|
|
Modernists
and liberals would have us believe that God is a pliable, indulgent,
changing plastic being who molds himself to every disobedience and
apostasy of man—his spoiled child. Many piously emphasize the “love of
God” and in the same breath blaspheme His “vengeance” (Heb. 10:30),
“wrath” (Rom. 1:18), and “command- ments” (1 Jn. 5:2,3). Those who
would bend God to their own purposes are warned, “For I
am the Lord, I change not…” (Mal. 3:6). The immutable (unchanging)
nature of God’s counsel is affirmed in Hebrews 7:17,18, while Proverbs
24:21 says, “…meddle not with them that are given to change.”
|
Others
will assure us that God really cares very little about the structure,
organization, and work of the church. We are urged to “make it rele-
vant” to all of the social, economic, and political wants of mankind.
“Join the church of your choice” has lulled many into thinking that
their choice is more important than God’s choice.
Promoters have long shouted, “There is no pattern,” and ignorant
brethren have cheered this as “authority” for every whim. Others
scream, “There is no binding power in ex- amples” and liberal ecstasy
is complete—and the tinkering goes on. Christ has built His church
(Matt. 16:18)—He has given “orders” to
|
it (1 Cor. 16:1)—He gives the same orders to all local churches (1 Cor. 7:17).
Theological mush and emotional swill have replaced the “milk of the
word” (1 Pet. 2:2) and the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:14) of the gospel,
creating a generation of “soft” Christians without spiritual sinew and
muscle. Beware of those who assure you that it is right to ignore New
Testament example, operate without scriptural authority, or
“fellowship” error. It is your soul at stake! Woe unto those who regard
God as a plastic God and Christ’s body, the church, as a Tinkertoy
church!
_______________________________________
8311 - 27th Ave., Kenosha, WI 53143
e-mail: kdiestel@execpc.com
|
By AL DIESTELKAMP
I’ll
admit that I’m getting tired of hearing people complain that we in “the
churches of Christ don’t put enough emphasis on the grace of God.”
There may have been a time when the need to refute the false teachings
of Calvinism appeared to create an imbalance in our preaching, but that
was not intended and certainly does not persist today in most places.
Nevertheless, the false charge persists, and even some people who
should know better are heard to repeat that worn-out sectarian mantra.
The grace of God is amazing as evidenced by many inspired descriptions
in the New Testament. The apostle Peter refers to God as “the God of
all grace” (1 Pet. 1:5), describing His grace as “manifold” (v.10). The
apostle Paul, in his letters, is especially generous with descriptive
adjectives when referring to God’s grace. He refers to it as
“exceeding” (2 Cor. 9:14), “abundant” (Rom. 5-17)—even “exceedingly
abundant” (1 Tim. 1:14)—and says that it “abounds” (Rom. 5:20; 2 Cor.
9:8). In describing God, Paul refers to the “exceeding riches of His
grace” (Eph. 1:7; 2:7) after calling grace “glorious” (Eph. 1:6). After
petitioning God three times to remove his thorn in the flesh, Paul got
the message that God’s grace was “sufficient” (2 Cor. 12:9).
Let me say it again: God’s grace is great and amazing! But grace is a
gift and the extent to which it is granted belongs to the Giver. We are
not at liberty to presume grace beyond what has been revealed in the
Scriptures.
The greatest gift of grace that God gave to mankind is Jesus, Who said,
“I am the way, the truth,
and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (Jn. 14:6).
Instead of presuming that the God of all grace
|
will extend
mercy to the heathen who has never even heard of Jesus, we need to do
all we can to bring the gospel of Jesus to the whole world.
There are some who cannot imagine that God would withhold His grace
from honest, morally upright, Bible-believing, spiritually-minded
family, friends, and neighbors who reject His grace offered through
baptism into Christ for the remission of sins. As a result, they
presume God’s grace will cover a rejection of His grace in baptism and
feel free to have fellowship with those who have not been baptized
according to Scripture and/or worship God in ways that are not
authorized by Him.
Fortunately, it is not our job to presume just how far God will extend
His grace. If God chooses to have mercy on some who have never had the
advantage of having a Bible or hearing the gospel, that’s His business
—not mine. If He chooses to save early reformers who, at the cost of
their lives, made great progress in bringing the written word to us,
that also is His business, and His alone.
No doubt, every one of us will need God’s amazing grace when we stand
before Him in judgment. If God chooses to save people who have mis-
conceptions about the necessity or purpose of baptism, He’ll get no
argument from me; but that does not allow me to presume to extend His
grace for Him. In the meantime, we do people no favor by presumptuously
ignoring, excusing, or participating in their religious error based on
a view of God’s grace that is not revealed in His Word.
