Weylan Deaver

How God Sees Bad News

Posted on June 5, 2012 by Weylan Deaver

By Kerry Duke

We hear a lot of bad news. War. Rape. Child abuse. Drug abuse. Sexual immorality. Perversion. Theft. Corruption. The information age of television, radio, newspapers, and the internet brings the world’s evils into our homes and lays them in our lap.

When people tell us about these evils, we feel overwhelmed and depressed. The weight of hearing about all these problems constantly is almost more than our minds can bear. When men talk about these troubles, we get the news, but no hope.

When we read the Bible we find the same dark side of man. The Bible does not avoid subjects that are shocking. It records many of the atrocities we hear from the media. We only read a few pages of the Bible until we read a case of murder in a family. A couple of chapters later corruption was so bad and so widespread that God destroyed the earth with a flood. In the chapters that follow we read about drunkenness, homosexuality, attempted rape, and incest. In the remainder of the Old Testament we see accounts of child sacrifice, mutilation, bestiality, and sorcery. The Author of the Bible is very open about the evil side of mankind. Our world has been in a mess since Adam and Eve sinned.

But there is something different about reading these verses in the Bible. It records many of the same atrocities we hear on the news, but you don’t feel depressed when you read them. You don’t feel anxious and insecure. You don’t feel overwhelmed. How can this be when the Bible and media mention the same troubles?

You might say the difference is that the Bible talks about these sins in a dignified and tactful way whereas the media presents them in an overly explicit and even embarrassing way. This is a point to consider. The Bible speaks of some of the most private and even disgusting subjects without being offensive. But there is something else.

When you read the Bible accounts of these evils you cannot help but be impressed with the calmness and brevity with which the Author describes them. There is remarkable composure in the One who talks about these situations. You get the distinct idea that the One who wrote this book is in control. Even when the men who wrote the Bible were alarmed, the God who inspired them was not. The Scriptures present some of the worst things people can do, but they do so with a composure that is unmistakable. Reading about horrific crimes in the Bible does not leave us feeling distressed and overburdened because God is in control and already knows how all things will turn out in the end.

It is not that God is unconcerned about these evils when He talks about them. He hates them. But He does not speak as if He is the least bit uncertain about their outcome. The overall tone is matter of fact and marked by great restraint.

It is astonishing that man and God talk about the same things from such completely different perspectives. Man’s presentation of bad news offers no solution and extends no hope. When God talks about these things, He does so with authority. Even when we read about the darkest side of mankind in the Bible, we come away with peace and assurance because we are listening to the Creator talk about it.

This may not be a proof of the inspiration of the Bible, but it is at least a consequence of it and may point in that direction. It is certainly why we should listen to the news less and read the Bible more.

(Kerry serves as minister for the West End church of Christ in Livingston, Tennessee, and as Dean of Tennessee Bible College).

World Religions

The Tooth Will Set You Free?

Posted on May 2, 2012September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

Siddhartha Gautama (566-486 B.C.) was cremated at death, leaving behind (it is believed) a few teeth which have become religious relics, housed in fabulous temples in the Sri Lankan city of Kandy and the Chinese capital of Beijing. In 2011 the Lingguang Temple in Beijing lent a tooth to the nation of Myanmar (which it had also done in 1955, 1994 and 1996), escorted by “venerable monks” for forty-eight days of “public obeisance.” Before it traveled to Myanmar, the head of China’s State Administration for Religious Affairs attended a religious service for the tooth.

Why such a big ado over so small a thing? Gautama is otherwise known as the Buddha (meaning the “enlightened one”), who founded a religion that now encompasses 350 million worldwide.

A few years ago Beijing lent their tooth to Thailand. On its way to the Royal Air Force Airport in Bangkok, thousands of Thai Buddhists lined the route for a final glimpse of the sacred enamel relic. Pomp was in no short supply, as the tooth was ceremoniously driven in a decorated truck, the tooth itself resting in a miniature pagoda surrounded by bulletproof glass.

In fairness to Buddha, he had no say in his tooth’s becoming an object of veneration for his followers, since it happened after he died and the tooth was lifted from his ashy remains. But that is just the point: there are earthly remains of Buddha. He was nothing more than a mortal man with a host of uninspired ideas. He died and, apparently, some of him is still with us today. His influence is definitely still here, evidenced by millions ensconced in a morass of beliefs about karma, reincarnation, and a denial of the God of the Bible.

