Q&A 52:Is it ever right for a Christian to sue another Christian? 53:What did...
Vern Peterman · Dec 12, 2010
Questions & Answers, No. 49
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://www.hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/49261721252717

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

Today we have, as has been a little bit more recently the pattern, we have three questions in one, right? So if you don't like the topic, don't worry about it. It'll soon change, right? Okay. We have here as Q&A 52, is it ever right for a Christian to sue another Christian?

If conflict arises between believers that has the character and potential to be brought before civil courts, law enforcement authorities, or the public in some magnitude, what does God's Word have to say about how such a conflict should be handled? What is at stake in such a situation? Think about this. How is it possible that Christians can get in a situation where they are tempted towards suing one another?

How can that happen? It's called sin. Ultimately, the sin nature is involved in bringing about the events and circumstances that brought it about. That's part one, isn't it? Where Christians are suing one another. So that's exactly the point. Let's take a look here. We have point one. The Apostle Paul addresses the circumstance directly in 1 Corinthians. 1 Corinthians 6, 1 through 8, which we studied some months back.

Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church?

I say this to your shame. Is it so that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren? But brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers. Actually then, it is already a defeat for you that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren.

Let me just give a little bit of cultural background. In the Greek culture of the Roman Empire, and the Romans actually admired aspects of Greek culture and language. But in the Greek culture, going to court was actually sort of a recreational activity. It was an opportunity for rhetoric and making arguments and laying out logic and making clever statements and things of that sort. And so people of the upper classes would go to court. just as a recreational activity.

And very interestingly, a wealthier person, they had different classes and status, a wealthier person could sue another wealthy person and they could sue a poor person. I'm being kind of informal in my language. They had particular terms for these. However, a poor person could not sue a rich person. So the rich person couldn't be touched in this.

But the other thing is, rather than having a decision made by a judge and it heard by a judge, or even a jury of 12, you could have a jury of hundreds who were involved in this and basically fill up an amphitheater. and just get quite involved because it wasn't simply a matter of seeking justice and satisfying justice. It was a matter of offering the recreational and rhetorical opportunities. And so, what's that? So it was more of a show? Yeah, it was a show. It was a chance to see how great you were as a speaker and how flowery your oratory was and how clever your speech was.

Humility was not looked upon as a virtue, very interestingly. So it was very much a part of the pagan world to go to court as entertainment. And so what would happen is you'd have these people who were immature believers, untaught believers, suing one another as a part of this worldly recreation.

And Paul's saying, what sense does this make? Here you're going to walk through heaven's gates together. You're going to spend eternity together. What are you doing taking your dispute before all these people? And it may even be hundreds of people involved in hearing this thing out. So that's the background. Point two here, what is at stake in civil disputes, legal matters, and public displays of conflict between believers is the honor and attractiveness of the gospel. How does this make the gospel look? That's what's at stake.

The Apostle Paul wrote in Titus giving direction, and I'm reading right below point two here, giving direction on various matters, and in Titus 2, 1-10, he gave Titus specifics on how to instruct believers of varying age and gender to behave in certain ways for these reasons.

So that the word of God would not be dishonored. Point two, so that the opponent will be put to shame having nothing bad to say about us. I'd like to say something bad about those Christians, but I can't. Can't think of anything, right? Point three, or bullet three.

So that they will adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect. This word adorn is actually where we get our word cosmetics. You're going to make the doctrine of God look good. So it's not only avoiding making the gospel and doctrine of God look bad, it's making it look good before the world. What is at stake is the honor of Christ and of the gospel and of the body of Christ and the attractiveness of the gospel, the most important thing we can present to the world.

In view of the above, the elders of Holly Hills would like to offer to serve as a believer's board of arbitration, if needed, in any capacity or form that will serve to preserve the honor and attractiveness of the gospel and to resolve matters in a way that preserves fellowship among those in the body of Christ. If you have such a need, please contact any of the elders to begin their involvement towards godly resolution of the conflict. And by the way, we have done that. Obviously, that's not something we make a big noise about and publicize and whatnot, but we have served in that capacity and are willing to do it again because it's far better that there be some means of resolving things than to have the Word of God insulted, smudged.

Now, let's take a look at the top of page two. Paul's point in 1 Corinthians 6, 1-8 is matters of conflict between believers should not be taken into the world's courts. It should not be taken before the world. It should be handled between believers, period. He even says, don't you know that we're going to be judging angels someday?

And by the way, that's something to kind of ponder. I think here are these angelic beings. It's interesting. We would think that angels know everything they don't. Peter talks about, you know, into such things the angels long to look. I'd point out one other thing.

Ephesians 3.10 says that God uses us to teach the angels about wisdom. Isn't that very interesting? So you're a walking angel college. We have a place and a position that Christians oftentimes overlook and fail to understand. Let's take a look at some of the bullets we have here. The above is in reference to lawsuits between believers in the case of a tort, that is, an offense between them, not a criminal action. It's an offense between parties, but not necessarily a crime.

So what's said above does not apply to reporting another Christian for a crime that has been committed. I have run across and heard of situations where a Christian won't turn another Christian in for having committed something, and sometimes that needs to happen. As a matter of fact, there are cases in which it is required by law that you turn someone in. And if they're a Christian or not, it's not the case. So this is talking about lawsuits between believers. It's not talking about, it's not saying that a Christian ought to refuse to turn another Christian in who's committed a crime. You may be, in some cases, in cases of, for example, child abuse, things like that, there may be a legal requirement, it varies from state to state, to turn someone in, Christian or not.

Government does have a legitimate function, and 1 Corinthians 6, 1-8 should not be used to set aside what is taught in passages such as Romans 13, 1-7. Questions about that? Does that distinction make sense? Yes. I see some pondering. Yes. General question. I'm trying to be a good citizen in order to not break the coach on God's name. Yeah. In a sense, it seems like they're damned anyway, and we're trying to prove to them something that's already true. God is good, it's true. It seems almost like we're so fallible, how are we going to prove to the world what a good God is?

Well, if it simply depends upon us, And if it's simply a matter of our making decisions and our behavior by itself, we probably won't. But if, on the other hand, it is Christ who is doing the living in us, then there is an opportunity to do exactly that. It is not simply a matter of us deciding to behave in a certain way on our own, but in fact, His very life live in and through us, will and can accomplish that. And essentially God has not given us, he's not delegated to us to behave in a certain way and not behave in a certain way. What he desires is that his life be lived in and through us.

And so that's a different kind of thing than simply telling the believer, you know, behave this way, don't behave that way. Yes, in the specific context, yes. However, if we look in the larger context of the way Paul intends behavior to be, it is not our decision to do the right thing, period. Most of Romans chapter 7 and Galatians 5, 16 and 17, both of those state We cannot simply will the right thing to do and not do. We're not intended to live that way. We're intended to walk by means of the Holy Spirit's ministry, with Christ's life being lived out.

You got a comment or question? I was just going on to that. This is more on a macro scale. And if we go on a macro scale of governance, world court in the Hague, and that's to judge governments. That was totally against any of God's will because we should be doing these things on a more individual basis. I'm trying to make sure I understand what you mean.

The reality is that while Paul wrote Romans 13, 1 through 7, which talks about being subject to the government and paying taxes and things of that sort, the reality is that the Roman government, Paul was subject to, and actually writing about, was just as dirty and corrupt as you could get.

The taxes were done this way. Tax collectors would bid on a particular political area. The tax collectors would bid on how much they could get for the Roman government, and whatever they got for themselves beyond that was just fine. Yeah, so as long as they got the Roman government what they wanted, they could take whatever they wanted, plus they had the backing of the Roman soldiers to get the money, you know, out of the people. So if they came up and just said, you know, hey, give me everything, they could do it.

And so it was just, it was dirty rotten to the core. So here's Zacchaeus. He is not simply a tax collector, but he is a chief tax collector. Arce Talonis. This guy is like the dirtiest of the dirtiest, the worst of the worst. It's just an example. Rome was just dirty, rotten, filthy, corrupt to the core. As long as the Roman government got their money, the tax collectors could get away with everything, including murder. Let's take a look at the second bullet there.

There are those who are not Christians at all, but will simply claim to be Christians and will use the 1 Corinthians 6, 1-8 passage to avoid being held responsible for their failings and offenses against someone who is a Christian. Ever heard of that happening? Someone claimed to be a Christian just because they're aware of this and they're saying, you can't touch me. And they know they're doing dirty deeds. They know they are. You can't touch me because I'm a Christian. So they put the title on. What should a Christian do?

I think the thing is that there is a place of saying, look, you are not. You're putting that label on and hiding behind that. And it doesn't mean you automatically ought to sue. But I think there is a place for saying, look, You're faking it, you know. You're simply hiding behind something and you knew from the start you're doing a dirty deed. So there is a place... What's that? Report them as a criminal. Well, I think the thing is, it may still be a tort.

That is, it may not be criminally enforceable, but there is a place for taking the mask off and saying, hey look, you're calling yourself a Christian. There's no way that's a label you're sticking on yourself because you knew from the outset that you were You're going to do something that was wrong here. So there is a place, I think, of putting that aside. It doesn't mean you automatically sue, but it does mean that you have to look at it carefully and say, is this person really a Christian? And have they, from the outset, just put this label on in order to take advantage of this and to be dishonest? And I think you have to look at the circumstances carefully. But there may be a place for setting it aside, if in fact what they've done is simply a guise, a false claim.

Third one, just because someone is a Christian or claims to be, does not mean that a believer should suddenly be unwise and gullible. Oh, he's a Christian, so I'll just rush in and, well, he may be a Christian, but there may be reasons why you don't want to do business with this person. It is still important to be wise and prudent. The next sentence there, it is fair and prudent to confirm that the other Christian holds to the same understanding of 1 Corinthians 6, 1 through 8, to check references, get recommendations, and even check with the Better Business Bureau and other agencies before making substantial business and financial commitments. a piece of points by our granddaughter who went to this chiropractor because they radicalized her as a Christian and all that and it was fine for a while and then she brought in another chiropractor, a young man that gave Aubrey an adjustment and permanently injured her neck and her shoulders and to the point that the kids have been thrown into bankruptcy. This group claims to be a Christian group, but in the meantime, the only way Aubrey and Scott are going to be able to make it, or anything, is to sue this Christian organization, the so-called Christian organization, which is now destroyed on her records, because they found out about the lawsuit. So, you know, that was definitely a claim of being a Christian organization, which it's not.

Yeah, and I think you have to look at things carefully. I don't want to make any blanket judgments. You have to look at things carefully. And, you know, is this person just making a false claim and hiding behind that shield as some sort of a strategy for avoiding lawsuits?

And I think because the reality is someone says they're a Christian, it may not be the case. That's part one. Part two is they may in fact be a Christian, but you still have to determine, you know, is it wise to do business with this one? Is there some reason that I shouldn't, etc. So it doesn't mean that we suddenly lose all of our sensibilities and that sort of thing. We still need to make consideration. Here's an instance. Paul has for elders and for deacons certain character qualifications and various qualifications for people who serve in those capacities. Well, it needs to be judged carefully. Does the person qualify?

You're not saying that they aren't a Christian by saying that they don't qualify. But the reality is what actions we take need to be prudent, checking things out, one. And two, what are the facts of the matter? And what's the truth here? And just because someone claims to be a Christian does not necessarily make it so. And just because they claim to be a Christian doesn't mean that we should just go in and all of a sudden lose all sensibility.

Yeah. So in this destruction of somebody's livelihood by this chiropractor, if they made a mistake and they were a Christian, Yeah, and that's I think the fourth point. 1 Corinthians 6, 1-8 should not be viewed as a blanket approval to be either litigious or gullible. Okay? It's not an approval for us to be litigious where we just automatically sue, you know. or gullible, that is that we stop asking questions.

We always need to ask what's wise. We always need to ask, okay, maybe this person really is going to walk through heaven's gate someday. It might be they don't have much that's very rewardable. So it's important, I think, to look carefully at these circumstances and say what's the truth, what's wise, and to check things out. Yeah I mean it can be real tough. It's been a lot of prayer and thought and checking into a lot of different things about this group.

And they even changed their address and went, you know, their place of business went to another place of business in Colorado Springs. And so the kids met us and then everything has literally run them. You know, and everything, and so they just decided to have too much burn or anything else. They've got to sue to try to regain a little bit of what, and then they may lose it all too. So, you know, but they've got to. So it's been like almost two years, and so now they've decided that they've got to do this.

Yeah. Yeah, I mean, all sorts of horrific circumstances can come about. There's no question about it. It's one to look at very carefully, you know, as believers. I think that's why we kind of have, okay, here's what Scripture says, but then also looking at some of the other points that this specific passage doesn't address. And we do have to look at these things carefully and prayerfully. Alright, Q&A 53. What did Paul mean by baptism of the dead, or baptism for the dead? Here's the verse, 1 Corinthians 15, 29. Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?

This verse probably gets first prize for having the greatest number of proposed interpretations compared to all of the verses. A great number of proposed interpretations. Pardon? No I didn't and I won't. It's actually more than 200 different interpretations of this verse and if I were to present one for, let's say, take about a minute to present each one. We would take several Sundays to go through all that. In the end, you'd be quite confused.

What is apparent is that the believers in Corinth seem to have understood just what Paul meant, and they also understood that the dead are raised. That is, what's Paul's ultimate point regardless of the interpretation that the dead are raised. That's what he's driving at. So I think that part is quite clear. We can bring our understanding of this verse into focus in these ways. One, Paul did not want believers to be baptized as a proxy for dead people in order to save the dead by that proxy baptism. That is, you don't get baptized for somebody else and then therefore they're saved. We're becoming a Christian.

Yeah. This is the way the Mormons, the LDS in Salt Lake City do it. It has to be done in a temple. And that's also the reason why they have their genealogical studies and they're really big into genealogies and all that. But yeah. Curious. Yes. Well, what's interesting is the interpretation that they've taken is that you've got to go and check out all these different genealogies and then that takes care of people in your family background. So it's going to be in your family community to save them? Yeah, which is the whole reason for the genealogical study. It's all this person's in my lineage and so I'm going to get baptized, even though that person died two centuries ago, right?

You hear some guy, he's been unsaved for two centuries, dead, and then all of a sudden, whoops, there he is saved. How'd this happen? He didn't even get wet. But that's what they do. I was reading one account by a fellow who was Mormon and became a believer. in Christ, and he said, they keep us so busy doing crazy things that we just can't take time to think. And he says, once I look at this idea of being baptized for somebody who was dead 200 years ago, it's nuts. It doesn't make any sense at all. But anyway, that's how they interpret the verse and then add to that their own set of rules and regulations. So you can save somebody after the fact. Alright, page 3. The top bullet there on the top of page 3.

The baptism is most likely water baptism of Christians. Some have observed that there was a pagan practice of baptism for the dead, but it is difficult to imagine that Paul would use a pagan baptism practice to justify Christian belief and practice. That would be a little hard to figure. The next one, the ones who are baptized most likely refers to a small group of believers within the church, but not everyone. That's why Paul would use the pronoun they rather than we or you in the plural.

The dead for whom some were being baptized were likely believers who died. And then the next one, these believers who died had almost certainly already been baptized before they died. So the most likely interpretation from that is if the Greek text conveys because of rather than on behalf of, then some believers who have been saved by faith in Christ and are then baptized have done so because they heard the testimony of some who had since died. Or, possibly, if the text is understood to mean that the believers are baptized as an outward expression of their faith in Christ, which is typically what baptism is, then these take the place of the believers who have died and continue as a living testimony. What do we do when we get baptized? Is somebody saved because they get baptized? No. Salvation is by faith, not through works. Not even baptism, right? They don't get saved because they get baptized. Baptism is what then?

It is a public testimony. And so what Paul would be referring to in this case then is that this person gets baptized to be a fresh testimony because these other Christians have passed away and they're no longer around. So now we have a fresh testimony of the gospel. So this one takes the place in testimony versus the one that has died. That would be the idea.

Given the brevity of the singular reference in 1 Corinthians 15.29, it is difficult to know with great certainty what Paul meant, but what is clear is that Paul meant to support the belief in the resurrection of the dead, not in getting baptized to save people who already died.

The entire chapter makes that point very clear. So that may not answer it for you finally, and that's okay. But what is clear, because it's consistent with the entire rest of the chapter, is that Paul is saying that believers will indeed be raised. That's the point. That's what the chapter is all about. It's about resurrection.

And apparently some of the Corinthians were skeptical of that. And he's trying to make the point about the fact that believers will be raised. It's not the end. And by the way, some of the believers being skeptical of Christians being resurrected, that has a parallel among the Jews. Remember the group among the Jews that didn't believe in the resurrection?

The Sadducees, right? Yeah. So here was apparently a Christian group who was following the Sadducees, oh yeah, go ahead and be a Christian and believe in Christ and all that, but in the end, when you die, you die. So they were carrying on a Sadducee idea. Okay.

Q&A 54. Does the Bible prohibit musical instruments in church services? Have you ever been in a church, just visiting or whatever, that taught that you should not have musical instruments? You've been to one? Yeah, I've been to one too. What's that? Yeah, Church of Christ. Just in approximately speaking, about half of them teach that musical instruments should not be used in church. And that's most of the time while you hear this teaching. You should not be using musical instruments. That's bad. That's sinful.

Right? Now, not all of them do. You ever heard of the author, you'll see his writings in Christian bookstores, Max Lucado or Lucado, I hear it variously pronounced. He is Church of Christ pastor and his church dropped the Church of Christ title and they switched from not having musical instruments to having them. So very interesting. I think it's all marketing.

Anyway, as the background to this question, we should point out that in the first half of the 1800s, the Campbell family, following conflict with some Presbyterian and Baptist churches, formed their own church, which ultimately went from names such as the Reformed Baptist, to Church of Christ, to Disciples of Christ, to the Christian Church. Nancy had her first years in Sunday school at the Christian Church. And Jim Jones, who was the guy, the cult leader that I used to sit across from at PTA meetings, and I ended up taking some of my high school friends down with him. He was from the Disciples of Christ.

And we have some people here at Holly Hills with some background with Church of Christ. So anyway, you may or may not be familiar with them. The Campbellite churches, and that's churches of these various denominational titles, cross paths with the Mormons, the Christadelphians, the Seventh-day Adventists, and Jehovah's Witnesses in their earlier history. If you look at how they got started, they all have connections together.

One of the terms used is restoration churches. These are restoration churches. They're trying to restore the apostolic traditions, which is a term that Joseph Smith ended up borrowing. This is a restored church. Anyway, we won't get into detail with that, but it's interesting.

All these other various cult groups have connections and roots there. the faith to listing sins prior to baptism within the denomination as necessary for salvation, along with teaching that salvation could be lost. I had a conversation with a fellow about a year ago who came out of a Church of Christ background, and he said, I'm afraid I'm not saved. I said, well, why would you say that? He said, well, they told me that I had to list all my sins. before and confess them all and then I could be baptized in their church and I forgot one. So I'm not saved. And that was the way they do it. By the way, baptism anywhere else doesn't count.

It's got to be right in their church and you've got to do all the listing the sins every single one first. Now, in 1860, the disagreement within these groups created division such that now about half of the Church of Christ congregations teach that musical instruments are not permitted in the church services. The main reason given for this prohibition is that the New Testament does not require the use of musical instruments in church services. Another justification for this, no musical instruments, I'm turning over to page four, teaching is that musical instruments were used in pagan religious celebrations and worship. Oh, terrible. So while the Bible does not require musical instruments in church services, there are several reasons to believe that musical instruments are not prohibited from church services nor even problematic. You know, questionable.

Okay. One, musical instruments such as trumpets and harps were used in the temple worship in Jerusalem and the apostles made no objection to the use when they gathered there as recorded several times in the early chapters of Acts. Jesus drove out the money changers and animals were being sold in the temple courtyard, but he did not drive out the temple musicians. You ever notice that? Okay.

