Polished Brass and a Sinking Ship

There is a particular view of eschatology (premillennialism) which has been criticized for its so-called pessimistic view of the present and future. The premillennialist position believes that Jesus Christ is coming again and will, after a time of Great Tribulation, set up His kingdom on this earth. However, before Christ returns, moral, social, and spiritual conditions will worsen significantly. There will be a time of apostasy in the church (1 Tim. 4; 2 Tim. 3). This apostasy is defined as “a departure from truth previously accepted, involving the breaking of a professed relationship with God.” It is dispensational premillennialists who are especially singled out for criticism. Dispensationalists believe that the kingdoms of this world will fail and come to an end before the millennial kingdom, which is a literal kingdom of a thousand years (Dispensationalists hold to such core teachings as keeping the church and Israel distinct, a consistently literal interpretation of Scripture, and the glory of God in His kingdom plan). During the Great Tribulation the professing church will align itself with ecumenical and anti-God forces (Rev. 17). This scenario is in stark contrast to the dreams of a one-world ecumenical brotherhood of modern globalism One well known evangelist, a premillennialist, from a generation past is widely reported to have said that we should not bother to polish the brass on a sinking ship. The sinking ship is this world which is doomed to be judged by God. The brass polished would be efforts to make this world a better place to live. That is an over simplification, but the idea is, why waste one’s time trying to save the world, when it is sinners who need to be put in the life boats of eternal life?

Those who espouse other eschatological systems prefer to see themselves as more optimistic about the present and the future. Postmillennialists, who believe that Christ will return after the Millennium (but not a literal thousand-year time period) see this world as becoming better and better as the gospel is spread throughout the world. A Christianized world is expected according to this view. But premillenialists have been accused of being unnecessarily gloomy for other reasons. There are those who believe that Christians have a cultural mandate to establish the Lordship of Christ over every area of life; politics, medicine, education, literature, economics, etc. The basis for this view is found in Genesis 1:26-28. Since many Christians who are premillennialists have not been particularly socially active and have concerned themselves primarily with evangelism and world missions, they are seen as having contributed to the secularization of society.

How is the Christian to live in this world in view of his belief in the Second Coming of Christ? A survey of the New Testament yields keys to understanding how the believer in Jesus Christ is to live in a world destined for judgment. The key word is “watchfulness,” which is being alert to the times in which the believer lives. There is the danger of becoming intoxicated with the spirit of the age and of becoming complacent and careless in the seasons of life (Mk. 13:5, 9, 13; 2 Tim. 3:1-9; 1 Pet. 1:13; 2 Pet. 3:4). Watchfulness involves commitment to a fervent, consistent, and biblically informed prayer life (Lk. 18:7; 21:36; 1 Pet. 4:7). Watchfulness means that the tears of our grief and earthly sorrows fall into the hands of a loving and returning Savior (1 Thess. 4:13-18; Phil. 3:20-21; Rom. 8:18-23; Jas. 5:7). Earthly affliction is the waiting room for our entrance into the delights of Christ’s kingdom. Watchfulness means that the truth of the coming Messiah and His coming kingdom is to be taught with clarity and consistency, and power (Acts 28:31; 2 Tim. 4:1-2). Watchfulness means that we are to be resolved in our warfare against the tyranny of sin (Rom. 13:11-14; 1 Thess. 5:1-11; 2 Pet. 3:11-15). God’s children will fight sin in the hand-to-hand combat of their personal lives and in the world around them. They will not look the other way while innocent infants are killed and ripped from the womb. The social evils of racism, child abuse, and the break-down of the home will not be allowed to strut around on the stage of life uncontested. Christians owe everyone, saved and unsaved, the debt of love. Watchfulness means that we are to be sobered by our accountability to the returning Savior and driven to please the one who will reward the faithful (Matt. 25:14-29; Heb. 2:5; 10:37, 38; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 22:5).

Yes, this world is a sinking ship (1Jn. 2:17; 2 Pet. 3:7). It has a rendezvous with the holy God of heaven. This is reason enough for Christians to call all sinners to the life boats of eternal life. Is caring for AIDS patients, adopting orphans, holding up a standard against the pornography industry, challenging the pernicious evil of Darwinism, and helping unwed mothers merely polishing the brass on a sinking ship? No. It is the self-sacrificing love of Christians calling desperate, soon-to-drown sinners to the hope that is in Christ Jesus. Christians, man the life boats - the Savior is coming.

Dr. Howard E. Dial
Berachah Bible Church

By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed

The hangman’s noose, the gas chamber, the electric chair, lethal injection, a firing squad, the sword, have all been instruments of capital punishment. They do not conjure up comfortable feelings. Having to put someone to death, though government is given that right, is not a pleasurable thing. God, the one who has ordained capital punishment, has said that He takes no “pleasure in the death of the wicked” (Ezek. 18:23). Society is deeply divided over the legitimacy of the death penalty. Those who think it should be abolished argue that it is barbaric, discriminatory, and fails as a deterrent to criminal violence. We are hearing arguments that the United States is out of step with the more civilized nations of the world who have abolished the death penalty, and that its continued use is keeping America from being a human rights leader.

The highly publicized case of abortion clinic bomber, Eric Rudolph, has raised the question again. Should society put to death those who have been found guilty of murdering their fellow citizens? Is it a contradiction to say that one believes in the sanctity of human life and yet argues for the use of the death penalty? To further complicate matters, even certain religious leaders tell us that the idea of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is antiquated and should yield to a more enlightened approach to the punishment of criminals. Those who are advocates of capital punishment are made to appear as unmerciful, backward, and unenlightened. But what is the truth? Is there any moral sanity that can guide us through the critical issues of life and death? A Christian worldview holds the keys to morally sound and truthful conclusions.

The sanctity of human life requires capital punishment (Gen. 2:17; 9:5, 6). Man has been made in the image of God. Violence in the form of murder is an outrage against God. It has been wisely noted that “murder is wrong because it is killing God in effigy.” One of the first directives given to Noah as he embarked upon a new world was the right of government to take the life of those who have shed the blood of their fellow man. The global flood of Noah’s day was brought on by the evil and violence of the pre-diluvium civilization (Gen. 6:11). God ordained capital punishment for the nation of Israel for a number of offenses (Deut. 17:12; Lev. 20:15-16; Ex. 22:19). While Israel’s law is not necessarily to be the law of non-theocratic nations, certainly it can be said that the death penalty is not inherently morally wrong. The teaching of Jesus does not set aside the Old Testament mandate for capital punishment (Matt. 5:21-22; Jn. 8:1-11). Jesus was not critical of Israel’s use of the death penalty. Murderers were to be judged according the Mosaic Law.

Human government is given the right to take human life for a justifiable reason (Rom. 13:1-7; Acts 25:11). Human government is ordained by God and its laws are to be obeyed (unless they are commands to break God’s laws). When human laws are broken, government has the right to use force as punishment. That is the significance of the symbol of the sword in Romans 13:4. Paul is affirming the right of government to take the life of a criminal. Such abiding truths as justice and personal responsibility are foundational to the case for the morality of the death penalty. Retribution and the right of government (but not individuals) to exact vengeance for crimes committed are not only right, but necessary for the protection of law-abiding citizens. The nation that forfeits its responsibility to hold people accountable for their actions in relation to its laws is committing social suicide. If someone commits a crime freely, he is morally responsible. Attempts to mitigate the crime of murder by appeals to rehabilitation, and supposed developing moral sensitivities are brutal and confused. It was Adam Smith who said, “Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.” We should find no comfort in the arguments of legal and ethical standard bearers who tell us that violence only begets more violence. The agenda behind such a shallow bromide is not in the best interest of justice and mercy.

Are the lives of convicted criminals “more worth preserving than the lives of an indefinite number of innocent victims”? Is the purpose of the penal system to rehabilitate? Is overlooking a capital offense a loving thing? Is it possible to create a legal system that can eliminate all human error in criminal convictions? Is capital punishment an appropriate response to evil? The answers to these questions demand moral clarity, but that cannot come about until the issue of ultimate authority is resolved. Is moral law based on the opinions of man or upon the character of an infinitely wise and just God?