If that is Buddhism’s pedigree, Islam is the same song, second verse. Mohammad was born in Mecca c. A.D. 570, over 500 years after the establishment of the church of Christ in Jerusalem (Buddha’s rescued teeth would have been over 1,000 years old when Mohammad arrived). He borrowed from the Bible, mixed it with his own uninspired musings until it bore no resemblance to Scripture, and foisted it on the world in a book called the Koran. Thanks to his efforts, about a billion people today pray to Allah and call Mohammad his prophet. The alleged prophet died in A.D. 632 and was buried in Medina, where his tomb is now the second most revered place of worship for Muslims. Mohammad died. He was buried. He stayed buried. Thus two of the world’s major religions trace back to Buddha and Mohammad — two mere men whose mortality caught up with them, and whose remains are with us to this day.

Contrast that with the empty tomb of Jesus the Christ, the founder of Christianity. True, for a few hours he was buried in a Jerusalem tomb. But there is no coffin containing his bones, around which the faithful can gather to worship. There is no tooth of Jesus coming to a museum near you. Why? Because Jesus came up from the grave, just as he predicted, leaving a tomb whose unique claim to fame was its emptiness.

The Bible says, “For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power” (1 Cor. 4:20). Buddhism did not have the power to resurrect Gautama. Nor did Islam have the power to give Mohammad immortality. But the God of Christianity had ample power to call his Son from death to life and give him a kingdom unlike anything seen before or since. Only the misguided enmesh themselves in religions devoid of power — religions that worship 2,500 year old teeth or exalt ancient burial sites. Jesus is the only founder of a religion who verified his doctrine with genuine miracles and who left an empty tomb in his wake. And he said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6).

General

The Most Important Factor

Posted on February 28, 2012September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

By Roy C. Deaver (1922-2007)

If there is a life after this life — and there is; and if there is a judgment to come — and there is; and if every accountable person shall stand in judgment before the Christ — and each shall; and if this life is given us that we may prepare for the life to come — and this is the case; and if the Bible is our only and all-sufficient guide in making preparation for the judgment, and for the life to come — and it is; then, it has to be the case that a knowledge of the Bible is the most important factor in the life and education of an individual.

(Excerpted from the Introduction to Deaver’s book, How To Study the Bible, p. ix).

Christianity and Culture, Church and State

A Preacher’s Perspective on the President

Posted on February 20, 2012September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

Much criticism has been leveled at Mr. Obama over his apparent continual conflict with the U.S. Constitution (shouldn’t he be the last person at odds with that document?). Others can articulate valid concerns about our current government’s shortcomings and failures. My perspective is that of a man who stands every Sunday in front of a congregation of the church of Christ to present sermons which, first and foremost, must be in harmony with the Bible. On that basis, I offer these words. Mr. President, in a way, you actually make my job harder. Hypocrisy is never helpful in converting souls to the gospel, and, when it comes to being a Christian, your claim does not square with your conduct. You stand in favor of so many things I am duty bound, based on the Bible, to oppose. Thanks to you, and voices like yours, I have to spend time in the pulpit dealing with matters like homosexuality and abortion. You have done all in your power to bring such morally repugnant themes to the forefront of society in an effort to force their acceptance and protection. Thus, my children, and other young people, must grow up hearing lessons about what’s wrong with “gay marriage,” or the wanton killing of unborn babies, or why two women having sex is sinful. Other subjects would be more pleasant, but you help make unavoidable the vilest of topics. Your moral confusion is inexcusable in light of the clarity with which God’s word addresses the issues. At one time, you tried to make a point that people have not been reading their Bibles. Have you looked in the mirror? Increasingly, thanks to you and your allies, I must preach a message more and more at odds with a culture adrift from any objective standard of behavior. Mr. President, it seems the right to freely practice biblical teaching is not as dear to you as it is to others. That is plain from your effort to force people to fund what goes against their religious convictions, all in the name of “health care” (e.g. contraceptives, abortifacients). Surely, this fosters a growing disrespect for the office you hold and the laws of our land, making honest citizens feel like they–by no bad behavior of theirs–may still be made into criminals for refusing to violate their own conscience. You may think the pulpit needs to stay out of politics, but in fact, Mr. President, when you venture into moral issues addressed in the Bible, you have strayed from politics onto my turf. We were both born in the 1960’s, but who could have imagined we would see our country entertaining debate on whether men should marry men, and whether the unborn should have a right not to be killed? Even were I to agree with you on every other policy, I could not support you, based solely on moral grounds. I regret we are so opposed, and will pray your influence is minimal. You are my president, but greater allegiance I owe to my King.

