THE SPIRIT’S SWORD
"And take...the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Eph. 6:17)
THE SPIRIT’S SWORD
"And take...the sword of the Spirit, which is
the word of God" (Eph. 6:17)
published by
Mt. Baker church of Christ
Visit our Web Sites:
Mt. Baker church of Christ:
http://www.bibleanswer.com/mtbaker
BIBLE ANSWERS: http://www.bibleanswer.com
In this issue:
BY FAITH ISAAC BLESSED A Series on Hebrews 11
(Part 8)
Jeff Herrin
The incident recorded in Isaac's life to illustrate faith may not have occurred
to us as a great example. Isaac and Rebekah had twin sons, Esau and Jacob. Esau
was the firstborn and Isaac's favorite. Even though Esau had already sold his
birthright to Jacob, Isaac anticipated giving the blessing to him. Isaac had
some preconceived notions; there were dreams for Esau which were dear to his
heart.
In Genesis 27, we see Rebekah's plan for Jacob to deceive his blind father.
Jacob convinced Isaac he was Esau and received the blessing. Moments later Esau
arrived and when Jacob's deception was revealed, "Isaac trembled exceedingly" (Gn.
27:33). No doubt he felt terribly betrayed. Isaac was old, blind, and
heartbroken. Some cherished religious expectations (the blessing concerned God's
promises to Abraham) would never be realized. In the midst of his disappointment
the Hebrew writer notes a moment of shining faith.
Isaac could have rebelled. Like Balaam he could have tried to bless or curse in
accordance with his own desires. His favorite son begged in tears for just such
a blessing. Instead, Isaac recognized that concerning Jacob, "I have blessed
him--and indeed he shall be blessed" (Gen. 27:33). Isaac's realized his dream
was not in accordance with God's will. God intended to bless Jacob and Isaac was
now certain he would be blessed. Like Jesus in Gethsemane, he humbled himself to
submit to the will of God.
Now we need to consider the rest of the story, because the Hebrew writer points
out that Isaac blessed both Jacob and Esau (Heb. 11:20). When Esau could not
convince Isaac to renounce his blessing upon Jacob, "Esau said to his father,
'Have you only one blessing, my father? Bless me--me also, O my father!'" (Gn.
27:38). Isaac had originally intended to bestow a single blessing, but was there
nothing more to offer? He proceeded to bless Esau. It was not the blessing Isaac
had originally planned, but this blessing was in accordance with the plan of God
for Esau and his descendants. By faith, he blessed them both concerning things
to come, confident that God would fulfill His word.
Sometimes Christians expect to get things out of religion that God never
promised. Maybe they feel let down by the church, or the preacher doesn't live
up to their expectations. Does our service to God suffer when we are
disappointed? If we fail to receive one blessing, do we doubt God's ability to
bestow a multitude of others? Immediately on the heels of betrayal and
disappointment, Isaac had the faith to make a second blessing.
REVISIONISM - 1999
Sherrel A. Mercer 1408 Alba - Edna, Texas 77957
September 6, 1999
Revisionism was once a recognized characteristic of the propaganda machine of
the international Communist Party. One only needed to read or hear a few
sentences to know that the facts of history were changed, twisted, and restated
to further the peculiar political aim of the Party. It was very common to read
descriptions of the United States as a colonial, imperialist power, bent on
gathering any and every foreign possession under its flag. Never mind that the
quest for freedom for the oppressed dictated much of American foreign policy the
last two hundred years. It was also very common for a ruler in Soviet Russia,
for example to be so disgraced that his name was removed from streets,
buildings, and cities, as if he never existed!
The Lord's church has a fight on its hands now with revisionists. The list of
subjects is growing; we could consider marriage/divorce as a bellwether, with
error of every kind being found on every front. That which was once sacred has
been redefined in terms to better suit the ear, the audience, or the untrained
conscience. A sermon today on marriage, from some revisionist preachers, does
not even sound like a sermon on the same subject from the same scriptures
preached thirty or forty years ago.
A common denominator of the revisionist preaching today is an individual
spokesman who is personally affected or afflicted by the plain truth on a
specific subject. Matthew 19:9 is suddenly rethought and retaught in the light
of the son, daughter, brother, sister, or whomever, that is disciplined by the
plain truth of that scripture. The fact that the plain truth condemns an action
causes the truth to be redefined in a way so as to soften its effect.
The apostle Paul was once chastised by Festus, who told Paul, "Much learning
doth make thee mad." (Acts 26:24) Much learning did not make Paul mad, but it
seems to make preachers revisionists today. There are those who value learning
and education so much that any pronouncement from any scholarly source becomes
truth, without the need for any scrutiny. And if the scholarly pronouncement
conflicts with the revelation of scripture, the revisionist rewrites the
scripture, instead of demanding the proof of the pronouncement.
The Biblical account of creation is a good example. There is absolutely no
reason to doubt that God could and did create the world, including man, in six
days. There is absolutely no reason to require periods of billions of years for
any thing that is made to have been made. And there is absolutely no reason to
place blind faith in evolution or the big-bang theory, simply because that
modern learning teaches it dogmatically for the truth. Any time evolution has to
stand the test of scientific scrutiny by minds that are intellectually honest,
evolution fails miserably to explain the origin of the world we know.
