Updates from Ron Thomas RSS Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Ron Thomas 5:00 am on June 1, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Chronicles 10 

    1. After Solomon’s reign his son Rehoboam becomes king. But it was during his reign that the nation of Israel was split in two. Rehoboam (south, otherwise known as Judah) and Jeroboam (north, otherwise known as Israel).
    2. Application: Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, did not exercise the wisdom that his father exercised in at least two ways. First, when he became king he did not seek counsel from the Lord – unlike his father did shortly after he became king. Second, the counsel that belonged to men of experience, counsel that he sought, he also rejected. Not seeking counsel from the Lord (a rejection of sorts) and not following the counsel of experienced men brought Israel a rip that was not healed the remainder of her physical existence. One can say that the nation’s split was of the Lord, but look at the contribution Rehoboam made. Look at how it came about, and note that Rehoboam’s influence was the latter years of Solomon’s life when Solomon had his own struggles with the Lord.
     
    • Steven Sarff 7:21 am on June 1, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Ron, you might find another post interesting. I didn’t post it but it speaks to the maturity needed to be an adult. Rehoboam lacked it in a few areas…. When Does a Boy Become a Man? http://wp.me/p1Cfvb-nw via @criswellblog

  • Ron Thomas 5:00 am on May 31, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Chronicles 9 

    1. The queen of Sheba heard of Solomon’s wisdom and wealth and, not believing it, makes a trip to Jerusalem. She comes away much impressed (9:1-12). As the queen of Sheba came away impressed, a great many other empires were also impressed by Solomon’s wisdom and wealth (9:13-24). For forty years Solomon was king over Israel (9:25-31).
    2. Application: Chronicles does not really give a bad report of Solomon. In fact, if one were to know Solomon only from Chronicles, then the picture painted would be one-sided. This is often the problem to the potential solutions that might be brought forth in other circumstances. There are always two sides when problems arise with people, and when we only hear one side we hear an unbalanced report. With regard to Solomon, let us consider one other point: it was the Lord who brought Solomon all his wealth, but it was Solomon who chose to do with it what he wanted. What is it that we are doing with what the Lord gave each of us?
     
  • Ron Thomas 5:32 am on May 30, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Buddhism,   

    Recently I have finished two extended outlines on assignments I have for a preacher’s retreat in southern Illinois. Those extended outlines amount to about 30 pages in total (for both). If you are interested in receiving them via email attachments from me, please let me know and I will send them to you. The outline are on Catholicism and Buddhism. I will need your email address to do this.

     
    • James 6:47 pm on May 30, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Please send me the outlines on Catholicism and Buddhism.
      Thank You

    • Morris G. Monkus 4:48 am on May 31, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Please send me the outlines.

    • Robert McCurdy 2:04 pm on May 31, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Ron.
      Your articles and studies are always interesting and helpful. Please send study material on Catholicism and Buddhism. Thanks much and may God continue to bless you richly.

      • Ron Thomas 12:29 am on June 1, 2012 Permalink | Reply

        You are very kind, Robert. Thank you.

        • Royce Pendergrass 7:58 am on June 1, 2012 Permalink

          Please send me your two outlines you have graciously offered.

          Thanks

  • Ron Thomas 5:00 am on May 30, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Chronicles 7 and 8 

    1. At the dedicatory prayer’s closing the Lord heard that prayer and responded (7:1-6). The sacrificial worship setting for Solomon and Israel was quantitatively fantastic (7:7-11). The Lord appears to Solomon again with a word of encouragement and exhortation or warning (7:12-22). After Solomon built the Temple he built his own house and brought his wife (the daughter of Pharaoh) from Jerusalem to live in another location (it’s unknown where, but thought to be with Hiram). His organizational skills were of note, and those who were still residential alien were called upon to be the “blue collar” workers on the temple (8:1-18).
    2. Application: In heart-felt devotion the nation of Israel worked together to build the great Temple, and the Lord was willing to allow it to happen. That He approved of it is clearly the case as one reads the chapter, but His emphasis was not on something physical, material, but always on the heart of the individual. No matter how much “stock” the Israelites put into the site pleasing to the eyes, it was always the case that the Lord looked (and looks) on the heart and desired to see that which was pleasing to His eyes. Sometimes we miss this point. While we like things of a particular beauty, the Lord will see beauty only on the inside. Solomon was not even arrayed like the lilies of the filed, but his splendor was great as far as man was concerned. How well do we look in the eyes of the Lord?
     
  • Ron Thomas 10:00 am on May 29, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Romans 7   

    A Few Thoughts From Romans 7 

    Paul begins to break this down further. As one chooses to obey a particular one (including the doctrine) that one whom he chose he becomes a slave or servant to (6:16-17). Under the authority of the Law of Moses, Paul illustrates with regard to marriage (7:1-4). The law (Law of Moses) is no longer alive; it no longer has power (sway, influence) over a person (in our case, a Christian) – all because one the law is dead (cf. Colossians 2:11-17), and one chooses to no longer serve a “dead law”, but a living Christ. Those who were under the law were bound to that law of sin and death (7:4-6). Since the Law of Moses had brought death, what could resurrect? Jesus. As one chooses between two options (life in Christ, or not), with the proper choice made, there is servitude toward righteousness which brings life.

    The Law of Moses fulfilled its purpose, and that purpose was to make sin known to the person who lived under its authority (7:7-12). Was that all that the law was supposed to do? No, it was to promise life (7:10, ESV). How could it promise life when Peter (Paul) made clear that it could not justify anyone (Acts 15:10, cf. 13:39). Since sin destroys and the Law of Moses was not given to destroy (cf. Lard) it can be said that the law promised life by steering those under its authority from sin. Some try to argue that the law, if obeyed perfectly, would have given one eternal life. I am not of that opinion because of what Paul said in Acts 13:39. However, we read that it promised life, so what of this? I suggest that it corresponds to Leviticus 18:5, Psalm 19:7-11, and even Romans 10:5; in other words, as one lived under its authority and obeyed the Lord from the heart (cf. Deuteronomy 10:12-13), then that one who so obeyed would be pleasing to the Lord.

    Paul illustrates how the law worked in his (or any other’s life). Sin was now alive since the Law of Moses was given to the nation, and the sin that people have in their lives is continually at odds with the Lord’s spiritual law (Law of Moses). Thus, sin (personified) made every effort to prevent one from meeting the demands of the law which was to steer one from sin. This failing brought one to the point of recognizing the good and just standard of God’s spiritual law. Even under God’s spiritual law (7:14) sin brought one into bondage; it is evident, then, that the law could not release one from that bondage. What can? Jesus (7:24-25)!

     
  • Ron Thomas 5:00 am on May 29, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Chronicles 6 

    1. Solomon reflects on the occasion when the temple was completed, how he was instrumental in getting it built – though his father David originated the idea for its building (6:1-11). As the nation gathered together Solomon led them in a dedication prayer (6:12-21). The particulars of that prayer are identified in the remainder of the chapter (6:22-42).
    2. Application: In Solomon’s prayerful and reverential position, he bowed his knees to the Father in heaven, and he opened up his arms toward heaven. I think this is symbolic of two things: first, he humbled himself before the Almighty in a physical position. As Solomon was king over the nation and his subjects would bow before him. The king of the nation is subject to Him who rules over all. Second, the arms opened up and spread toward heaven is indicative of the willingness to receive from heaven not only the blessings of the Almighty, but also the instructions in righteousness.
     
