All or nothing at all- Part 2 by David Posey
(reprinted from the on-line edition of Focus Magazine: http://www.focusmagazine.org/Focus2.htm)
The problem is presumption
To conclude that God's other words are not important is presumption placed in bold relief. "Presumption," as I'm using the term, means assuming something without God's word on the matter. Nadab and Abihu used a strange fire, which the Lord had not commanded (Leviticus 10:1ff.). If that is not a lesson about presumption, I don't what is.
The presumption of some brethren is displayed in the some of the answers being offered to resolve the dilemma noted above about which of God's words should form the "core gospel." Here are some samples: (1) "Only commands are important, not examples or inferences." Presumption: How do you know that? If you know that a divinely inspired apostle did a thing a certain way (for example, gave specific instructions for qualifications for elders or took the Lord's Supper on a certain day every week), who are you, when faced with the identical situation, to question the apostle's judgment in the matter? Upon what basis can we assume that Christ will accept a different kind of service, when one of His appointed men has spoken on the matter, whether I learn that through command, example or a necessary conclusion that I draw from reading about the act? At a more personal level, what examples or necessary inferences are these brethren wanting to ignore, and why?
(2) "Only the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are essential for Christians to heed; the letters are, at most, 'good advice.'" Who told you that? What passage in any part of Scripture - whether determined by command, example or necessary inference - would lead you to such a conclusion? Yes, on a couple of occasions, Paul said something like "I say this, not the Lord" (e.g., I Corinthians 7:12; cf. 7:6; II Corinthians 11:17). From that statement, would you conclude that everything Paul says is just his own opinion? Logically, that's absurd. Even if we grant that Paul, in I Corinthians 7:12, etc., is saying something like "this is my opinion, not the Lord's, and therefore you can take it or leave it" (hardly the most obvious interpretation to begin with), logically that disclaimer would apply only to the statement that follows, and Paul would then be asserting that everything else he says is from the Lord (cf. 7:10).
But a more fundamental question is whether the letters constitute Scripture or not? If they are not, then they are not even "good advice," because the men writing them claim to be writing God's words (see Ephesians 3:1ff.). If they are not, it's a cruel ruse. If they are Scripture, then doesn't II Timothy 3:16-17 apply and mean that we are to use them for doctrine, reproof, correction, and discipline? "But Paul was referring only to the Old Testament in that passage." Oh? So what is the basis for accepting the gospels but not the letters? They were written by some of the same men, and some of the gospels were written later than some of the letters. John wrote a gospel and three letters and a prophecy -was he only inspired while writing his gospel and the rest is "good advice"? How do we separate the "gospel-Scripture" from "letter-Scripture"? And what would you say to Peter who called Paul's epistles "Scripture" (II Peter 3:16)? Upon what logical, scriptural - or any other - basis would you arrive at such a conclusion? And why? What is in the letters that bothers these brethren? Don't you see? The reductionists know all too well what the letters say and require, and they don't like it. They are too restrictive and they don't want to be restricted.
Can we expect some of these brethren to soon embrace the Jesus Seminar mentality in which only certain words of Jesus in the gospels are accepted as valid? The Jesus Seminar consists of a group of scholars who meet in order to attempt to determine which of the words written down in our gospels are truly the words of Jesus and which have been put there by the early church. I won't even get into the means they employ to do this; suffice to say that it is wholly subjective, as you might have guessed. My point is that here is "reductionism" in extremis. What is preventing those who accept any of it to go all the way with it? Why not?
It seems clear enough that this whole effort to reduce the basis of our faith to the lowest common denominator is an effort to assert the Self into defining the parameters of faith, instead of trusting God to do it. Instead of surrendering ourselves completely to the will of the Lord, we set out to choose what part of the will we will comply with. Ironically, though some would stress the words of Jesus over the words of the apostles, their attitude is condemned by the Lord Himself: "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me." (Matthew 16:24).
I have a Jewish neighbor who one day spoke of how put off he was by all the mumbling ceremonies of his synagogue. He mentioned twisting and squirming until it was over. I told him that ancient Jewish prophets expressed impatience with such ceremonies also. That means God didn't like them either. He was excited about that, so I told him I would send him some examples from the Bible. Thus the following:
Gerald (name changed), I was interested and amused at your reaction to the ceremonies at temple. I told you that many of the Hebrew prophets expressed the same impatience with such ceremonies. For example, on one occasion Israel had become so profane, God spoke of her as "Sodom and Gomorrah." Anyway, God spoke through Isaiah to say:
"When you come to appear before me, who has required this at your hand, to trample my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; new moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies... it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they are a trouble unto me; I am weary of bearing them. And when you spread forth your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; yea, when you make many prayers, I will not hear" (Isaiah 1:12-15). Of course the reason God reacted so is that those things had become empty forms performed by an unrighteous people (see verses 15-17).
Then Amos said: "I hate, I despise your feasts, and I will take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Yea, though you offer me your burnt-offerings and meal offerings, I will not accept them; neither will I regard the peace-offerings of your fat beasts. Take away from me the noise of your songs; for I will not hear the melody of your viols" (Amos 5:22-21-23). Of course, the way to make their offerings and service acceptable was, "Let justice roll down as water, and righteousness as a mighty stream' (v. 24).
God said through Malachi: "Oh that there were one among you that would shut the doors, that you might not kindle fire on my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand" (Malachi 1:10). Again though, the reason was that religion was a secondary thing to them at that time, and they were offering inferior offerings and using their better things for themselves, which indicates into what respective positions they had put God and themselves.
At another time when immorality was so great that the people no longer tried to hide their sins, but declared them openly (coming out of the closet, etc.), they thought to impress God with extravagance. God said, "To what purpose does three come to me frankincense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable" (Jer. 6:14, 20).
So, Old Testament prophets shared your impatience with all the religious forms and rituals because such could not make up for the lack of righteousness. Thus, no matter what they did or offered, God would not have accepted it or been pleased with them. God was disgusted. This sounds also like main line Protestantism today as it arrogantly supports abortion, and all kinds of sexual immorality. Those people must not be reading their Bibles.
WHY I NEVER EAT - Author Unknown
Everybody has a good excuse for not attending church. If you
take those excuses and apply them to other things we do (or don't
do), like eating, they might look like this list. I don't eat
any more because:
1. I was forced to eat as a child.
2. People who eat all the time are hypocrites; they aren't really
hungry.
3. There are so many different kinds of food; I can't decide what
to eat.
4. I used to eat, but I got bored and stopped.
5. I only eat on special occasions, like Christmas and Easter.
6. None of my friends will eat with me.
7. I'll start eating when I get older.
8. I don't really have time to eat.
9. I don't believe that eating does anybody any good. It's just
a crutch.
10. Restaurants and grocery stores are only after your money.