Having in the first lesson dispensed with the idea that we can depend upon any human authority to establish the truthfulness of any religious practice or belief, we are thus only left with the Word of God as the final authority. POINTS TO NOTE: (1) Seeing that God is our Creator, that gives God the moral right to tell us what is right and wrong (Ecc. 12:1). (2) Seeing that God is completely free from sin (1 John 1:5) and we are not (Romans 3:23), that gives God the right to be in charge. In fact, our imperfections should convince us that any "authority" for the final answers must come outside of mankind (Isaiah 55:8-9; Proverbs 16:25). (3) Seeing that God is infinite in His wisdom and that we are very limited (1 Cor. 2:11), that gives God the right to do the speaking and we the listening. (4) Such wisdom is found in the Bible (1 Cor. 2:9-13; Eph. 3:3-4; John 16:13), which means this is the only book in which we can place our complete confidence--as did Jesus (Matthew 4:4 'It is written'; John 10:35 'and the Scripture cannot be broken'). But as always people, even supposed religious people have tried to undermine our confidence in God's Word.

I. You Can Understand The Bible:

The clarity of the Bible has come under attack, even from people close to home. One speaker among institutional churches said, 'whoever wrote this tract, "Can We All Understand The Bible Alike?", the answer is, of course, we can. Forgive me, that's just an ignorant view. It's just ignorant.' (Behold The Pattern p. 229). That 'ignorant' view is the commanded view (1 Cor. 1:10; Eph. 5:17). Gene Frost aptly wrote, 'After all, God, who made us, knows us and is able to communicate to us. To assume otherwise is to indict God, and denies either His deity or His love and mercy. If God could not make Himself understood, then we must question if He is the omnipotent and omniscient God He reveals Himself to be. Or, if He could, but would not give us clear communication, then we must question His love and mercy in refusing to provide us what we desperately need.' (Gospel Anchor. June 1990 p. 147) POINTS TO NOTE: (1) Jesus held this 'ignorant' view (John 5:46; 17:20-21; Matthew 22:31 '..have you not read?'..) (2) Paul held this 'ignorant' view (Ephesians 3:4 '..when you read you can understand MY INSIGHT'..i.e. we can see eye to eye on this. (3) John held this 'ignorant' view, for John spoke of knowing the truth (John 8:32); and abiding in the truth (2 John 9).

The only way that each individual could ever be considered accountable to God (Acts 17:30) is that God believes each one of us can understand what He has said.

II. Every Command Is Important:

But here again we are being told something different. Rubel Shelly argues 'Beyond the foundation matters which will be identified later in this volume from Ephesians 4, there is a broad ground where we can be charitable as brethren and hold our differing views..if one's unfaithfulness relates to difficult ethical issues, church government, or worship..fellowship may be maintained indefinitely..My suggestion is that only such terms as pertain directly to the seven ones of Ephesians 4:4-6 are of such nature as to qualify as issues of faith..' (Behold The Pattern pp. 275-276). POINTS TO NOTE: (1) Mr. Shelly has forgotten a number of "foundational" matters: (a) Every command given is important, because every command is an expression of the will of God, even commands in reference to the "order" in worship services (1 Cor. 14:37), and financially supporting one's family (1 Tim. 5:8). (b) Obedience to any command is a manifestation of our love for God (Matthew 22:36-38; John 14:15). Therefore the neglect of any command is serious. (c) Ephesians 4:4-6 is much more than just seven things, in fact every command given in the New Testament ties into these verses, esp. in light of the fact that Paul mentions 'one faith' (4:5), i.e. one system of belief, and 'one Lord', in reference to whose commands we must be in subjection. (2) The above argument is actually the old denominational argument that there are only a limited number of truths that we have to believe in order to have fellowship with each other. Unfortunately, many preachers have pointed out that the denominational world is divided over every 'one' in Ephesians 4:4-6. In like manner, Shelly ends up contradicting himself. In reference to baptism (one of the 'ones' in Ephesians 4:4-6) he states, 'I see no reason to think one has to understand "for the remission of sins" in order to be baptized scripturally, for I do not think there is one right reason for being baptized..' (Behold The Pattern p. 277) But such isn't the true biblical teaching concerning baptism (Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21). (3) Maurice Barnett noted, 'The authority of God stands behind every law. The same God that made one law made every other one as well. So, to violate one law makes one guilty of violating all. This is what James 2:10-11 says: "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty all. For He who said, 'Do not commit adultery', ALSO SAID...'"' (Understanding Bible Authority. p. 2)

III. The Bible Is A Pattern:

And up to a point every religious person agrees with the above truth. For most denominations believe that Ephesians 2:8-9 is still a pattern concerning matters of salvation and God's pattern concerning husbands and wives is still the pattern in our time (Eph. 5:22ff). If not, why are such passages read at weddings?