  • Ron Thomas 5:00 am on May 28, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Chronicles 5 

    1. The children of Israel, led by the king (Solomon) brought the Tabernacle and the furnishing of the Tabernacle to the newly fabricated temple. In accordance with the Lord’s way the Ark of the Covenant was carried by the Levites and placed in its final resting place, in the Holy of Holies. With mechanical instruments the Levites played and sang praises to God. The Lord was pleased with this occasion.
    2. Application: The Levites both played and sang: “For he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever” (5:13). Wouldn’t it be good for each Christian to reflect and repeat these words in their own lives?
     
    • Eugene Adkins 7:48 am on May 28, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      It’s amazing how many times the phrase “His [God's] mercy endures forever” is used in the scriptures (particularly the OT, check out Psalm 136 for one huge example).

      God’s grace has always been amazing! Great thoughts, Ron.

  • Ron Thomas 10:00 am on May 25, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Romans 6   

    A Few Thoughts on Romans 6 

    Because of what our Lord Jesus did, Paul assumes a counter reply that might be thrust in his direction (6:1). “Surely, it is the case that as one sins the glory (grace) of God is manifested all the more.” Paul rejects such thinking by helping them to understand the significance of their baptism (6:2-7). Coming up out of the watery grave of baptism one now walks “in newness of life”; thus, they have died to the old way, and they are not to continue to live that way (6:10, 12). When one makes a conscience decision to walk in a certain direction, the one who leads us in that direction is the one to whom we have become slaves, Paul said (6:16-17). This can be in the direction of the Son of righteousness or this can be in the direction of sin. Paul will amplify this in the next chapter.

    Baptism into Christ is a “cardinal” doctrine of the New Testament. Why so many dismiss the significance as the Lord actually stated it is tremendously unfortunate. A Christian, on the other hand, must insist on what the New Testament says, not compromising even for a second. Let us, however, never fall into the trap, as many have, of saying exactly that which the Jews did, “Has he been circumcised”? In time, the circumcision became an imprint apart from faith (2:28-29). The same can happen with baptism: “Has he been baptized?” This is not an inappropriate question, but it has become an end-all in conversation for many. It might be better to ask, “Has he been converted to the Lord, or born again? (John 3:3-5). At least with that question there is an equal emphasis on all that the Lord demands.

     
    • Russ McCullough 12:19 am on May 26, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Perhaps Satan’s most effective lie is “you can be saved without baptism, after all it’s a work of man and you know you are saved by grace alone.”

  • Ron Thomas 5:00 am on May 25, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Chronicles 3 and 4 

    1. Chapter 3 details for us things pertaining to the building of the Temple by Solomon. David made plans for the structure, and Solomon saw to it that it was completed. It is worth noting that the location of the Temple was the same location where David offered his sacrifice to the Lord for his sin as recorded in 2 Samuel 24. Chapter 4 continues detailing some of the items within the Temple.
    2. Application: It is difficult to conjure up an image of precisely what all this might have looked like. For instance, can you imagine a “Sea of bronze” that amounted to the size of a basin (caldron) that could contain over 17,000 gallons of water? This set upon pedestals that had to be heavy enough to support the weight; if one were to measure 7 pounds to each gallon, and if the basin was full, that weight would be around 200,000 lbs. (about 600 tons)! Rather heavy by any standard. Yet the weight of our sin (which does not even register of a physical scale) crushes the soul.
     
  • Ron Thomas 5:00 am on May 24, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Chronicles 2 

    1. As Solomon prepared to build the Temple he sought after the counsel and skill of the king of Tyre. The king of Tyre was impressed and granted Solomon that which he needed. Solomon conscripted over 150,000 men for the task, all of them were “aliens” (or foreigners) to the nation of Israel. In C-1 Solomon took note of the separation that existed between the Ark of the Covenant and the Tabernacle. The former was in Jerusalem, and the latter was in Gibeon. The production of the Temple would bring the two together again.
    2. Application: Solomon had much wisdom, but having wisdom and knowing best how to use it are not the same. It appears, however, that on this occasion Solomon did use it well. He not only sought the counsel of another better informed than himself, but he also brought together two sacred items pertaining to God’s worship together with this massive project of his. As Solomon asked, what could he build that could contain the Lord (2:5-6)? Since there was and is nothing, then the wisdom of God is to reign in God’s creation: man’s heart.
     
  • Ron Thomas 5:00 am on May 23, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Chronicles 1 

    1. Solomon is chosen as king over Israel, and while he was in the position of not knowing best how to judge he calls upon the Lord to help him in this endeavor. The Lord does so by granting him wisdom more than any other who lived, or will live after him. While in position of authority over Israel, the Lord also grants him to have wealth greater than any of the other kingdoms; this resulted in Israel becoming an economic and military might in the region.
    2. Application: Having wisdom and knowing how to apply it is one of the great blessings in the world. There is a difference, however, between the wisdom that is of this world and the wisdom that comes from God. The wisdom that came from God brought many questions to Solomon’s mind, questions he could not answer. This resulted in the book of Ecclesiastes being written. Unfortunately, there are some who will take the wisdom they have individually accumulated and use that to direct life away from God. Solomon did the same, but in the end he came back to where he knew he should be (at least, that is what I want to think). Wisdom is not just knowledge but the proper using of that knowledge.
     
  • Ron Thomas 10:00 am on May 22, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Romans 5   

    A Few Thoughts on Romans 5 

    The Law of Moses could not justify (4:15; cf. Acts 13:39); rather, peace with God comes through faith, and Abraham is an illustration of this. The importance of this is seen in the actions (love) of God. We understand the virtue in giving ourselves up for another, but this is generally done toward those we know and like. God, on the other hand, did this for all those who were (are) enemies of His.

    Two men came into this world, Paul says. The first, Adam, sinned and brought death into the world because of his sin; consequently, death passed to all men. The sting of sin is death because all have sinned. Until the time of the Lord’s anointed the only way to address the sin that man was guilty of was through sacrifice. Man, however, was not held to account like the Law of Moses held him accountable, and this was only applied to the Jewish man.  To say it differently, God did not impute sin against those who lived previous to God revealing His law through Moses (5:13). When man died he died as a result of his sin, but that sin was not held against him like it came to be (cf. Acts 17:30-31).

    The Law of Moses’ intent, Paul noted, was to point out the seriousness of sin (3:20), to bring wrath (4:15), and to testify to the “law of faith” (3:21-22, 27).  The second man, Jesus, came into this world and brought life (5:15, 17b). Let me say it a little differently, a summary of the point in 5:13-17:

    1. By virtue of what Adam did he brought death and condemnation to all.
    2. The Law of Moses made sin known and the condemnation real (3:20; 4:15).
    3. Jesus lived under the law to redeem those who could not redeem themselves with the giving up of His own life (Galatians 4:4-5).
    4. By virtue of what Jesus did He brought life and justification to all.

    What the Law could not do, Jesus did. The life He lived and died dealt with sin adequately (perfectly); the victory in Jesus removes one from this world’s thinking and prepares him for the next (cf. Colossians 3:1-12). Each man brought something into the world, but only one Man was able to take one from this world victorious (2 Timothy 1:10).

    Old Testament animal sacrifices had an unfortunate quality: they were inadequate to achieve what was desired – sin’s ultimate removal. The sting of death still existed; who can take this sting away, but the Lord (cf. 5:1)?

    John 3:16 is a well-known verse, but Romans 5:6-8 gives us a better sense of John 3:16. God’s love was shown in His own action for the benefit of His creation, especially man.

