Beware Of Dangerous Pets

By Pastor Bruce Oyen
E-mail: bk_oyen@hotmail.com

     The theme for these thoughts came to mind while reading an article in Centralia, Washington's newspaper, The Chronicle, on Friday, July 15. The article is found on page Main 6, and is titled, "Eight-Foot Anaconda Seized From Home." A picture of the anaconda accompanies the article. 

      Here is part of the article: "Animal control officers seized an 8-foot anaconda from a Longview man this week after it and two other snakes escaped from a garage. Mike Nicholson, an animal control supervisor, said he confiscated the anaconda, which will grow to hundreds of pounds, because it's too dangerous to be kept in the community as a pet. 'Can you imagine in another two or three years when this snake is 20 feet long and it's wrapped its body around a baby or a dog?' he asked. 'I can't have that.' " The article says two other snakes had been captured by their owner before authorities arrived. The article said the two other snakes were "a 10-foot Colombian red tail boa constrictor and a 6-foot Burmese python,"

      If you follow the news, you know that snakes are not the only dangerous pets some persons own. Some pit bull dogs viciously attack adults, children, other animals, and even their owners. Some persons keep potentially dangerous spiders as pets. And others have other dangerous animals as pets. 

      One thing I have learned about pets that have attacked their owners is that their owners didn't expect them to become dangerous. They knew they had the potential to do so, but felt safe having them as pets.

      That is the way it is with some activities we might involve ourselves in. Think of the millions of persons who started to smoke, dip, or chew tobacco, and have not only become addicted to it and spent a lot of money on it,  but also have ruined their health with it. What at first was a pet became an enemy.

       Think of the millions of persons who started out doing a little "harmless" gambling, only to find themselves totally consumed by gambling. They went from spending maybe only a few dollars a month gambling to spending every dollar they have on this vice. What started out as a pet became an enemy.

      Think of the millions of persons who started out as very moderate social drinkers, only to become addicted to alcoholic beverages. Now, the alcohol controls them, and it has harmed their bodies, minds, marriages, families, friendships, and jobs. What was at first a pet became an enemy.

      The Bible warns of the deceptive and destructive nature of  bad habits and bad companions that promote bad habits. Consider some of its warnings. Proverbs 5:22 and 23 says: "The iniquities of the wicked ensnare him, and he is held fast in the cords of his sin. He dies for lack of discipline, and because of his great folly he is led astray." Proverbs 20;1 says: "Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise." Proverbs 23:31says: "Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly. In the end it bites like a serpent and stings like an adder."  Galatians 6:7 and 8 says: "Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh, will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life." 1 Corinthians 15:33 says: "Do not be deceived: 'Bad company ruins good morals.' "  ( All Biblical quotes are from the English Standard Version)

     In conclusion, we need to remember that what start out as seemingly harmless pets can easily turn out to be an enemy.      

       

      

Reflections On Camp Fires And Fireplaces

By Pastor Bruce Oyen
E-mail: bk_oyen@hotmail.com

      Have you ever been camping? In my teen years, my oldest brother and his wife took me camping several times in Minnesota and Wisconsin. We would get some wood and make fires on which to cook meals, or just to enjoy them in the evening.  They also took me along on winter weekends, when we would drive north from Minneapolis to Hinckley, MN. My brother would park his car just outside of Hinckley, and we would ski cross on the frozen Kettle River to a cabin up-river. The only source of heat in the cabin was a fireplace. We would gather wood, put it in the fireplace, and get a good fire going to warm up the cabin and to cook meals.     
    After I got married and we had kids, we went camping, too. Sometimes it was at a KOA campground, and sometimes at Woodruff Park, which is a few miles east of Miles City, MT. We would gather wood and get a fire going on which to cook food, roast marshmallows, or just to enjoy it in the evening.     
     One of the things all these fires had in common is that they would die out if we didn't keep them supplied with wood. Sometimes we had to get up during the night to put more wood on the fires to keep them going. We didn't sleep well, but we had a fire ready to use in the morning.

     Those fires of long ago remind me of something stated in the Bible. The New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition, words Proverbs 26:20 and 21 this way: "For lack of wood the fire goes out, and where there is no whisperer, contention quiets down. Like charcoal to hot embers and wood to fire, so is a contentious man to kindle strife."  The New King James Version puts verse 20 this way: "Where there is no wood, the fire goes out; and where there is no talebearer, strife ceases." The ESV (English Standard Version) puts verse 20 this way: "For lack of wood the fire goes out, and where there is no whisperer, quarreling ceases."

