Some of us whose parents have died may look back and wish we had done more to obey the fifth commandment, "Honor Your Father and Your Mother" (Exodus 20:12, Deuteronomy 5:16, Matthew 15:4-6, Ephesians 6:1-4), when they were alive.
But there is a way we may still be able to honor them, even after they are gone.
Almost all parents want long-term good for their children, and they want peace in their families.
We can honor our parents by showing kindness to their children. We honor them by getting along peacefully with our brothers and sisters, by forgiving them when they offend us, and by being actively concerned for their welfare. We can love our brothers and sisters as our parents would or should do if they were alive, and thus, in effect, carry on the work of our parents in their place. That is one way we can honor them.
And actually, loving our brothers and sisters is often a good way to honor our father and mother even while our parents are alive.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Why Should We Believe?
Does it matter why we obey God's commandments? Can we obey for wrong reasons, for selfish reasons, for vanity, pride, and conceit? For example, did the Pharisees pray and fast for wrong reasons, to be seen by men? Can one make generous donations to a good cause for wrong and selfish reasons? (Matthew 6:1-5, 16)
In the Old Testament, God said that Israel fasted "for strife" (Isaiah 58:4), and God did not accept their fast.
So, yes, we can do right things for wrong motives and reasons. God cares about our heart.
Likewise, can we believe the truth for the wrong reasons? Can we believe the truth because we trust and believe men, but not God?
One man, call him John, believes God. Another man, call him Jim, does not believe God, but he believes and trusts men, even John. So John learns the truth from God, because he believes and trusts God, and then, wanting to share the truth with others, teaches it to Jim.
Jim, because he has a close relationship with John (father, brother, close friend, etc.), trusts and believes John, so he also learns the truth. But his reason for believing the truth is different from John's reason for believing.
John's faith is in God, but Jim's faith is in John, not in God. He believes the truth only as long as John is a dominant influence in his life. Jim can reap certain benefits from the truth, because we reap what we sow. But his faith is not in God. Jim doesn't really have a relationship with God, though outwardly it seems he does.
Which one has eternal life?
It matters why we believe because it matters who we believe. It is not just a matter of what we believe.
Mr. Armstrong believed God. Others who believed God joined with Mr. Armstrong and did a work. But others who did NOT believe God, but believed Mr. Armstrong, also joined with him in the Worldwide Church of God.
So you had two categories, two groups within Worldwide, both believing the same doctrines, but one group believed God and one group believed man. The beliefs were the same, but the reason for belief was different.
From the outside it was hard to tell them apart. Both groups believed and behaved the same. But when the dominant influence of Mr. Armstrong was taken away, all those who believed the truth only because they believed Mr. Armstrong (not because they believed God and proved doctrine from the Bible) left the truth, right?
No, I think not.
Many did. Not all.
There are people in the scattered Church of God today, whether part of a fellowship or "stay at home", who believe the truth for the wrong reason. Their belief and trust are not in God and the Bible. Their belief and trust are in their traditions, in their families, in the Church, their pastors, and even in Mr. Armstrong and his writings, even now after his death.
God knows who are His.
God will not play second fiddle to anyone.
God commands that we love Him more than father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, and even our own selves (Luke 14:25-26, Deuteronomy 13:6-10).
If you never really proved the truth from the Bible, you better do it, and you better follows what Christ teaches you in the Bible wherever He leads you (Revelation 14:4-5).
If you are a minister, you need to teach the brethren under your care to prove what is true and to believe the Bible more than mother, father, husband, wife, or even you, their pastor.
Unless you want to compete with God for the loyalty and faith of the members.
Some pastors may be afraid that if they teach their members to believe the Bible more than their pastors, those members may reach independent conclusions, even wrong conclusions. Yes, that is possible.
But there is a difference between someone who believes and trusts the Bible but makes an honest mistake and someone who only believes the truth because of circumstances and really doesn't trust the Bible.
That difference is attitude towards God.
If someone, because he makes a sincere mistake, misunderstands something in the Bible, even after the minister explains it, that does not mean the member has a bad attitude, necessarily. God does not require that he believe his pastor or any man. "Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are fellow workers for your joy; for by faith you stand" (2 Corinthians 1:24). What God requires is that he respect the office of minister and not create division.
If he has a right attitude, he will not promote or discuss his different view of scripture with other brethren but will recognize that God has given you, the pastor, greater authority to teach the congregation, and he will not interfere with your teaching.
As pastor, as a shepherd over part of Christ's flock, your primary job is to help the brethren in their relationship with God, not their relationship with you. You should earnestly desire that the brethren love God more than they love you, or their father, or mother, husband, wife, the other brethren in the congregation, or even their own selves.
You should strive to have the discernment, praying for wisdom about it if necessary, to see if a member is believing the Church and the ministry about doctrine more than God and the Bible, and if so, to strive to teach that member to put his faith in God's word, the Bible, more than the Church and the ministry.
When was the last time you gave a sermon about how members should handle doctrinal disagreements? Can you even give such a sermon? What would you say?
What principles could Mr. Armstrong have taught the Church in 1985 that would have prepared them for the changes Mr. Tkach would make?
Some ministers might say that Mr. Armstrong should have told the Church to believe Mr. Tkach if he made small adjustments to doctrine, but not big changes. But that cannot be right. The principles of God's word teach us to be faithful in small things as well as great things. "He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much" (Luke 16:10).
We must be careful to live by every word of God.
Are we to direct our faith towards the ministry in small matters, then switch gears and have faith in God if a big change comes along?
Small decisions are the training ground for big decisions. If we trust God's word, the Bible, more than the teaching of men in small doctrines, we will also trust God and the Bible in big doctrines.
Brethren need to believe the Bible, but respect the ministry, and not interfere with the minister's teaching by criticizing that teaching with other brethren and creating division. If the minister makes a mistake in doctrine, a member who realizes it should keep quiet about it in most cases, or address it with the minister alone, or report it to headquarters if necessary, but not gossip about it with the members.
And if the error is so great that the minister is teaching a different gospel than that which the Bible teaches, then that is probably the cue for the member to leave that group. "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them" (Ephesians 5:11). "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8). "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds" (2 John 10-11).