     

     
    • Mike Riley 11:32 am on May 22, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Good thoughts, Ron! Romans 5:6-8 just about sums up God’s undying love for mankind. It’s a love I certainly don’t understand or fathom, but am thankful and rejoice in the blessings bestowed because of that love.

      • Ron Thomas 5:14 am on May 23, 2012 Permalink | Reply

        Thanks, Mike. I have struggled with 5:12ff for a good while; I worked and worked to get a handle on it. I think I have it now.

  • Ron Thomas 5:00 am on May 22, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Kings 25 

    1. Zedekiah was king, but his reign was only a short matter of time. He resisted Babylon and Babylon made him pay a dear price. Zedekiah lost his city, captives were taken, Zedekiah was captured, his sons killed before his eyes, then he lost his eyes, and into captivity he went. Jerusalem was sacked and ravaged. What people remained were only the poor; with no money, no food, no stature, they were also no threat. However, some radicals were very much a threat and the governor Babylon set up was murdered. No doubt, those who murdered thought they did the Lord a service!
    2. Application: Many people, after determining their own steps, think they are serving the Lord. Illustration: there might be a person in the congregation where you serve who thinks that he (she) is doing the Lord’s work. Unfortunately, that opinion is an opinion that is contrary to the opinion of the elders of the congregation. Now, there is a “battle” over which opinion holds sway; the one serving opines that his (her) opinion is just as valid as the elders (and it might very well be), but has failed to see that the elders of the congregation are the men whom the Lord put in position to lead. While this is not even as remotely as grievous as what we read in this chapter, it does illustrates a problem – even at its lowest level – when men begin to think more of themselves than the Lord’s church. Is this not all-to-common in the Lord’s church? These same people will one day have to answer for their own determination.
     
  • Ron Thomas 5:00 am on May 21, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Kings 24 

    1. Three kings are mentioned in this chapter: Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Mattaniah (Zedekiah). Assyria, at this time, was no longer the mighty power, but now Babylon was. As Judah looked upon Egypt to be of assistance, Babylon took away their ability to be of any assistance. All three Kings were subservient to Babylon.
    2. Application: 24:3 rings out loud when I give thought to our own nation. We slaughter the innocent (abortion) and call it choice. We authorize civil union and homosexual marriages and call it tolerance and a civil right. We have lost our moral compass and call it progressive. While we forget from where we came, the Lord remembers.
     
  • Ron Thomas 5:00 am on May 18, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Kings 23 

    1. Josiah’s restoration of Jerusalem and the temple. He rid all Jerusalem of its evil influence. This effort on his part was very pleasing to the Lord (23:1-25). Unfortunately, Judah had passed the point of no return as a nation (23:26-27). The Lord was determined to erase them off the map, if you will. It had begun some years previous, but by the death of Josiah, who tried to intercept Egypt’s effort to thwart Babylon (23:28-30), it moved along rapidly. Josiah’s son was seated on the throne, but he did not have his father faith. Soon he was deposed and the king of Egypt set a new king on the throne, also a son of Josiah. Unfortunately for the Judeans Egypt taxed the people heavily (23:31-37).
    2. Application: Josiah was the last great king of Judah, but even though he sought a restoration of the spiritual standing of his nation, the Lord was determined to remove their “candlestick.” There is a need for restoration. There is a need for restoration with regard to the individual; there is a need of restoration with regard to the family; and there is a need for restoration with regard to the religious community. This restoration, however, must be in accordance with the Lord’s way not our own. It is only the Lord who can restore properly, the rest of us have too much rust connected with our own individual efforts.
     
  • Ron Thomas 5:00 am on May 17, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Kings 22 

    1. Hezekiah’s son, Manasseh, became king and was a vile king. He also had a son and his name was Amon. He was also wicked; because of his wickedness he was disposed with his young son, Josiah, becoming king. Josiah was clearly of a different disposition. While he was king, God’s law lost for a rather long period of time was found and notice of this find was given to the king. The law was read in his presence and hearing and fearing what the Lord was going to do to the nation, he inquired of the Holy One of Israel. The Lord gave word and reassurance to him that two things would happen: first, what had been read will come to past and, second, it will not be in his life time.
    2. Application: Has the word of God been lost? Is it no longer in its place of residence that it ought to be? The bound Scriptures looks real nice sitting in the bookshelf; people know, when they come in to the room where the Bible has a prominent place on that shelf that there is an interest in spiritual things. This is what some might think, anyhow. Resting nicely on the book shelf just might correspond to that which occurred in Josiah’s day. The word of God was lost! For some today, though the book sits nicely, it is lost from within the heart (cf. Colossians 3:16). The “lostness” in this case, is not its location physically, but spiritually (in application). Does the word of God have a home in the heart, or does it have one foot in and one foot out? Is the door of the heart open where the cold wind can come in and freeze whatever warmth there is? The interesting (and unfortunate) thing about the book of the law being lost was that it was in the house of the Lord!
     
  • Ron Thomas 5:00 am on May 16, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Kings 21 

    1. After Judah’s great king, Hezekiah, died his young son became king over the small nation. At such a young age he had to have counselors. What direction might they have guided him? It’s not long before we know. So evil did Manasseh become that he replaced Jeroboam as a standard of evil – only he did it in Jerusalem. He reigned a long time, and by the Lord’s mercy only was he a saved man (21:1-18). Since the apple does not fall far from the tree, the route traveled by Manasseh, his son followed also (21:19-26).
    2. Application: How could such a righteous king as Hezekiah have come from his loins a son so evil like Manasseh? Perhaps many things could be said about how this might have happened. At the very least, I think, we can say this: Manasseh arrived at a point in in life where he willfully chose to go one direction and not another. Whatever influence might have corrupted him at a young age, he still had his father’s example and to that he could have turned – but he did not (until late in life).
     
    • Eugene Adkins 6:17 am on May 16, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Morning Ron,

      Have you thought about how old Manasseh was in realtion to Hezekiah’s answered prayer for a longer life? If you remember how much extra time Hezekiah was given, then it’s obvious that Manasseh would not have been born if it were not for that! That was always such an interesting thought to me.

      Your application included some points that I used last Sunday morning. Good thoughts to keep in mind when a parent is struggling with blaming themselves for what their children have done. God bless, brother.

      • Ron Thomas 6:28 am on May 16, 2012 Permalink | Reply

        I have thought about it, Eugene, but probably not to the degree you have. Thanks for you kind words, brother.

  • Ron Thomas 10:00 am on May 15, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Romans 4   

    A Few Thoughts on Romans 4 

    While the Jews wondered if there was any value to being chosen by God, Paul not only said there was, but that the value was from God’s perspective, and not mans. God chose Abraham for His purposes and, significantly enough, Abraham antedates Israel. Abraham was (is) the father of the faithful, but his recognition as being the father of the faithful was a long time before even Moses existed. What set Abraham apart was his response to the Lord – even before he received the physical sign of circumcision (God’s seal). The importance of this is with regard to salvation under the new covenant. Jesus came to save all those who call upon His name; it won’t be only Jews who call upon His name, but non-Jews as well. Thus, the standard of righteousness (faith) put forth for consideration is Abraham. In fact, if one would be justified before God, then Abraham is a great example (4:18-21) to emulate.

    It is important to keep in mind the context of the word “works” in this chapter (as well as in every/and all chapters). When the author makes use of the word, it is imperative that one get a proper sense of what is in view. Three times Paul makes use of this word in the chapter (4:2, 4, and 6). In 4:2, he uses the word in relation to 3:28 (works of the law, i.e. Law of Moses). In 4:4, he uses it in a more general sense, but its relation to 4:2 can’t be missed. And in 4:6, he uses it to contrast what is important in one’s spiritual walk between the works of the law or God counting one righteous. So, when the Scripture says that Abraham was not justified by works, those works pertain to the Law of Moses.

     
  • Ron Thomas 5:00 am on May 15, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Kings 20 

    1. Hezekiah was a great king, but even great kings must meet their end. On this occasion the Lord’s prophet, Isaiah, told the king to prepare himself. Humbled and overwhelmed by the words of the prophet, the king asked the Lord to remember him (20:3). The Lord responds to this by telling Isaiah to turn around and let the king know the Lord heard the prayer and 15 years was added to his life (20:1-11). Hezekiah, however, struggled with something that cost him with an upbraiding remark from the Lord. In a matter of time all the wealth of Hezekiah’s and Judah would be plundered by the very people Hezekiah escorted around Jerusalem (20:12-21).
    2. Application: The Lord’s prophet, I would imagine, was disappointed in having to tell Hezekiah of the Lord’s disapproval with his latest actions. Yet, in this, there is a lesson. Godly people who are clearly faithful to the Lord struggles with their own various issues in life. It does not matter if it is greed, anger, lust, gossip, or anything else. For some it is there and the burden can be over-powering. Did Hezekiah struggle with pride? Whether he did or not, his response, it seems to me, should have been one of humility rather than what it was. Can’t we learn something here?
     
  • Ron Thomas 5:00 am on May 14, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Kings 19 

    1. The situation was dire at best, but because of Hezekiah’s devotion to the Lord, it was to the Lord he went for guidance. First, there are the king’s visitors (ambassadors) to the prophet Isaiah. Isaiah gives the king a good word of comfort (19:1-7). The word of Isaiah was given to the Assyrian representative, who returned to his own king, with the king then sending an official letter to Hezekiah (19:8-13). Hezekiah receives this letter and goes straight to the Lord in prayer. The Lord hears, answer, and with reassurance lets Hezekiah know that Assyria will cause Judah no problem (19:14-28, 32-37). So reassuring to Hezekiah was the Lord that the Lord gave Judah’s king comfort with regard to their ability to live off the land and even plant for future harvest (19:29-31).
    2. Application: What happened on that night is fantastic beyond measure! Of course, with the Lord, it is not any greater than Jesus walking on water, but the fact that so large a number of men died in one evening is beyond human description. Succinctly, the Lord states the number of men who died; it’s almost as if it was an insignificant occurrence. The greater point was that Hezekiah and Judah were saved. With 45 words (NKJV) the Lord states the fact of their demise. Outside the Bible there is also a recording of this tragic history by Herodotus, though with much myth. So great was this that some had to assign something natural because – and this is the point – who is that God that is all-so-powerful that something this great can occur so effortlessly? His name is YAH (Yahweh).
     
  • Ron Thomas 7:00 am on May 11, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: academic freedom   

    Academic Freedom 

    What is academic freedom? This morning I received a regular blog entry email from NT scholar Mark Goodacre disgust over the firing of another NT scholar from Lincoln Christian University. LCU is in our part of the state (about 75 miles west of my home). I have never heard of the professor, and it is most certainly the case that I have not read his book that brought about the firing/discussion.

    Is academic freedom an umbrella that allows one to live under a banner and go where ever he/she wants to go with the claim? I do not know. I do think, however, that academic freedom has some warrant, but with that freedom must come limitation. We are free in this country to do as we will, but with that freedom there is the responsibility to adhere to the laws of the land. Is our freedom taken away in this regard? I suppose some might argue such, but the limitation associated with the freedom, if removed, moves into chaos.

    An institution of higher learning has a basis for existence. If that basis (charter) for existence is compromised what is to be said about their mission? Whatever is to be said, it seem to me, an institution has warrant to set forth the principles that it believes in, and enforce them. If a student compromises that foundational basis the school has an obligation to deal appropriately with the offender. Additionally, if an institution agrees with a potential employee that certain things must be subscribed to, then the candidate for employment must subscribe to them or lose his employment. On the other hand, if an institution of higher learning promotes academic freedom “wherever the ‘truth’ takes them,” then the institution has willingly aligned themselves with much variety of thought – however hairbrained[1] it (or they) might be.

    What holds sway then? Is it the freedom of the employee or the basis for existence of the institution? Academic freedom and a school’s charter are not at odds, but they can be.

     


    [1] Is there even such a word? If not, and I found nothing in the dictionary I have to suggest there is, then perhaps I coined it – all in the name of academic freedom!

     
    • Robert Floyd 8:42 am on May 11, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I believe the word you’re looking for is “harebrained.”

      • Ron Thomas 7:00 am on May 12, 2012 Permalink | Reply

        Yes, you are right. By the time it came to me, I thought I would keep what I have to make the footnote point. Thanks for the word, however.

  • Ron Thomas 5:49 am on May 11, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Kings 18 

    1. Hezekiah, king over Judah, watched in horror as Assyria swept into Samaria and took captive a people to whom he had much in the way of association. Hezekiah, however, was not like any of the kings of Israel; he was a king highly devoted the Lord’s way (18:5). Sometime in his fourteenth year (or shortly thereafter) on the throne of the small kingdom of Judah, Assyria’s army comes to Judah with a monumental threat of siege and captivity, but it is not until the next chapter that we learn of the monumental catastrophe that befalls Assyria (18:17-37).
    2. Application: This chapter is set up as a great contrast to the events of the previous chapter. Hoshea was king over Israel, and though he was not as evil as the kings before him, still Israel had gone past the point of no return when they continued in their idolatry. Hezekiah, on the other hand, was considered a king as good as the great standard-bearer David. With Hezekiah’s kingdom being close to nothing more than a city-state, it was the Lord’s “kingdom” that protected him. No matter how large or how small, no matter who is for or who is against, when the Lord is on your side who can stand against you and be victorious?
     
  • Ron Thomas 10:00 am on May 10, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Romans 3   

    A Few Thoughts on Romans 3 

    Paul did not let the Jewish man (person) think that their national standing made them right in the eyes of God, but neither did he want them to think there was no positive blessing to that relationship. While some were making false accusations, Paul wanted them to understand two things: first, consistency demonstrates the accusation to be false; second, the law under which they lived made clear that they, too, were guilty before God (3:1-20). In order to be right (justified) in the eyes of God, one must come to Him in faith. Faith is that human response that calls upon God to save (cf. Acts 2:21). This is not something new (and exclusive) to the New Testament, but it is also a doctrine of the Old Testament (cf. Deuteronomy 10:12-16; Habakkuk 2:4). Those who come to God by faith actually fulfill a purpose of the old covenant (cf. John 6:44-45; Galatians 3:23-27).

    Earlier in the chapter Paul anticipated an objection that would be given him concerning the value of being a Jew; the Jews, Paul said, had entrusted to them the word of God. There is great value to that. In Exodus 19 the Lord called upon Israel to be a kingdom of priests (19:6). In the New Testament there is a similar exhortation to godliness (1 Peter 2:5, 9).  It would be a shame of great proportion if even one New Testament Christian adopted the attitude that many Jews adopted: “Since I am a member of the Israelite community (or, the Lord’s church), my standing before the Lord is secure.” There is great security in being a member of the Lord’s body; that security is weakened, however, when we begin to lose sight of who Jesus is and that we depend on Him. If you live in a house and do nothing to tend to the needs of the house the house will eventually crumble.

     
  • Ron Thomas 5:46 am on May 10, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Kings 17 

    1. To Bible students this chapter is known as the chapter that outlines Israel’s captivity to Assyria. The first twenty-three verses of the chapter tell us exactly why the Lord sent them in to captivity. It had everything to do with their willingness to no longer follow the Lord’s way. It started with Israel’s first king (17:21), and continued with the people (17:22). Assyria came and besieged the city of Samaria and, in the end, carted off a large number of people into captivity. Sargon, Assyria’s king, gloated of his victory stating, “At the beginning of my royal rule I conquered the town of the Samarians … I led away prisoners 27,290 inhabitant of it and equipped from among them soldiers to man 50 chariots for my royal corps…” (Davis and Whitcomb, p. 431).
    2. With the land now bereft of people, the wild beasts (lions in particular) roamed the land. Even though the Assyrians repopulated the land, the beasts were entrenched and not easily removed. What’s interesting, however, is how the people interpreted the presence of the lions in the land. They merely considered Israel’s God as a local god, and nothing else (17:26-28). In any event, with the repopulation of the land, the religious ideologies brought for much confusion, and this religious confusion continued until the Lord walked the earth.
    3. Application: The obvious lesson of this chapter is in the Lord’s warnings going unheeded. It is evident that the people of the land did not regard the Lord’s prophets and their respective warnings. Thus, the Lord had had enough and He swept away the inhabitants of the land that He placed there to begin with; He placed them in a land that would encourage them to do one of two things (I suppose). In their new land they could refuse to learn from their experience and perpetuate the religious idolatry. Or, they could reflect on the words of the prophets and how the Lord actually did sweep them away from their homeland; on this reflection it could change them back into the people there were supposed to be at the start. That some did this because when the gospel was first preached, it was to Jewish assemblies that the Lord’s preacher went.
     
    • Eugene Adkins 6:20 am on May 10, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      That is such and interesting, but sad, time for God’s people in the past with ramifications that would go far into their future.

      I just talked about the Samaritans the other day at work because someone tried to use them as an example of racism being ok because of the way the Jews looked at them! The human heart can be so desperate to justify itself sometimes.

      I also posted an article a couple of days ago that included this time period while discussing the “awesome power of God.” Check it out if you like – http://wp.me/p20YNR-9z

      Love these studies in Kings. Keep up the great work.

      • Ron Thomas 6:26 am on May 10, 2012 Permalink | Reply

        It is interesting, Eugene, how people will go to a particular length to justify something. The objective will stand back and marvel at the effort, but the subjective will stand in the midst and fail to see the forest because of the trees.

  • Ron Thomas 5:43 am on May 9, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Kings 16 

    1. Ahaz was king over Judah, and he did not follow the path of his father. For 16 years he thought he could reign over the nation without the Lord, but he failed to remember that it was the Lord who sustained his father (16:1-9). Ahaz had great failures, but it is one notable failure that is highlighted in this chapter. The king took upon himself the authority to change what the Lord decreed many generations before him. Having been overcome by Syria, the king of Judah thought it must have been Syria idol gods that brought them victory. Thus, he replicates the altar of burnt offering and demands to use it in Jerusalem. This destroyed the king (16:10-20).
    2. Application: As egregious as the king’s errors were, what stands out to me in this chapter is the High Priest. If he was a political man, then it would be easy to see what and why he did what he did. On the other hand, if he had any semblance of devotion to the Lord, how in the world could he have done what he did? It gets to a great question that each of us has to answer: when our backs are pushed up against the wall, to whom shall we render service?
     
  • Ron Thomas 10:00 am on May 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    Errors of the church of Christ (31) – Baptism (2) 

    5. Moser argues about baptism similarly as he does about repentance: “If baptism is a condition of salvation which is given on the condition of faith in Christ, it too must be related to faith, and so related that its meaning will not oppose the meaning of faith. Now as confession is faith expressed by words, baptism is faith expressed by deed….This view of baptism sanctioned by scripture lifts baptism from a meaningless act of legalism to the high plane of salvation by faith in Christ.” (See Moser.) What do you think?

    RT – I will not take exception to these words, but to say that “faith” is also a deed (John 6:29).

    6. Regarding Acts 10:44-48, were Cornelius and the other Gentiles (who had heard the gospel, had received the empowering Baptism in the Holy Spirit, and had spoken in tongues and praised God) children of the devil before they were baptized? Or were they children of God filled with the Holy Spirit and later got baptized? Doesn’t the fact that they spoke in tongues prior to baptism prove that they were children of God and thus saved before they were baptized? Doesn’t Peter in Acts 10:43 make it clear that it was the faith that produced remission of sins, and that water baptism came later as a symbol of their new life in Christ?

    RT – Does the fact that a donkey spoke by the power of God say anything about the spiritual standing of that donkey? Does the fact that Balaam was a prophet speak anything to his favorable standing before the Lord? The case of Cornelius is clearly an exception to the pattern (a word you hate) that God set forth. That which Peter said in Acts 2:38 – is it true? If it is, how does it relate to 10:44-48? Which one is the norm? Cornelius was told that he would be given words to hear in order to be saved (10:4-5, 22; 11:14). What words did Peter speak in order that he might learn of Jesus? Did he hear those words? Why did Peter command him to be baptized?

    7. Doesn’t Peter make it clear in Acts 10:48 that this experience was the same way the apostles received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost? Is there any record in the Bible that the apostles received water baptism?

    RT – No, there is no explicit recording of such, unless we make an inference from Acts 1:22. Let me turn to question in your direction and ask you: Were they baptized? If so, why?

    8. Doesn’t 1 Corinthians 12:13 show that baptism by the Holy Spirit is what places us in the body of Christ?

    RT – That verse can be understood in one of two ways; neither way is troublesome.

    9. Your motto is, “Where the Bible speaks we speak; where the Bible is silent we are silent.” But don’t you break that rule all the time? For example, you say, “He that is baptized not shall be damned.” But that phrase does not appear in the Bible, does it? What does appear in the Bible is, “He that believeth not shall be damned.” So haven’t you twisted Scripture?

    RT – I laughed when I read this. In fact, you twisted the words of what you think some say about the verse in order to perpetuate your straw man.

     

    10, What do you think about Carl Ketcherside’s charge (please read chapter 9, Christians in Babylon) that, “To demand that one of God’s children be forced to submit to re-baptism at the hands of one of ‘our preachers’ in order to be in ‘our fellowship’ is sectarianism pure and simple…Such Church-of-Christ-isms like all other ‘isms’ are an insult to the persons and dignity of the Holy Spirit by whom we ‘are all baptized into one body.’”

    RT – What Carl had to say is simply an opinion – nothing more. 

     
  • Ron Thomas 5:38 am on May 8, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Kings 15 

    1. As Jeroboam served as king over Israel, and as Judah had her own king – who had found much disfavor with the Lord of late, the Lord placed a new king over Judah. His name was Azariah, otherwise known as Uzziah. He reigned 52 years and was considered a good king (15:1-7). The stability that Jeroboam II brought was now brought to an end, and Israel was in her final days. Zechariah, Shallum, Menahem, all served as king within a year’s time. It was Menahem who gave some semblance of stability (reigned 10 years), but Assyria’s king, Pul, had to be used as a threat against any that would threaten him (Menahem). In truth, Menahem bought and paid for Assyria’s protection because they were a serious threat to Israel’s existence (15:8-20). Pekahiah, Pekah, Hoshea, all reigned as kings over Israel (15:21-31). When Uzziah died, as king over Judah, his son Jotham reigned in his stead (15:32-38).
    2. Application: From the Lord’s perspective, it is not how good a ruler is with regard to economic policy, with regard to domestic policy (in a broader expanse), with regard to foreign affairs, or with regard to political appointments. It is all a matter of where the Lord was placed in that person’s heart. With Israel, because he was not placed where He ought to have been, the Lord saw to their defeat. With Judah, some kings properly placed the Lord, and in this placement the king had assurance from the Lord. Down to our day will it be any different?
     
  • Ron Thomas 10:00 am on May 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Romans 2   

    A Few Thoughts on Romans 2 

    Paul declares that man’s wisdom has gotten him into a “world of hurt” (chapter 1). In this chapter he turns his attention to the Jews who certainly thought their standing before God was not to be called into question. Paul does call it into question, however. Their standing is called into question because they looked upon themselves as righteous; the word presume (2:4, ESV) is an appropriate word in this light. Their standing in God’s eyes, they thought, was good because of God’s national covenant with Jacob (Israel). Paul said this not the case because they have taken God for granted and have not a circumcised heart (2:28-29). One’s individual righteousness is not, and never has been simply a matter of being in a national covenant with God; it has always been a matter of an individual response to His will (2:6-11). Sin is not peculiar (or exclusive) to those outside of the covenant that God made with Abraham (Isaac, Jacob). In fact, whether one is outside the covenant or inside the covenant, those pleasing to God will have God’s law on the heart. It will be a holy law that teaches and guides one in the way of righteousness (2:12-16). In relation to the Jew, Paul said, physical circumcision has its value, but it is valueless when in comparison with circumcision that is not of the heart (2:17-29).

     
  • Ron Thomas 5:35 am on May 7, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Kings 14 

    1. Amaziah, king of Judah, was 25 years old when he came to the throne, and in the early years of his reign, he reigned with the Lord’s favor. However, as he grew older and he became arrogant (cf. 2 Chronicles 25), this led to his downfall (14:1-20). Jeroboam was considered a good king (by some) over Israel, he reigned a long time and their economic status was raised, but the Lord did not look favorably upon him (14:21-29).
    2. Application: 2 Kings paints a positive picture of Amaziah, with but an unfortunate event in his life. As you read 2 Chronicles, however, we soon learn that as the young king started, he did not finish. Arrogance and pride are the downfall of all who imbibe in them. When one begins to look on self higher than is reasonable and practicable others will help him see his way more clearly.
     
  • Ron Thomas 10:00 am on May 4, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    Errors of the church of Christ (30) – Baptism 

    “Being raised in the Church of Christ, I began a lifelong devotion to the Word of God. But there was an incident that began to shake my faith in the Church of Christ. When I was in college, a boy I knew was killed in a car accident on his way to being baptized. He had gone through an extensive process of learning the Christian faith at my church, had professed his deep and abiding faith in Christ, and had fulfilled every requirement to being a Christian—except being baptized. Most of my friends in the church believed that because he had not been baptized that this boy was in hell for eternity. This event started me questioning the teachings of the Church of Christ. In time, I studied my way out of this sect.”     —-Edward

    Please see our article 101 Reason Why Water Baptism is Not Necessary to be Saved before proceeding. We also highly recommend this article Moser on Baptism for those who want to think deeply about the Bible.

    1. Are we saved by water or by Christ’s blood?

    RT – We are saved by the blood of Christ.

    2. Next, if you are a Church of Christ person with an open mind, we ask you to read Leroy Garrett’s article about “one baptism”— chapter 37, One Baptism. Among many other points in this article, Garrett says, “We as immersionists must rid ourselves of the ungracious notion that those who do not baptize the way we do have rebellious and disobedient hearts. They can be mistaken without being degenerate. And they can be mistaken and still be Christians who are pleasing God, just as we can still be Christians when we are mistaken.” What is the difference, according to Garrett, in the etymology of a word and the meaning of a word?

    RT – I do not know what Garrett said, but I can give a dictionary definition. As a noun it consists of the process of immersion, submersion, and emergence (from bapto, to dip) (Vines, pp. 98-99). That is the meaning of the word. In Scripture one is baptized in order to wash away sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16), in order to be buried with Christ and resurrected with Him as well (Romans 6:3-7; Colossians 2:12), in order to enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:3-5), and in order to be saved (1 Peter 3:21). If one is baptized apart from what Scripture says they have not been baptized.

    The purpose of this section is not necessarily to try to show that the view of the Church of Christ—baptismal regenerational of mature believers by immersion—is wrong, but rather to attempt to show that such a view should not by itself be used to as a hatchet to separate from other Christian groups. CC theologian Everett Ferguson in his book instructs against such practice (page 403): “Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:13-17 protests against any view of baptism which would make it a badge of distinction among Christians instead of a unifying act.”

    RT –Yes, that is what he said, but it is evident you have not read him very well if you think he minimizes the subject of baptism in New Testament theology.

    3. Ferguson also warns (page 195): “Baptism provides an objective assurance of having received God’s promised salvation in Christ. That may lead to the subtle temptation to trust in baptism for salvation instead of trusting in God, his act in Christ, and his word of promise.” As it seems that many within the CC have yielded to this temptation, it is asked, is your faith in Christ or in baptism (chapter 13, Sectarian Baptism)? What is the difference, according to Hook, in baptism for remission of sins and baptism to receive the Holy Spirit?

    RT – Yes, that is what he said also. You should, however, included the remarks he made in the next paragraph with regard to those who put other things into a misplaced column, such as faith or experience, or doctrinal correctness, etc. a faithful Christian will always, and without exception, says his (her) faith is in Christ.

    4. First, just a point of logic. Physical life, we’re sure you will agree, begins at conception rather than at birth. Similarly, we argue along with Cecil Hook that spiritual life begins with faith and not at baptism (chapter 27 beginning on page 98, When Life Begins). In the rest of this section we will attempt to prove this biblically. Comment?

    RT – Spiritual life begins where the Lord says it does. Any analogy used to mitigate this is a false analogy. Biblical baptism is not to be understood or applied apart from what the Scripture says. Those baptized into Christ will be because of their faith (Mark 16:16).

    5/3/2012

     
    • scott wiley 2:18 pm on May 4, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Paul wrote the grace-filled letters to the Romans and to the Ephesians. In Acts 19 in Ephesus, he re-baptized some folk who’d not gotten the right baptism. In Acts 22 we learn that Paul himself was baptised to wash away his sin. He’d been in a sinner’s prayer for 3 days at that point. Paul who got the ephesian church rolling by baptizing folk, would not have minimized it. In Romans 6 he lays out what happens in baptism, including that the old man is crucified w/ Christ and a new man raised – its a new life coming out of the waters. Folk in the Bible did not debate baptism, they just did it. No one in the NT laments when baptism is mentioned, “good grief, folk are lost and starving and here we are talking about church ordinances!”

    • Kevin L Moore 5:57 pm on May 4, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      Instead of stretching a spiritual analogy beyond its original intent (as an attempt to ‘prove’ a preconceived notion or to ‘disprove’ a biblical doctrine one doesn’t like), should we not allow the Bible itself to provide the intended significance? When we are redeemed, we receive the adoption as sons (Gal. 4:5). The When & How should not be open to speculation, since Paul had already explained it: “For you are all sons of God, through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ…” (3:26-27).