Christian Living, Old Testament

From Believer to Rebel

Posted on February 8, 2012September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

Having been mercifully delivered from Egyptian slavery, Israel hurriedly followed up with complaining at Rephidim for lack of water (Exodus 17:1-7). God instructed Moses to take his staff and strike the rock at Horeb, from which water would then flow. Moses obeyed. God sent water. Moses named the place “Massah” and “Meribah” after the people’s quarreling with and testing of the Lord.

Flash forward forty years. Israel has yet to enter Canaan, but the wilderness wandering is nearing its end. They are back at Kadesh (where the ten spies had given their negative report so many years ago). With a chance to make a better showing than their predecessors, the new generation of Israelites, instead, shows themselves cut from the same cantakerous cloth as their forebears (Numbers 20:1-13). They complain for lack of water. God instructs Moses to take the staff, but, this time, speak to the rock, after which water would flow. Instead of talking to the rock, Moses talks to the people and then strikes the rock. Twice. God still sends water, but accuses Moses of both disbelief (v. 12) and rebellion (v. 24).

The two scenarios, separated by four decades, were nearly identical, with Moses at the center of each. The people had not changed, but the directions God gave Moses had. If some of us do not think it matters much, maybe we should ask Moses. Consider three significant truths.

First, the same act can be obedience one time, but rebellion the next. When Moses struck the rock in Exodus 17:6, he was obedient. When Moses struck the rock in Numbers 20:11 he was rebellious. Incredible? Not if we are duly impressed that God means what he says. After all, God is not obligated, once having provided water, to provide it again in exactly the same way.

Second, historic divine precedent does not necessarily establish present divine approval. Think of it. When God accused Moses of rebellion at Kadesh, Moses could have replied, “Lord, I simply followed the instructions you gave me last time around.” Moses could claim divine precedent for his actions at Kadesh. After all, God had told him at Rephidim to strike the rock. But past instruction from God is not normative if it differs with present instruction from God. In his lifetime, regarding what to do about a rock, Moses received differing instructions from God. How much more, then, should we appreciate the difference that obtains between the Old Testament and the New Testament?

Third, God tested Israel and Moses, and God will test us. “And you shall remember the whole way that the LORD your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness, that he might humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep his commandments or not” (Deuteronomy 8:2, ESV). Part of the reason for divine instruction is to weed out those who refuse to keep it.

Consider a growing trend among some churches of Christ to use instrumental music during worship. No precedent can be found in the worship of the church during the first century. But, how many times is an appeal made to the Old Testament in an effort to establish divine precedent for musical instruments in New Testament worship (e.g. Psalm 150)? According to the rationale, we are supposed to think that, if God had it back then, then surely he would not object to having it today.

Yet, that is precisely where we can learn a lesson from Moses. Remember, the same act can be obedience one time, but rebellion the next. God told Israel he tested them to see whether or not they would actually keep his commandments. And remember, historic divine precedent does not necessarily establish present divine approval. The Old Testament has many elements which, were they brought into the church’s worship, would be sinful. If these are not legitimate lessons taught by what Moses did, then, pray tell, what can we possibly learn from the accounts (don’t forget Romans 15:4)?