They played a harp called a katharos, where we get our word guitar. They played a harp several times a day during the temple services. They also had trumpets. As a matter of fact, among the rubble that the Romans dumped off the temple mount is one little inscription that says, this is the trumpeter's place.

Very interesting. Point number two, bullet number two, Paul made reference to musical instruments in the context of apostolic era spiritual gifts and church services but made no inference that the instruments were spiritually or morally suspect. You get the point there? In other words, he made reference to the instruments but he didn't leave any indication that they were somehow suspect or not advisable or tainted.

Here's 1 Corinthians 14, 6-8. But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, What will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation, or of knowledge, or of prophecy, or of teaching? Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp? If the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle?

Does it sound to you like he is being a suspect of the musical instruments. Does it sound like he's saying musical instruments, stay away from them, they're bad? No, it doesn't come across that way at all. In both Ephesians 5.19 and Colossians 3.16, I'm on the third bullet here, Colossians 3.16, Paul wrote that the believers who are filled with the Spirit and in whom the Word of Christ dwells richly make melody with psalms. Now that word Psalms, we typically think of the Book of Psalms, but the Greek word translated Psalms is Psalmas, which is from a root word that means to strum. To strum. Well, if musical instruments are bad, why is he using that in both Ephesians and Colossians as the basis for a kind of music that's supposed to be happening in the church? That doesn't seem consistent.

The last bullet there, the fourth one, harps are described as being in heaven, Revelation 5.8, 14.2, and 15.2, where we are now seated.

You're seated there, right? And where we have a heavenly citizenship. So here, there where we're now seated, there where we have a heavenly citizenship, what do they do? They have musical instruments. Well, does that mean it's bad to use them here, but good to use them up there? Where you're seated, where you have your citizenship. That doesn't seem to make sense, does it?

In the end, we must ask the question, are we in the church permitted to do all that is not forbidden, or are we forbidden to do all that is not commanded? If it doesn't say you can do it, then you can't. Don't you dare exhale, because the Bible doesn't say that you can. Right? So this is a really pivotal question. Are we to go around only doing what the Bible says that we have to do? Or are we free to do whatever is not forbidden?

Yeah, I mean, if you start looking at here's all the things that are in the New Testament, you know, You know, I hope a lot of you used toothbrushes today. Yesterday, too. But the Bible doesn't talk about them. So is it wrong to use a toothbrush because the Bible doesn't command you to? Oh boy. I mean, the list goes on and on. How did you get here this morning? My guess is most of you came in a vehicle. The Bible doesn't talk about it. Shame on you, right? Is that the way we're supposed to look at things? No. Not at all. We have this Hebrew poetry pattern. I selected the NIV because I think it's, in this case, most poetic.

1 Corinthians 6.12 has a principle personalized. Everything is permissible for me, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.

And later on, 1 Corinthians 10.23, a principle generalized, whereas the first one uses the first person pronouns. This one just simply says everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible, but not everything is constructive. So there are criteria by which I select to do certain things, but I don't go around making prohibited what the Bible doesn't address.

The implication from the New Testament, from even that word psalmos, the implication from the New Testament is it's fine to use musical instruments. There is certainly no command prohibiting them. That same thing, I know Bruce Beatty got an email from a fellow over in Uganda who is a Seventh-day Adventist, basically condemning Bruce for celebrating Christmas because the Bible doesn't say that you can. Wow, okay.

But that's the problem with legalism is that it says everything's bad unless the Bible says it's good. Everything's bad, right? It's all forbidden. It's all dirty, rotten unless the Bible says you can do it. What Scripture lays out in the New Testament is we are free to do those things unless Scripture addresses it and says this is not a good thing. We are at liberty to do these things. Not constrained and forbidden to do anything unless the Bible specifically gives us permission and authorization.

Okay, questions, comments, exasperations, inspirations? Yes? I think the big answer to most of this is your relationship with Christ in you. Christianity, what you enter into and what you stay away from. Yeah, in the end, I've said this before and don't take me wrong, in the end God doesn't care about sin. And what I mean by that is not that sin doesn't matter to God, but rather this, that God cares about relationship and fellowship with you And the only reason he cares about sin is he doesn't want to get in the way.

