that he has no gift, and that he has no power…Behold , I say unto you, that you shall not translate again those words” (section 10:16-18, 30).

Do you not find this strange? Smith had the opportunity to show himself capable of reproducing the same words, much as Jeremiah and Baruch did (Jeremiah 36), but he didn’t reproduce the words.

What about the possible altering of the original? Don Simpson asked “If such a publication of the altered original be printed could not the original be recalled by experts for examination…? (ibid, p. 89).

2. The Book of Abraham

The Book of Abraham is a part of a collection of books which make up the Mormon book: The Pearl of Great Price. The story of this book should raise serious doubts about the genuineness of Joseph Smith’s work as a prophet.

The story goes that on July 03, 1835, Joseph Smith bought some mummies and papyrus from Michael H. Chandler in Kirkland, Ohio for $2400. Smith, then translated one papyrus which he claimed to have been written by Abraham. At the time of Smith’s translation little was known about translation from Egyptian hieroglyphics. “It was not until 1860 that the science of Egyptology had developed to the point that it could confidently tests Smith’s translation. By this time Smith was dead (murdered in 1844), and the collection of Egyptian papyrus with his notes had been lost. Where they went to, no one seemed sure, though the Mormon church thought they had been destroyed in a fire at Chicago” (The Golden Myth of Mormonism, p. 100-f). What did exist were three facsimiles made by Smith which also contained his interpretation. These were submitted to a scholar named Deveria at the Museum of the Louvre. His interpretation did not agree with Joseph Smith’s (ibid). However, the actual papyrus was still missing. It was found in 1966, in the Metropolitan Museum in N.Y. What was found? “There was no mention of Abraham, the religion of Abraham, nor the God of Abraham…The book of Abraham is nothing more than a common burial…papyri…with the fall of the book of Abraham, Joseph Smith also falls as a translator and a prophet” (ibid, p. 114). Wikipedia even provides the true translation of the Egyptian hieroglyphics next to Smith’s interpretation.

3. The Kinderhook Plates

In 1843 Robert Wiley, Bridge Whitten, and Wilbur Fugate decided to test the prophet. They made six pieces of brass and engraved on them ancient Chinese-type characters. They used acid to give an appearance of age to the plates in and Indian burial mound near Kinderhook, Illinois. In the presence of Mormons, they dug into the mound an unearthed the plates. The plates were brought to Smith to interpret. Smith wrote “I have translated a portion of the history of the person…it was a descendant of them, through the loins of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth” (Smith, History of the Church Vol 5, p. 372 recorded in The Truth about Mormonism: a former adherent analyzes of LDS Faith by Weldon Langfield, p. 59-f). In 1879 Wilbur Fugate told how they had forged the plates (Wikipedia). “In 1980 Professor D. Lynn Johnson of the Department of Material Science and Engineering at Northwestern University examined the remaining plate…and determined that the tolerance and composition of its metals was entirely consistent with the facilities available in a 19th century blacksmith shop, and more importantly found traces of nitrogen in what were clearly nitric-acid etched grooves” (Wikipedia)

4. Salamander Letter

The Salamander letter was created by Mark Hoffmann in the early 1980s. The letter was supposedly the work of Martin Harris and William Phelps (early Mormons). The letter supposedly told a different story of the finding of the Golden plates. Moreover, it indicates that Joseph Smith III and not Brigham Young was to be Joseph Smith’s successor (this would undermine the Salt Lake branch of the LDS). The letters were offered to the church for a price. The church, itself, did not purchase the letter. However, bishop Steven Christensen did for $40,000 and donated it to the church. The letter was later declared a forgery, and a fraud. The fraud was discovered when Utah police were investigating Hoffmann in a bombing investigation. Hoffmann is now serving a life term in Utah for murder and forgery. (Watch the Netflix docuseries Murder Among the Mormons).

The difficulty is that the L.D.S. assumed the letter to be genuine until the fraud was uncovered by Utah Police. What’s the big deal. Doctrine and Covenants indicates that the president of the Mormon Church is “A seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet having all the gifts of God” (107:91-92). One gift is the “gift of discernment”. How is it that the church could not discern the fraud?

Posted in Miracles, mormon, Mormons | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment