Are Christians Sinners? Do Christians Sin Every Day?

The word saint means “one who is holy”.  Believers are called holy or saint over 50 times in the New Testament.  In addition, there other places where it says the God sanctifies believers.  (The word sanctify means to make holy.)  Believers are also called righteous many times.  But many Christians insist on calling themselves sinners, which is not found in the Scriptures.  In many churches, if you were to address the congregation as holy and righteous or as saints, it would sound weird to them.  But why should it?

Consider the following statements.  Do they make sense?     

1.     As far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us (Psalms 103:12)…but I’m still a sinner.

2.     You have cast all my sins behind your back (Isaiah 38:17)…but I’m still a sinner.

3.     Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come (II Corinthians 5:17)…but I’m still a sinner.

4.     Put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and put on the new self (Ephesians 4:22-24)…but even if you do these things, you’ll still be a sinner. 

Ask yourself these questions. Do you want to be a sinner? Does God want you to be a sinner? Is God able to change you from a sinner into a saint, or is there just not enough power in the blood of Jesus to accomplish it?

If it is true that you are sinner, then you ought to be able to list some sins which are the reasons why you believe this.  These may be sins that you have committed in the past, sins you are committing now, sins you may commit in future or sins that you are prone to commit.  Whatever the case may be, you must, at the very least, be able to name one specific sin.  Now if you can think of one such sin, try calling yourself the name of a doer of that specific sin.  It only stands to reason that if this sin is a reason why you feel the need to call yourself a sinner, you should also be calling yourself a doer of the specific sin.  So for example, if your lying is a reason why you should call yourself a sinner, then you should also call yourself a liar!  Does calling yourself a liar help to advance the Kingdom of God?  If not, then why would calling yourself a sinner be of help to anyone?  What could be clearer than that?  The word “sinner” has somehow become a more innocuous word than the words we use to describe specific types of sinners, but there is no reason why that should be. 

Revelation 21:8 says, “But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars,  their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death." So the truth of the matter is, if you really are a liar (or any other type of sinner listed in this verse), then you are in big trouble! More bad news can be found in I Corinthians 6:9-10:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Clearly, if you are “unrighteous”, you are in big trouble!  The word sinner and the word “unrighteous” sounds pretty similar, if not an exact synonym.  And again, all the types of sinners listed in the above verse are in the same boat as those listed in Revelation 21:8.  But if we continue reading in I Corinthians, we find some good news,

And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 

The word were is past tense, clearly indicating that if you are in Christ, you can only truthfully talk about yourself being sexual immoral, a thief, greedy, etc. in the past tense.  “…you were washed” means you have been immersed in water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit for the remission of your sins.  When Paul received Christ as his Savior, Ananias told him to “Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16)  Does it make sense, after you have had your sins washed away, to still say, “I am a sinner.”?  The word sanctify means to make holy.  The word justify means to make righteous.  This makes perfect sense because you couldn’t be saved as long as you were unrighteous. (I Corinthians 6:9) If God changes adulterers, drunkards, revilers and swindlers into people who are not any of those things—so that they can be saved, then is it too much of a stretch to say that God changes all kinds of sinners into non-sinners so that they can be saved?  In case that there is any doubt, read Romans 5:8.  It says, “…but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”  Within the same context, it also says that we were ungodly and that we were enemies (of God), but now we are reconciled and saved. 

Suppose you were to tell someone about Christ.  What would you say?  “I am a sinner just like you.”?  Why would you want to become a Christian only to remain the same sinner that you were before?  It has become a no-no to talk about hell because that is supposedly condemning and will scare people off.  So if you can’t talk about that and you can’t say that you’ve been changed from sinner to saint, then what can you say?  It is no wonder that Christians are having such a hard time spreading the gospel.