     Here is what The Net Bible commentary says on verse 20:  "Gossip (that is, the one who goes around whispering and slandering) fuels contention just as wood fuels a fire. The point of the proverb is to prevent contention – if one takes away the cause, contention will cease (e.g., 18:8)."

     Here is what John Gill's commentary says on verse 20: "men cease to quarrel one with another; they hold their peace and are silent, when there are none to bring tales from one to another, or any whisperer or backbiter to suggest evil things of each other; or when such are discouraged on both sides, and their tales are not listened to; or when they are detected and thrust out of doors, as they deserve, then strife subsides, and peace ensues. Contention is like a fire, the flame of which is blown up by talebearers and whisperers, who are as incendiaries, and as such are to be treated."

     You and I are responsible to help the fires of of lies, slander, misinformation, faultfinding, gossip, and discontent die out. We can do this by not giving an ear to those who want to involve us in these things. We can do this by telling such persons that they are wrong in what they are doing. We can do this by not telling others what we have heard. We can do this by exposing those who have a habit of keeping such fires going. If we do our part, there will be no wood to burn, and the fire will soon die out.

      We all would profit from taking heed to what we read in Proverbs 10:19. The New King James Version puts it this way: "In the multitude of words sin is not lacking, but he who restrains his lips is wise."

Change: Resist It Or Accept It?

By Pastor Bruce Oyen

E-mail: bk_oyen@hotmail.com
     

       Someone wrote a book about the fact that though pain in life is inevitable, misery is optional. How true! Sooner or later, everyone is going to experience pain. It might be physical, such as when you get a headache, a broken leg, or a stubbed toe. It might be emotional, such as  when your spouse leaves you for someone else, or a friend moves away, or a loved one dies. 

      When we experience physical pain, usually something can be done to relieve it. For a headache, we can take aspirins. For a broken leg, we can get it set and take a painkiller, if necessary. When a toe is stubbed,  we usually just have to wait for the pain to go away.

      But when we experience emotional pain, relief does not come as easily, for emotional pain isn't relieved by remedies used to deal with physical pain. The point of the book referred to above is that though emotional pain is inevitable, misery over it is optional. Though our emotional pain over some negative experience in life is legitimate, and can make us feel miserable, hanging on to the misery is optional. We can choose to be permanently miserable because of our experience, or we can choose to move on in life and put it behind us and live constructively. As someone has wisely said, we can't control what others do to us, but we can control what we do about it. That is, we can choose to be its permanent victim or to get over it.

      Now, let me apply these thoughts to the subject of change. In life, change is inevitable, but resistance is optional. The year right now is 2011. Think of the remarkable changes, some good and some bad, that have come to the world in the last 150 years and less. Here in the USA we have gone from using horses and buggies to using cars and planes. We have gone from being earth-bound to flying in outer space. We have gone from newspapers and telegraphs to phones and cell phones and the internet. As the saying goes, "Where she stops, nobody knows!" But we do know that change comes hard to some persons. I saw on TV the interview a journalist had with a man who was at least 100 years old. The journalist told the man he must have seen many changes in his long life. The man agreed, but said he had opposed every one of them!

      Change has affected every aspect of life, including traditional Christian religious practices. Consider some examples of changes in many churches: hymnbooks have been replaced with songs on a screen. Pews have been replaced with chairs.  Pianos and organs have been replaced with keyboards and drums and guitars. Formal dress has been replaced with casual dress. One Sunday morning service has been replaced with two or more services. A church might now offer a traditional service and a contemporary service. Churches now often meet in the church buildings for Sunday morning services and in homes for Sunday evening Bible study and fellowship. The once-common midweek service that was held in the church building might now meet in homes, or there might not even be a mid-week meeting. The former, almost exclusive use of the King James Version has given way to the New King James, the NIV, the NASB, and other translations. Sermon content in many Bible-believing churches has gone from Bible exposition and teaching in lecture format to attempting to communicate Christian truth by stories and drama.

      It is not my goal to evaluate these changes. Admittedly, some are good, some are bad, and some are neither good or bad. Rather, my goal is to challenge us to think about the fact that change is not bad just because it is change. But strong traditionalists are either unable or unwilling to distinguish between good and bad change. To them, change itself is bad, period! They like things to remain as they always have been. What was good enough for their grandparents and their parents, is good enough for them and for everyone else, too. Or, if they were not raised to attend church, how and when things were done after they started attending church,  is to them how and when they always should be done. So, whenever change is contemplated they immediately put up resistance to it, like the old man referred to above. They don't evaluate the change, they just resist it. That is not good. What is good, is to try and make an open-minded evaluation of the matter.