Dr. Howard E. Dial
Berachah Bible Church

The Death of a Pope

Roman Catholics throughout the world are mourning the death of John Paul II. He has proven to be the most popular Pope in modern times. Since his ascendancy to the papacy in 1978 he has won the admiration of Catholics and many non-Catholics by his moral courage, congenial manner, intelligence, and ecumenical bridge-building. The praise that has been heaped upon him since his death reflects more than mere media over-speak. Pope John Paul II was liked by many. One thing that has especially endeared him to so many was his willingness to stand up to tyrannical, atheistic Communism. He is credited, along with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, as contributing to the demise of the Potemkin Village of the former Soviet Union. The façade of the “worker’s paradise” needed some international leaders who were willing to stand up to the bullying tactics of the Soviet leaders.

The non-stop news regarding John Paul II has exposed the viewing public to Catholic teachings, tradition, and rituals. While much of it is somewhat curious to the non-Catholic, one thing is patently clear. The Roman Catholic Church believes in the primacy of the papacy. According to its teachings the Pope is the visible head of the church, Jesus Christ being its invisible Head. The word “pope” comes from the Latin word “papa”, which means father. He is also known as the Bishop of Rome. The succession of popes through the centuries has lent itself to the appearance of an unbroken authority of the Roman Catholic Church. This sense of tradition, stability, and authority has appealed to many who are dismayed over the moral, spiritual, and ecclesiastical anarchy of our age. Even some well-known evangelical Christians have renounced their Protestant heritage to join the Roman Catholic Church.

How did the papacy arise in the church? The Roman Catholic Church claims that the Apostle Peter was the first Pope. This special authority given to Peter is said to be taught in Matthew 16:17-19 and John 21:15-17. This is obviously no inconsequential assertion for it serves as a basic doctrinal plank in Roman Catholicism’s belief regarding authority. Catholic dogma says the Church is the final authority and the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, the “divinely appointed guide to the faithful.” The Pope is considered to be infallible in matters pertaining to faith and morals when he speaks ex cathedra (out of the chair of Peter). The Roman Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility was defined in 1870 and is part of a fundamental difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestants, namely, the matter of authority. To understand Rome’s view of ecclesiastical authority one must picture a pyramid with the authority of the Church at its apex and the Bible and tradition in the lower two corners. According to this view the Church has given us the Bible and claims the right to interpret the Bible for us. This is in total contradiction to what the Bible teaches about itself and the matter of doctrinal authority. Belief in matters of faith and morals resides in the Scriptures, not in popes, church councils, or tradition (2 Tim. 3:16, 17).

The doctrine of papal infallibility and the attendant belief in the final authority of the Church over the Bible is theological fiction. It is in glaring contradiction to “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). The Word of God stands over the Church. The Scriptures are the infallible authority for the Pope and everyone else. It is the Bible that is to bind the conscience, not the Church, councils, traditions, or popes. The grand gospel truth of justification by faith alone is a testimony to the fallibility of the Church. It was the Roman Catholic Church and Pope Leo X that anathematized Martin Luther and his followers for championing the truth that salvation is found in Christ alone, by grace alone, by faith alone, and not in the sacramental system of Rome. This one doctrine alone stands as a continental divide between those who believe the gospel and those who do not. Roman Catholics, Protestants, and anyone else who desires to be the friend of God and enter into His heaven at death must repent of all attempts to gain a righteous standing before God by baptism, going to Mass, penance, indulgences, or any other works. At the moment of faith in Christ one is declared righteous, “clothed with the righteousness of Christ.” Any pope, pastor, theologian, church member, or idol worshiping pagan who wishes to pass through the gates of heaven into God’s holy presence must come the same way, by the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ and the infinite worth of His all-sufficient atonement.

The death of Pope John Paul II with all its pageantry, ritual, and lines of mourners is a window through which every candidate for death must look. We will all die. Millions may not attend our funeral, but the one final assessment of our standing before God that matters most, is that of God Himself. If you died today are you clothed in the righteousness made possible by the finished work of Jesus Christ? Only those properly attired may enter into His presence.