      • Kevin L Moore 7:06 pm on May 4, 2012 Permalink | Reply

        “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God . . . . Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:3, 5).

  • Ron Thomas 5:00 am on May 4, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Kings 13 

    1. Israel’s existence as a nation is not long, at this juncture. Already, to this time, each king in Israel’s monarchy has had the Lord’s disapproval (with regard to their actions and heart). What Jeroboam started each king perpetuated. Jehu gave some semblance to the Lord in some of his actions, and his son, when he became king, did the same; still he did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam (13:1-9). The historical Record, in quick succession mentions the next two kings. First, the son of Jehoahaz, Jehoash (Joash), became king. He reigned 16 years, but the one all-important trait of his reign was in his failure to depart from Jeroboam’s sins as recorded in 1 Kings 12 (13:9-13). To succeed him was another man named Jeroboam (also known as Jeroboam II). Before Joash died, however, he had an interview with Elisha before the great prophet’s passing (13:14-19). Israel and Syria had skirmishes all the days of Joash (13:20-25).
    2. Application: Israel’s failing, as a nation, was seen in its leadership (more will be said on this in another chapter). Continually, we read of one of the king’s failing to depart from the sins of Jeroboam. You’ll recall that Jeroboam changed the Lord’s pattern of worship. So serious was this that the Lord did not forget and those who perpetuated this change were remembered for that.
     
  • Ron Thomas 5:00 am on May 3, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Kings 12 

    1. Now, with the proper royal seed on the throne, and at such a young age, he needed proper guidance. Jehoiada, the High Priest, guided him along the way (until his death). In this period of time the king gave attention to the temple complex and noted its deterioration. The king took charge of the situation and contracted outside workers to work on the building (12:1-16). The remainder of the chapter does not spell out the quality of Jehoash’s reign, but it was not good (12:17-21; cf. 2 Chronicles 24:17-25).
    2. Application: When proper guidance is followed much good can result, but as soon at that guiding force is gone, if the foundations are not in place, then becoming a piece of drift wood is ever so present. Jehoiada lived over 100 years and was a powerful influence in the king’s life. It appears, however, that in the undergrowth of the king’s moral compass was a desire to be no longer bound by a higher principle.
     
  • Ron Thomas 10:00 am on May 2, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    Errors of the church of Christ (29) – Abraham’s Justification 

    5. In James 2:14 in the Greek there is a modifying adjective in front of “faith” which is left out in the King James translation, but is translated in other versions as “the” or “that” or “such.” So James is asking here, “Can such a faith save? Or, “Can that faith save?” Notice also that James does not deny that faith justifies; he simply says, “and not by faith only.” So James acknowledges that it is indeed faith that justifies. Most theologians down through the ages have insisted that the way to reconcile the biblical message of faith and works is to explain that works describe a true saving faith but do not save unto themselves?

    6. James gives us the clues we need. First of all, James makes it clear how futile it is to think that we can be saved by our works. He insists that even one single sin on our part is equivalent to breaking the entire law (James 2:10)! Then in verse 14 he asks an explanatory question whether a dead faith can save us? (Can that faith or such a faith save us?) Of course he means, no it cannot. Then in verse 18 he says that a living saving faith is shown by our works. So James is not saying that we are saved by works, rather our obedience is evidence of a legitimate faith.

    So, there is, then, a simple way to reconcile faith and works in a way that is faithful to Scripture without making Scripture contradict itself. We are saved by a living faith—that is, one which expresses itself in obedience. Note that this is very different from saying that we are saved by faith plus works or any such construction. We are saved by grace through faith, not of works can we boast.

    RT – Okay, you and your “most theologians” remark is to be set aside. Let us consider the context. “Faith is to be understood how? I suggest one’s “subjective” faith, one’s response of the heart to the Lord’s will. It is used that way in 2:14, 17. In 2:18-20 “faith” is used in conjunction with “works” and the two are tied together. “Works” in this particular portion of the chapter is dealing with the good one may do toward another. In 2:21-24 “faith”, “works”, and “Abraham” are all tied together. The Scripture plainly teaches that Abraham was justified by works. The word “justified” means what? Two Greek dictionaries define the word “to declare righteous, justify” (Mounce, p. 374; Vines. P. 625). This notion of “forensic” and “vindication” (as some like to insert here, thus making a distinction) James says nothing about. It forthrightly declares that Abraham was justified by works! 

    7. C. K. Moser gives several biblical examples of how it is faith that saves, regardless of whether or not that faith is expressed in some sort of action. He cites the stories of Jesus healing the blind in John 9 and Matthew 9. In one case, the blind man did something—washed in the pool of Siloam. In the other case, nothing was done other than what Jesus did. Moser asks, “Were these blind men cured upon different principles? In both cases the blind received sight upon the principle of faith in Christ. In one case faith expressed by overt acts, in the other case it was not. After all it is faith that the Lord wants….Faith expressed remains faith.” (See Moser.) Comment?

    RT – If the recipient did not respond to what Jesus said that person would have to do, then that which was promised would not be granted. Jesus told the man to go to the pool and wash; if he did not go would he gain his sight? To ask is to answer. With regard to the account in Matthew 9:27-31 we learn that there was a response to what Jesus asked, and in this response it was the Lord’s doing that brought sight to the eyes. In both contexts we learn the following: Jesus called for a response, and in both contexts a response was given. Second, the accentuation is upon Jesus and less so upon those with whom Jesus interacted. Third, the matter pertains to physical healing.

    8. What about repentance—isn’t that a work? Please see this link: Repentance. What is the relationship between repentance and salvation? What was Peter calling his hearers to do relative to repentance in Acts 2:38? Was this an action or a change of mind? Moser continues, “But salvation is by faith. Repentance, then, must in some way relate to faith. And it must relate to faith in such a way as not to oppose it.” We argue that repentance is merely the flip side of faith. If you turn to Jesus you will by definition turn from your life of sin and selfishness. You will automatically repudiate your fleshly nature.  This is the deep meaning of repentance. So, repentance is technically not a work per se. It is part of surrendering to Jesus that occurs at the point of a living faith. After we are saved by faith, we begin to show outward confirming acts such as confession and good works because of our gratitude for what God has done for us. Confession is faith expressed in words (Romans 10:9). Again, it is the faith that saves, not any expression of it. Comment?

    RT – If a person is called upon to repent (Acts 2:38), that particular person is called upon to do something. If faith is a work (John 6:29), there is no possible way that repentance can’t be. You try to distinguish between an action and a change of mind, but if faith is a work – which is an “action” of the heart, then repentance is the same. Moreover, the New Testament does not say or even intimate that repentance is the different side to faith – not once! You said, “If you turn to Jesus you will by definition turn from your life of sin and selfishness. You will automatically repudiate your fleshly nature.” If this is not an action, nothing is.

    9. What about baptism? Isn’t it a work? Just as repentance is technically not a “work” of man, baptism is technically, according to Titus 3:4-7, not a work of man either! Baptism is a work of God! This leads us into the next section. But before that, one last word. If we are wrong in this, our error is putting too high a view on God and his work (and too low a view on our own work). If the Church of Christ is wrong on justification, your error is putting too low a view on Jesus (and too high a view on man’s work)! Comment?

    RT – It’s is good to see that you recognize that baptism is not a work of man, but it is a work of God. 

     
  • Ron Thomas 5:51 am on May 2, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: NET Bible   

    Online NET 

    A good online study Bible with incomparable notes is the NET Bible. I use it in my E-Sword all the time (perhaps it is in other Bible programs), but for those who have no access you might want to look at it and bookmark it. I have been using this for 10 years as a compliment to my regular study with the ESV and NKJV.