_____________________________________________________________
260 N. Aspen Dr., Cortland, IL 60112
e-mail:
aldiestel@gmail.com
|
By ANDY DIESTELKAMP
What
is your favorite Bible story in the Old Testament? Of course, the Old
Testament is the larger, older body of Scripture that takes up the
first three quarters of the Bible (from Genesis to Malachi). It
contains the Law of Moses and centers on the history of Israel as God’s
chosen people. It contains the writings of the prophets who foretold,
among other things, the coming of the Messiah (God’s anointed one) and
contains the familiar stories of Noah’s ark, David and Goliath, Daniel
in the lions’ den, and many others.
For many people these are just random stories which are generally not
appreciated in their historical contexts let alone understood how or
where they fit into the larger Bible story. How or where does your
favorite story fit into the theme of the Bible? If you don’t know,
finding out where it fits into the theme of the Bible will heighten
your appreciation for that story.
As a rule, we like stories. Using a story to teach is often
well-received. When an author sets out to write a story, he has a
purpose which he hopes to accomplish in telling the story. Many stories
are fiction. They are written to entertain our imaginations and, yet,
can be very effective in teaching concepts or moral lessons. Jesus taught in parables. His
parables
|
were very short, fictitious stories which illustrated greater
truths. Jesus wanted people to
consider and give more thought to their deeper messages. He knew that
some people would seek out these messages and that others would not.
Jesus was very intentional about this. Thus, it should not be
surprising that God, as the Author of Scripture, has so ordered history
(the true stories) in such a way as to prepare mankind to understand
His eternal plan and be redeemed thereby.
The apostle Paul wrote, “For the things written before, were written
for our learning that we through the patience and comfort of the
Scriptures might have hope” (Rom. 15:4). The Scriptures to which Paul
referred are the writings of the Old Testament. In making this
observation, Paul was not saying that we are amenable to the Law of
Moses. (That Law was given to the children of Israel and is now
obsolete - cf. Heb. 8:13.) However, Paul was saying that the events of
antiquity recorded in Scripture were preserved intentionally to educate
and point mankind to something greater. “For the law [of Moses],
having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of
the things, can never with these same sacrifices…make those who
approach perfect” (Heb. 10:1). In other words, the animal
|
sacrifices of the Old Testament were impotent to atone for sin (v.4).
Nevertheless, they did serve the purpose of foreshadowing and being a
type of atonement which pointed those with ears to hear to the gospel
of Jesus Christ. As Paul writes, “the law [of Moses] was our tutor to
bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after
faith [in Christ] has come, we are no longer under a tutor” (Gal.
3:24,25).
Indeed, so many things written in the Old Testament point to a greater
fulfillment in Jesus Christ and His kingdom. When the Old Testa- ment
is read through the lens of Jesus Christ, it comes alive with greater
meaning. This does not mean that we should return to keeping the Law of
Moses. This would be going backwards. However, it does mean that the
beloved stories of the Bible were not fantastical, random, unrelated
events. They are true stories orchestrated and directed by God’s
providence. The design of Scripture is to point us to a realistic hope
which is only found in the ultimate sacrifice of the Son of God on
the cross to truly atone for our sins and to the power of His
resurrection which removes the sting of death and replaces it with
eternal life. Do you have ears to hear?
________________________________________
323 E. Indiana Ave., Pontiac, IL 61764
e-mail: andydiestelkamp@gmail.com
|
Back to top
By STEVE FONTENOT
|
|
This
is the responsibility of those who have been saved by God’s grace. In
recognition and gratitude for “the mercies of God” (v.1), we should be
committed to being “transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you
may prove what the will of God is” (v.2) which includes learning and
practicing “love...without hypocrisy” (v.9). Characteristics of
such love are discussed in verse 10.
The first characteristic listed is, “Be devoted to one another in
brotherly love” (NASB). The NKJV translates, “ [Be] kindly affectionate
to one another with brotherly love.” The ESV translates, “Love one
another with brotherly affection.” The ASV reads, “In love of the
brethren be tenderly affectioned one to another.“ “Be devoted to”
translates the Greek word philostorgos which is derived from philos,
meaning love of affection or friendship, and from storge, meaning
family love, especially the love of parents and children. Thayer’s
Greek Lexicon and Vine’s Expository Dictionary define philostorgos as
tender love, while Arndt and Gingrich’s Lexicon favors the idea of
strong affection or dearly loved and gives as a definition the NASB
translation. By combining “brotherly love” (philadelphia) with this
word, is Paul saying that the “brotherly love” Christians should have
for one another should be like the love they demonstrate toward members
of their family (parents, children)? What bearing would this admonition
have on…
• Assembling with the saints? Would a person who is
“devoted” to his family in love rarely visit with them? And when he
visits with them, would it be just to make an appearance and go, or
would he talk with them, show interest in their interests, and be a
genuine participant in the occasion of the visit?