Moses followed a God-given precedent at Kadesh when he struck the rock. The problem was, the old precedent from Rephidim (strike the rock) had been superceded by new instruction at Kadesh (speak to the rock). Failure to comply with the new made Moses–on that occasion–an unbelieving rebel. Question: What does it make Christians who refuse to abide solely by New Testament instruction? While the gospel of Christ does not tell us to worship by playing on any manmade musical instruments, it does tell us to speak to each other in psalms, hymns, spiritual songs (Ephesians 5:19). Ponder that point. When he failed to simply speak to the rock, Moses was in rebellion. Perhaps many in Moses’ day would have considered it a non-issue whether Moses struck or spoke to a rock. Doubtless many today consider a piano in worship a non-issue. But the tenor of Scripture indicates otherwise. Nor is the Bible shy of reminding that “our God is a consuming fire,” into whose hands “it is a fearful thing to fall” (Hebrews 12:29; 10:31).

Animal Rights, Christianity and Culture

What the Bible Says About Animals

Posted on January 30, 2012September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

“For every beast of the forest is mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the birds of the hills, and all that moves in the field is mine” (Psalm 50:10-11, ESV). Though every right perspective on creation begins with the Creator, we live in a strange world where views are skewed and confusion reigns in the minds of well-meaning people who have abandoned God’s word and embraced beliefs and causes contrary to it. Money, energy, and ink are spent advocating “animal rights.” What is the Bible’s perspective on animals?

First, animals are for man’s COMMANDING. All the way back to the beginning, God gave a mandate to mankind to subdue and dominate the earth, including its animal inhabitants (Gen. 1:28). It was never repealed, has not expired, and was not instituted with a sunset provision. God did not say to put animals on a pedestal. He did not task man with preserving, at all cost, every species or sub-species of every animal. Rather, God told man to launch out, explore and command the creation entrusted to him. Man has been doing it ever since.

Second, animals are for man’s CLOTHING. The very first articles of clothing fashioned from animal hides were made by God himself to cover Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:21). There is no better precedent than that. Figuratively speaking of his people as a young bride, God talks of clothing her “with fine leather” (Eze. 16:10). John wore a garment of camel hair, as well as a leather belt (Mark 1:6). Clearly, God gave people the right to wear hides, wool, fur, or hair from animals.

Third, animals are for man’s CONSUMPTION. God stated it plainly, “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you” (Gen. 9:3). While vegetarianism is an option (cf. 1 Cor. 8:13), no one has the right to insist that meat-eating is wrong (see also Acts 10:10-13; 1 Cor. 10:25).

Fourth, animals are for man’s COMMERCE. As Jesus asked, “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny?” (Matt. 10:29). Having dominion over animals certainly includes the domestication of livestock. If God intended animals to be un-eaten, un-worn, un-owned, unused, then he would have told man to simply leave them all untouched and in the wild. But that is precisely the opposite of God’s directive. Man does have the right to buy, sell and trade animals for his own use and profit.

Fifth, animals are for man’s COMPANIONSHIP. Once a Gentile mother begged Jesus to heal her daughter (Mark 7:26-28). He told her it was not right to give dogs food that belonged to children. The woman replied that “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” Obviously, any dogs under a table where children were eating would be tame. There is no sin in owning a pet dog, cat, rabbit, snake, etc. One parable even spoke of a man so fond of his pet sheep that it lived with his children, drank from his cup, and was “like a daughter to him” (2 Sam. 12:3).

Sixth, animals are for man’s CONSIDERATION. After all, how a man treats an animal does say something about the man. Moses’ law stipulated, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain” (Deut. 25:4; cf. also Ex. 23:4-5). Allowing a work animal to eat a little of his work is simply a kind consideration. Interestingly, that verse is twice quoted in the New Testament (1 Cor. 9:9; 1 Tim. 5:18). Solomon wrote, “Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel” (Prov. 12:10). A righteous heart is not a cruel heart. Using animals in God-approved ways does not make a man cruel. Even medical experiments for the good of people, which carry out trials on animals, are not done from a motive of cruelty. Nor is sport fishing or sport hunting done from a motive of cruelty. But animals are not people, and people are supposed to know they are not animals.

With rights come obligations. Animals have no obligations; they live by instinct, exactly as God made them to do. Thus, animals have no rights. Men have both rights and obligations, and some of those rights and obligations have to do with animals. As people created in God’s own image (Gen. 1:27), there is a tremendous qualitative difference between us and any animals. As Jesus put it, “Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows” (Matt. 10:31).

General

“No Matter What…God Is Not Mad At You!”