By the way, I did not notice this until I proofread this post, but did not Paul set a good example when he warned the members not to even believe him, Paul, if he preached a false gospel? Notice how, in Galatians 1:8 he says, "if WE...preach any other gospel...". He didn't even exclude himself from the curse. In saying "we", he was, in effect, teaching the members NOT to believe him, Paul, or any man more than God.
In the Old Testament, God said that Israel fasted "for strife" (Isaiah 58:4), and God did not accept their fast.
So, yes, we can do right things for wrong motives and reasons. God cares about our heart.
Likewise, can we believe the truth for the wrong reasons? Can we believe the truth because we trust and believe men, but not God?
One man, call him John, believes God. Another man, call him Jim, does not believe God, but he believes and trusts men, even John. So John learns the truth from God, because he believes and trusts God, and then, wanting to share the truth with others, teaches it to Jim.
Jim, because he has a close relationship with John (father, brother, close friend, etc.), trusts and believes John, so he also learns the truth. But his reason for believing the truth is different from John's reason for believing.
John's faith is in God, but Jim's faith is in John, not in God. He believes the truth only as long as John is a dominant influence in his life. Jim can reap certain benefits from the truth, because we reap what we sow. But his faith is not in God. Jim doesn't really have a relationship with God, though outwardly it seems he does.
Which one has eternal life?
It matters why we believe because it matters who we believe. It is not just a matter of what we believe.
Mr. Armstrong believed God. Others who believed God joined with Mr. Armstrong and did a work. But others who did NOT believe God, but believed Mr. Armstrong, also joined with him in the Worldwide Church of God.
So you had two categories, two groups within Worldwide, both believing the same doctrines, but one group believed God and one group believed man. The beliefs were the same, but the reason for belief was different.
From the outside it was hard to tell them apart. Both groups believed and behaved the same. But when the dominant influence of Mr. Armstrong was taken away, all those who believed the truth only because they believed Mr. Armstrong (not because they believed God and proved doctrine from the Bible) left the truth, right?
No, I think not.
Many did. Not all.
There are people in the scattered Church of God today, whether part of a fellowship or "stay at home", who believe the truth for the wrong reason. Their belief and trust are not in God and the Bible. Their belief and trust are in their traditions, in their families, in the Church, their pastors, and even in Mr. Armstrong and his writings, even now after his death.
God knows who are His.
God will not play second fiddle to anyone.
God commands that we love Him more than father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, and even our own selves (Luke 14:25-26, Deuteronomy 13:6-10).
If you never really proved the truth from the Bible, you better do it, and you better follows what Christ teaches you in the Bible wherever He leads you (Revelation 14:4-5).
If you are a minister, you need to teach the brethren under your care to prove what is true and to believe the Bible more than mother, father, husband, wife, or even you, their pastor.
Unless you want to compete with God for the loyalty and faith of the members.
Some pastors may be afraid that if they teach their members to believe the Bible more than their pastors, those members may reach independent conclusions, even wrong conclusions. Yes, that is possible.
But there is a difference between someone who believes and trusts the Bible but makes an honest mistake and someone who only believes the truth because of circumstances and really doesn't trust the Bible.
That difference is attitude towards God.
If someone, because he makes a sincere mistake, misunderstands something in the Bible, even after the minister explains it, that does not mean the member has a bad attitude, necessarily. God does not require that he believe his pastor or any man. "Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are fellow workers for your joy; for by faith you stand" (2 Corinthians 1:24). What God requires is that he respect the office of minister and not create division.
If he has a right attitude, he will not promote or discuss his different view of scripture with other brethren but will recognize that God has given you, the pastor, greater authority to teach the congregation, and he will not interfere with your teaching.
As pastor, as a shepherd over part of Christ's flock, your primary job is to help the brethren in their relationship with God, not their relationship with you. You should earnestly desire that the brethren love God more than they love you, or their father, or mother, husband, wife, the other brethren in the congregation, or even their own selves.
You should strive to have the discernment, praying for wisdom about it if necessary, to see if a member is believing the Church and the ministry about doctrine more than God and the Bible, and if so, to strive to teach that member to put his faith in God's word, the Bible, more than the Church and the ministry.
When was the last time you gave a sermon about how members should handle doctrinal disagreements? Can you even give such a sermon? What would you say?
What principles could Mr. Armstrong have taught the Church in 1985 that would have prepared them for the changes Mr. Tkach would make?
Some ministers might say that Mr. Armstrong should have told the Church to believe Mr. Tkach if he made small adjustments to doctrine, but not big changes. But that cannot be right. The principles of God's word teach us to be faithful in small things as well as great things. "He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much" (Luke 16:10).
We must be careful to live by every word of God.
Are we to direct our faith towards the ministry in small matters, then switch gears and have faith in God if a big change comes along?
Small decisions are the training ground for big decisions. If we trust God's word, the Bible, more than the teaching of men in small doctrines, we will also trust God and the Bible in big doctrines.
Brethren need to believe the Bible, but respect the ministry, and not interfere with the minister's teaching by criticizing that teaching with other brethren and creating division. If the minister makes a mistake in doctrine, a member who realizes it should keep quiet about it in most cases, or address it with the minister alone, or report it to headquarters if necessary, but not gossip about it with the members.
And if the error is so great that the minister is teaching a different gospel than that which the Bible teaches, then that is probably the cue for the member to leave that group. "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them" (Ephesians 5:11). "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8). "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds" (2 John 10-11).
By the way, I did not notice this until I proofread this post, but did not Paul set a good example when he warned the members not to even believe him, Paul, if he preached a false gospel? Notice how, in Galatians 1:8 he says, "if WE...preach any other gospel...". He didn't even exclude himself from the curse. In saying "we", he was, in effect, teaching the members NOT to believe him, Paul, or any man more than God.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
UCG Code of Ethics Agreement - Part 4
I have posted before about the UCG code of ethics agreement UCG ministers are being asked to sign. As I have said, I think ministers would be better off not signing.