The concept that the New Testament contains a pattern for the Church in all generations is rooted in the following truths: (1) What Jesus taught one generation was to be exactly taught to the next (Matthew 28:20; 2 Tim. 2:2). (2) The teachings of the apostles were to be faithfully preserved (2 Timothy 1:13-14; 3:10,14). (3) Second and third generation Christians were still expected to abide in God's commandments (1 John 2:3). (4) Time doesn't change the truth (Revelation 21:8). (5) Culture doesn't change the truth (1 Cor. 6:9-10). (6) Adding to the Word is condemned (Revelation 22:18-19). (7) God's revelation is final and complete (Jude 3). (8) All congregations were accountable to the same standard (1 Cor. 4:17; 2 Peter 3:2). (9) The Bible is a book of patterns: Patterns of conversion, the eldership, raising children, husbands and wives, the deity of Christ, the nature of God, consequences of disobedience (1 Cor. 10:1-11; 2 Peter 2:4-9), in fact every doctrine in the Bible is a "pattern". The very fact that a preacher can stand up and preach on a subject, drawing verses from many places in the Bible is "proof" that a consistent pattern exists or any biblical doctrine.

But it is being argued that the bible doesn't contain a pattern, Max Lucado stated, 'I have a gut feeling that we (the Church of Christ) have approached the Bible as engineers, looking for a certain design or architectural code. And I think we find that everyone finds a different code.' (Behold The Pattern p. 114) POINTS TO NOTE: (1) But everyone does follow a pattern. The above man is the same individual who joins the Christmas services (human pattern) at the local Catholic Church in town (p. 117), and contributes to a denominational book celebrating the human tradition of Easter (p. 125). These men who accuse the Church of Christ as being in the rut of tradition, seem to have no problem embracing human traditions which are over 500 years old. (2) The fact that everyone doesn't find the same interpretation from a biblical text, doesn't mean the bible is at fault, it means a lot of people don't know how to study or aren't honest with what they read. There are many views about Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, does that mean such passages aren't binding upon us today?

Rubel Shelly said something really strange, 'If there were an exact correspondence between my situation, my culture, my crisis, as between those in scripture in those cultures, in those crisis situations, there would be no problem. I'd simply address the situation in the exact manner mandated by scripture, but that's almost never the case. Maybe never..' (p. 301) Wait a minute, did he just say what I thought he said? He could of said the same thing by saying, 'The Bible is completely irrelevant to our modern situation.' Maybe the above writer can't find any parallels, but I can find a multitude: Does man still sin? Are people still lost? Do all the sins mentioned in the Bible still exist? (Gal. 5:19-21) Is there still a need for church discipline? (1 Cor. 5) What about supporting preachers? (1 Cor.9) Teaching about the Lord's Supper? (1 Cor. 11) Are people mixed up about spiritual gifts and speaking in tongues? (1 Cor. 12-14) Anyone mixed up about the Law of Moses? (Book of Galatians; Hebrews). Do any false teachers still exist? (2 Peter 2; Jude). Does apathy still exist among the people of God? (Revelation 3:15) Does anyone claim they can have a relationship with God without having to do what He says? (James 1:22-27) Does anyone try to make "grace" into a license to sin with impunity? (Jude 4)

And if some people can't find common ground between that culture and our culture, their crisis and my crisis, then Paul was obviously barking up the wrong tree when he wrote (Romans 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:1-12), or when Peter wrote (2 Peter 2:4ff); or when the Hebrew writer wrote (Hebrews chapter 3-4 and 11). Next time you hear someone claiming that "pattern theology" has been our undoing, while at the same time stressing Ephesians 2:8-9, remind them that Ephesians 2:8-9 is how people were saved back then! Contending that the bible isn't a blueprint, is the same as arguing that the bible is simply truth for a different time and a different culture. And think about this one. How do you prove that homosexuality is a sin without appealing to the biblical pattern? How do you justify opposition to homosexual marriages without appealing to the biblical pattern of marriage?

IV. The Bible: All-Sufficient 2 Tim. 3:16-17

Randy Mayeux delivered a speech which included the following assertions: 'You want to talk about the issue in the 90's..The bottom line is that in the 1990's diversity is the only game in town..there are people in our fellowship right now..who are just not certain that our view of baptism is exactly correct..The fellowship of which you are a member in the 1990's is going to have that kind of diversity. And there is nothing that you can do to change that...' (p. 231) The thrust of the message is, blend in, embrace the denominations or die out. He could have as well said, 'If we try to follow the Bible faithfully we will only end up ill-equipped to face the challenges that confront our generation.'

V. Faith Once For All Delivered: Jude 3

Shelly stated, 'Randy and I are under no illusions of arrogance that we have the final word on any of these things. You see, that's one of the beauties we think we've discovered in understanding God. He doesn't expect us to have the last word on it. And it's all right if we only make some contributions to it, hit some things and miss others..but we have no illusions that what we're offering is final or definitive..' (p. 305) While that sounds humble it is a dangerous doctrine to accept. It sounds like the idea of progressive revelation and it also infers that there will never be a generation that really can fully know the truth (John 8:32; 1 Tim. 2:4). Paul didn't say that the Ephesians could only understand a fraction of what He wrote (Eph. 3:4). This is also the type of double-talk that you hear from people who are trying to get around what God has said. On the one hand they condemn with absolute certainty certain doctrines in the church (no women preachers, sound views on the marriage question etc...), and then on the other hand they portrary themselves as people who aren't dogmatic. The book of First John makes it clear that we can know what is the FINAL WORD (1 John 2:3-4; 1:6-10; 3:4,10; 4:2-3; 20; 5:2).

Mark Dunagan/ Beaverton Church of Christ/ 644-9017