• Criticism of our brethren? Would a person who is “kindly
affectionate” towards his family in love criticize every little thing,
or would he “cut them some slack”? What kind of a family is it that
sees only the negative but sees none of the positive? Surely we desire
and appreciate the family atmosphere that, while aware of shortcomings,
can find in parents and children those things to commend and appreciate
and displays a sense of pride in the relationship rather than disdain.
• Interacting with fellow Christians? Would “tender
affection” in a family show no interest in a parent’s illness or fail
to visit a sick child in the hospital? Even if separated by distance,
would there not be phone calls, letters, or cards that demonstrate a
genuine “tender spot” for the loved one’s needs or concerns?
Is our “brotherly love” showing “devotion to,” “kind” and “brotherly
affection” to the other members of this congregation? Or does our
“brotherly love” consist in having our names in the same directory and
saying “hello” when we happen to meet at assembly two or three times a
week or, in some cases, two or three times a month? Is this what the
Holy Spirit had in mind? Do we (I...) need to make some changes…? When
will we start…? “I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of
God...” (v.1).
_____________________________________________________________
18542 Crestline Rd., Humble, TX 77396
e-mail: sp63@mac.com
|
By ANDY DIESTELKAMP
God is true to His promises. The skeptical laughter elicited by the
promises made to Abraham and Sarah (Gen. 17:17; 18:12) made God’s
instruction to name their son Isaac (meaning laughter) (17:19) an
appropriate reminder that even “If we are faithless, He remains
faithful” (2 Tim. 2:13). God turned the laughter of disbelief into the
laughter of faith and joy. “And Sarah said, ‘God has made me laugh, so
that all who hear will laugh with me’” (Gen. 21:6).
Imagine the elation and hope that Isaac’s birth brought to Abraham and
Sarah who had trusted in God. At eight days old Isaac was
circumcised “as God had commanded” (v.4). The day Isaac was weaned
“Abraham made a great feast” (v.8). Doubtless, watching Isaac mature
proved to be fulfilling and the source of much joy to his parents.
We don’t know exactly how old Isaac was when God again “tested Abraham”
(22:1) in a way unlike he had ever been tested before. God said, “Take
now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love...and offer him...as a
burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you”
(v.2). For any who read this personally, standing in Abraham’s sandals
as if the divine instructions were given to us with regard to any of
our own offspring, the command is horrifyingly breathtaking. It is
almost incomprehensible. It does not appear to make any sense in view
of all that it had taken to get to this point. No doubt, we wonder
whether our faith could pass such a test.
Remember, we have the advantage of looking at this command with the
benefit of hindsight. Abraham had no such vantage. Yet, we are
summarily told, “So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his
donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son; and
he split the wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the
place of which God had told him” (v.3).
So how was Abraham able to do this? How could this man—who, when afraid
for his own life, essentially lied about his relationship with his own
wife—now have the courage to obey this awful command? How could he who
laughed at the prospect of having a son in his old age now rise early
to do God’s will? There is only one answer. Abraham’s faith in God had
matured to such a point that he could offer up “his only begotten son,”
the son of promise, “accounting that God was able to raise him up, even
from the dead” (Heb. 11:17,18). Do not miss the implication of this
rationale. Knowing the end of the story, we may emphasize that Abraham
was mistaken about God’s specific plan and miss the real point. Abraham
was going to sacrifice His only begotten son! He trusted in God that
much. Do we?
_____________________________________________________________
323 E. Indiana Ave., Pontiac, IL 61764
e-mail: andydiestelkamp@gmail.com
|
Back to top
By DAVID DIESTELKAMP
You are probably
familiar with the Hans Christian Andersen story, “The Emperor’s New
Clothes.” A vain emperor is promised he will be made the best suit of
clothes ever. However, the tailors are con men who say they are using
invisible fabric and anyone who can’t see it is unfit as a king or
stupid. When the pretend clothing is put on the king by the tailors,
everyone—including the emperor—pretends to see the clothing out of fear
of being thought stupid. The whole town even pretends to see and
appreciate the clothing out of fear until a child blurts out that the
king is naked; then everyone is emboldened to say the same. Although
this story was written more than 150 years ago, it is happening again
today in the areas of clothing, immodesty, and our silence.
So,
I will go ahead and say it. I will risk saying what a lot of people
probably thought at first but remained silent. It will be unpopular,
and I will probably be thought to be stupid. Here we go: leggings
aren’t pants.
For
those of you who aren’t up on current fashion or aren’t sure exactly
what I’m talking about, leggings are the skin-tight spandex that people
are wearing as if they were pants. Leggings were designed to wear under
clothing or with a skirt, but now they are being worn as though they
were pants when, in fact, they are not. They are designed to accentuate
every curve and leave little to the imagination. It is as though a
person can be acceptable as long as skin isn’t showing – that virtually
painted-on clothing is enough.