But the code of ethics agreement may be a blessing in disguise.
When Worldwide was changing doctrine, some ministers who remained faithful to true doctrine were able to stay with Worldwide a long time, even after Worldwide made many serious doctrinal compromises. They did this by walking a tightrope. They were careful not to contradict Mr. Tkach and the other leaders in Worldwide on doctrine, but they were equally careful not to teach anything false. They did this by avoiding the teaching of certain subjects, just sticking to "safe" topics in which doctrine had not yet been changed, and by various means in how they worded what they said.
I see hints, but no smoking gun, that UCG is moving slowly towards doctrinal compromise. I can't prove it and I can't say definitely that it will happen. But it might. And I am not suggesting that UCG members should leave necessarily at this point over what MIGHT happen.
But ministers in UCG will be the first to know, if they do not already know. And if doctrinal compromise and false teaching is in UCG's future, some ministers, who were able to stay in Worldwide past some of the doctrinal changes by walking the tightrope, may be tempted to do the same thing in UCG, especially since UCG is unlikely to change doctrine to the same extent and degree as Worldwide did.
But for any minister whose loyalty is to the Bible more than to UCG leaders, the code of ethics agreement may be a line in the sand they cannot cross. You either sign or you don't sign, and if you sign you are pledging loyalty to the organization and everything it will teach.
And for this reason, the option to "walk the tightrope" to stay in an organization that may teach doctrinal heresy by the avoiding of certain subjects and by clever wording in how things are taught, may not be an option for faithful ministers.
If God wants those ministers OUT of UCG so they can teach the full truth forcefully, with power, not being careful how they word things so as not to offend their bosses, it may be according to God's will that this code of ethics agreement force ministers to take a stand now, one way or another. This can be God's way of getting faithful ministers OUT of an organization that is not fully faithful to the Bible.
Thus, in its long-term effects, the code of ethics agreement can be a blessing.
To sign or not to sign. That is the question.
Members of the Church of God may have to face something like this in the future. And I am not talking about signing Church of God agreements. I do not foresee any Church of God organization asking members to sign papers of agreement.
But the world might.
The Bible refers to something called the mark of the beast (Revelation 13:16-17). There will be a time coming when no man can buy or sell without the mark of the beast, which is on their right hand or on their foreheads.
Many in the Church have suggested that this would be Sunday observance, figuring we work with our hands (right hand) and our minds (forehead), and if we observe the Sabbath faithfully, we will lose our jobs and have no money to buy or sell. This idea is further reinforced by the fact that God's true Sabbath is a sign that identifies God's people (Exodus 31:12-17). If the Sabbath is a sign, then Sunday is a counterfeit sign.
I think Sunday observance may very well be the mark of the beast.
But how will the prohibition against buying or selling be enforced for those who do not observe Sunday and instead observe the Sabbath?
I have often wondered about that. Because, just keeping the Sabbath, resting from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, does not, by itself, stop someone from buying or selling.
In times in the past when I have been unemployed, I have done more selling of property to raise cash to support myself than when I had a job. I would sell my DVDs, my movies, my computer equipment, my camera, anything I had that I could sell, to raise cash to buy food or pay the rent. I sold on eBay, I sold to stores, I sold to relatives.
How will keeping the Sabbath prevent you from selling your house, your car, or anything you have? You can sell these things on a Monday, Tuesday, etc.
And what about people who have savings or who live on a pension? How will Sabbath observance prevent someone from buying food and other necessities from their savings or pension money during the week?
Also, there is almost always part-time work that a person can do during the week, and there are work shifts that simply do not require people to work on the Sabbath. Also, self-employed people can work during the regular workweek and clients do not necessarily even know that they keep the Sabbath. If a car mechanic fixes my car on a Wednesday and I pay him on Thursday, how do I know if he works Saturday or not?
If Sunday is the mark of the beast, there has to be an enforcement mechanism to prevent people from buying and selling who do not have the mark. In fact, whatever the mark of the beast is, there has to be an enforcement mechanism.
There has been a trend in the world to move away from using physical cash to make financial transactions - paper currency and coin - and to move towards electronic and bank payments: checks, credit cards, and debit cards. Today, typically you can go into a store, slide your bank card through a card reader, press OK when you see the amount, and you just made your purchase. You can do this for any amount, even to buy a banana that cost 18 cents. The IRS would like to see cash eliminated because financial transactions in electronic or check form are easier to trace to make sure people pay their taxes.
You can receive a paycheck and cash it at a currency exchange or at the bank the check is drawn on without having a bank account, but if the world moves to a cashless economy, that may no longer be possible. Having a bank account will be a necessity to buy or sell anything, to receive payment from an employer, etc. But to open a bank account, you have to sign forms. And a future government may require that those forms contain certain wording, certain pledges and promises, to abide by laws of the state that prohibit Sunday work, to acknowledge that Sunday is the true sabbath of God, or any other doctrine that a faithful member of God's true Church cannot with a clear conscience agree to. If we sign, we have signed something false, and we have lied, we have given false witness, we have broken the ninth commandment, and we have sinned against God. If we refuse to sign, no bank account. No bank account, no debit or credit card for making store purchases. No bank account, no checks for making purchases with checks. No bank account, no way to deposit a paycheck.
No money in other words. No buying or selling. No way to cash a pension check because there is no cash. No way to sell anything because there is no way to receive payment.
This would be a way to exclude the entire faithful membership of the Church of God from participation in a money economy.
We would be reduced to barter to stay alive. We fix the neighbor's car in exchange for the neighbor giving us food. Or we cut the neighbor's lawn, or babysit for their children, in return for this or that benefit. Barter to stay alive, but no buying or selling.
Hitler didn't have the tools to make Germany cashless, but when he began to move against the Jews, he passed laws excluding them from one profession after another. They were not allowed to own farmland. They could not work as teachers. Non-Jews could not go to Jewish doctors. Systematically, the Jews were excluded, step-by-step, from most of the economy. This was before most of them were rounded up and sent to concentration camps.
If this happens in the future, if we must sign something false to have a bank account, every member will be faced with that question, sign or don't sign.
