“Not Ashamed of the Gospel” (Issue Number 3 as of March, 2012)

“Not Ashamed of the Gospel” (Issue Number 3 as of March, 2012) “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” Rom. 1:16 Newsletter Published monthly by: Mountain Top Libas church of Christ Maasim, Sarangani Province Times of Meetings Sunday Bible Study (in all ages) – 8:00 AM to 9:00 AM Message – 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM Wednesday - 7:30 p.m Preacher: Allan Kimnon Preacher and Editor: Men Mark Tumandan Church of Christ "Blessed Are Persecuted" (Matt. 5: 10 - 12) *We are persecuted through words and deeds. Denominational members told me that I am "Satan" and "FOOL". I am reminded always by the Christian song the title is "Let the Beauty of Jesus Be Seen" in us when we face persecutions. Last Feb. 13, 2012, after an over one hour Bible Sharing with Alliance preacher, I was thrown of stones and large piece of wood, he got a long bolo knife; the thing he got angry with me is because I do deny that we should give and get "Tithes" and also I told him that there is no Women Preachers as per 1 Cor. 14:34 and 1 Tim. 2:11-12. Then when Sunday came Feb. 19, 2012 after my preaching an elder of the same denominational group punched me nearby my right chest because of an article I wrote concerning the Biblical Error of Alliance Church regarding "Tithing and Allowing Women to Preach". When I said "Acting without Divine Authority is wrong, then it is unscriptural, then sinful thus one could not be saved" He was so angry and even all his family and the rest who are members of their denominational church. I was being persecuted because of this my preaching of the truth “If there is no command and authority to do such thing in our worship, then there is no reason for us to follow. We could say that yes it is in the Bible, but let us see to it if the command is for us to obey. Take for example - in Gen. 6:14-22, God commanded Noah to build an ark, thus we could not say we should build an ark also today. God commanded Abram to offer his son Isaac in Genesis 22:2a, will you offer also your son as a burnt offering? What makes me sad through the years is folks do what is not commanded then neglect and reject what is being commanded.” “Many worships that are vain. No matter how emotionally based your worship if it is not Bible- Based then it is in vain. Worship must be in two fold, that is in "Spirit and in Truth" (John 4:24). Some will go to church to worship because of friendliness, after the service then "smoke and drink". Many folks profess being Christians only when Sunday.” But last Monday, Feb. 20, 2012, they asked forgiveness to me, we settled the matter. I have no authority not to forgive anybody. I strongly told the denominational members before their District Supervisor that I still believe with all my heart and we as member of the church of Christ that we should not give tithes and women should not be allowed to preach at the churches. We preach the truth in love. I am so blessed by all of your loving and encouraging comments and prayers. It is written "Let them alone: they are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." (Matt. 15:14). No one can stop me in preaching the Gospel of the grace of God. I will continue to preach the truth no matter what is the cost. *Matt. 6:14 - Teaches us to forgive those who trespasses against us and in Matt. 5:43-48, we are told to do good to others even they persecuted us. "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." and also see Luke 6:27-36. And Apostle Peter said "Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing." (1 Peter 3:9) We are persecuted and became their enemy because we preach and tell them the truth regarding tithing that was for the Jews only and be given every third year not weekly per Deut. 26:12-17 and this was already nailed at the cross (Col. 2:14). We are to give liberally as being prospered upon the first day of the week being commanded in 1 Cor. 16:1-2; 2 Cor. 9:6-7 by the Apostle Paul as he was guided by the Holy Spirit. Doing what was for the Jews only and when they think that are Jews but not then they are "...but are a synagogue of Satan." (Rev. 2:9) "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" (Gal. 4:16) They are so blinded thus the question is "...Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?" (Luke 6:39). Hope and pray that may denominational folks learn to accept the truth so that they be saved. (Mike Tumandan) WE CAN CORRECTLY UNDERSTAND 1 CORINTHIANS 7 (Questions Concerning Marriage)Joe R. Price It is important how we study the Bible. A proper understanding and application of 1 Corinthians 7 will result as we rely, not on the wisdom of men, but on the wisdom of God revealed to us in His word. The interpretative methods we have consistently applied in ascertaining truth and rejecting error will help us accomplish this task (2 Tim. 2:15). Allowing the Bible to interpret itself is a time-honored and entirely scriptural approach to understanding truth. We are determined to not deviate from this course. "What saith the Scripture" must continue to be our appeal (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 4:30). The Propriety Of Marriage: 1 Corinthians 7:1-7 Beginning in verse 1 the apostle addresses several subjects submitted to him in writing by the Corinthian Christians. Chapter 7 deals with a