Posted on November 22, 2011 by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

I saw a bumper sticker that read, “No Matter What…God Is Not Mad At You!” I couldn’t help but think that someone has a misconception about the nature of God. Now, it is true that God does not get mad like men often do, by losing his temper, becoming flustered, turning red in the face. In the heat of an angry moment, many a man has done a thing he later regretted. God does not do that. God is always in complete control, always takes the right action, always acts in harmony with his infinite nature. If God were ever to get angry, it would be a perfect anger, for just reasons, executed in a perfect way. God does not throw temper tantrums. But, is it possible for God to be mad? A quick word search reveals that the phrase, “anger of the Lord” occurs 36 times in the Old Testament. The similarly worded “wrath of the Lord” is found 14 times in the Old Testament. In the first person, God speaks of “my wrath” 44 times and “my anger” 31 times in the Bible. Speaking of God’s anger in the third person, “his wrath” occurs 20 times. “Wrath of God” occurs 11 times in the New Testament. In Jeremiah 49:37, God even refers to “my fierce anger.” Doubtless there are other passages that express the same idea, though worded differently. Surely this is enough for us to understand there is such a thing as divine anger at a man or mankind. Many want to perceive God as a grandfatherly figure in the sky who is rather harmless and doesn’t have the will to mete out genuine punishment which lasts for eternity. They think like that, not because the Bible teaches it, but because they do not know what the Bible teaches. The New Testament puts us on guard against such delusions. Every right-thinking man wants to “avoid God’s wrath” (cf. Romans 13:5), and living every day as a Christian is the only way to do so. “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:31), “for our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29). The true God both commands and deserves our utmost respect.

Debates, Reviews

Two Mints In One

Posted on October 31, 2011September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

At the recently concluded Deaver-Vick Debate in Indianapolis (October 2011, archived here), Mac Deaver affirmed: “The Scriptures teach that when a person becomes a Christian he is baptized in water and in the Holy Spirit.” Deaver made the case for a single baptism, consisting of two elements, in harmony with Jesus’ statement in John 3:5 that kingdom entry is on the basis of being “born of water and the Spirit.”

Listeners to the debate repeatedly heard Ben Vick belittle Deaver’s position with an appeal to an old slogan for Certs breath mints: “Two, two, two mints in one!” One might think that a discussion centering on the Holy Spirit—a person of the Godhead—might be treated with more dignity than afforded by a Certs commercial. But brother Vick thought it appropriate. In fact, on the final evening, he even began his first negative speech by trying to play a video clip of a real Certs commercial. To some, the embarrassment of his effort was compounded by his technical problems in getting the clip to play before the audience (Vick even called for his time to be held while his helper tried to get the situation sorted on his computer). Finally, the audience got to see the clip play and hear the Certs catchphrase: “Two mints in one!”

What was the point? Well, brother Vick’s accusation was that Deaver was trying to do the impossible by taking immersion in water and immersion in Spirit and combining them into a single baptism. So, Vick made a joke out of it by repeating the Certs expression. This, in spite of the fact Deaver proved that Scripture speaks of two bodies becoming one body (1 Cor. 6:16), and of two spirits becoming one spirit (1 Cor. 6:17). Therefore, there is biblical precedent, with inspired language indicating that a plurality can form a singularity. And, if God talks about it that way, who are we to contradict him? A baptism in the physical element of water and the metaphysical element of Holy Spirit can be called “one baptism” in Ephesians 4:5, resulting in a person’s being “born of water and Spirit.” But Deaver’s point (along with many others) seemed completely lost on Vick, who continued to make light of the concept that two could really be one.

Which leads to this interesting question. What if the Certs commercial were turned back on brother Vick, and he were asked this question: “True or False: An individual Cert is a single mint.” What would Vick say? He could not answer “false” without showing himself ridiculous. But, he could not answer “true” without seeming to admit the very premise he fought so hard against (i.e. that two elements could be combined in one event). How thick the irony, that brother Vick’s slogan, designed to disparage Deaver’s position, should, in reality, go to demonstrate the very point Deaver was making.

Two mints in one? Absolutely.