Revelation says the mark will be on our right hand or our forehead. We work with both hands, but we sign papers with our right hand. With our hand, we sign, and with our mind (our forehead) we compromise.
We all may face that choice sometime in the future, to compromise by signing or to pay a penalty for not signing. UCG ministers are facing a similar choice now.
But the code of ethics agreement may be a blessing in disguise.
When Worldwide was changing doctrine, some ministers who remained faithful to true doctrine were able to stay with Worldwide a long time, even after Worldwide made many serious doctrinal compromises. They did this by walking a tightrope. They were careful not to contradict Mr. Tkach and the other leaders in Worldwide on doctrine, but they were equally careful not to teach anything false. They did this by avoiding the teaching of certain subjects, just sticking to "safe" topics in which doctrine had not yet been changed, and by various means in how they worded what they said.
I see hints, but no smoking gun, that UCG is moving slowly towards doctrinal compromise. I can't prove it and I can't say definitely that it will happen. But it might. And I am not suggesting that UCG members should leave necessarily at this point over what MIGHT happen.
But ministers in UCG will be the first to know, if they do not already know. And if doctrinal compromise and false teaching is in UCG's future, some ministers, who were able to stay in Worldwide past some of the doctrinal changes by walking the tightrope, may be tempted to do the same thing in UCG, especially since UCG is unlikely to change doctrine to the same extent and degree as Worldwide did.
But for any minister whose loyalty is to the Bible more than to UCG leaders, the code of ethics agreement may be a line in the sand they cannot cross. You either sign or you don't sign, and if you sign you are pledging loyalty to the organization and everything it will teach.
And for this reason, the option to "walk the tightrope" to stay in an organization that may teach doctrinal heresy by the avoiding of certain subjects and by clever wording in how things are taught, may not be an option for faithful ministers.
If God wants those ministers OUT of UCG so they can teach the full truth forcefully, with power, not being careful how they word things so as not to offend their bosses, it may be according to God's will that this code of ethics agreement force ministers to take a stand now, one way or another. This can be God's way of getting faithful ministers OUT of an organization that is not fully faithful to the Bible.
Thus, in its long-term effects, the code of ethics agreement can be a blessing.
To sign or not to sign. That is the question.
Members of the Church of God may have to face something like this in the future. And I am not talking about signing Church of God agreements. I do not foresee any Church of God organization asking members to sign papers of agreement.
But the world might.
The Bible refers to something called the mark of the beast (Revelation 13:16-17). There will be a time coming when no man can buy or sell without the mark of the beast, which is on their right hand or on their foreheads.
Many in the Church have suggested that this would be Sunday observance, figuring we work with our hands (right hand) and our minds (forehead), and if we observe the Sabbath faithfully, we will lose our jobs and have no money to buy or sell. This idea is further reinforced by the fact that God's true Sabbath is a sign that identifies God's people (Exodus 31:12-17). If the Sabbath is a sign, then Sunday is a counterfeit sign.
I think Sunday observance may very well be the mark of the beast.
But how will the prohibition against buying or selling be enforced for those who do not observe Sunday and instead observe the Sabbath?
I have often wondered about that. Because, just keeping the Sabbath, resting from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, does not, by itself, stop someone from buying or selling.
In times in the past when I have been unemployed, I have done more selling of property to raise cash to support myself than when I had a job. I would sell my DVDs, my movies, my computer equipment, my camera, anything I had that I could sell, to raise cash to buy food or pay the rent. I sold on eBay, I sold to stores, I sold to relatives.
How will keeping the Sabbath prevent you from selling your house, your car, or anything you have? You can sell these things on a Monday, Tuesday, etc.
And what about people who have savings or who live on a pension? How will Sabbath observance prevent someone from buying food and other necessities from their savings or pension money during the week?
Also, there is almost always part-time work that a person can do during the week, and there are work shifts that simply do not require people to work on the Sabbath. Also, self-employed people can work during the regular workweek and clients do not necessarily even know that they keep the Sabbath. If a car mechanic fixes my car on a Wednesday and I pay him on Thursday, how do I know if he works Saturday or not?
If Sunday is the mark of the beast, there has to be an enforcement mechanism to prevent people from buying and selling who do not have the mark. In fact, whatever the mark of the beast is, there has to be an enforcement mechanism.
There has been a trend in the world to move away from using physical cash to make financial transactions - paper currency and coin - and to move towards electronic and bank payments: checks, credit cards, and debit cards. Today, typically you can go into a store, slide your bank card through a card reader, press OK when you see the amount, and you just made your purchase. You can do this for any amount, even to buy a banana that cost 18 cents. The IRS would like to see cash eliminated because financial transactions in electronic or check form are easier to trace to make sure people pay their taxes.
You can receive a paycheck and cash it at a currency exchange or at the bank the check is drawn on without having a bank account, but if the world moves to a cashless economy, that may no longer be possible. Having a bank account will be a necessity to buy or sell anything, to receive payment from an employer, etc. But to open a bank account, you have to sign forms. And a future government may require that those forms contain certain wording, certain pledges and promises, to abide by laws of the state that prohibit Sunday work, to acknowledge that Sunday is the true sabbath of God, or any other doctrine that a faithful member of God's true Church cannot with a clear conscience agree to. If we sign, we have signed something false, and we have lied, we have given false witness, we have broken the ninth commandment, and we have sinned against God. If we refuse to sign, no bank account. No bank account, no debit or credit card for making store purchases. No bank account, no checks for making purchases with checks. No bank account, no way to deposit a paycheck.
No money in other words. No buying or selling. No way to cash a pension check because there is no cash. No way to sell anything because there is no way to receive payment.
This would be a way to exclude the entire faithful membership of the Church of God from participation in a money economy.
We would be reduced to barter to stay alive. We fix the neighbor's car in exchange for the neighbor giving us food. Or we cut the neighbor's lawn, or babysit for their children, in return for this or that benefit. Barter to stay alive, but no buying or selling.
