Acts 1:5

⁵ for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

I was reared attending church with my Mother.  I went regularly to Sunday School.  And

I remember most summers going to VBS. With only brief exceptions this was in Southern Baptist churches.

At the age of 26 I was converted in a Southern Baptist church. I attended a Baptist Bible College and I began the Christian ministry in Baptist churches. Then the question arises, "Why are you now a Presbyterian? Aren't they very liberal?” Some of them certainly are. I am not and never have been.

My transition from Baptist to Presbyterian began with my understanding of Baptism in Acts l: 5, and as it follows in Acts 2. These verses convinced me that Baptism was not by immersion but effusion. Jesus tells the apostles here in in Acts 1 that they will soon experience a Baptism. In Acts 2 we are told they were baptized in the Holy Spirit and we are told that this experience is that He was poured out upon them.  The analogy was too immediate and direct for me to disregard.  I could no longer hold to one of the central tenets of the Baptist church.  My exit had begun.

Matt 28: 18-20

¹⁸ And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ¹⁹ Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰ teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

 I was converted in a Southern Baptist Church. I went to a Baptist School. When I began to study baptism in earnest it was very serious with me. In studying baptism (and the main controversy is thought be person and mode), any scholar who changes from effusion to immersion is important especially if his testimony is a persuasive account of his change.

There is one 3 volume works, I can't at the moment remember the author. He begins his with work with the text above. He makes the statement, "if I had no the other reason, the order of the command, make disciples…baptizing them would be enough to convince me that baptism was confined to believers, because you can make disciples only of believers”. I don't think I read any further.

This helped convince me that for the most part the position anyone takes on Baptism is something determined largely outside of scholarship. Another determining factor is how the understanding of the analogy is determined. If the analogy is the work of the Holy Spirit then it will be effusion. If it is death, burial, and resurrection it will most likely be immersion. Also how the covenant is understood is important to Reformed Scholars. More later.

I Thessalonians 4:16-17

¹⁶ For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. ¹⁷ Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

1.      The Lord will come again

2.      4: 14 The Lord will bring with Him all the elect who have died.

 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.

3.      There will be a resurrection of the bodies of the elect who have died.

4.      The elect who are alive at Christ's coming will be given a new and glorified body.

5.      These two companies, the dead and those who are alive at Christ’s coming will become one body.

6.      This resurrected life is an everlasting one of living with Christ.

7.      This is a message intended to encourage God’s people.

These things we know and believe. There are other plain truths that may be added, such as judgment, a renewal of some sort of the earth, and at some point rewards for faithful service.

But the events preceding the Lord’s return and the employ and content of heaven are not plain. I must admit of those matters such as a tribulation for the church of seven years or less, and an earthly Millennium, the destruction of Jerusalem, and a battle of Armageddon, I do not know of these matters of revelation. I’m still at 4:17.

Thoughts From Proverbs 31

Psalm 110:4

⁴ The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind,
“You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”

In the Old Testament this is one of the strangest statements about one of the strangest people. Search as you will, you will find him mentioned in only one other occurrence. This is a very interesting account about this Priest and Abraham. But without something to give it a greater emphasis it is of little importance and with this reference in Psalms are the only two examples of it in the Old Testament. Whatever you may make of it there is certainly no reason to think this is of any importance.

That is, until you come to Hebrews in the New Testament and all of a sudden it is a reference to one of the most important people of the Old Testament.

What does Melchizedek mean to us:

1.      He is Priest by neither genealogy nor ritual.

2.      He is a Priest by God's appointment and therefore needs no other credentials.

3.      He is a Priest who has blessed the most important of our ancestors, our father Abraham.

4.      He is the single most certain type of Christ.  Therefore his identity guarantees us that as he is by singular appointment a Priest, we are by the same authority His congregation.

Thoughts From Proverbs 29

Exodus 20:16

¹⁶ “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Exodus 1:17-20

¹⁷ But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of Egypt had commanded them, but let the boys live. ¹⁸ So the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, “Why have you done this thing, and let the boys live?” ¹⁹ The midwives said to Pharaoh, “Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife can get to them.” ²⁰ So God was good to the midwives, and the people multiplied, and became very mighty.