variety of their concerns about marriage. In verses 1-7 the suitability of marriage is set forth by the apostle Paul. Some have used the statement of verse 2 ("let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband") to establish the right of all second marriages to exist (and third, fourth, etc.). As with any other Bible topic, we must always be careful not to accept a position which makes one scripture contradict another. Should we embrace those who, in their misunderstanding of the Bible misapply this passage, thereby encouraging unlawful marriages to occur? If not, what criteria prevents such acceptance? For instance, could 1 Corinthians 7:2 be used by those who practice polygamy in cultures which allow such relationships? Furthermore, should faithful brethren in those cultures accept into their fellowship those who preach and practice such a concept? Or, would brethren be scripturally obligated, as a result of using standard interpretive methods of study, to which reject polygamy and decline from their fellowship those who defend and practice it? (2 Tim. 2:15; 1 Thess. 5:21-22) The answer should be apparent. Our application of the text must be consistent whether we are discussing polygamy or other forms of adultery, such as unlawful remarriages (Matt. 19:9). To The Unmarried: 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 The expediency of remaining single is now set forth by Paul. Some assert that celibacy is the only state in which one can properly serve God. Why do we reject this teaching (1 Tim. 4:3)? Is it not because God's word teaches that marriage is proper (Heb. 13:4)? Certainly it is. For instance, Paul had the right to have a wife, but did not use his right (1 Cor. 9:5; 7:6-7). Now, if we cannot accept into fellowship those who demand celibacy, why not? Is it not because such a teaching opposes revealed truth? Yes, it is. All who are free to marry in the sight of God may exercise their freedom to do so. To The Married: 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 Paul now speaks to the married Christians, and applies the words of Jesus (where He had already made a general application, Matthew 19:5-6). The fact that an application is here made to one specific group of married people (namely, Christians) does not limit Matthew 19 to only Christians (as some brethren say) anymore than Paul application of Matthew 26:26-28 in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 limits who can partake of the Lord's Supper to only Corinthian Christians (1 Cor. 11:20). Yet, some brethren are teaching that either (1) Matthew 19 applies only to Christians, or (2) Matthew 19 applies only to Jews (an explanation of OT law). Why do we reject both of these conclusions as false? Because God has revealed His truth about the universal nature of marriage (Gen. 2:23-24; Heb. 13:4). We can understand, and God expects us to understand, that marriage is for all mankind and is regulated by His revelation concerning it. Anyone who enters the relationship of marriage comes under the divine regulation of it (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:4-6, 9; Heb. 13:4). Should we accept as faithful those brethren who are teaching a perverted gospel regarding to whom the Bible law of marriage applies? What scripture allows us to have fellowship with men who teach this destructive doctrine? The Legitimacy Of Marriage Between A Christian And An Unbeliever: 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 To “the rest” Paul (as an inspired apostle whom the Lord counted trustworthy and who had the Spirit of God, v. 25, 40) applies Matthew 19:6, 9 and explains that marriage between a Christian and an unbeliever is indeed a legitimate marriage. At no time in this passage does the inspired apostle urge the Christian who is married to an unbeliever to depart (divorce) because his or her mate is an unbeliever. Indeed, the Lord's will is that they remain together as Matthew 19:5-6 instructs. So, if the unbeliever is content or willing to live with a Christian, the Christian is commanded not to depart, for the Christian brings a sanctifying influence and life into the home (v. 14; cf. 1 Pet. 3:1-2). However, if the unbeliever departs (we necessarily infer that under such a condition the unbeliever is not content to dwell with the Christian), the Christian is “not under bondage” to the unbeliever (the Christian is to let the unbeliever depart). Can we know with confidence what “not under bondage” means? Yes we can, by applying the same type of hermeneutics we apply to other Bible passages (including those already mentioned in this study). These principles include, for instance:1) The meaning given the passage will not contradict other passages of scripture (Jno. 17:17).2) All God says on the subject must be consulted (Psa. 119:160).3) The context (both immediate and general) must be observed and harmonized.4) The proper definition of terms is vital in coming to a correct understanding of the text. (We cannot assume definitions - we must verify their legitimate meaning and usage in scripture).5) The grammar used by the Holy Spirit must be considered and respected (cf. Matt. 22:31-32). Now, when we correctly apply these principles of interpretation to 1 Corinthians 7:15, it will not be men's scholarship on the passage or men's division over the passage which determines our understanding and