What is worship?
Worship has always been part of the Law of God. From the very beginning of time, God has required His followers to worship Him. What is worship? The Webster's Dictionary gives the following ideas for worship: “reverence offered a divine being; respect or adoration for or devotion to an object; to honor a supernatural power; to take part in an act of worship." So the world defines worship as reverence, respect, admiration, devotion, or honor to a being or object. In our case the Being is God our Creator!
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
Daily Reading
IS ANYTHING REALLY WRONG WITH CHOIRS AND SOLOS?
Choirs and solos have plagued the religious world since their beginning by man, in the fifth century, hundreds of years after Christ established His church. So why have people, for many years now, been interested in using them to worship God? Is anything really wrong with choirs and solos?
Choirs and solos have plagued the religious world since their beginning by man, in the fifth century, hundreds of years after Christ established His church. So why have people, for many years now, been interested in using them to worship God? Is anything really wrong with choirs and solos?
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Daily Reading
Proverbs 22:6 does not teach that if our children are trained well they will never depart from the faith! Training a child “in the way he/or she could go” does not mean to train him or her as a Christian. It means to train the child according to, and in concert with, his natural abilities and talents. If we do this when the child is grown he will not depart from that for which he has been trained. To suggest that a properly trained child will never depart from the faith goes too far. In fact, such a suggestion clearly implies that it is impossible for the properly trained one to fall from grace which would be contradictory to such passages as Galatians 5:4; I Timothy 4:1; Hebrews 10:26-29, and many others.
For Further Information Contact:Truth For The World P.O. Box 5048Duluth, GA 30096-0065e-mail: info@tftw.org
For Further Information Contact:Truth For The World P.O. Box 5048Duluth, GA 30096-0065e-mail: info@tftw.org
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Daily Reading
When a man leaves home he is to “leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they two shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). The man is no longer under the tutelage (guardianship, care, protection, teaching, and instruction) of the father. He has left his parents and begun a new home over which he is guardian, caretaker, protector, teacher, and instructor. What that person does after he leaves home should not be a determining factor in the subject situations, because when the child leaves his father’s home to start a new home, the father’s responsibility for the child terminates! He is to rule his own house well, which excludes his child’s house!
Friday, April 25, 2008
Daily Reading
QUESTION: Are the following positions scripturally correct?
1. If a man has but one faithful child he cannot scripturally serve as an elder.
2. If one of a man’s children have becomes unfaithful after leaving home, the father cannot be appointed as an elder.
3. If a man is appointed as an elder, after which one of his believing, faithful children leaves home and apostatizes, the man becomes disqualified at that point.
4. That Proverbs 22:6 says that if we teach our children well, they will always remain faithful.
ANSWER: In I Timothy 3:1 the record says that in order for one to be an elder he must be “One who ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity.” Titus 1:6 says, “having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.” Although in both instances the plural (children) is used, there is no logical or scriptural basis to conclude that the Holy Spirit is teaching that a man with but one faithful child falls short of this qualification. As we look to God’s Word, we often find that the singular and plural of “children” are used interchangeably. For example: In Genesis 21:7, Sarah said, “Who would have said unto Abraham, that Sarah should have given “children” (plural) suck for I have given him a son (singular) in his old age. Though having but one son, Sara indicated that she had given suck to children (plural). In Luke 14:26, Jesus said we cannot be His disciple if we don’t love Him more than our children (plural). Shall we understand this to mean that one cannot be qualified to be His disciple if he has only one child (singular) to love less than Him? Of course not! Consider I Timothy 5: 9-10: Here a widow could be taken into the number “if she brought up children.” Does Paul imply here that an otherwise qualified widow who had brought up only “one” child could not be taken into the number? Certainly not! How about the slave to be set free at the fifty year Jubilee (Leviticus 25:41). He was instructed to take his “children” with him. But what if he only had one child to take? Could he still be freed? Of course! The same principle is true in Timothy and Titus. And the same principle is true today. For example: If I were to stand before an audience and you, having but one child, were a part of that audience and I would announce to all, “all fathers who have children come forward and I will give you each of you a thousand dollars,” would you come to collect the money? I think so! I know if the situation were reversed, I would be the first down the aisle! Consider this: An elder has two children living under his roof who have been faithful, dedicated Christians for five years. The children cannot be accused of riot or being unruly. Both are in subjection to their father with all gravity. One of the children dies in an accident. The elder’s ability to take care of his own house has not changed. He had the qualifications before the child’s death and he retains the qualifications after the child’s death. Nothing has changed! Clearly, scripture and logic support the conclusion that if a man has at least one child who is a faithful Christian, he is not, thereby, unqualified or disqualified. One who has but one faithful child is as qualified as one who has two or more faithful children.