Dr. Howard E. Dial
Berachah Bible Church

Sing Like We Believe It

The last fifty years have brought significant changes in the way Christians do congregational worship. Much of this change has come within what is known as the Free Church tradition. By Free Church is meant those churches that have stood outside the established Church of England and have come to comprise much, if not most, of American Protestantism. During the 1800s the views of the revivalist, Charles G. Finney, began to make their impact on congregational worship. The sermon was preceded by “preliminaries” and followed by what was often a lengthy invitation. This model of still followed in many churches today. The 1960s saw another wave of change in congregational worship. A greater variety of musical instruments made their appearance. The overhead projector and power point made it possible to project the words of hymns and gospel songs on a screen. Worship teams and more enthusiastic singing began to characterize the Sunday morning worship service. These and other changes in music style have contributed to what has come to be called “worship wars.” Connecting the word “war” with worship seems strange, but there have been problems. How a church does its music has become the occasion for congregational civil war. Some of the battle lines have been generational in nature, with the youth wanting a different musical experience than their parents and grandparents. But that doesn’t explain everything. If the Bible is to inform and circumscribe our corporate worship, we must do our thinking along its lines.

How does music fit into our worship of God? The early church was born with a song in its mouth. Paul and Silas sang during the night while in jail in Philippi. The Corinthian and Ephesian congregations were admonished to sing with spirit and mind fully engaged making melody with the heart to the Lord. True worshipers are singers of spiritual songs to the Lord. The Holy Spirit makes it possible to sing joyfully unto the Lord and joins believers together in mutual encouragement and edification. Worshiping in song is to be the declaration of biblical truth in a variety of musical styles and songs. The Word of Christ is to enrich our public worship (Col. 3:16). Speaking to one another in song can take place through a wide range of musical styles and forms. As singing people we value diverse expressions of love for God. This would include the voice (solos, choir, ensembles, duets, trios, etc.) and other instruments (piano organ, guitar, wind instruments, percussion instruments, etc.). The musical styles and songs of God’s people with any musical instrument must always be for the purpose of glorifying the Lord Jesus Christ. This is accomplished when the heart is prepared. If our music is merely artistry, ability, and show, then it is not truly Christian. Christian music is not for entertainment. It is for the exaltation of God. Hypocrisy produces music that is out of harmony with God. We honor God when we offer thanksgiving to Him in the name of Christ. Hearts that are filled with delight in God cannot help but break out in exuberant praise.

The application of these fundamental truths regarding our worship in song should affect us in many ways. The Christian ought to come to Sunday worship already a worshiper the other six days of the week. To sit or stand alongside other believers in a worship service and stare off into space, daydream, and mindlessly thread words through one’s mouth is a mockery of God-inspired worship. To sing a familiar hymn or chorus and not have a clue as to what we just sang is scarily easy. The mind is to be engaged when we sing, savoring the precious truths that fall from our lips (1 Cor. 14:15). We are to listen to ourselves and our fellow believers as we sing unto the Lord. But singing is not just a matter of the mind. If our hearts are filled with joy, then our cups will run over. This would mean strong singing, even if you can’t carry a tune. If you want to raise your hands while singing as an expression of adoration of God, then do it. If others around do not do the same, don’t let that become an issue. The enjoyment of God can show itself in different ways through different personalities, but it must always be the offering of genuine devotion to the Lord (Jn. 4:24). Allow brotherly kindness and love guide you in the way you participate in worship. Be open to a variety of musical expressions in worship. One of the reasons music is the occasion for conflict is because our basic response to music is emotional. But that must not be allowed to define our level of involvement.

As you enter the next worship service bring the following things. Bring biblical truth to inform, guide, and pulsate at the center of your singing. Bring a sense of responsibility for your thoughts and concentration on the words being sung. Bring an awareness that God is our audience. Bring a singing, worshipful heart. Martin Luther’s words are worth remembering, “If any would not sing and talk of what Christ has wrought for us, he shows thereby that he does not really believe.” We are believers. Let’s sing like it.

Dr. Howard E. Dial
Berachah Bible Church