      But how do we do so? The way to evaluate the goodness or badness of church-changes is to ask if the changes violate any direct teachings of the Bible. For those who consider the Bible to be God's Word, it is the standard by which evaluations are to be made. So, for, example, if the Bible does not prohibit having church meetings in homes, we have to allow flexibility on that subject. If it does not say how many times a week a church must meet, flexibility must be allowed. If the Bible does not prohibit any deviation from the normal times and locations for church meetings, flexibility must be allowed. And the fact is, the Bible does not have laws on any of these points. So, traditionalists must admit the fact that their objections to changes in these particular matters is based on their own opinions, not on the teachings of the Bible.

   Here are two more examples: some persons approve of singing into a microphone in a stand, but disapprove of using a  hand-held microphone. Some persons approve of playing an acoustic guitar into a microphone, but disapprove of playing an acoustic guitar that is plugged into a speaker. Where in the Bible does it approve of some microphones, but not others? Where does it approve of one acoustic guitar, but not another? The answer to both questions is, "Nowhere." These persons are entitled to their own opinions, but let's hope they know the difference between personal opinions and Biblical teaching. When the difference is not known, it results in unnecessary conflicts between Christians.

     Another point to be kept in mind before objecting to church-changes is to determine if the objection will promote the common good of the church, or if it will promote tension. The same thing must be done when a change is being considered. Leaders should not promote a change that the majority objects to. That causes tension. But, unfortunately, it also is true that many times those who oppose change don't accept the will of the majority. They have to have things go their way. And if they don't get their way, they make their disapproval obvious to all. This causes tension in the group. The worst damage is done when they work behind the scenes, carrying their discontent to whoever will listen.

      Instead of spreading their discontent, such persons should follow the example of some fine Christians I knew many years ago in Minnesota. Those persons had been taught that it was wrong to have a meal on church property. Therefore, they refused to eat meals on church property. But, they did not make it an issue with others. They were wise enough to let others have their own opinion, while they peacefully lived by their own opinion.

     Another point to consider is whether or not resistance to change will promote or hinder the  progress of the church.  Sometimes a change will help a church reach more persons with the gospel. Or, it might get more of the church people involved in the work of the church. Do we want to interfere with these good results of change, just to keep doing things as they always have been done?

    Traditionalists need to think about the fact that their accepted ways of doing things very likely were once new ideas that were objected to by those who wanted things to continue "as they have always been done" by their grandparents, parents, and favorite preacher and church. For example, years ago it was offensive to many persons when someone played a guitar in church. No doubt, there were church fights over the subject. The fights were not just over how the guitar was played, but over the use of the guitar in church, period. But now it is fairly common to have guitars used in church services. Many current-day traditionalists like to hear guitars used in church services and would think objecting to their use is ridiculous. To them, what they approve of is good, and what they disapprove of is bad. The opinions of others don't count. That, my friends, needs to change!

A Tale Of Two Men And One Church

By Pastor Bruce Oyen
Grace Baptist Church
Rochester, WA
E-mail: bk_oyen@hotmail.com

      Brother X and Brother Y both attended the same church. It was called "Bible Believers Church." They both were professing Christians, and so they had many things in common.

      However, they were very different from one another, too. When Brother X went to church he enjoyed the fellowship with others before and after the services. "These folks sure are friendly!," he thought to himself. And he was certain to speak a good word about the church to anyone who was visiting the services.

      But when Brother Y went to church it was a very different matter. "It sure is hard to make friends at this church," he said to himself. "The people attending our church really don't care about others like they should," he told friends from a different church in town.

      Brother X was the kind of man who tried hard to get others to visit Bible Believers Church. He invited friends, neighbors and relatives to do so. He knew that he had to do his part if the church were to grow.

      But Brother Y . . . well, he sure wasn't like Brother X! He often complained that so few attended the church. And he seldom, if ever got anyone else to visit the services. "It's hard to ask others to attend an unfriendly church", he told himself. He attended regularly, but that was about all he ever did.

      Brother X, though, was one who volunteered to help out with projects at church whenever he could. Plus, if he saw that something needed to be done, such as painting a room, he told the pastor he would be glad to do it. He seemed to really enjoy doing things for the church, big or small. "It's great to serve the Lord through the church!," he told others. And one of his favorite songs was, "There Is Joy In Serving Jesus". He often requested it when special requests were taken by the song leader.

      Brother Y, on the other hand was quick to notice what needed to be done around the church, but slow to do anything about it. Except to complain. "Why doesn't someone wash the windows more often?," he thought. "And why does it take so long to get a fresh coat of paint on the front door of the church?," he asked himself.

      Brother X often noticed the good things about Bible Believers Church. Whenever visitors were in attendance, he told the pastor and others how good it was to have them in attendance. And he was certain to tell the visitors the same thing. And if he liked the special music, he said so. He made an effort to speak words of appreciation to those who did things around the church. That meant a lot to them.