Hitler didn't have the tools to make Germany cashless, but when he began to move against the Jews, he passed laws excluding them from one profession after another. They were not allowed to own farmland. They could not work as teachers. Non-Jews could not go to Jewish doctors. Systematically, the Jews were excluded, step-by-step, from most of the economy. This was before most of them were rounded up and sent to concentration camps.
If this happens in the future, if we must sign something false to have a bank account, every member will be faced with that question, sign or don't sign.
Revelation says the mark will be on our right hand or our forehead. We work with both hands, but we sign papers with our right hand. With our hand, we sign, and with our mind (our forehead) we compromise.
We all may face that choice sometime in the future, to compromise by signing or to pay a penalty for not signing. UCG ministers are facing a similar choice now.
When Will Israel Attack?
There have been rumors of Israel attacking Iran for a long time, years in fact. It is apparent to all that Iran is working to make an atomic bomb, and Israel feels she needs to carry out a pre-emptive attack on Iran to prevent a hostile and fanatical Iran from having nukes with which it could destroy Israel. Not too many months ago, it was rumored that Israel was getting ready to attack Iran in the spring. Well, spring has come and gone (meteorological spring, that is, the months of March, April, and May), and there has been no attack. So now it looks like it may be the summer or fall.
Israel may have expressed a determination to stop Iran from developing nukes, but Israel has also shown great reluctance about actually attacking Iran. It makes me wonder, if stopping Iran is so critical to Israel's survival, as she claims, why hasn't she attacked yet? Iran has been working on its bomb project for years, and their fanaticism and hostility to Israel and the west is also well known. They must be getting close to making the bomb. I sometimes wonder if one of these days Iran will catch Israel and the west by surprise by announcing, or detonating, their first atomic bomb. Then it will be too late. Iran will be a nuclear power.
I have even thought of the Bible passage that says, "They have blown the trumpet and made everyone ready, But no one goes to battle..." (Ezekiel 7:14), and wondered if this could apply. But probably this verse is not about the current situation between Israel and Iran.
Perhaps Israel has very detailed, accurate, and reliable intelligence about how close Iran is to making the bomb and can afford to cut it fine.
I have not been following the details of that situation, but I see a general pattern.
Israel wants the government of Iran and its nuclear program taken out, but she would rather not attack Iran alone.
Iran is a threat to more than just Israel. Iran is a threat to Europe and the United States. It is a threat to the whole Persian Gulf region. It can threaten to close oil shipping in the Persian Gulf, disrupting vital oil supplies to the west, not just Europe and the United States, but Japan as well, and many other countries dependent on middle east oil. Iran is also a threat to moderate Muslim and Arab states in the region, such as Saudi Arabia.
Israel would like to have allies in a war against Iran. And I think Israel is hopeful that she can have allies.
But those allies may exact a price.
This can be a danger for Israel. In order to secure the cooperation and help of other powers in the region against Iran, she may make deals that will compromise her future security. If this is the case, she may win in the short term and she may win against Iran, but if the price she pays to other countries to gain their support weakens Israel and compromises her future security, she may sow the seeds of her own destruction in the long term.
Israel may have expressed a determination to stop Iran from developing nukes, but Israel has also shown great reluctance about actually attacking Iran. It makes me wonder, if stopping Iran is so critical to Israel's survival, as she claims, why hasn't she attacked yet? Iran has been working on its bomb project for years, and their fanaticism and hostility to Israel and the west is also well known. They must be getting close to making the bomb. I sometimes wonder if one of these days Iran will catch Israel and the west by surprise by announcing, or detonating, their first atomic bomb. Then it will be too late. Iran will be a nuclear power.
I have even thought of the Bible passage that says, "They have blown the trumpet and made everyone ready, But no one goes to battle..." (Ezekiel 7:14), and wondered if this could apply. But probably this verse is not about the current situation between Israel and Iran.
Perhaps Israel has very detailed, accurate, and reliable intelligence about how close Iran is to making the bomb and can afford to cut it fine.
I have not been following the details of that situation, but I see a general pattern.
Israel wants the government of Iran and its nuclear program taken out, but she would rather not attack Iran alone.
Iran is a threat to more than just Israel. Iran is a threat to Europe and the United States. It is a threat to the whole Persian Gulf region. It can threaten to close oil shipping in the Persian Gulf, disrupting vital oil supplies to the west, not just Europe and the United States, but Japan as well, and many other countries dependent on middle east oil. Iran is also a threat to moderate Muslim and Arab states in the region, such as Saudi Arabia.
Israel would like to have allies in a war against Iran. And I think Israel is hopeful that she can have allies.
But those allies may exact a price.
This can be a danger for Israel. In order to secure the cooperation and help of other powers in the region against Iran, she may make deals that will compromise her future security. If this is the case, she may win in the short term and she may win against Iran, but if the price she pays to other countries to gain their support weakens Israel and compromises her future security, she may sow the seeds of her own destruction in the long term.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
How Should We Listen to Ministers?
Does God speak through Church of God ministers?
How should we listen to ministers? What should be our attitude towards what they say?
On the one hand, ministers are not infallible, and they can make mistakes in what they teach. On the other hand, we need to respect the office. Obviously there needs to be a balance.
But more than just respecting the office, we need to have an attitude of receptiveness and teachability towards what the ministers we attend with and listen to have to say, yet without being deceived if they make serious mistakes.
If we are attending with a fellowship that we have judged is overall faithful to the truth (and if we do not think they are mostly faithful, probably we should not be attending with them), we must be willing to be taught by those who speak, such as our pastor or the leader of that group.
God has ordained that His truth and way of life be taught by imperfect humans. That is the system he has set up.
We learn from Bible study and from imperfect ministers who speak and write, both. And through this process, if we are diligently seeking God and His way of life and are submitting to God and His word, God's Holy Spirit will guide us and help us understand the Bible and the ministers' speaking and writing.
If we can see from the fruits that God is working through the Church of God fellowship we attend with or support, we can and should seek to be taught by the ministry of that group. We should seek to learn from what they say in sermons and in counseling and from what they write in articles and books, just as we seek to learn from the Bible, but with only one difference: the Bible is infallible and ministers are not. But our attitude of wanting to be corrected and taught should be the same.