You might be saying, “OK, what about passages like Luke 5:8, Luke 7:37, Luke 18:13, and Luke 19:7.”.  These were before Jesus died on the cross.  But more importantly, they were before the washing, justification and the sanctification in the lives of these individuals.  These passages and others demonstrate the irony that, in order to become someone who is not a sinner, you must first admit that you are one!  But this should not be surprising at all.  Even in the secular world, people recognize the fact that, the first step in overcoming an addiction is to admit that you are an addict.

You might be saying, “OK, what about I Timothy 1:15.  Paul is saying, ‘I am the worst of sinners.’.”.  You have to take this passage in context.  In v. 12, “… him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent.”  It is interesting to note that the word was is in the present tense in the Greek.  The word translated formerly, however, qualifies the linking verb so that it is understood by the Greek reader to be a past event.  Of course Paul did not continue to blaspheme Christ or persecute the Church after his conversion!  But who is to say that the use of the word formerly is exclusively for qualifying the tense in that sentence?  It could have been intended to extend to subsequent verses, even down to verse 15.  The whole tone of the passage is that Christ mercifully transformed Paul into a faithful servant in spite of his former sinful state.  It makes no sense to use this passage to say that he still is the “foremost of sinners” despite the transformation.

In Matthew 7:1-5 Jesus says,

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

What does this passage say to a person who is “the worst of sinners” about judging and correcting people? Continuing in I Timothy 1, Paul writes, “…some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.”  In I Corinthians 5, it describes what is meant by “handing over to Satan”.  It means the congregation must refrain from associating with the person and should not even eat with them.  It is the most extreme form of church discipline.  In view of Matthew 7, if Paul really is, as he is writing this, “the worst of sinners”, does he have any business making such a pronouncement on Hymenaeus and Alexander?

In Luke 6:37-34, Jesus says, “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you…. bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you….Even sinners love those who love them… [do good to those who do good to them and]… lend to sinners to get back the same amount.”  Jesus is clearly identifying a group of people as sinners and calling for his followers to stand out from them by doing things that sinners do not do. 

I suppose some Christians feel the need, even after being saved, to continue to call themselves sinners out of humility.  The Bible does say that we should be humble (Acts 20:19, Ephesians 4:2, Philippians 2:3, Colossians 3:12, James 4:6, James 4:10, 1 Peter 3:8, 1 Peter 5:5-6).  But if you examine these passages, you’ll find that, especially for believers, humbling yourself is mainly accomplished by adjusting your attitude toward others.  Nowhere does it instruct us to try to achieve humility by putting ourselves down.  On the cross, Jesus took upon himself that ugly label “sinner” so that you wouldn’t have to have it on you!  To call yourself a sinner after Jesus has washed away your sins is to deny Jesus the glory for what he has done in your life.  Once you realize that you are free from this word, you have one more thing to be thankful for.   “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (II Corinthians 5:21)  There is no problem with losing your humility when you call yourself a saint as long as you remember that it is Jesus who mercifully changed you not because of your own merit.  Knowing that you are a saint and an ex-sinner, you have nothing to boast about except what Jesus has done.

I John 3:6 says, “No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him.” Jesus said in John 15:5-7, “If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned.” Jesus said in John 8:34-35, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.” And in Matthew 6:24, “No one can serve two masters”.

Of course this doesn’t mean that once you become a Christian, you won’t ever sin again.  I John 2:1 says, “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”  But notice that it says “if” and not “when”, indicating that for believers, sin is only a possibility, not an inevitability.  Another passage which expresses this idea is I Corinthians 10:13, which says that whenever believers are tempted, God always provides a means of escape.  Some Christians say things like, “I sin every day and that is the way it will be for the rest of my life.”   When you hear things like that, know that that statement may be true, but it doesn’t have to be!

The heart of man is a major source of temptation to sin in this world. (Genesis 6:5, Genesis 8:21, Psalms 55:15, Jeremiah 4:14, Jeremiah 13:10, Jeremiah 17:9, Matthew 12:34, Matthew 15:19) But upon becoming believers, Christ gives us a new heart (Ezekiel 11:19), and our hearts are continually purified (I Peter 1:22, I John 3:3) thereafter so that we don’t really want to sin.  Thus if we do sin, we ask God for forgiveness and he helps us to stop sinning.  Thus, sinner is not at all what a Christian is about, but rather we are redeemed because we are saved from our sinfulness.