      It was not that way with Brother Y. He seldom said a good word about the church. But he was quick to point out what he did not like! And there was a lot he did not like about it. In fact, there were so many things that Brother Y disliked about Bible Believers Church that he finally quit attending. He did not resign. he just dropped out. "I won't make any trouble if I just drop out. And no one will notice, anyway," he told himself.

      But people did notice. The pastor tried to get him to start attending church again. And so did Brother X. But it did not work. Brother Y simply would not go back to church. Nor did he attend elsewhere. "I don't know of any church in this town worth attending!," he muttered to himself.

     Some months passed, and new neighbors moved in across the street from Brother Y. He waved to them, but never introduced himself to them. He wasn't the out-going type. What got Brother Y's attention was the fact that on Sunday mornings when he would sit on his front step to read the paper and have a cup of coffee, he could see new his neighbors get in their car at about 9:30 with Bibles in hand and drive off. They would return at about 12:30. He assumed that they were going to church. And he was right. They were very dedicated church goers. "I wonder what church they attend," he said to himself.

     Well, one Sunday while Brother Y stayed home, Brother Z and his family, who were Brother Y's new neighbors, went to church. They heard the pastor preach about the importance of trying to win others to the Lord. The pastor challenged the congregation to speak to others that week about being saved. And he told them to invite others to attend the morning service the following Sunday so that they could hear the Gospel.

     Brother Z and his family listened carefully to the sermon that day, and they made up their minds to do what they could to reach someone else for the Lord Jesus Christ. When Brother Z and his family got home from church that day, they sat down to eat Sunday dinner like usual. During the meal, Brother Z looked out the window, and saw Brother Y sitting on his front step reading the paper and drinking coffee.

    Suddenly, it occurred to Brother Z that he should go and invite Brother Y to attend church with them the next Sunday. He told his family what he was going to do, and that he would be right back. Mrs. Z told her husband to take along a loaf of fresh bread for the neighbor. And she told Brother Z to ask the neighbor to have dinner with them the next Sunday. She knew friendship could make a good impression on him. So, Brother Z took the fresh bread and went on his mission. The two men had never formally met, and Brother Z was kind of nervous, but he went ahead with his plan anyway.

      After they introduced themselves, Brother Z told Brother Y, "I don't know if you are a church-goer or not, but we would be pleased to have you attend church with us next Sunday morning. And we would like to have you eat dinner with us afterward, too."

     Brother Y was caught off guard by the invitation. He said, "I used to attend church regularly, just like your family does. But I got so fed up with things at my church that I dropped out. That was right before you moved in. I have not been to church in several months, and I don't know if I will attend again anytime soon. The people at my church were not friendly. They didn't take care of the property the way they should. I did not like the pastor, and . . . Well, I better not say any more or I will regret it."

    Brother Z was quite surprised at Brother Y's angry statements. He said, "I am sorry you had such a negative experience. What church did you attend? It sounds like bad news to me." "Oh, I better not tell you. It will just sound like I am church-bashing. But I have had my fill of church, I can assure you!," said Brother Y.

    Brother Z was not one to give up easily, so he told his neighbor, "I am sorry to hear about your church. But they are not all that way. We went to a really good church back in Ohio. And we are quite pleased with the one we attend now. It has its faults, but all churches do. The folks at our church are friendly. The pastor preaches the Word of God. We sing the great hymns of the faith. And we are trying to reach others with the Gospel of Christ." Brother Z continued, "I moved to town for a better job at the lumberyard. I met a Christian man there named Brother X. He is one of those guys you can't help liking. He loves the Lord and has a positive outlook on life. Well, I told Brother X that we were looking for a good church to attend, and he invited us to his church. We tried it out, and joined it shortly afterward. Would you give it a try? It is called Bible Believers Church. Have you ever heard of it? I'm sure it's better than the one you used to attend."

    "Bible Believers Church? Uh...., uh....., yeah...., yes I have heard of it," said Brother Y. "You can't live in this town for as long as I have and not have heard of it." he said with a strange tone in his voice.

    With that, Brother Z said he had to go home and finish his dinner. When he got home his wife and children wanted to know how his conversation with the neighbor went." That took a lot more than a couple of minutes," Mrs. Z said. "What's up?" Brother Z told his wife that he never thought he would get in a discussion like that one. And he told them that Brother Y had dropped out of his church, and his reasons for doing so. And he told them that he also invited Brother Y to church and dinner next Sunday. He also told his family that they should be thankful they were attending Bible Believers Church, and not the one the neighbor used to attend.

     "Well, what do you think will come of it?," asked Mrs. Z. "I really don't know", Brother Z said. No doubt his former church has some serious problems. But he reminds me of the man that attended our church in Ohio. Do you remember him, dear? It was impossible to keep him happy. In fact, I sometimes wondered if we even went to the same church. No church is perfect, but perhaps they both need an attitude adjustment. Some see everyone else's faults, but not their own."

     With that, Brother Z went to the phone and called Brother X. "Brother X, this is Brother Z. I just had to call you. I invited my neighbor to attend church with us next Sunday, like the pastor told us to do. Well, to make a long story short, I sure got an earful from an angry man who quit his church due to its problems. Anyway, after hearing about his former church, I had to call you and thank you for inviting us to attend Bible Believers Church. Just think, we could have ended up at our neighbor's former church. What a bummer that would have been! Like I said, thanks for inviting us to your church! Gotta go for now." And then the men hung up their phones.

    The lesson in this story is obvious. We all have the potential to be either positive persons like Brother X and Brother Z, or  negative persons like Brother Y. It all depends on choices we make. We choose to be either a faultfinder, or positive. What have you chosen to be?

A Good View Of Bible Translations

By Pastor Bruce Oyen

E-mail: bk_oyen@hotmail.com    

     

      What is a good view of Bible translations? A good view is the one that was held by King James and his translators who produced what is known as both the King James Version and the Authorized Version.  Here is proof that King James and his translators did not believe anything but the original writings of the Bible were perfect. It also is proof that they did not think a translation had to be perfect for it to be considered the Word of God. Their view was the same as other orthodox Christians have believed throughout history, and still do believe.    

     What follows in red is taken from the preface of the 1611 KJV. The whole preface is also available online at www.bible-researcher.com.  Read carefully the first and last sentences.
     
"An Answer to the Imputations of Our Adversaries"

"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?"

Scholarly Agreement About Church Elders

By Pastor Bruce Oyen
E-mail: bk_oyen@hotmail.com
    

     As the title says, this article presents scholarly agreement about church elders. Even though there is not absolute unanimity among Biblical scholars on the subject of church elders, many do hold the same view. 