But will that attitude get us into trouble if a minister makes a mistake? If the minister is wrong about something he teaches, will we be deceived? Not if we are studying the Bible and obeying God's law. To the degree we are immersing ourselves in God's word, spending time with it, believing and obeying what God says, God will give us the discernment to see any errors in what a minister teaches, and we should not be deceived in any serious matter.
If what a minister says seems to "not line up" with something we read in the Bible, we can study the matter further in the Bible with an open mind, and if necessary counsel with the minister, and if the minister is wrong, we should believe the Bible and not the minister. But we should not let that be an excuse for not listening receptively to the other things the minister teaches us. He is our instructor, given to us by God for our good.
Sometimes, regardless of a man's faults, God can inspire a speaker to say something that helps a particular member with a problem, right at that moment.
Has this ever happened to you? You are struggling with a problem, maybe a question about doctrine, or maybe a question of God's law. Maybe you are wondering if something you have been doing, or something you may want to do in the future, is a violation of God's law or not. Maybe it seems like a gray area, and you are not sure, and you are seeking wisdom. Or, maybe you are trying to understand how to handle a tricky situation in your life.
You come to services and listen to the sermon (or sermonette), and in the middle of the message, as if out of the blue, the speaker says something that helps answer your question. It might not even have anything to do with the main point of the message, but it is as if God, at that moment, inspired the speaker to give you an answer to something that has been troubling you.
Or, maybe you haven't been troubled by something, but you SHOULD be troubled by it, and the speaker brings it to your attention as something you need to be concerned about.
One way or another, it seems as if God is speaking to you personally through the minister or speaker giving the message. And indeed, that is probably the case, for God has put men in teaching positions for that very purpose as well as for general teaching.
Has that ever happened to you? It has happened to me more than once.
We are all human and make mistakes, but we should strive to have an attitude of respect towards those who speak in God's true Church, and we should be willing to be corrected and reminded of the truths of the Bible by them. God can inspire them to help us, and we should be receptive (not gullible) towards what they say.
If a minister corrects us for our faults and sins, we should examine ourselves, using the Bible as the ultimate authority, on the points the minister brings to our attention. If the minister teaches a doctrinal issue, we should learn what we can from him, comparing what he says with the Bible, and particularly focusing on the scriptures the minister quotes. We should learn to accept what the minister teaches that is right and apply it to ourselves while not being deceived by any mistakes the minister might make. We make that distinction by the Bible.
Ministers can remind us of things the Bible says. God can remind us of things He has said in His word through the speaking and writing of the ministry.
Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would remind us of things that He said (John 14:26). Paul wrote that we would understand the things of God by the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:10-16). God does that by working in our minds by His Spirit, but in the same manner God can also work in the minds of those who speak, write, teach, and counsel, to remind us of the words of the Bible, to correct us, to encourage us, and to help our understanding.
Some may prefer to learn from the Bible only, and not from ministers at all, but that is not the system God has put into place. It is God's will that we learn from the ministry (Ephesians 4:11-15).
Above all, we need to respect the office of minister (Jude 8-9), and we should not speak against the minister and what he teaches with other members of his congregation when we attend with him (1 Corinthians 1:10).
How should we listen to ministers? What should be our attitude towards what they say?
On the one hand, ministers are not infallible, and they can make mistakes in what they teach. On the other hand, we need to respect the office. Obviously there needs to be a balance.
But more than just respecting the office, we need to have an attitude of receptiveness and teachability towards what the ministers we attend with and listen to have to say, yet without being deceived if they make serious mistakes.
If we are attending with a fellowship that we have judged is overall faithful to the truth (and if we do not think they are mostly faithful, probably we should not be attending with them), we must be willing to be taught by those who speak, such as our pastor or the leader of that group.
God has ordained that His truth and way of life be taught by imperfect humans. That is the system he has set up.
We learn from Bible study and from imperfect ministers who speak and write, both. And through this process, if we are diligently seeking God and His way of life and are submitting to God and His word, God's Holy Spirit will guide us and help us understand the Bible and the ministers' speaking and writing.
If we can see from the fruits that God is working through the Church of God fellowship we attend with or support, we can and should seek to be taught by the ministry of that group. We should seek to learn from what they say in sermons and in counseling and from what they write in articles and books, just as we seek to learn from the Bible, but with only one difference: the Bible is infallible and ministers are not. But our attitude of wanting to be corrected and taught should be the same.
But will that attitude get us into trouble if a minister makes a mistake? If the minister is wrong about something he teaches, will we be deceived? Not if we are studying the Bible and obeying God's law. To the degree we are immersing ourselves in God's word, spending time with it, believing and obeying what God says, God will give us the discernment to see any errors in what a minister teaches, and we should not be deceived in any serious matter.
If what a minister says seems to "not line up" with something we read in the Bible, we can study the matter further in the Bible with an open mind, and if necessary counsel with the minister, and if the minister is wrong, we should believe the Bible and not the minister. But we should not let that be an excuse for not listening receptively to the other things the minister teaches us. He is our instructor, given to us by God for our good.
Sometimes, regardless of a man's faults, God can inspire a speaker to say something that helps a particular member with a problem, right at that moment.
Has this ever happened to you? You are struggling with a problem, maybe a question about doctrine, or maybe a question of God's law. Maybe you are wondering if something you have been doing, or something you may want to do in the future, is a violation of God's law or not. Maybe it seems like a gray area, and you are not sure, and you are seeking wisdom. Or, maybe you are trying to understand how to handle a tricky situation in your life.
You come to services and listen to the sermon (or sermonette), and in the middle of the message, as if out of the blue, the speaker says something that helps answer your question. It might not even have anything to do with the main point of the message, but it is as if God, at that moment, inspired the speaker to give you an answer to something that has been troubling you.
Or, maybe you haven't been troubled by something, but you SHOULD be troubled by it, and the speaker brings it to your attention as something you need to be concerned about.
One way or another, it seems as if God is speaking to you personally through the minister or speaker giving the message. And indeed, that is probably the case, for God has put men in teaching positions for that very purpose as well as for general teaching.
