Category: Subject Index

Proposition: “The Scriptures teach that biblical putting away is synonymous with the civil procedure for divorce in one’s respective society and that the innocent one must secure that civil divorce in order to have a right to remarry.”

The teaching of Jesus continually directs our attention to a single question by which we evaluate any teaching: Is the doctrine of divine origin or human invention? To the leaders of the Jews who had rejected the baptism of John, Jesus asked, “The baptism of John, whence was it — from heaven or from men?” (Matthew 21:25). Baptism following repentance had been taught by John as a commandment, not a suggestion. When a teaching is lawfully advanced as a matter of mandatory faith and practice, it must be of divine origin. If we teach human tradition or even personal conscience as mandatory or impose such as tests of fellowship, we incur the condemnation of God (1 Timothy 4:1-3).

Let us determine to live our lives as the one who returned in thanksgiving to glorify God for the blessings received. By so doing, we can provide an example of thankfulness which can teach those around us and ultimately our nation just as that Samaritan did so long ago. Our lives should manifest a thankful spirit, not only at Thanksgiving, but every day we live by the grace of God.

Since “The Austin Baptist Association” voted to “oust” “University Baptist” because they ordained a “gay deacon,” we know that Baptists cannot plead that they are “non-judgmental.” So, we want to know if a thing is bad enough to get a church kicked out of “The Austin Baptist Association,” is it bad enough to keep one from heaven (1 Peter 2:11)? Some Baptist needs to tell us.

Brethren, whether we believe it or not, or whether we will admit it or not, there is a growing disdain and disgust for “pattern authority” and “pattern worship.”

Baptism upon a confession of faith, brings conversion to fruition and automatically places one in the church for which Jesus died (Acts 2:47). Paul called this assembly the church of Christ in Romans 16:16 and it is purely necessary to the scheme of salvation as the household of God in which the redeemed dwell while on Earth.

A generation reared on spiritual junk food is growing up, facing decisions of morality without moral foundation and preparing to take the lead in churches which they will surely continue to transform into just another worthless, destructive denomination. Once you have sown the wind, it is hard to stop the whirlwind. The time has come to get back to the Bible, or better, catch up to it. Before it is too late.

I have known of Glenn’s work all of my life, and my respect for the Roger’s influence has grown. When I was a very young man growing up in Ft. Smith, Arkansas, I heard the name Glenn Rogers. The local church my family attended received a little bundle of newsprint papers from the Rio Grande Valley in Texas. The paper was called “Along the Border,” edited by Glenn Rogers. As a little boy, I remember thinking about how suitable these papers were for the childish purpose of making a paper airplane. In my immaturity, I had no idea all the good and serious work that little paper represented. Bro. Rogers reported on various activities of preaching and teaching among the Mexican people along the border separating Texas and Mexico.

Many brethren today are involved in carrying out the Great Commission. Their work reflects their simple faith in the commission our Savior gave so long ago. Jesus yet calls us to this work today. Are you doing your part? Does the church where you are have the capability to support men in this work? Is there some way you can help logistically, perhaps by getting tracts in a foreign language printed? Let us answer Jesus’ call to teach all nations.

A series of sermon charts on the subject: The Church of Christ

It is not unusual these days to see a bumper sticker with some message indicating that the owner is an alumnus of some college, or member of a fraternal order or church group. Recently I saw one indicating that the driver of the car was an “ex-Ranger,” probably a past member of the Rangers baseball club. This triggered a thought about the possibility of forming an association, complete with bumper sticker, of those people who used to be members of the Lord’s church and calling it the “Ex-Christian Association.” Surely there are enough people around who qualify.

At one time, we all were guilty of envy. But, brethren, that should not now be. We ought all to examine ourselves, and purge envy from us. It is not proper for children of God (cf. Titus 3:3-7).

A basic fallacy in the current “unity movement” is a denial of what 2 John 9 teaches in limiting our tolerance of error. When one seeks to limit this passage to a single application (re: the nature of Jesus), it is but a short step into the “new unity movement.” And not a few seem to be taking that step!

Each preacher has a commitment to God to preach so as to please God whether it pleases the brethren or not (cf: the life of the prophets) and this is not negotiable. However, it is possible to abuse this prerogative and take advantage of brethren who agree in principle with this commitment but disagree with the application of it by an unwise preacher. The life of many a faithful preacher has been made hard by foolish ones who abuse the patience of good brethren by not using discretion toward responsibilities. Preachers should show good judgment in their work.

Young people, I implore you not to waste breath attempting to defend the immoral dress and dance of our day. You convince no one, least of all the Almighty. As Paul stated in Ephesians 3:15, “See then that you walk circumspectly, not as fools but as wise.” Be wise, and serve your Lord with modesty and devotion.

The Masonic Lodge teaches and adherants accept that their relationship in the Lodge is what assures them salvation. The Masonic Lodge teaches that the Jew, Muslim, Brahmin, Confucian, Zorasterian, and other religious men who have rejected Christ, nevertheless can approach God in prayer, and approach other Masons in spiritual fellowship, based upon his membership in the Lodge!

If something can be found in the Bible which is not scientifically accurate, then it is not true. And if it is not true, then the rest of the Bible falls apart like a house of cards. Modernists know this, and this is the reason they set forth the arguments which they do. They do not believe in plenary, or “full” inspiration of Scripture, and they are anxious to find fodder for their cannons. “Pre-scientific world-view” arguments are therefore common in their writings.

Phil repeats the same two arguments which Shane Scott has made to justify his view of long creative days (Day-Age Theory): He says the “clues” which indicate the days are not regular 24 hour days include “Naming all the animals in one day” and “Lack of termination for the seventh day.” We will not discuss these issues here, since they have been often and adequately refuted, but we do want to make one important observation. The fact that he argues thus, clearly indicates to us that the Florida College Bible department is not free of this error simply because Shane Scott has left the school.

Why did he not choose the earlier date of the two? He knows that all conservative Bible students consider the round figure 2000 BC to be the approximate age of Abraham. He also knows that 1700 BC is the approximate age in the mind of the modernist for Abraham‘s era. Why did he choose to connect me with the late date crowd, i.e., the modernists? Nothing in my article would suggest that I hold to the late date as the period of Abraham and the rest of the patriarchs. Nothing that I have ever said to him or written in any other article would give him that impression. Why would he engage in such distortion? Why would he imply that I do not accept the inerrancy of Scripture with his suggestive phrase “the late date is not generally accepted among those who accept biblical inerrancy”? I am absolutely appalled by his use of such methods!

Likewise, we may be tempted upon a surface reading of the Genesis genealogical material to see the genealogies as absolute chronologies, but that is not what the Bible calls them, and that is not what the entire biblical context shows them to be. As Benjamin B. Warfield has written, “The general fact that the genealogies of Scripture were not constructed for a chronological purpose and lend themselves ill to employment as a basis for chronological calculations has been repeatedly shown very fully. These genealogies must be esteemed trustworthy for the purpose for which they are recorded; but they cannot safely be pressed into use for other purposes for which they were not intended, and for which they are not adapted” (“Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race” in Biblical and Theological Studies 240-241).