I
recognize that the world doesn’t care about modesty. I’m not writing
this for the world. I’m writing this for women who are Christians so
that they’ll reconsider this trend. I’m writing to moms and dads who
are Christians, asking that you not allow your children to wear
skin-tight clothing and that you teach them that this is a way of
exposing and drawing attention to their bodies. I’m asking dads to
confess to their wives that worldly men like to look at this and
consider it sexy; and it draws inappropriate attention that women who
are Christians do not want. Husbands and fathers need to be open about
this, not because they are lusting, but because they know the mindset
of men of the world and need to help females around them understand.
Some
may question why leggings and other skin-tight clothing are immodest.
This is a question that wouldn’t have been asked at any point in human
history up until just the past few decades. That walking around in
one’s underwear (or pantyhose) is supposed to be acceptable says
something about our culture, and what it says isn’t good. But ask yourself (even if you wear leggings), wasn’t it a little shocking when
you first saw them on someone on the street? Didn’t you wonder if they |
forgot to put on something else, perhaps a skirt? Didn’t you notice
that they were almost naked from the waist down? Wasn’t your sense of
modesty even slightly offended?
Women (and men) are to
dress modestly: “…that the women adorn themselves in modest
apparel…which is proper for women professing godliness, with good
works” (1 Tim. 2:9-10). Leggings and tight clothes that are hardly
different from the naked body are immodest. Clothing covers nakedness
both by a layer of fabric and by covering form. Anyone who wants to
dispute this can consider immodest genital exposure—we want fabric and
want it not to be form fitting! The same should be true of all other
parts of the body which are immodest to expose.
I’m
certainly aware of the attempts that are made to defend immodest
clothing, but our thinking process as Christians needs to be
re-examined. Are we teaching our children that “I like it” or “it’s
comfortable” or “it’s the style” is the standard for Christians when it
comes to modesty (or anything else for that matter)? Do articles like
this cause a feeling to rise up in us that says, “You can’t tell me how
to…”? Do we make the excuse that we can’t control others’ thoughts or
lust? And, isn’t modesty about the heart?
While
it is true that modesty involves our hearts, it will be reflected in
our wardrobes. Christians are more than just their bodies, just their
desires, and just the styles of their culture. We are reflections of
Jesus Christ: “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be
conformed to the image of His Son…” (Rom. 8:29). Our bodies, and what
we do with them (including how we clothe them) are to reflect Jesus,
not the world. Our thoughts and desires (which are also shown in our
clothing) are to reflect that we are thinking like Jesus, not the
world. We have to ask whether we can participate in the styles of our
culture and still reflect Jesus. This can be difficult because we are
immersed in our culture, and its influence on us is strong. This is why
we have to be immersed in our Lord Jesus Christ and work to allow His
influence over us to be strongest.
I am not saying that leggings under modest clothing are wrong. I am
saying that wearing paper-thin spandex doesn’t make someone modest. I
don’t hear people gasping and condemning this virtual nudity. I know
that’s not acceptable to do in our culture today. So, they parade
themselves about like the emperor—while everyone is afraid to say
something—but are still just as (virtually) naked.
_____________________________________________________________
940 N. Elmwood Dr., Aurora, IL 60506
e-mail: davdiestel@yahoo.com
|
|
Some
of us were still sitting around the table where we had just finished
eating lunch. But the two-year-old daughter of our hosts had gone
outside. Soon we heard her crying in anguish as she came in screaming,
”Jane scratched me!” She sought comfort on her mother’s knee and then
while the tears still flowed down her cheeks she grabbed up a handful
of potato chips.
“What are you going to do with them? “Her mother asked. “Give them to Jane,” she replied, and she again quickly left the house.
All
the adults present immediately said, “Oh, if older people could just be
as children.” Paul had said it first: “In malice be ye children” (1
Cor. 14:20).
Of
course, the natural adult reaction to the offense is retaliation or at
least resentment. But as Christians we must exercise control over the
natural passions. When this is done God’s people will not fight and
feud over matters of opinion and human wisdom nor over insults,
oversights, and offenses.
There
is great danger that many of God’s children who have been otherwise
faithful to Christ, will be rejected at last because of malice in their
hearts, and because of the divisions, factions, and alienations that
malice has caused.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
This article was first published in THINK, Vol. 2, No. 1, November, 1970
|
MEN’S OVERNIGHT BIBLE STUDY ~ September 28th & 29th, 2018
“Declaring God’s Strength to the Next Generation”
Sewell Hall • Paul Earnhart • L.A. Stauffer • Karl Diestelkamp • Boyd Sellers • Al Diestelkamp
Wapella,
Illinois
Register at: www.mensstudy.org
About Think's Editor -
Al Diestelkamp
CONTACT US
Copyright
2009 Think on
These Things
The content of this site is copyrighted but may be freely used as long
as you give credit to this website as your source.
|