          First, consider the view of theologian H. C. Thiessen, whose denominational affiliation is unknown to me. Thiessen wrote the well-known and widely-used book, "Lectures In Systematic Theology." Unfortunately, at the present time the original book is out of print. It is different on some important matters, from the one based upon the original. For example, he was not as Calvinistic as the book based on his work. I prefer the original work.
    The following quote is from the original book. It is found in the section on the local church. Thiessen wrote: "(1) Pastor, Elder, Bishop. These three terms denote one and the same office in the New Testament. In Acts 20:17, 28, the 'elders' of the Church at Ephesus are said to have been made 'bishops' over the flock, with the purpose that they should 'feed' (shepherd, poimainein) the church of God. Here we have the terms for 'elders,' 'bishops' and 'pastors,' all used of the same men. In 1 Peter 5:1, 2 the duties of a 'pastor' are assigned to the 'elders among you.' That is, the two were one and the same. Both John (2 John 1; 3 John 1) and Peter (1Peter 5:1) were apostles, yet they called themselves 'elders.' Surely this did not imply an office inferior to that of pastor or bishop. In Titus 1:5 - 9 the terms 'elder' and 'bishop' are used interchangeably. The Greek term occurs 18 times in the New Testament, but only in Ephesians 4:11 is it translated as 'pastor.' Its real meaning is that of shepherd; this is the meaning it has in all the other references (e. g., Matt. 9:36; 26:31 ; Luke 2:8; John 10:2; Heb. 13:20; 1 Peter 2:25). As we have pointed out (above), the elders and bishops in the Church  at Ephesus had been entrusted with the work of 'shepherding' the flock, i. e., they had been made 'pastors' over the church. Paul addresses the Church at Philippi 'with the bishops and deacons' (Philippians 1:1). If there had been 'elders' and 'pastors' in that church distinct from the 'bishops,' Paul would be addressing only a part of the officials of the church, - an unlikely supposition."
    Following these statements, Thiessen went on to say: "The above is the view of the leading writers on Early Church History and on Pastoral Theology. Only a few need be cited." And then he cited a few examples.
     Second, consider the view of Albert Barnes. He is the well-known Presbyterian author of "Barnes' Notes," a commentary set expounding the Holy Scriptures from a conservative position.
     He agreed with Baptist John Gill on this subject. For instance, in his commentary on Acts 20:28 he made these comments on the word "overseers": "This passage proves that the name bishop was applicable to elders; that in the time of the apostles, the name bishop and presbyter or elder, was given to the same class of officers, and, of course, that there was no distinction between them. One term was originally used to denote office, the other age, and both were applied to the same persons in the church. The same thing occurs in Titus 1:5-7, where those who in verse 5 are called elders, are in verse 7 called bishops. See also 1 Timothy 3:1-10; Phi. 1:1."
     Third, consider the view of W. E. Vine. He was the author of Vine's Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words. I believe he was from the Brethren or Plymouth Brethren denomination. In his Dictionary, he explained the term "elder," and pointed out that it comes from the word "presbuteros," which refers to rank or responsibility "among Gentiles," "in the Jewish nation," and "in the Christian churches." Vine said in such churches it refers to "those who, being raised up and qualified by the work of the Holy Spirit, were appointed to have the spiritual care of, and to exercise oversight over, the churches. To these the terms bishops, episkopoi, or overseers, is applied (see Acts 20, ver. 17 with ver. 28, and Titus 1:5&7), the latter term indicating the nature of their work, presbuteroi their maturity of spiritual experience."
    Fourth, consider the view of F. F. Bruce. He was  from the Brethren denomination, and the author of numerous books, including his biography, "IN RETROSPECT," in which we learn of his denominational affiliation.
    In his commentary on Acts, part of the New International Commentary On The New Testament, Bruce gives his view of our subject. Part of his comments on Acts 20:28 is this: "There was in apostolic times no distinction between elders (presbyters) and bishops such as we find from the second century onwards: the leaders of the Ephesian church are indiscriminately described as elders, bishops (i.e. superintendents) and shepherds (or pastors)."
     Fifth, consider the view of William Barclay. He was a theological liberal in the Church of Scotland, and his books must be read with this in mind, But he agreed with the previous authors on this subject. For instance, his commentary on First Timothy reveals his view of our topic. In his discussion of chapter three we read, "The great question is: What was the relationship in the early Church between the elder, the presbuteros, and the overseer, the episkopos? Modern scholarship is practically unanimous in holding that in the early Church the presbuteros and the episkopos were one and the same."
    Barclay's comments on 1 Timothy 5:17 give more support to this view of the subject: "It is to be noted what kind of elders are to be specially honoured and rewarded. It is those who toil in preaching and teaching. The elder whose service consisted only in words and discussion and argument is not in question here. He whom the Church really honoured was the man who worked to edify and build it up by his preaching of the truth and his educating of the young and of the new converts in the Christian way."
    Note that Barclay's point was about the industrious elder versus the lazy one, not the teaching elder versus the ruling elder, a distinction not found in Scripture.