     
    • J. Randal Matheny 5:54 am on May 2, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      I’ve made it my main English version. People have commented how they like hearing it read when I speak.

      • Ron Thomas 6:15 am on May 2, 2012 Permalink | Reply

        I use the translation for comparison and clarification purposes, but mostly for the critical notes. I like it.

    • ELYSEE ALEXANDER 12:12 pm on May 3, 2012 Permalink | Reply

      DEAR BROTHEN I CHRIST,
      I M VERY SAD TO BEG YOUR PRAYER FOR THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IN ISABELITA,WHERE I ADMINISTRED WE HAVE MANY ECONOMIC PROBLEM WITH THE RENT HOUSE WORSHIP SERVICES . SO I T S SO PAY 210 PER MONTH,I DUE TO PAY TOGETHER 2 MONTHS IN FACT THE SAINT COLLECT CAN NOT SATISFACHED YET , I NEED ANY BROTHER PATENER TO WORK WITH THIS MINISTRY TOGETHER. AND I AVISE YOU MY FATHER BONUMET ALEXANDER IS DIED HE WAS BE PASTOR AT CHURCH OF CHRIST IN DESSALINES CITY OF HAITI .SO I WILL BE IN HAITI NEXT DAY FOR THAT. I BEG YUR PRAYER AND YOUR SUPPORT FOR MY TRIP IN HAITI .

  • Ron Thomas 5:00 am on May 2, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Kings 11 

    1. Jehu had completely purged two kings from authority over the totality of Israel. When Ahaziah was killed, his mother Athaliah took advantage of the opportunity given her to take the throne. For six years she reigned (11:1-3). When she took advantage of the opportunity, she thought she eradicated all threats to the throne, but she overlooked one. The High Priest, Jehoiada, took charge of watching over the young child (to be king), and at an appointed time declared his royal status (11:4-12).  Athaliah resists, but her resistance is futile (11:13-21).
    2. Application: The mother of the killed king, Athaliah, had sown the seed of her own destruction. It may have taken six years before the chickens came home to roost, but they did come home. Perhaps, during this time, she had ruled in a way that was pleasant, economic, and charitable; perhaps, as she looked at it, whatever evil she did, the people would forget and all would be well. The Lord did not forget, and neither did some of the people. Be sure your sin will find you out!
     
  • Ron Thomas 10:00 am on May 1, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    A Few Thoughts from Romans 

    Chapter 1 – The Scriptures teach that God has placed eternity in the heart of each person (Ecclesiastes 3:11). The ramifications of this may not be clearly understood, but as one looks at this chapter in Romans, there is an understanding that what can be known about God – apart from revelation – can be seen and, to some degree, understood from creation. If man had nothing else to go upon, he has this to consider: can something come from nothing? Since this is a logical and scientific impossibility (cf. Hebrews 11:3), why is it that he chooses to reject God? The answer also lies with the words of this chapter (1:21-23). More than this, however, there is also the importance of understanding that God created man in His own image; that is, He created him as a moral being with free will and with a spirit (Genesis 1:26-27). If you couple that with Ecclesiastes 3:11, what man can know (does know) is that there is a God and He will call people to account for the life each of us lived. Atheism, agnosticism, and any other “ism” that one accepts has to be taught to believe – it’s not natural.  Can we see why there is a need to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ?

     
  • Ron Thomas 5:00 am on May 1, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Kings 10 

    1. Jehu was determined to comply with the Lord’s wishes, and he now sets out to eradicate the king’s (Ahab’s) sons. This way there would no legitimate threat to the throne of Jehu (10:1-14). Moreover, Jehu was going to eradicate the false prophets from Israel. These false prophets, prophets of Baal, were leading the people as far away from the Lord as they could get. Jehu fixed this (10:17-28)! Jehu had some devotion to the Lord, but his devotion was corrupted (10:29-36).
    2. Application: It is hard on our ears to read what Jehu did to the prophets of Baal. One can only imagine that some were crying out for mercy, begging the assailant to spare life. A tender heart begins to waver at such thoughts. However, it is important to keep in mind what these false prophets were doing and where they were leading the nation – far more people died at the hands of this false religion than those who died in the temple complex. Though we don’t like to think about it, the way in which they died was more merciful than the “life” they were to “live” when in the Lord’s presence – from which they are going to be cast. With all the good that Jehu had done (10:30), why did he not live to please the Lord? The foundations instilled in youth are hard to shake!
     
  • Ron Thomas 5:00 am on April 29, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Kings 9 

    1. The nation Israel (northern kingdom) was in political disarray because their moral and spiritual compass was spinning every which way.  Joram was king over Israel, but the Lord had anointed a new king over Israel; his name was Jehu (9:1-13). With Jehu now the Lord’s chosen over the northern kingdom (Israel), he sets out to do exactly the bidding the prophet said for him to do (9:7-10). This was, most certainly, a bloody purging (9:14-37).
    2. Application: Be sure your sin will find you out, Moses said to the tribes who chose to live on the east side of the Jordan (Numbers 32:23). No matter the efforts or the lengths to which man will go, he can’t go far enough and he can’t expend enough effort and energy to out-distance the Lord. When I was growing up, a favorite acronym used wasCYB (though the letter B was not used, but a vowel was). I used it often; then I learned that the best thing to do was simply do the right thing; then no acronym would be needed. Israel and Judah were complaisant with one another, and it would be foolish to think they were not always looking behind them to be sure their tracks were covered and/or protected. In all this the Lord was forgotten. However, the Lord did not forget.
     
  • Ron Thomas 5:00 am on April 27, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Kings 8 

    1. Elisha’s work was, very much, noticed by the king. A famine on the land sent a woman and her son away for seven years; when she returned the king granted her request (8:1-6).  Elisha grants a request of him by the Syrian commander concerning the king’s health (8:7-15). Resuming the historical sequence, we are told of Jehoram reign over Judah. He was the son of the righteous king Jehoshaphat. Jehoram (also known as Joram) was an evil king; evil because of two things: his heart’s desire and his association with Ahab’s family (8:16-24). After his reign of eight years his son, Ahaziah, took the throne and reigned only one year. He, too, was an evil king (8:25-29).
    2. Application: Why is it that people fail to see that association with evil is only bad news? Surely they have been taught it to one degree or another, but still there is the association. Perhaps it has to do with what people consider to be evil. Jehoshaphat surely instilled in his family devotion to the Lord, but there came a diluted period of time where the term “devotion to the Lord” became a confused concept. Another reason is connected to one’s heart desire. The confused idea as to what is right is swirling in the brain, and when one adds to this his own inclinations, then a recipe for disaster is primed and ready to go!
     
  • Ron Thomas 5:00 am on April 26, 2012 Permalink | Reply
    Tags:   

    2 Kings 7 

    1. The king’s servant, with much disbelief, in fact did not live to see the “plunder” given to Israel. This chapter outlines how that all came about.
    2. Application: With much disbelief the king’s servant expressed himself. Of course, it is easy to understand how he could say what he did. Given human experience, his country’s deprivation, and the current circumstances of an enemy’s army just outside the door – what was he supposed to think? This might be expected when circumstances present themselves without a prophet of God. However, one was present and he had his credibility established by the Lord that any thoughtful, conscientious, and moderately religious person could see. His unbelief cost him his life.
     
c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,603 other followers