1. If a man has but one faithful child he cannot scripturally serve as an elder.
2. If one of a man’s children have becomes unfaithful after leaving home, the father cannot be appointed as an elder.
3. If a man is appointed as an elder, after which one of his believing, faithful children leaves home and apostatizes, the man becomes disqualified at that point.
4. That Proverbs 22:6 says that if we teach our children well, they will always remain faithful.
ANSWER: In I Timothy 3:1 the record says that in order for one to be an elder he must be “One who ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity.” Titus 1:6 says, “having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.” Although in both instances the plural (children) is used, there is no logical or scriptural basis to conclude that the Holy Spirit is teaching that a man with but one faithful child falls short of this qualification. As we look to God’s Word, we often find that the singular and plural of “children” are used interchangeably. For example: In Genesis 21:7, Sarah said, “Who would have said unto Abraham, that Sarah should have given “children” (plural) suck for I have given him a son (singular) in his old age. Though having but one son, Sara indicated that she had given suck to children (plural). In Luke 14:26, Jesus said we cannot be His disciple if we don’t love Him more than our children (plural). Shall we understand this to mean that one cannot be qualified to be His disciple if he has only one child (singular) to love less than Him? Of course not! Consider I Timothy 5: 9-10: Here a widow could be taken into the number “if she brought up children.” Does Paul imply here that an otherwise qualified widow who had brought up only “one” child could not be taken into the number? Certainly not! How about the slave to be set free at the fifty year Jubilee (Leviticus 25:41). He was instructed to take his “children” with him. But what if he only had one child to take? Could he still be freed? Of course! The same principle is true in Timothy and Titus. And the same principle is true today. For example: If I were to stand before an audience and you, having but one child, were a part of that audience and I would announce to all, “all fathers who have children come forward and I will give you each of you a thousand dollars,” would you come to collect the money? I think so! I know if the situation were reversed, I would be the first down the aisle! Consider this: An elder has two children living under his roof who have been faithful, dedicated Christians for five years. The children cannot be accused of riot or being unruly. Both are in subjection to their father with all gravity. One of the children dies in an accident. The elder’s ability to take care of his own house has not changed. He had the qualifications before the child’s death and he retains the qualifications after the child’s death. Nothing has changed! Clearly, scripture and logic support the conclusion that if a man has at least one child who is a faithful Christian, he is not, thereby, unqualified or disqualified. One who has but one faithful child is as qualified as one who has two or more faithful children.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Daily Reading
QUESTION: Is it scriptural for an elder or deacon to be appointed by his fellow elders and deacons without input from the congregation?
ANSWER: No! Some men in the sixth chapter of Acts were to be selected to perform a particular function within the church. These were not to be elders, but, nonetheless, this scriptural selection process was at the direction of inspired men. These told the disciples in Jerusalem to “select ye out among you” the men to serve. Man can devise no better way! The congregation, under the oversight of the elders, then should make the selection with extremely careful consideration to the qualifications of elders and deacons as detailed in I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:6-9. Certainly, however, this should not be construed to mean that the present elders who “watch for your souls” (Hebrews 13:7) do not have the right (collectively) to reject from the eldership those against whom valid charges are brought, whether as to qualifications or conduct of life!
For Further Information Contact:Truth For The World P.O. Box 5048Duluth, GA 30096-0065e-mail: info@tftw.org
ANSWER: No! Some men in the sixth chapter of Acts were to be selected to perform a particular function within the church. These were not to be elders, but, nonetheless, this scriptural selection process was at the direction of inspired men. These told the disciples in Jerusalem to “select ye out among you” the men to serve. Man can devise no better way! The congregation, under the oversight of the elders, then should make the selection with extremely careful consideration to the qualifications of elders and deacons as detailed in I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:6-9. Certainly, however, this should not be construed to mean that the present elders who “watch for your souls” (Hebrews 13:7) do not have the right (collectively) to reject from the eldership those against whom valid charges are brought, whether as to qualifications or conduct of life!
For Further Information Contact:Truth For The World P.O. Box 5048Duluth, GA 30096-0065e-mail: info@tftw.org
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