In conclusion, all who are not in Christ are sinners because the heart of man is basically sinful.  We all have been sinners, but true Christians, who truly abide in Jesus are not now sinners.  Upon being born again, there is a transformation which occurs in the new born babe in Christ which makes the word sinner an inaccurate description for this new Christian.  Likewise various words defined as doers of specific sins are also no longer truthful descriptors of the believer.  There are many false converts who are unrighteous, but true believers are holy, righteous, redeemed, reconciled saints and are children of God.  The label “sinner” has been removed by Jesus and taken upon himself by his shed blood.  The result is that sin is not only forgiven, but is now uncharacteristic, undesired, and no longer an inevitable (though possible) occurrence. In the New Heavens and the New Earth, sin will no longer even be a possibility, because the hearts of the saved will be completely purified and all other sources of temptation will be completely removed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Critique of “The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers”

 I recently watched a documentary entitled “The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers” by Christian J. Pinto.  I will start my critique with a summary of the work.  The bulk of Pinto’s thesis is that the Founding Fathers (of the United States of America) were not genuine Bible-believing Christians.  He tries to prove this by citing quotes (mainly from private letters or conversations) and various records which, in his mind, prove that they were deists, Freemasons, Illuminati, Catholics, Enlightenment thinkers, and/or idol worshippers.  He focuses almost entirely on five targets for such claims: Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and George Washington.  He repeatedly clarifies that the original settlers (the Pilgrims), who were genuine Bible-believing Christians are to be distinguished from the “Enlightened” Founding Fathers because they are not the same group of people, they don’t have the same beliefs, and that there was 100-150 years of time in between them.  He also frequently remarks that the public statements of the Founders were lies and that their true beliefs were only heard by a close-knit circle of like-minded patriots.  He repeatedly refutes David Barton’s works which claim that the Founders were real Christians and the United States was founded to be a “Christian nation”.  Throughout the movie, you might have a tendency to ask, “Where is all this leading?  What is the relevance of this information for us today?”  He hints at this here and there, but doesn’t really make it plain until about the last 10 minutes of the movie.  His aim is prove that whole concept of freedom of religion is wrong.   The reason why the Founders wanted freedom of religion is that this “right to worship as one sees fit” would legalize their pagan beliefs and practices, which had been, up until that time, illegal.  He reasons that since God hates all false religions, there should be no right worship in any way except the one true religion.  Modern Christians have fallen into error, he argues, by embracing this aspect of Enlightenment philosophy.

Before I address what is really the main point, let us briefly critique at what he says about America not being “Christian Nation” and the true religion of the Founding Fathers. 

Pinto is correct in saying the United States is not, and never has been (legally), a Christian nation.  Religious tests as prerequisite for holding federal offices are prohibited in the Constitution.  The Treaty of Tripoli states that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."  The Establishment clause of the first Amendment prohibits Congress making any religion, including Christianity, the official religion of the United States or from prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. 

However most of the original 13 colonies were founded on the Christian religion, remained Christian when they became states, and continued to be Christian after the ratification of the 1^st Amendment.  This is because the Establishment clause only prohibits Congress from making any laws that respect (for or against) the establishment of religion. Contrary to what Pinto says in the movie, the U.S. Constitution does not contain any statement that freedom of religion is an absolute or God-given right.  The foundational Scriptures concerning God’s will for civil government are Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-16 and 1 Timothy 2:1-2. If compare these passages to preamble to the Constitution, which is the mission statement of the United States (i.e. the Federal Government), you will see that they are in agreement.