our application of it. It will be because we have “rightly divided” the word of truth and come to “understand what the will of the Lord is” (2 Tim. 2:15; Eph. 3:3-4; 5:17). No Contradiction “Not under bondage” will not contradict Matthew 19:6, 9. Since marriage between a Christian and an unbeliever is legitimate (7:12-14), any severing of it falls under the Lord's regulation of marriage. Therefore, when a believer and an unbeliever divorce, Matthew 19:9 fully applies. Any understanding and application of “not under bondage” which causes a contradiction with Matthew 19:6, 9 is inaccurate and not the truth of Christ. There is no “Pauline exception” in 1 Corinthians 7:15 which allows for scriptural remarriage to a new mate. If so, Paul contradicts what Jesus taught in Matthew 19:9. If Paul is giving another cause for divorce and remarriage, then one can be put away for a reason other than fornication and remarry with God's approval. This construction necessarily contradicts Matthew 19:9 and 5:32. Therefore, the remarriage to a new mate explanation of “not under bondage” must be rejected. All God Says On The Subject When all of what God says on the subject of marriage is consulted, we understand that every marriage (regardless of the faith or faithlessness of the participants) is before God and judged by God (Gen. 2:23-24; Heb. 13:4). God joins together the man and woman regardless of their faith or lack of faith in Christ (Matt. 19:6). That joining together (a bond of obligation) lasts for a lifetime (1 Cor. 7:39; Rom. 7:2). Only one exception gives one party the right to divorce and marry a new mate with God's approval (Matt. 19:9). We can agree on this because we can understand this teaching of Christ. All other teaching is false and moves us away from the grace of Christ (Gal. 1:6-9). We know that when a Christian marries someone (whether a Christian or an unbeliever), the Christian's first allegiance remains with Christ (1 Cor. 7:23; Lk. 14:26). By “keeping the commandments of God” the Christian remains “with God” regardless of his external conditions (1 Cor. 7:19, 24). Thus, we can remain in every non-sinful condition in which we are called since upon our conversion we become slaves of Christ and not men (1 Cor. 7:17, 20, 23-24). The marriage of a Christian to an unbeliever is one such non-sinful condition or “calling” (1 Cor. 7:12-14). Definition Of Words The definition of the words used in 1 Corinthians 7:15 preclude a remarriage to a new mate explanation of “not under bondage.” The word translated “bondage” is dedoulootai, “perfect passive indicative of |douloo|, to enslave, has been enslaved, does not remain a slave.” (Robertson's NT Word Pictures) Thayer is representative of lexical definitions when he observes that douloo means “1) to make a slave of, reduce to bondage 2) metaph. give myself wholly to one's needs and service, make myself a bondman to him.” “Bondage” thus denotes one who sustains a permanent servile relation to another. In this context (1 Cor. 7:15) the reference is to an unbelieving mate. Paul teaches that the Christian does NOT sustain a permanent servile relation to a mate in marriage (or for that matter, in any other relation). Remember, “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Every other use of douloo in the NT carries with it the meaning of enslavement (Titus 2:3, “enslaved” - ASV), servitude or bondage (Acts 7:6). Never is it used to denote the “bound by law” concept of marriage to which deo is applied by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 7:27, 39; Rom. 7:2; cf. Matt. 19:5-6). Here is the entire list of NT passages which use douloo so that the accuracy of the above statement may be reviewed: Acts 7:6; Rom. 6:18, 22; 1 Cor. 7:15, 9:19; Gal. 4:3; Titus 2:3; 2 Pet. 2:19. Grammar The simple statement of fact in 1 Corinthians 7:15 is that the Christian has never been reduced to a servile position to the unbeliever. The grammar so indicates (dedoulootai - perfect passive indicative of douloo): Perfect tense: “The perfect tense in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.” Passive voice: “The passive voice represents the subject as being the recipient of the action.” Indicative mood: “The indicative mood is a simple statement of fact. If an action really occurs or has occurred or will occur, it will be rendered in the indicative mood.” (Online Bible) Since the negative (ou) is employed, the phrase “not under bondage” effectively means that bondage was NOT completed in the past and is NOT occurring at the present time. Thus, the “you are not now, nor have you ever been under bondage” interpretation is entirely consistent with the grammar of the phrase and not a forced interpretation of it. In 1 Corinthians 7:15, that which was completed in the past and continues to be the case in the present is that Christians are “called” (perfect tense) to peace. The one has never been true while the other has always been true. continued from Part 1...... WE CAN CORRECTLY UNDERSTAND1 CORINTHIANS 7(Questions Concerning Marriage)Joe R. Price Context The immediate context of 1 Corinthians 7:15 is that of legitimate marriage, one of several non-sinful conditions in which one might be when called by God through the gospel to become a Christian. Other non-sinful conditions used by Paul to illustrate his point are circumcision and slavery (1 Cor. 7:18-24). We