    Sixth, consider the view of Matthew Henry. This man is famous for his Bible commentary set, used by so many lovers of the Word of God. I am not certain of Henry's denomination. Maybe he was what was called an independent churchman. However, his comments on I Timothy 5:17 concur with what the previously quoted scholars said on this subject. Read his comments carefully: "The presbytery ruled, and the same that ruled were those who labored in the Word and doctrine: they had not one to preach to them and another to rule them, but the work was done by one and the same person. Some have imagined that by the elders that rule well the apostle means lay-elders, who were employed in ruling but not in teaching, who were concerned in church government, but did not meddle with the administration of the Word and sacraments; and I confess that this is the plainest text of Scripture that can be found to countenance such an opinion. But it seems a little strange that mere ruling elders should be accounted worthy of double honour, when the apostle preferred preaching to baptizing, and much more would he prefer it to ruling the church; and it is more strange that the apostle should take no notice of them when he treats of church officers; but, as it is hinted before, they had not, in the primitive church, one to preach to another to rule them, but ruling and teaching were performed by the same persons, only some might labour more in the Word and doctrine than others."
     Seventh, consider the view of the Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary, which might have been written by men from The Church Of England. It says this on Acts 20:17: "Those here called 'elders' or 'presbyters,' are in Ac 20:28 called 'bishops.' (See on Ac 20:28). The identity of presbyters and bishops in the New Testament is beyond all reasonable dispute."
     Here are this commentary's comments on 1 Peter 5:2: "Feed--Greek, 'Tend as a shepherd,' by discipline and doctrine. Lead, feed, heed: by prayer, exhortation, government, and example. The dignity is marked by the term 'elder'; the duties of the office, to tend or oversee, by 'bishop.' Peter has in mind Christ's injunction to him, 'Feed (tend) My sheep . . . Feed (pasture) My lambs' (Joh 21:16). He invites the elders to share with him the same duty (compare Ac 20:28). The flock is Christ's."
    Eighth, consider the view of Adam Clarke, the Wesleyan Bible scholar famous for his Bible commentary set. Clarke said this on Acts 20:17: "Now, as these elders are called  bishops, in Acts 20:28, we may take it for granted that they were the same order; or, rather, that these superintendents of the Church were indifferently called either presbyters or bishops."
    Ninth, consider the view of A. T. Robertson, who was a Baptist, and who is considered by many persons to be the greatest American scholar of New Testament Greek. The following quotes are from his set of books, "Word Pictures Of The New Testament."
   Here is what he wrote on Acts 20:17: "The very men whom Paul terms 'bishops' (episkopouv) in verse 28 just as in Titus 1:5,7 where both terms (presbuterous, ton episkopon) describe the same office. The term 'elder' applied to Christian ministers first appears in Acts 11:30 in Jerusalem and reappears in 15:4,6,22 in connection with the apostles and the church. The 'elders' are not 'apostles' but are 'bishops' (cf. Philippians 1:1) and with 'deacons' constitute the two classes of officers in the early churches."
      Here is what he wrote on Acts 20:28: "Bishops (episkopouv). The same men termed elders in verse 17 which see. To shepherd (poimainein). Present active infinitive of purpose of poimainw, old verb to feed or tend the flock (poimnh, poimnion), to act as shepherd (poimhn). These ministers are thus in Paul's speech called elders (verse 17), bishops (verse 28), and shepherds (verse 28). Jesus had used this very word to Peter (John 21:16, twice boske, feed, 21:15,17) and Peter will use it in addressing fellow-elders (1 Peter 5:2) with memories, no doubt of the words of Jesus to him. The "elders" were to watch over as 'bishops' and 'tend and feed as shepherds' the flock. Jesus is termed 'the shepherd and bishop of your souls' in 1 Peter 2:25 and 'the great Shepherd of the sheep' in Hebrews 13:20. Jesus called himself  'the good Shepherd' in John 10:11."
    Tenth, consider the view of John Gill. He was one of the most highly respected Baptist theologians of all time. He was such a prolific writer that C. H. Spurgeon wondered when he had time to sleep. In Gill's commentary on Acts, we get his representative view of church elders. On Acts 20, where we read of Paul calling the Ephesian elders to himself for final words of instruction, Gill said this about the "elders of the church": "not the ancient members of the church, but the officers of it; the pastors, bishops, and overseers, as they are called, verse. 28, and are so styled from their office, not their age."
    And Gill made this statement about Acts 20:28: "This is said to the elders of the church, ver. 17, which shews that the office of an elder and a bishop is one and the same office."
   Gill consistently applies this interpretation throughout his exposition of the Scriptures that refer to this subject. For instance, his exposition of I Timothy 5:17, which says, "Let the elders that rule well;..." is very clear. He wrote, "By whom are meant not elders in age; ...nor are Civil magistrates intended; ...nor are deacons designed, for they are never called elders in Scripture;... nor are lay-elders meant, who rule, but teach not; since there are no such officers appointed in the churches of Christ; whose only officers are bishops or elders and deacons: wherefore the qualifications of such are only given in a preceding chapter. There are no other that rule in churches, but who also speak to them the word of God; wherefore by him that rules, and the labourer in word and doctrine, are not meant two distinct orders, but different persons of the same order; some of these ruling well, but do not take so much pains in the ministry of the word; whilst others of them both rule well and labour in the word, and who are to be reckoned deserving of the honour hereafter mentioned."