Pinto’s approach to proving that the Founders were not Christians heavily relies on proving that they had embraced religions and doctrines that are contrary to the central claims of the Christian faith. These religions include freemasonry, deism, and Catholicism.  Suffering from just as bad of a case of confirmation bias as Barton, he is uses every shred of evidence he can find in this regard even though some of it doesn’t make any sense.  For example, on the one hand, he claims that Founders were secretly deists and Enlightenment adherents and therefore rejected the miracles of the Bible and specifically the virgin birth, the trinity, the redemptive nature of the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus.  But on the other hand, he accuses them being closet Catholics.  That is an obvious contradiction. I would also point out the Anglican Church, one that Pinto criticizes Washington for not participating in its communion observance, is very similar to the Catholic Church.  (It broke away from the Catholic Church only because the Pope wouldn’t grant Henry VIII a divorce.  It is not a Reformation or restoration church as the true Protestant and evangelical churches are.)  During the Pilgrim/Puritan era which Pinto speaks of as being different than the era of the Founding Fathers, the Maryland colony was founded to be a safe haven for Catholics.  Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia had the Anglican Church as their official religion long before the American Revolution. 

Like a one-sided, modern day, mudslinging political commercial, Pinto threw everything against the wall, hoping that something would stick.  Pinto even tries to associate them Mormonism, a religion started by Joseph Smith, Jr. who allegedly had his first vision in 1820 and didn’t write the Book of Mormon until 1830, four years after the last of "the five" (Jefferson) was dead.  He shows pictures of various paintings and sculptures of gods and goddess, most of which were made long after their deaths as well.  He digs up all kinds of quotes to try to prove that none of the Founders repented and accepted Christ even in their dying breath, as if that were possible to actually know for sure. (Why is this important?) 

However, Pinto is correct to criticize Barton, who does the same sort of things and cites quotes out of context in his efforts to prove the opposite side of the issue.  I actually already believed, before watching this movie, that Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were not true Christians (at least not at the time of the Revolution).  John Adams may have started out as a mainstream Christian before converting to Unitarianism.  But I think that the majority of the Founders were real Christians.  But why does this issue really even matter?  Does your spiritual well-being hinge on whether or not you can identify which historical figures were Christians and which ones were not?  If you really wanted hold up a couple of the Founders as being non-Christians, wouldn’t it be much easier to pick the two who had a duel?  (I am talking about Hamilton and Burr, of course.) Wouldn’t that take much less digging into historical documents and wouldn’t it be better to avoid all of these less-convincing “separation of fact from fiction” arguments? 

Enough of that.  Let’s get onto Pinto’s main point. (Pinto actually spends very little time talking about it!)

In Acts 5:38-39, Luke records the words of Gamaliel, “So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men [the Apostles] and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them.”  I recognize that Gamaliel probably wasn’t a Christian.  However he was “held in honor by all the people”.  The fact that his words, which express the idea of religious freedom, persuaded the Sadducees to let the Apostles go free is something that shouldn’t be taken lightly.  But Pinto apparently thinks that Gamaliel’s outlook was wrong.

The reason why not only the Founders, but many ordinary Bible-believing citizens, supported religious freedom was because some of the Christian denominations were persecuting Christians of other denominations.  The Puritans had put some Quakers to death just because they were Quakers.  The Danbury Baptists were persecuted by the Connecticut Congregationalist church.  People also knew that, in times past, the King of England persecuted anybody who did not agree with the specific doctrines of the Church of England.  I suppose it’s possible that some of the Founders may have wanted to have religious freedom in order to practice evil religion (I don’t claim to be able read minds!), but what they did gave us freedom to worship as God wills of us.  Regardless of motives, we should honor our authorities (Romans 13:7) when they do what is right.

The crux of the issue is that Pinto fails to make a distinction between what is a right and what is right.  In other words, just because you believe something is sinful according to God’s Word, that doesn’t necessarily mean that you must believe it should be against the civil law.  Pinto states (I am paraphrasing) that there is nowhere in the Bible where God gives governments the responsibility of ensuring religious freedom.  He framed the issue the wrong way.  If a government does nothing (concerning religion), then people do have religious freedom.  Thus, the burden of proof is actually on Pinto to show that God commands governments to act against false religion, not the other way around.  In the absence of such evidence, it is a best an open question.

