Bible Thoughts

April 4, 2004

Many claim they have been guided by the Holy Spirit. Others claim they know someone who has been guided by the Holy Spirit. Among these are people who belong to several different religious groups, teaching many different doctrines. Often, the only thing they do have in common are the miraculous claims they profess.

Is it not reasonable to say that when one possesses the Holy Spirit, one will agree with the Holy Spirit? And that when one holds to teachings and practices not in agreement with the Holy Spirit, they do not possess the Holy Spirit? How could those who hold doctrines that contradict the Holy Spirit's will, as revealed in the New Testament, claim guidance by the Holy Spirit? Please consider the following examples of such practices and teachings.

1. Instrumental music: When the Holy Spirit specifies singing in worship(Ephesians 5:19), how can one claim the Spirit leads that person as they use instrumental music in their services?

2. Religious titles: The Holy Spirit revealed the words of Christ in Matthew 23:7-12 concerning the use of religious titles among the Jews. Hence, one does not follow the will of the Spirit when using such titles as reverend, father, pastor, etc.

3. The Lord's Supper: The Holy Spirit reveals that early disciples partook of this memorial feast on each first day of the week(Acts 20:7). How can one claim the Spirit is guiding when the feast is offered on any day other than Sunday? Or it is offered bimonthly, yearly, or on special occasions rather than each first day?

These three examples serve as a starting point in understanding that religious leaders make many claims, but such claims do not necessarily follow the will of the Holy Spirit. God has left us His will in the New Testament. It is not appropriate to accept the word of some man when we can read "which the Holy Spirit teacheth."

Which is safer? Listening to the claims of so many different humans(often contradicting one another) or listening to the Holy Spirit speak the words of Christ(God) in the revelation of Christ? Is it better to stand before God and know that what I believed and taught can be found in the written word of God or believe some fallible man whose only claim is that somewhere...somehow God spoke to him? Judge for yourself which is safer.

Morality alone is not sufficient to save a man. There was a man in the days of apostles by the name of Cornelius. The book of God identifies him as "a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, who gave much alms to the people and prayed to God always"(Acts 10:2). All of the qualities of a good and decent person is found in this man. If it were possible for morality to save a person, Cornelius would have been a saved individual. However--the angel tells him to send for the apostle Peter and he would hear words "whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house"(Acts 11:14). Something must be lost before it can be saved. Cornelius was lost even though he was a good moral man. Many in our age believe that morality is enough.

If morality alone is sufficient to save a person, then we can be saved by our own "works of righteousness." The apostle Paul made it very clear one could not be saved under such conditions when he wrote unto Titus saying, "Not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves"(Titus 3:5). One's salvation must be claimed, not through good works we did ourselves, but by obedience to the commands of the Almighty God.

If morality alone would save a person, there would be no need to obey the gospel of Christ. Paul emphasized that those who did not obey the gospel would suffer for such neglect(II Thessalonians 1:8-9). The obvious commands found in the word of God were placed there for men and women, who desire to be saved, to follow. However moral one may be, such does not replace obedience to the Lord's commands.

Baptism is often minimized and cast aside by our denominational friends. They depend upon their "goodness" to save them, ignoring the requirements set forth in the word of God. For instance, if one can have his sins remitted by the mere act of being good, there would be no sins to be washed away in the act of baptism. Ananias would have made a grave error when he told Paul to "arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins"(Acts 22:16). No person can be pleasing to God until one obeys the requirements of God.

The church is a worthless institution, in the eyes of many, if morality alone could save. The blood bought institution would be merely some kind of social gathering instead of a body of living stones in which the members give glory to God. A fatal mistake is made by those who cling to goodness alone and teach that one does not have to be a member of the Lord's church to be saved.

The blood of Christ is rendered ineffective if moral qualities alone are enough to carry a person to heaven. There can be no need for the cleansing power of the blood if there is nothing to be cleansed. Surely--one can be aware that just being a good father, mother, citizen, or neighbor is not enough to please the Lord. The Bible condemns those who would pervert the gospel and say that one does not have to obey the truth taught in the New Testament of Christ.

If you are a good moral person, but have never submitted in obedience to the Gospel of Christ, then you are an alien sinner, one who has no hope in the age to come. Why not change your condition today by becoming a Christian through obedience to the Lord?