In Conclusion

    As these quotes prove, there is much scholarly agreement about this subject. These men represent only a small portion of that agreement among Bible scholars. Therefore, we encourage all readers to be like the Bereans in Acts 17 and search the Scriptures to determine if this scholarly agreement is correct. I believe an open-minded study of the matter will lead you to agree with these authors.
    After a study of all the verses pertaining to the subject,  it is clear to me the New Testament teaches that all elders are also pastors and overseers (bishops). Therefore, it is not Scriptural to make a distinction between elders and pastors and overseers. If you are one of them, you are all of them.

BEWARE OF EXPERIENCE-BASED THEOLOGY

By Pastor Bruce Oyen
E-mail: bk_oyen@hotmail.com

      This article is a warning about experience-based theology, by which I mean theology or beliefs that are based on subjective, personal experience thought to be revelations from God, and not on objective revelations in the Bible known to be from God.
     There is a great need for this warning about this, for many persons, many of whom might be true believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, claim to experience these subjective revelations from God, and many others readily accept such claims as true. Examples of these subjective experiences upon which some persons' theology is based are the claims of some to have died and gone to heaven or to hell and to have returned to tell about it.
    There is an inexplicable willingness among Christians to accept as true someone's claim to have had a special experience or revelation from God of some kind. This willingness has reached the point of gullibility for many persons. Some seem to have come to the point of believing anything and everyone's experience as though it all is Gospel truth, so long as it the experience of a professing Christian.
    Many Christians seem to not know the apostle John's truly divinely-given teaching about testing the spirits to see if they are from God. John's teaching is found in 1 John 4:1 - 3. While John's teaching had to do with a specific problem in his day, it can be applied even to those who do affirm the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, for true Christians can be misled by evil spirits, and they can innocently believe their experience of one kind or another is from God simply because it does not contradict any of these fundamentals. For more of John's warnings about accepting false teachings that come in the name of truth, read his second letter.
     Other writers of the New Testament also speak to this matter of being careful about what we accept as truth. Let us consider two examples.
     The first example is from the apostle Paul. In his letter to the Galatian Christians, chapter 1:6 - 9, he very dogmatically said that the Gospel message was a settled matter, and even if he or an angel preached a different Gospel, it was to be rejected and the source was to be condemned.
     The second example is from Jude. The Lord led him write a short but very important letter of the New Testament. In verse 3 of his letter, Jude said Christians should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints. (All Christians are saints because they belong to Christ.) The reason for Jude's exhortation to contend for the faith is given in the next verse, which tells us of the false teachers who were infiltrating the ranks of Christians and misleading them. These persons very cleverly distorted the truths of the faith, and thereby turned truth into error.
     Well-taught Christians might easily be able to see it and reject it when error is passed off as truth. If we have been indoctrinated in the fundamental doctrines of the Bible, we are not as susceptible to accepting error as those who are not grounded in those doctrines.
     But, it has become obvious that well-taught Christians are in danger of readily accepting the experienced-based theology mentioned above. But why are Christians in danger of doing so? I believe it is because, though we might believe the Bible to be the written Word of God, we have not been indoctrinated to reject any so-called new revelations from God, or extra-Biblical experiences, even if  sincere Christians claim to have had them.
     We don't need to go heaven or hell to learn what those places are like. All we need to know about them is found right in the pages of the Bible. And the same is true about anything else that God knows we need to know: it is in the Bible. 2 Timothy 3:16 and 17 is still true, the main point of which is this: the whole Bible is from God, and is infallibly profitable for learning what we should believe and how we should behave. We need to follow the principle that every truth we need is contained in the Bible. It is the well from which we draw the water of truth. It is the tree from which we pick the fruit of truth. It is the pantry from which we get the bread of truth.
     However, what do we see in Christian circles? A rush to buy the latest book giving the experience of someone who claims to have gone to heaven or hell and who came back to tell about it. The Bible says a lot about both these places, and its description of them is infallible. So, why all the excitement to read about a 4-year old boy's trip to heaven and back? Is it because we think he learned something about heaven not found in the Bible itself?  I think he is sincere, but I don't put any faith in his experience. The description of heaven given in the Bible is all we need to know. The same is true about hell.
     In conclusion, let me give some quotes that support deriving all our doctrines from the Bible. These quotes are representative of what has always been believed by orthodox Christians.
     The first quote is taken from the doctrinal statement of the Baptist Bible Fellowship, International, as found on the website of the Baptist Bible Fellowship, International. It says:     "We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men supernaturally inspired; that it has truth without any admixture of error for its matter; and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the age, the only complete and final revelation of the will of God to man; the true center of Christian union and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried."
    This same point was made in William Cathcart's Baptist Encyclopedia, written in the 1800's. Part of the last paragraph of its article on the inspiration of the Bible says this:
    "...we believe that we have in these Scriptures the sole and sufficient divine authority and rule regarding the way of salvation, and regarding every Christian doctrine, duty, and hope. Christians ask no other standard. No human authority can for a moment take its place. What it teaches they feel bound to believe; what it commands they feel bound to practice, and that only.”
    The next quote is taken from Bible-believing theologian John L. Dagg's Maual Of Theology, which was written in the 1800's. The quote is taken from his chapter on the origin and authority of the Bible. It was taken from the Reformed Reader website.
    Dagg wrote: "Whether, as a rule of faith, of duty, or of hope, the authority of the Bible is supreme. We may rely on the testimony of men, but they sometimes deceive us. We may regulate our conduct by the command of those who are over us, or by the dictates of our own conscience, but rulers may command what is wrong, and conscience is not infallible. We may cherish hopes founded on human promises, or the natural tendencies of things, but human promises are often delusive, and the promises of Nature are buds which, however beautiful and fragrant, are often blasted before they produce fruit. God never deceives. 'The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away, but the word of the Lord endureth forever.' When the Bible speaks, all else may be silent, and its decisions leave no room for doubt and admit no appeal."