To illustrate this point further, suppose someone were to propose a Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the right to eat pizza.  As silly as this sounds, the amendment would not be unscriptural.  You could argue that this is wrong because somebody could eat too much pizza and thereby be guilty of gluttony.  I think that it is safe to say that there is nowhere in the Bible where it says that government authorities have a biblical prerogative to protect pizza-eating. But this is irrelevant.  The relevant fact is that there nothing in the Scriptures that gives them the responsibility to ban it.

Pinto quotes “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent…” (Acts 17:30).  In context Paul is talking about idol worship, but Pinto leaves out or glosses over the rest of the verse which says, “…because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”  But this passage does not say that it is man’s prerogative to judge the world, but God’s.  (Jesus is obviously the one referred to as “a man”.)  The first part of the statement is in present tense, but the last part of the statement is in future tense and is obviously referring to the Day of Judgment.  In other words, the command to repent is for now, but judgment is later.  The “overlooking” refers to relative leniency in post-death judgment for those who died before Christ in comparison with those of the New Testament dispensation.  Like many other passages Pinto quotes to support his view, there is absolutely no commandment expressly given or implied for civil government.

Many people across the political spectrum similarly twist the Scriptures using this same reasoning to support various worldviews.  Commandments to give to the poor are used to support Socialism, Communism, and/or welfare programs and public education.  “I will bless those who bless you…” is used to politically support the nation of Israel.  I don’t have anything against the nation of Israel, but using such scriptures for that purpose is very bad exegesis.

Here is one example of a time when God gave the people the right to do something that wasn’t right.  In I Samuel 8, God told the people that they should not be desirous of having a king.  Nevertheless, he allowed the people the choice to have a king.  It is obvious from this passage that, if civil government is given too much centralized power, it tends to become corrupt and abuses the people.  This is a point that Pinto would do well to consider before supporting the idea that civil government should be given the power to decide who is to be punished for religious heresy.

Divorce and remarriage after divorce were permitted with minimal limitations under the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 24:1-4), but Jesus commanded against it (Matthew 19), saying, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery…Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.”  Thus, this is an example of a case where God permits, even now, something that isn’t right.  Of course this allowance is only temporary.  In the end, those who do not repent will face the judgment of God.  But Pinto is using general statements about God’s judgment to try to prove punishment for religious heresy is for now.

But let me help Pinto with his argument by quoting some Scriptures that he has overlooked.  These are the passages I mentioned earlier, namely Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-16 and 1 Timothy 2:1-2.  According to these passages, the role of civil government is to:

1. Be God’s servant.
2. Be a terror to bad conduct.
3. Be an avenger who carries out God's wrath (or punishment) on the wrongdoer.
4. Refrain from being a terror to good conduct.
5. Praise those who do what is right.
6. Facilitate, for believers, a peaceful and quiet lifestyle, godly and dignified in every way.

If the real purpose of “The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers” was to try to convince people that government should punish worshippers of false gods, why didn’t Pinto use these verses to prove his point? Of course, it is impractical for a government to punish every evil deed which occurs within its jurisdiction.  Thus the central question is, among the acts of evil that men may commit, which ones should government focus on deterring?  Doctrines like the virgin birth, the trinity, redemption through the cross and the resurrection are vital to our religious faith and for eternal salvation, but has God mandated that a failure to believe these is a crime for today’s governments to punish? 