Has that ever happened to you? It has happened to me more than once.
We are all human and make mistakes, but we should strive to have an attitude of respect towards those who speak in God's true Church, and we should be willing to be corrected and reminded of the truths of the Bible by them. God can inspire them to help us, and we should be receptive (not gullible) towards what they say.
If a minister corrects us for our faults and sins, we should examine ourselves, using the Bible as the ultimate authority, on the points the minister brings to our attention. If the minister teaches a doctrinal issue, we should learn what we can from him, comparing what he says with the Bible, and particularly focusing on the scriptures the minister quotes. We should learn to accept what the minister teaches that is right and apply it to ourselves while not being deceived by any mistakes the minister might make. We make that distinction by the Bible.
Ministers can remind us of things the Bible says. God can remind us of things He has said in His word through the speaking and writing of the ministry.
Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would remind us of things that He said (John 14:26). Paul wrote that we would understand the things of God by the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:10-16). God does that by working in our minds by His Spirit, but in the same manner God can also work in the minds of those who speak, write, teach, and counsel, to remind us of the words of the Bible, to correct us, to encourage us, and to help our understanding.
Some may prefer to learn from the Bible only, and not from ministers at all, but that is not the system God has put into place. It is God's will that we learn from the ministry (Ephesians 4:11-15).
Above all, we need to respect the office of minister (Jude 8-9), and we should not speak against the minister and what he teaches with other members of his congregation when we attend with him (1 Corinthians 1:10).
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Repentance
I have updated my book Preaching the Gospel to add a new chapter on repentance. Here is a link to my website where you can read the book online or download it in pdf format:
http://www.ptgbook.org/
Here is a direct link to the chapter on repentance:
http://www.ptgbook.org/repentance.htm
The evidence I think is strong that we are in the Laodicean era. Christ commands us to repent in Revelation 3:15-22: "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. Because you say, 'I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing'-and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked- I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me. To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne."
The scattered condition of the Church, and our weakness in preaching the gospel to the world, are both evidence that we are Laodicean.
I think there is a strong connection between repentance and faith. They are two sides of the same coin. We need to be zealous to study the Bible, let it correct us, and believe what God says. We build faith as we study, believe, and obey the Bible one verse at a time.
When we read something in the Bible that is hard to take, something that corrects us in our behavior or beliefs, we need to choose to believe God and put our belief into obedient action. As we do that, we exercise our faith and it increases, and our repentance increases as well.
We need to spent less time on TV, movies, and entertainment and more time in prayer and Bible study. When we study the Bible, we should study it in an attitude of belief and looking for God to correct us.
"Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; Teach a just man, and he will increase in learning" (Proverbs 9:8-9).
http://www.ptgbook.org/
Here is a direct link to the chapter on repentance:
http://www.ptgbook.org/repentance.htm
The evidence I think is strong that we are in the Laodicean era. Christ commands us to repent in Revelation 3:15-22: "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. Because you say, 'I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing'-and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked- I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me. To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne."
The scattered condition of the Church, and our weakness in preaching the gospel to the world, are both evidence that we are Laodicean.
I think there is a strong connection between repentance and faith. They are two sides of the same coin. We need to be zealous to study the Bible, let it correct us, and believe what God says. We build faith as we study, believe, and obey the Bible one verse at a time.
When we read something in the Bible that is hard to take, something that corrects us in our behavior or beliefs, we need to choose to believe God and put our belief into obedient action. As we do that, we exercise our faith and it increases, and our repentance increases as well.
We need to spent less time on TV, movies, and entertainment and more time in prayer and Bible study. When we study the Bible, we should study it in an attitude of belief and looking for God to correct us.
"Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser; Teach a just man, and he will increase in learning" (Proverbs 9:8-9).
Friday, April 6, 2012
Stay Far from the Edge
Do you remember the first temptation Satan used against Christ in the account of Jesus being tempted in the wilderness?
"Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, 'If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread' " (Matthew 4:3).
Here is a question. What is wrong with changing stones into bread?
Or to put it another way, would it have been a sin for Jesus to command the stones to become bread? Is there a commandment of God against changing stones into bread? If Jesus did it, what law would He be breaking? And if there is no law against it, how could it be a sin, and if not a sin, why would Satan want Jesus to do it?
Satan is very subtle. Changing stone into bread may seem innocent on the surface. There is certainly no direct command against it. But it would have given Satan an inroad. Jesus might be tempted to do this out of a motive of vanity. Moreover, the bread would be a temptation for Jesus to eat. If He ate, He would be breaking His fast. Breaking the fast would not itself be a sin necessarily - He had already fasted for 40 days and He was bound to end the fast soon anyway - but he would have lost the spiritual benefit of fasting at a time when He needed that benefit to face whatever other temptations Satan would throw at Him. There may be other reasons why it would be a bad idea, even a sin, for Jesus to do what Satan suggested.
But it is interesting that Satan did not start out with a tempation that would be a direct and obvious violation of one of God's major commandments. He started with something that Jesus could rationalize would not be wrong.
Isn't that how Satan tempts us sometimes?
Satan sometimes tempts us with a direct violation of God's commandments, but sometimes, if that direct, head-on approach is unlikely to work, he comes at us from the periphery. He tempts us, not to directly violate a commandment, but to do something unwise that puts us in spiritual jeopardy, something that can expose us to greater temptations. He gets at us little by little, slowly breaking our resistance. He can chip away at the edges of our obedience until we are spiritual weak enough to be attacked directly. He will attack us in something that may be a "grey area" for us.
Example: Maybe we are in the habit of praying a certain amount of time every day. Satan can tempt us to pray a little less on a particular day because we are so busy. Is that a sin? There is no commandment of God that says, "pray 45 minutes every day." So it is easy to rationalize, "I can make it up tomorrow." Then tomorrow is even more busy than today. We pray less, but with mixed thoughts about it. On the one hand we tell ourselves, "it is ok, I am still praying, I am not breaking any commandment," but on the other hand we feel guilty because it is beginning to sink in to our minds that we are not putting God first. We become spiritually weakened. Then Satan can tempt us with something else, something a little more serious. We begin making little compromises here and there, and as we do, we are drifting farther from God and Satan is setting us up for a big fall. He has a knock-out punch all prepared, but he is weakening us first with little things, things that don't seem so bad, to draw us away from God. Then, when we have been gradually put into a weakened state, he delivers his "good night" blow, and down we go. We wake up later and asked ourselves, "how did this happen?"