It really boils down to relationship. And really, if Gene gets there on the organ, does that bother his relationship with the Lord? Does that get in the way? No. He uses it to praise the Lord and to glorify the Lord. It doesn't get in the way at all. And that's, I think, your point's well taken, Jack. Many people, you know, all the externals end up taking over instead of saying, what really promotes and fosters my relationship and fellowship with the Lord? Good point. Norm, you had a...

I was thinking about the religious witness, that they don't believe in the solving birthdays. Oh yeah, no birthdays, no Christmas. No Christmas. And don't get involved with the government. Aha. We complain about the government, but you can't do anything to influence it.

What's interesting is Jehovah's Witnesses until about the late 1920s actually celebrated Christmas right at their headquarters. They had big Christmas parties and all that. And I got a hold of some computer file copies of some early Awake and Watchtower magazines. Advertisements for Christmas cards. Right in the magazine.

And then they had this decision that somehow Christmas was all bad. What caused them to think Christmas? You know, it's a weird thing, but over time they've just invented these various things. And yeah, no birthdays, no Christmas, you know, you can't do this anymore. And then they come up with this edict. Well, there wasn't any basis for prohibiting it, which is why they did it in the first place. And then they come up with this rule about, well, now Christmas is bad. I got a picture from the late 20s, I think it's 1926, of one of their parties. Three eventual presidents of the Watchtower Society in that one Christmas party picture. Crazy. Yes, Doug?

Question on baptism. My wife Frances had a women's Bible study. One of the ladies there, I think I'm a believer, said she'd been baptized in the Mormon Church 21 times. 21 times baptized in the Mormon Church. All back there. And the next problem goes with this. What about the Catholic Church? Where somebody's on their deathbed, they call the priest in to baptize them. What about that?

Yeah, ultimately, Baptism was looked upon as an expression for the one who was already saved by faith, right? It was about the year 220, so the Apostle John had been, you know, home with the Lord for over a century by earth count. Over a century that the Lord's table and baptism began to be seen as effective in salvation. Basically, there was a change that took place in church teaching.

And what you find then is there are those Christians who look at the Bible and say, that's not right. And then there are those who, holding to that 220 AD tradition, continue to teach some form of baptism does something, or the Lord's Table does something. rather than those symbolize something and represent something.

Do this in order to be saved? No. Do this in remembrance of me. What's interesting is people then make a work of it. You're saved by works? No. By faith. Faith alone. That's it. Whether it's Church of Christ, Mormons, Roman Catholics, Orthodox churches, those things don't save you. Yeah, it's kind of make sure you're saved. Otherwise, there might be some question. Or if you get some guy you've never seen before, laying on the road about to die, the priest can save you by saying, here's the last rites.

Yep. Yeah. Yep. Well, that's a deal, huh? Yep. That fixes it. We saw a lot of this in the new TV series, Man. 42. Yeah. Father McKay, he was trying to do the last rites. Yes.

Legend is someone that he didn't know. Yeah. He'd have no idea in some cases what their faith was. Because the action itself was looked upon as saving, right? Yeah. In one couple of episodes I remember they had, he actually did last night's tribulation. Ah, yeah. Didn't go well with the people sitting on him. Yeah, yeah, not so much. Right, yeah.

It might be too late. I was just wondering when we're talking about people suing. OK, back to the first question. We have like Tom Martino and those guys that go after people and you're all over the news. Yeah. It just seems like that takes it like a step further than just personally suing somebody. It's like you're telling the world of someone. Yeah, and I think it's one of those things.

There is a place for having the truth out there. It's another thing. I think the point is you don't want to be in a position of smudging the gospel. You don't want to be in a position of just... Some people are kind of professional bad mouthers. And we don't want to be in that spot either.

Well, we're way past time. That's that ringing in my ears. Let's pray. Okay? Lord, we thank you that your Word enlightens us on what really matters and what really counts. And Lord, we do in this life come into some complex and difficult circumstances. And for those things, we look to you for wisdom. We look to you for insight and understanding and the discernment about what is the proper course of action. And we just thank you for what you have enlightened us with, with your word. We pray in Jesus name. Amen.