Consider that Paul wrote in I Corinthians 5:11-13 (ESV), “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders?  Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside.”  When Paul refers to the judgment of the one “who bears the name of brother”, he is clearly speaking of one of the prerogatives of church authority, not one of civil authority.  This is easy to see because it is the one “who bears the name of brother” who is “inside the church”.  Obviously, civil authority is God’s instrument to judge both those who are outside and inside the Church.  But for the sins that Paul mentions (sexual immorality, greed, idolatry, reviling, drunkenness, and swindling), it is primarily the authority of the Church to judge those in the Church, because, at least in many cases, it isn’t appropriate or practical for civil government to judge such sins in a way that accomplishes God’s purpose for the judgment. (See 1 Corinthians 5:5, 7.)

I see the sixth item in the above list of prerogatives for civil government as being the key to understanding the answer to the central question, “Which acts of evil should government deter?”.  That is to say, government should protect the innocent and promote peace primarily by punishing people who commit unjustified acts of violence, and secondarily by punishing other acts which are potentially dangerous to one’s physical well-being or property, may readily lead to violence, or in some other way prevent peaceful and quiet living.  But Pinto criticizes the Founders for having this aim, quoting I Thessalonians 5:3, “For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.”  But of course this passage isn’t teaching that it is wrong to seek peace for your nation. See Hebrews 12:14, Romans 12:18, etc.  I Thessalonians 5:3 is talking about a government which will falsely promise peace with no intentions of delivering it. It is a specific government--one which will be in place at the time of Christ’s return.  Since most or at least a great many of the Founders died peacefully of old age, I certainly don’t see “sudden destruction” as an apt description of their fate.  Pinto certainly did not prove this particular point to my satisfaction. 

In summary, Pinto puts you through so much hearsay evidence just to prove that five men were pagan, Masonic, deist, and Catholic devotees of Rousseau and Voltaire.  Then he asks you to conclude that, guilty by association, the rest of the Founders were also not real Christians.  You are told to be disbelieve the sincerity of what they said in public in front of many witnesses and yet trust the testimony of a small number of witnesses. Then, if he has you convinced that he knows what he is talking about, he hopes to get you to accept, without thinking critically, the conclusion that the reason why the Founders supported religious freedom is so that they could practice their pagan religion without persecution.  From this, without any real proof, he asks us to further conclude that whole idea religious freedom must be wrong and that American Christians both then and now have been duped into believing this supposedly unscriptural concept.

 

Must Churches Have Worship Services on Sunday?

Without question, believers must regularly meet together (Hebrews 10:25). But must Sunday be set aside as the day of assembling ourselves together, or will any day suffice?

I am not a Seventh Day Adventist, but I don’t think that there is reason to condemn them or churches that hold their services on Saturday nights instead of Sunday.

Except in regards to the actual event of the Resurrection, there is very little mention in the New Testament of the first day of the week. One example is Revelation 1:10 (possibly). The only place in the NT where any command is given concerning it is in I Corinthians 16:1-2. But this commandment only concerns the setting aside of money. The issue of a worship service is not explicitly addressed here. Furthermore, the churches of Galatia and “ye” (the church at Corinth) are particularly identified as the specific groups that this commandment is directed to. (Therefore, we need not take it as a general commandment for all churches at all times.) Note that the commandment was given because of a particular occasion, that is, Paul’s coming to Corinth.

Just because it was the habit of these churches to meet on Sundays doesn’t necessarily mean that that is the way it was to be for all churches from that time forward. At different times they had different practices. Acts 20:7 says that the disciples met together on the first day of the week to break bread. But in Acts 2:46 it says that they met daily for this purpose.

In Romans 14:5-6, it says, “One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it…” (Romans 14:5-6, KJV) Colossians 2:16 says, “Let no man therefore judge you … in respect of an holyday…” Jesus said, “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” (John 7:24 KJV)

What if believers in another country met at random times during the week to avoid persecution? Will they be condemned for this? Should call them liberals?

The International Dateline divides the Pacific Ocean so that on one side of the line, the time is a full 24 hours later than on the other side. So what if you lived on an island that was right on the line? Then what day should you worship? The line is manmade (but necessary). What if God would have drawn the line in the Atlantic Ocean instead? In that case, all North and South American Christians would be worshipping on the wrong day!