Some Christians want to revise Genesis 1 and 2 to fit evolution, and they end up
as theistic evolutionists. But they can find very little comfort from scripture
for such a position. Others simply must have long periods of time for God to do
his creative work. Such a requirement destroys the step-by-step relationships
defined from day one to day six of the creation week. It simply limits God.
Others try to find a fit by saying that the living part of this world was an
instantaneous product of divine creation, after several eons of time had
transpired with nothing alive plant or animal--occupying the earth. This
position claims "inorganic evolution" as dogma, and allows God a last-minute
presence. Somehow, I cannot relegate God to a last-minute bit part.
I am saddened greatly by the posture taken by informed Bible teachers when
confronted with the modern-day scientific learning of their children. If the
parent is not to be considered hopelessly out of touch with current ideas, or if
the parent does not want to be relegated to less than usefulness by the
children, the parent becomes a revisionist and begins to teach something other
than Genesis 1 and 2 as the authoritative answer to the origin of the world.
One of the preachers we supported has become a revisionist about creation.
Whatever the reason, he is not teaching what he taught before, and he is not
teaching the simple truth of Genesis. He no longer sounds the clear teaching of
creation in six twenty-four hour days. Please do not misunderstand me: a
revisionist can be taught, and he can be returned to the simplicity of the
scripture. Much effort has been made to try to right his ship. But it is often
difficult to restore such a one, especially if (1) he begins to blame others for
his obvious doctrinal predicaments, (2) he begins to attack the messengers of
truth, and (3) begins to defend himself or his own position instead of defending
the truth. Having determined to our own satisfaction that the mentioned preacher
had fallen into all three of these weaknesses, we elders had no choice but to
suspend our support for that preacher.
Our position as elders has always been to support preaching, not preachers.
There is a great difference. Our responsibility, locally or afar with the men we
support, is to know the individual well enough to know if we are supporting
truth or supporting a man. If we are simply supporting a man, we have missed the
point of the scriptural pattern.
We strongly believe that Godly men everywhere, serving as elders, need to
reinforce their responsibilities toward the defense of truth. After all, the
church is the pillar and ground of the truth. But if local leadership acquiesces
in the idea that a preacher is the spiritual leader of the congregation, or in
the idea that a preacher has the benefit of the most learning and must therefore
lead the elders, then the divine pattern is destroyed.
Is there any wonder why there is trouble in Judah?
Noteworthy News
(Current events in the light of Scripture)
KANSAS' CREATIONIST BELIEFS EVOLVE INTO CONTROVERSY
By Stephanie Simon/Los Angeles Times
DOUGLASS, Kan. -- If they know anything, person after person here declares, they
know this: God created them. Created all mankind. As for the talk about man
evolving from tree-swinging apes? A hoax, they scoff -- and a cruel one, at
that.
The biblical creation story is bedrock belief for many in this blue-collar
prairie town.
Yet, even as they call evolution a fraud, residents by and large say they do not
object to their children studying it in school. Sure, there are caveats. Some
think parents should be able to take their kids out of class when the subject
comes up. Others insist evolution be labeled a tenuous theory. Still, they
grudgingly acknowledge that their children should be exposed to it, if only
because it's so widely accepted.
The complex views expressed and debated here reflect the confusion roiling
communities across Kansas since the state Board of Education last month voted to
delete evolution from the mandatory science curriculum.
Teachers in Kansas still are free to present evolution, the theory that all life
on Earth shares a common ancestor nearly 4 billion years old. And no one is
required to teach creation, the biblical view that God created all species over
the course of six days.
But the board's decision is far-reaching nonetheless.
It's now up to Kansas' 304 school districts to decide whether to spend class
time on a topic that's not required and will not be tested on statewide
assessment exams. -(Excerpt from THE DETROIT NEWS website, 9.22.99)
COMMENTARY
Joe R. Price
Although Kansas' Republican Gov. Bill Graves, has condemned this new curriculum
as an "embarrassment" for his state, we applaud the Kansas State Board of
Education. The greater embarrassment is to foist macro-evolution upon the minds
of our children as if it is fact!
Are some of our brethren embarrassed over the Genesis account of creation? We
are aware of several preachers and teachers who are teaching young people (and
whoever else will listen) that the creative days of Genesis 1 are not 24 hour
days ("the evening and the morning were the first day," Gen. 1:5). The six days
of creation, these brethren say, are in fact billions of years.
Moses believed it took six days to create the heavens and the earth (Exo.
20:11). One should remember that God Himself spoke Exodus 20:11 from Mt. Sinai
in the hearing of Israel. So, God believes He created the world in six days,
too! Someone needs to tell our brethren to come back to faith in the word of
God, not the science of men (1 Tim. 6:20-21).
The Spirit's Sword is a free, weekly publication of the Mt. Baker church of Christ, Bellingham, WA
Send all questions, comments and subscriptions to the editor at: ssword@bibleanswer.com