know he only refers to non-sinful conditions here because they are conditions in which one may continue to walk (after becoming a Christian), remaining in fellowship with God and keeping the commandments of God (1 Cor. 7:17, 19, 20, 24). One cannot continue to live in sin after his conversion with God’s blessing (Rom. 6:1-4). Paul's point is this: “You were bought with a price; do not become slaves (doulos) of men” (1 Cor. 7:23). Verse 15 is a specific application of this principle. We are confident the slavery of 7:23 means something other than physical slavery (for Paul had just said to remain in that form of slavery, 7:21-22). Verse 23 speaks of the bondage of enslavement. Even the slave who served an earthly master had a prior allegiance to Christ. Likewise in marriage, we are not enslaved to men, we are slaves of Christ (1 Cor. 7:15, 22). So, having told the Christian who is married to an unbeliever to remain in that marriage because it is legitimate, he then counsels the Christian whose unbelieving mate departs because the Christian has a primary allegiance to Christ. Paul’s counsel is: Let him go, because you are not enslaved to the unbeliever -- you are enslaved to Christ (7:23). 1 Corinthians 7:15 teaches Christians who are married to unbelievers that their first allegiance is always to Christ and not man. If Christians continue to make allowance for and have fellowship with brethren who teach or practice what is not taught in 1 Corinthians 7:15, we can only conclude that either (1) they do not believe the preceding hermeneutical treatment of the passage is correct, (2) they hold to another hermeneutical treatment which they accept as correct (and believe the foregoing to be faulty), or (3) that such a treatment of the text cannot be correctly accomplished. Whatever the case, I fear that more and more brethren are adopting a view of 1 Corinthians 7:15 which implies that revealed truth cannot be correctly understood and obeyed. We must continue to deny that proposition whenever it shows itself (Jno. 8:31-32; Eph. 3:3-4; 5:17; 2 Tim. 2:15; 2 Pet. 1:3-4; 3:16-18; Jude 3-4). Walk As God Has Called You: 1 Corinthians 7:17-24 I have addressed this passage in the above discussion concerning the context of 1 Corinthians 7:15. Suffice it to say that this passage certainly does not authorize someone to remain in a remarriage which God defines as adultery (even though some sincere, well-meaning brethren have reached that conclusion, the God’s word reveals their error, 2 Jno. 9-11; Eph. 5:3-11). Must we let the false explanations and applications of brethren go unchallenged (indeed, should we have fellowship with them) in spite of their error? It is troubling to witness brethren teaching and defending positions which lead to this conclusion and practice. Concerning Virgins: 1 Corinthians 7:25-38 Paul now applies what he has already said about marriage and remaining single (7:7-8) to those who have never been married. The “present distress” bears directly upon the advice he gives to remain single (v. 26, 28, 32, 35). “Bound” in verse 27 is translated from deo (to be under obligation to) and conveys a “bound by law” concept (cf. 1 Cor. 7:39; Rom. 7:2, where the idea of divine law is noted). It is not synonymous with douloo (1 Cor. 7:15; 9:19). Paul does not advise divorce to those who are obligated by God's law to a mate. Nor does he counsel the Christian who is not under obligation to a mate (not bound) to seek a mate. In fact, he says “do not seek a mate” (7:27). If, however, the one who is not bound (loosed, not obligated by divine law to a mate) does in fact marry, he has not sinned in doing so. Although some brethren try to define “loosed” as “divorced,” its clear contrast is to “bound.” Hence, the contrast being made by the apostle is between one who is not obligated by God's law to another and one who is obligated by God's law to another. Summary: 1 Corinthians 7:39-40 The life-enduring nature of marriage is here emphatically stated by the apostle, and that liberty from this obligation comes only upon the death of one's mate (7:39) or the appropriate application of Matthew 19:9. Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 has been in full harmony with and by the inspiration of the Spirit of God. Therefore, we can only consider 1 Corinthians 7 as authoritative instruction and counsel from the mind of God (1 Cor. 14:37). Conclusion Brethren, shall we agree to disagree with men who teach and practice error regarding 1 Corinthians 7 because they are men of sincerity, honesty, integrity and scholarship? Or shall we try to rescue them from the clutches of error which devours souls by keeping the truth of the gospel ever before them? (2 Tim. 2:24-26) Are we able to say with certainty what the truth is which is taught in 1 Corinthians 7? Are we able to say with certainty that many are now teaching error on 1 Corinthians 7 rather than truth? (Sadly, many are choosing to remain silent instead of speaking the truth.) Are we able to say with certainty that false teaching, when taught and practiced, causes the soul to be lost? (Gal. 1:6-9) If not, then what scriptural teaching is being followed which allows Christians to have fellowship with the sin of adultery (through sinful remarriages) and the false teachings which give false comfort to those who are committing adultery in those remarriages (Matt. 19:9)?