I realize that the reason for this tradition is the Resurrection of Christ. There is nothing wrong with having this tradition. I Corinthians 16:1-2 and Acts 20:7 do provide a biblical precedent for it. Many business owners, such as the owner of Chick-fil-A, close their establishments on Sundays to promote church-going. This is a commendable deed and in no way is what I am saying meant to diminish such an act of financial sacrifice. But we need to realize that it is just a tradition.

Authoritative Teaching

I got this from a friend:

Mark 1:22 “And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.”

Two teaching styles are here contrasted. There was the authoritative approach by which Jesus Christ's ministry was characterized. Then there was the approach of the scribes which, by inference, was obviously not authoritative. It stands to reason that the Holy Spirit by these words was denouncing the Scribes' type of ministry. A gospel minister will ultimately have to decide if he is going to be a minister like the Savior or like the Scribe, a preacher who labors to please God or men. Paul wrote, "...if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ" (Gal.1:10). No man can serve two masters (Mat.6:24).

In this, the era of tolerance, ecumenism, and relativism, a gospel minister who stands with Christ stands apart from the crowd. If he preaches with authority, believing he has an authoritative Bible, condemning sin in whatever form it may be found while holding high Almighty God and His sovereignty in saving sinners by grace according to His own will, his popularity in the eyes of the world and even professors of faith is likely to be minimal. His will not be the ministry courted by politicians. His will not be the ministry seen on national television (unless being smeared as cultish). His will not be the ministry of the entertaining "seeker-friendly" mega-church with all of its "loaves and fishes" congregants. He is more likely to be relegated to a little wooden building or a rented room with a small band of believers singing out of a worn-out paperback hymnal. But "Better is a little with righteousness than great revenues without right" (Pro.16:8).

One would expect the reprobate world to be at odds with authoritative preaching, for "the carnal mind is enmity against God..." (Rom.8:7). But what about when professors of faith are of the same mind as the world? The prophet Isaiah's fellow church members were "....a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD: Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us" (Isa.30:9-11). They preferred smoothness and lies to rough, unvarnished truth. This is a horrible attitude! Of this mentality, the Spirit observed, "A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land; The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof" (Jer 5:30-31)? Ministers who accommodated such an attitude were said to "cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness" (Jer.23:32). Smoothness and lightness in ministry are as destructive as deceits and lies.

Words smoother than butter or softer than oil are the marks of those who have war in their hearts and drawn swords (Psa.55:21). The apostles warned of those who by "good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple" (Rom.16:17-18) and who "speak great swelling words of vanity" (2 Pe.2:18) to lead men astray. Paul did not preach with "enticing words of man's wisdom" (1 Co.2:4), nor did he use "flattering words" (1 Th.2:5). He was not a silver-tongued orator who cajoled his hearers. Au contraire! He was derided as one whose "bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible" (2 Co.10:10) and who was "rude in speech" (2 Co.11:6). He used "great plainness of speech" (2 Co.3:12), emphasizing doctrine over feelings, substance over form, not fearing to step on toes. He knew well the hearts of men and their propensity to tire of sound doctrine and truth, preferring to "after their own lusts...heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears" (2 Ti.4:3). An itch needs to be abraded, not mollified with baby oil, and so Paul instructed Timothy "Preach THE WORD....reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine" (2 Ti.4:2). If a preacher is convinced he has THE WORD OF GOD, he can speak with authority. Woe unto the preacher who believes he only has the word of man which profits nobody (Jer.23:32)! Is it any wonder that in our generation where so few preachers actually believe they have God's infallible word that there is so little Savior-like preaching but so much Scribe-like preaching (per our text)? Enervated Scribe-like preaching which avoids offence may fill pews, coffers and sodden hearts but Savior-like preaching will condemn it.

Pied Pipers, it should be remembered, have an appeal to rats. What kind of preaching do you desire?