Announcements, Debates

Preview: Deaver-Vick Debate, Indianapolis

Posted on October 18, 2011September 24, 2020 by Weylan Deaver

By Weylan Deaver

A public, four night debate will take place October 24-27, 2011 in Indianapolis, Indiana between Mac Deaver and Ben F. Vick, Jr., beginning at 7:00 p.m. (Eastern) each evening. The debate is set to occur at the building of the Shelbyville Road church of Christ (4915 Shelbyville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46237).

Ben Vick is a graduate of Georgia Christian School (1970), Harding College (1974), and the Memphis School of Preaching (1976). He has worked with churches in Arkansas and Indiana, and also taught at the Jefferson Christian Academy in Birmingham, Alabama. Since 1980, he has preached for the Shelbyville Road church of Christ in Indianapolis, where he also serves as an elder.

Mac Deaver graduated from Fort Worth Christian Academy in 1965, going on to receive an A.A. degree in Bible from Fort Worth Christian College; a diploma from Brown Trail School of Preaching; a B.A. degree in Bible from Oklahoma Christian College; an M.A. degree in Philosophy of Religion and Christian Doctrine from Harding Graduate School of Religion; a Ph.D. in Christian Doctrine and Apologetics from Tennessee Bible College. He has worked with churches in Texas, Tennessee, Alabama, and Oklahoma. In addition, he has taught on the faculties of the Brown Trail Preacher Training School, Tennessee Bible College, and the Southwest School of Bible Studies. Currently, he preaches for the church of Christ in Sheffield, Texas, where he also serves as an elder.

The proposition for October 24-25 is: “The Scriptures teach that Holy Spirit baptism has ceased and is no longer in the church today.” Ben Vick will affirm. Mac Deaver will deny.

The proposition for October 26-27 is: “The Scriptures teach that when a person becomes a Christian he is baptized in water and in the Holy Spirit.” Mac Deaver will affirm. Ben Vick will deny.

Many, unable to attend in person, are already planning to watch the event live online at this link.

I will be serving as Deaver’s moderator. Follow @WDeaver on Twitter for pics and updates from Indianapolis (or, see the Twitter updates on my blog).

The discussion should be most interesting, revealing, and even historic, since—at least to this writer’s knowledge—there has never been a public debate between two preachers in the church of Christ on this topic. Let us pray for the truth to shine and God to be glorified.

General

Test All Things

Posted on October 17, 2011October 17, 2011 by Weylan Deaver

By Charles Ivie

“Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Such a familiar verse, but do we really always obey this command? Or do we simply accept, as having already been tested, many statements by well-known brethren from the past? Acceptance of any view, simply because it was set forth by a respected brother, is very dangerous to the Lord’s church. This is the very attitude that has furthered denominationalism.

Let us consider two passages that have been lightly considered in the past. It is not my purpose to bring reproach upon anyone, nor to impugn the motives of those advancing the false views. My purpose is to point out how carelessly some views have been accepted as fact. There are other passages that could be used, but these will suffice.

1 Peter 4:11, “If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. If anyone ministers, let him do it as with the ability which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.” This verse is often used to teach we must speak according to God’s word. Certainly, there is no problem with this idea. We are commanded to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15); God’s word is truth (John 17:17). We also are not to follow empty deceit or traditions of men, but to follow Christ (Colossians 2:8). However, is this the idea Peter is putting forth in 1 Peter 4:11? The context shows that it is not. If one speaks by the power of God, he is to give God the credit. Herod did not and died of worms (Acts 12:21-23). If one ministers, he is to recognize it is of God’s ability, thereby glorifying God.

Ephesians 2:10, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” This passage is often used to show that we, as Christians, are to do good works. It is true that we are to do good works. We are commanded to walk worthy of our calling (Ephesians 4:1). But, is this the idea being taught in Ephesians 2:10? Paul was inspired to use the Greek word “epi,” which is translated for or unto in the phrase for good works. This word basically means: upon, or on the basis of. Therefore, we understand that we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:17), on the basis of good works (continued obedience to the gospel, Romans 2:7,8).

These ideas are mentioned, not to spark controversy, but to point out that our first understanding of a passage is not always the correct one. Part of the problem in understanding the Holy Spirit issue is the acceptance of well-known views as truth. Faithful Bible students have misunderstood (and others will misunderstand) verses of God’s word. Therefore, let us be diligent to “test all things,” no matter who speaks them.