Have you noticed that there are a number of ways people choose to view the Bible?

• A collection of dead letters: It was written by men. There's nothing divine in it, and there's no reason I should be constrained by it.
• A checklist: It's basically a list of things not to do. If what I want to do is not there, I'm okay.
• A love letter: It has some interesting principles and the odd command meant for people back when it was written, but God didn't intend it as my pattern for life.
• A legal code: It's composed of laws, but laws have loopholes. If I'm clever enough, I can manipulate it to endorse whatever I want to do.
• A revelation: It's God's will for man. It's the only way to see His Way. We must strictly hold to both the letter and the spirit of God's commands in it. We must apply it and live by its principles to be pleasing to God.

Can you think of any other ways people view the Bible?

Q: In Acts 10:2, Cornelius is described as "one who feared God." What does this mean?

A: This is actually not so much a description of his character as a technical term. The phrase "God fearer" (or something similar) is used many times in Acts. It is a term applied to a Gentile who worshiped Jehovah,but who had not (yet) been circumcised and become a full Jewish proselyte.

I'm in the process of teaching an introductory class on apologetics here in Charlotte. As always, I warn anyone who's interested that I have a voice made for hypertext (not to mention the "uhs" and "ums," the occasional coughing, etc.; it's just painful for me to listen to recordings of myself). But, if you're interested...

My first class was an introduction to the idea of apologetics. You can find the audio and the Powerpoint presentation below.

Link to the audio for lesson 1

Link to the Powerpoint for lesson 1

Let me know if you'd be interested in any of the rest.

A handful of men from the church here had a recent Bible study on multiple offerings of the Lord's Supper. The following are my notes from the study; I hope they're presented in a coherent and cogent way.

• The assembly was when the church met together on the first day to take the Lord’s Supper. Instead of taking the Lord’s Supper when they met together, they met together to take the Lord’s Supper; that is to say, their purpose for meeting on the Lord’s Day was to eat it. The Lord’s Supper is thus inherently congregational in nature, though it has an individual component (I Corinthians 11:18-20; Acts 20:7). This seems to me to be the core point of disagreement.
• There is only one Biblical record of some members of a church taking the Lord’s Supper at one time and others at another. In that instance, they were condemned and told to wait for each other (I Corinthians 11:18-22, 33). While it isn't exactly the same situation since there was more error than just that going on, it's difficult to argue not waiting on each other is allowed given this passage.
• There is no Biblical statement, command, approved example, or necessary implication supporting multiple offerings of the Lord’s Supper. Perhaps this is the point that should give us the most pause.
• Multiple offerings of the Lord’s Supper are a relatively recent innovation. While this does not necessarily mean they're wrong, it does mean they should be examined closely. They are alleged to have begun in mill towns where one shift would be unable to take it in the morning and another would be unable to take it in the evening. This may be an urban legend, however; I’ve never been able to substantiate this beyond a second-hand statement attributed to Leslie Diestelkamp. Tradition absent authorization does not justify.
• The Lord’s Supper is not a buffet. We no more “deny” someone the opportunity to take the Lord’s Supper by taking it once congregationally on Sunday than we do by not offering it during Bible classes (or even when the church is not assembled). The principle of only offering it at two services is no different than offering it at one; if one is condemned on the basis of denying someone, so is the other.
• The Lord’s Supper is not the Passover. While they share similarities, they are not equivalent. Scripture says that Jesus, not the Lord’s Supper, is our Passover (I Corinthians 5:7). Also, while God specified a “make-up” time for the Passover (Numbers 9:6-14), He made no such allowance in the New Testament. If any conclusion be drawn from the parallel, it is that the lack of such revelation indicates prohibition, not approval. Personally, I don't feel there's anything either way from this example, though, since the Supper is not the New Testament version of the Passover.
• The Lord’s Supper is not a sacrament. It’s not a ritual in which we receive grace from God. It’s not a “right” or a “privilege.” It’s a memorial. One does not sin if one is unable to take it with the church. One does not miss out on some special grace if one is unable to take it with the church. These are concepts that originate in denominations, not the Lord’s church.
• The sole way of taking the Lord’s Supper that we can be certain fulfills the Biblical example, does not cause difficulty between reasonable brethren, and does not cause anyone to violate their conscience is for the church to meet together once on Sunday at a time when everyone can regularly make it to take the Lord’s Supper. Anything else depends on supposition, assumption, and presumption and can unnecessarily invite division.

Most of us have probably heard teaching on the sin of "covetousness." But have we ever stopped to think about what covetousness really is?

There are seven different Greek words used in the New Testament that are translated to forms of "covet" in the King James Version. Jesus addressed one of them in Luke 12.

Did you catch that? When I think of covetousness, I think of passages like Exodus 20:17 and Acts 20:33. I think of covetousness as wanting what belongs to someone else. Covetousness is wanting what we don't already have, right?

Read those verses again. Jesus is responding to a man who just wants his share of the inheritance. He just wants what's his. Isn't that understandable? And the parable talks the rich man maximizing his crops, as well as his plans to store it. To us, that sounds like good stewardship. Why was what they did wrong?

It's that last statement of the rich man that gets him: "... take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry." Apparently that was the attitude of the disciple to whom Jesus responded. Their first priority was worldly things. The Messiah was there, but all the disciple could think of was getting Him to divide a little money or property. The rich man was blessed beyond measure, but his wealth came to be his undoing; he believed that he was prepared for whatever came his way.

Covetousness can be trust in what's already ours. Covetousness can be wanting what we're rightfully due. That's why Paul equated covetousness with idolatry in Colossians 3:5. When we start living for goods instead of God, we're idolaters. Do you think we should learn to get by with a little less?

Romans 14 has come to be one of the most misunderstood and misused chapters in Scripture. Some today take it to authorize smoothing over any doctrinal difference, from instrumental music to baptism to even homosexuality. They call this wrenching of the passage "grace." When paired with its sister passage I Corinthians 8, however, its true meaning becomes clear - and that meaning is not what my friends on the theological left infer.

First, note that these passages speak only to matters where God is indifferent. They do not apply in matters where there is a clear command from God. Note what Paul writes in v. 14: "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean."  In context, what he's saying is, unlike the Old Law, no meats are unclean under the Law of Christ; thus, whether one eats or not is a matter of indifference to God.

Practically, if there's no agreement between the two disputants that God is indifferent to the matter at the heart of their disagreement, there's no point in running to Romans 14. If I believe X is sin and you believe it isn't, trying to browbeat me with this passage only distracts from the central question: Is X sin or not? Resolve the question of what God's will is and you resolve the problem.

Second, note that these passages refer to individual action, not collective. The eating of meats was a personal action, not one done by the church collective (v. 2-4).

This is important - crucial, even - because many of the issues incorrectly shoehorned into Romans 14 are matters of collective action. Trying to impose Romans 14 on collective action results in the supposed weaker brother facing a choice between violation of his conscience or leaving the congregation. Is unity so important to some that they'd force their brother to sin in order to have it? It certainly seems that way to me.

What is Paul's main point in these passages? It's about priorities. Your brother is more important than your preference. Paul said that he would gladly give up his preference to retain his brother (I Corinthians 8:13), and this is what he enjoins Christians to do as well (Romans 14:13, 15,  20-21; I Corinthians 8:9-13). When we use Romans 14 as a club to force what we see as a preference on others contrary to their conscience, we cause either sin or division. "Go along with me or leave" is the practical result of such doctrine, and the exact opposite of Paul's intent in these passages.