Maybe the little thing that starts it is going to a party with some people in the world. Maybe this particular party is not so bad, yet there will be temptations, temptations to over drink maybe, or something else. Is there a command against going to such a party? Not directly. So we can think, I can handle the temptations. But God says, "flee sexual immorality" (1 Corinthians 6:18). God mentions a specific temptation, but the principle applies to ANY temptation. Christ teaches us to pray to God, "do not lead us into temptation" (Matthew 6:13), but we have our part to do to avoid temptations.
The "little thing" that Satan may use to begin in a small way to increase our temptations and start to weaken us may be a TV program. It might not be a very bad program, and there might be a lot of good in it, but it has enough temptations and wrong influences in it that it can start, in a small way, to draw our minds away from the closeness we have with God.
But Jesus set the example. He did not do something that was even remotely close to sin. He stayed from the edge of the cliff. He refused even to turn stones into bread even though there was no direct command against it. He did not do something that was unwise. He did not expose Himself to something that could tempt Him into breaking His fast, a fast that was helping to give Him the spiritual strength to be close to God and resist Satan. And because He refused to compromise even the slightest bit with one hundred percent dedication to God's law and work, He was able to resist all of Satan's temptations.
Likewise we need to stay far from the edge of the cliff. Don't even come close to breaking God's law. Anticipate the little problems, the little things that can tempt us to sin, and avoid those situations.
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
The Days of Unleavened Bread - Repentance, Chapter 2
How to Obtain More of God's Help in Breaking Bad Habits, Chapter 7
"Now when the tempter came to Him, he said, 'If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread' " (Matthew 4:3).
Here is a question. What is wrong with changing stones into bread?
Or to put it another way, would it have been a sin for Jesus to command the stones to become bread? Is there a commandment of God against changing stones into bread? If Jesus did it, what law would He be breaking? And if there is no law against it, how could it be a sin, and if not a sin, why would Satan want Jesus to do it?
Satan is very subtle. Changing stone into bread may seem innocent on the surface. There is certainly no direct command against it. But it would have given Satan an inroad. Jesus might be tempted to do this out of a motive of vanity. Moreover, the bread would be a temptation for Jesus to eat. If He ate, He would be breaking His fast. Breaking the fast would not itself be a sin necessarily - He had already fasted for 40 days and He was bound to end the fast soon anyway - but he would have lost the spiritual benefit of fasting at a time when He needed that benefit to face whatever other temptations Satan would throw at Him. There may be other reasons why it would be a bad idea, even a sin, for Jesus to do what Satan suggested.
But it is interesting that Satan did not start out with a tempation that would be a direct and obvious violation of one of God's major commandments. He started with something that Jesus could rationalize would not be wrong.
Isn't that how Satan tempts us sometimes?
Satan sometimes tempts us with a direct violation of God's commandments, but sometimes, if that direct, head-on approach is unlikely to work, he comes at us from the periphery. He tempts us, not to directly violate a commandment, but to do something unwise that puts us in spiritual jeopardy, something that can expose us to greater temptations. He gets at us little by little, slowly breaking our resistance. He can chip away at the edges of our obedience until we are spiritual weak enough to be attacked directly. He will attack us in something that may be a "grey area" for us.
Example: Maybe we are in the habit of praying a certain amount of time every day. Satan can tempt us to pray a little less on a particular day because we are so busy. Is that a sin? There is no commandment of God that says, "pray 45 minutes every day." So it is easy to rationalize, "I can make it up tomorrow." Then tomorrow is even more busy than today. We pray less, but with mixed thoughts about it. On the one hand we tell ourselves, "it is ok, I am still praying, I am not breaking any commandment," but on the other hand we feel guilty because it is beginning to sink in to our minds that we are not putting God first. We become spiritually weakened. Then Satan can tempt us with something else, something a little more serious. We begin making little compromises here and there, and as we do, we are drifting farther from God and Satan is setting us up for a big fall. He has a knock-out punch all prepared, but he is weakening us first with little things, things that don't seem so bad, to draw us away from God. Then, when we have been gradually put into a weakened state, he delivers his "good night" blow, and down we go. We wake up later and asked ourselves, "how did this happen?"
Maybe the little thing that starts it is going to a party with some people in the world. Maybe this particular party is not so bad, yet there will be temptations, temptations to over drink maybe, or something else. Is there a command against going to such a party? Not directly. So we can think, I can handle the temptations. But God says, "flee sexual immorality" (1 Corinthians 6:18). God mentions a specific temptation, but the principle applies to ANY temptation. Christ teaches us to pray to God, "do not lead us into temptation" (Matthew 6:13), but we have our part to do to avoid temptations.
The "little thing" that Satan may use to begin in a small way to increase our temptations and start to weaken us may be a TV program. It might not be a very bad program, and there might be a lot of good in it, but it has enough temptations and wrong influences in it that it can start, in a small way, to draw our minds away from the closeness we have with God.
But Jesus set the example. He did not do something that was even remotely close to sin. He stayed from the edge of the cliff. He refused even to turn stones into bread even though there was no direct command against it. He did not do something that was unwise. He did not expose Himself to something that could tempt Him into breaking His fast, a fast that was helping to give Him the spiritual strength to be close to God and resist Satan. And because He refused to compromise even the slightest bit with one hundred percent dedication to God's law and work, He was able to resist all of Satan's temptations.
Likewise we need to stay far from the edge of the cliff. Don't even come close to breaking God's law. Anticipate the little problems, the little things that can tempt us to sin, and avoid those situations.
Here are links to related sections in Preaching the Gospel:
The Days of Unleavened Bread - Repentance, Chapter 2
How to Obtain More of God's Help in Breaking Bad Habits, Chapter 7
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