Joshua 2:3-6

³ And the king of Jericho sent word to Rahab, saying, “Bring out the men who have come to you, who have entered your house, for they have come to search out all the land.” ⁴ But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them, and she said, “Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from. ⁵ It came about when it was time to shut the gate at dark, that the men went out; I do not know where the men went. Pursue them quickly, for you will overtake them.” ⁶ But she had brought them up to the roof and hidden them in the stalks of flax which she had laid in order on the roof.

It is very evident that both the midwives and Rahab lied to their inquisitors.  It is also written in Scripture that God blessed both the midwives and Rahab.  How is it to be understood? Do we have an ethical dilemma here?

There are three instances in the Scriptures where taking of life is not murder; a just war, protection of life and home; and capital punishment. 

In the same way there are times when questions do not demand a factual answer.  Such as:

1.      When the report sought is for an unjust reason as the killing of the Hebrew children was.

2.      When the report givers will unnecessarily destroy the reputation of a friend or neighbor.

3.      When something is given under an oath of secrecy and does not involve illegal or unethical behavior.

The 9th commandment is intended first to protect our neighbor’s property and reputation, secondly it demands honesty in all our normal relationships.  It is never dishonest to protect innocent virtue, and our neighbor’s reputation is sacred.

There is no demand for truth that requires you to tell anyone what they have no right to

know, no one has the right to information they can use to harm physically, mentally, or emotionally an innocent person; ie. the midwives informing how innocent babies could be found and slaughtered or how men divinely commissioned could be killed for obeying God.

There is no moral dilemma here and never when your answers protect the innocent.

Thoughts From Proverbs 28

Joshua 21:43-45

⁴³ So the Lord gave Israel all the land which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they possessed it and lived in it. ⁴⁴ And the Lord gave them rest on every side, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers, and no one of all their enemies stood before them; the Lord gave all their enemies into their hand. ⁴⁵ Not one of the good promises which the Lord had made to the house of Israel failed; all came to pass.

I Kings 8:56

⁵⁶ “Blessed be the Lord, who has given rest to His people Israel, according to all that He promised; not one word has failed of all His good promise, which He promised through Moses His servant.

I have decided to take the rest of 2018 to look at some statements that misunderstand the Scriptures. The texts listed seem plain to me so I have chosen them first.

There is a very popular Biblical millennial doctrine that represents Israel as the continuing entity of God. This teaching understands Israel as that national entity with its geographic boundaries that we know today.

One of the most important truths claimed by these teachers is that God has an unfulfilled promise to Israel.  He has promised them a certain measurable geographic tract of land for their nation. They have not received this land so God’s relationship with them must remain ongoing to have this promise fulfilled.  I don’t know if this rationale can be defended, but even if it can it must deal with our texts above that must be given serious consideration.  Note:

A.    What is said; all the promise fulfilled.

B.     To whom the promises were spoken:  To the Fathers.

C.    When this was spoken:  In both Joshua to Israel after the land had been divided, to Israel in Solomon’s prayer, after the Kingship of David.

These texts are very plainly spoken with no conditions placed on them.

The commentaries I have read by these Pro-Israel writers neither deny nor explain these texts.  They simply ignore them.

Any simple, honest reading of these texts in context can do nothing else than take them at face value.

1.       By the time the land division was finished God’s promises to the Fathers were fulfilled.  They had received the full extent of the lands promised to them.

2.      Solomon in his great prayer confirms this.  And holds so commonly known at this time that he names it as an illustration of God’s power, verity and covenant with Israel.

I see no reason to doubt Solomon.

Thoughts From Proverbs 27

Proverbs 27:12

¹² A prudent man sees evil and hides himself, the naive proceed and pay the penalty.

This verse contains a principle that is basic to a great number of the cautions and instructions in Proverbs.  It is “Precaution is better than escape”.

It is better to be cautious about what you say.  It is better to monitor your appetite.  It is better to   plant your field and then build your house.

It is better that your child not climb a tree than that their fall does not injure them.  This seems so simple that it need not be said.  But there is another principle that lies behind it.

A.    That a person prepare themselves that they can be prudent.

B.     That they are aware that there are dangers, ie. “don’t try to pet a strange dog with new puppies”.

C.     That it is foolish to think you are immune to danger, ie. “criminal companions are in every instance a danger”.  The only thing is to avoid them.

D.    Avoid those places where evil most commonly occurs, ie. “Where are there people most likely to find trouble…in a place of alcohol consumption, or a Sunday School class?”

Everything said above begins as a caution or is an unnecessary exposure to danger.