He’s Coming

In Revelation 22:6-21 the phrase, “I am coming soon,” is used three times (22:7, 12, 20) thus naturally serving as the theme for the Lord’s final reminder to the churches (22:16). Jesus himself makes this promise (see 3:11; 22:12-13, 20; cf. 1:7).

While different interpretations surround the expression (“I am coming soon”), one thing is reliable and true, “He has come, will continue to come, and is coming!” Consequently, three challenging points emerge as one meditates on his coming:

1) Faithful or Unfaithful (22:7)

2) Reward or Punishment (22:12)

3) Ready or Not Ready (22:20)

Soul Winning

“Hey Charlie, what are you religiously?” “I’m a soul winner,” came that speedy reply. “A what!” “I’m a soul winner, I said,” Charlie repeated. “Fred…you and Johnny come here quick.” Now the four of them stood together. “Now Charlie, you tell Fred and Johnny what you are!” Charlie faced his audience and said, “I’m a soul winner.” Fred turned in amazement to Johnny and Sam who had begun the discussion. “What in the world is a soul winner?” “We don’t know, we’re just Christians.” “Well, I don’t know either — I’m just a Christian too.”

We have separated the two. One can be “just a Christian” and really not even know what a soul winner is…Or can he? That’s the real question!

Jack Exum, Soul Winning, pp. 26-27

Chiastic Arrangement in Revelation

A few weeks ago, Randal Matheny introduced me to a chiastic structure of the Letter of James. In a recent study of the Matthean Sermon on the Mount, I also learned of at least two chiastic arrangements see 5:45 and 7:6. Then yesterday as I was preparing to discuss Revelation 12 G.K. Beale caught my attention by introducing a chiastic arrangement in chapters 12-20. Just below, you can read his discovery that might offer a more lucid picture of Act 2 of The Apocalypse:

The devil is the grand initiator of the trials and persecutions of the saints. He unleashes the “beast” and the “false prophet.” The whore Babylon is also his servant. In chs. 12-20 John chiastically pictures the four figures rising in this order and then meeting their demise in the reverse order, thus highlighting the devil as the initiator, from first to last, of all resistance (The Book of Revelation, 623).

Conversational Evangelism

“Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went” (Acts 8:4).

Conversational evangelism may be one of the easiest and most effective ways to share our faith in Christ. Think about it! How many conversations do you have in a day? Ten? Twenty? Fifty? Just think about the incredible possibilities if they were used to bring up spiritual things.

Consider how Jesus changed a conversation about physical water into a discussion about spiritual water (John 4:7-30). Reflect on how a simple question resulted in a man’s conversion (Acts 8:30). Notice how a legal defense provided a platform to witness for Jesus (Acts 22-26) or how a storm at sea allowed one to share his faith in God (Acts 27:13-44).

Conversational evangelism is easy and practical. It is something every member of the body of Christ can do. It concentrates on planting seeds of truth in our everyday conversations confidently knowing that God provides growth (1 Corinthians 3:6).

Grace and Peace,

Daniel Haynes

We Are Pilgrims!

“All the years of my travels are 130. All the years of my life have been few and painful; the years of my travels are not as long as those of my ancestors” (Genesis 47:9).

Jacob was a pilgrim, an alien and a stranger in the land promised to his descendants. He never received the things promised, but only saw them at a distance. Like Jacob, a land has been promised to us (Hebrews 4:9-11). Like Jacob, we are pilgrims! We are foreigners. We are exiles. We are strangers in this world. We search for a better land (11:16). We seek a city that is to come (13:14).

Give Thanks in All Circumstances

“Give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus” (1 Thessalonians 5:18).

Half way through our Christmas vacation to Texas, I said to Jackie, “I’m ready to go home.” Following my statement, both Taylor and Kendall became sick. They remained sick for the rest of our vacation.

In case you never experienced it, flying home with two sick kids is not fun! Problems with luggage and transportation only added stress to an already stressful day. But I give thanks for this day! Because on this day, God helped me recognize what is important – honoring him. He helped me understand the need for patience and maintaining a positive attitude in all circumstances.

Thank you, Lord, for being my teacher. Please teach your servant again!

The Salt Lake City Debate (Part 5)

On Thursday night, August 20, 1942, the subject considered by Brother Gatewood and K.E. Farnsworth of the Latter-Day Saints was: “Resolved: That the Bible is the final and complete revelation from God to man.” I (James Bales) would like to notice a few of the assumptions used by Mr. Farnsworth. Those who are interested in the remainder of the discussion should secure a printed copy of the debate.

For the sake of space and time, I have decided to publish one point per post. This is the fifth and final post, before reading this post, please take the time to read the first four posts. (Daniel Haynes)

The Argument on the “Sameness of God.”

Farnsworth argued that since God gave revelations to one generation, he must give them to every generation. Otherwise God has changed.

The Latter-Day Saints do not really believe in the sameness of God. They believe that he was once a man; that he is better, wiser, and more powerful now than he once was. So they ought not to base an argument on the “sameness of God.”

God is the same in perfection, wisdom, power, etc., but that does not mean that what he does in one generation, he must do in another in order to be the same. According to the logical outcome of their argument, God’s first revelation would have had to be his only revelation. And yet we know that certain things were required of the Old Testament people that are not required of us. Acts 17:30 alone forever annihilates their argument on the sameness of God.

God is no more under obligation to give new revelation to every generation than he is under obligation to give revelation to every individual in every generation. Every generation has not had Moses in person or Christ in person. Or to look at it from their standpoint, every generation has not had a Joseph Smith and every individual in Smith’s generation who prayed in faith for wisdom did not receive some gold plates to translate! When these things are considered, their “sameness of God” argument is defeated.

In Conclusion I Wonder Why:

Why did Farnsworth have to study so hard? The “sameness of God” should have given him the message without study (Matthew 10:18-19), for Farnsworth was testifying before Gentiles. Yet, he told me he had to study hard for this debate.

Why we saw no miracles. He applied Mark 16:17-18 (which we shall not examine here) to believers today. He is a believer; he was preaching; but we saw no miracles.

Article written by James Bales

The Salt Lake City Debate (Part 4)

On Thursday night, August 20, 1942, the subject considered by Brother Gatewood and K.E. Farnsworth of the Latter-Day Saints was: “Resolved: That the Bible is the final and complete revelation from God to man.” I (James Bales) would like to notice a few of the assumptions used by Mr. Farnsworth. Those who are interested in the remainder of the discussion should secure a printed copy of the debate.

For the sake of space and time, I have decided to publish one point per post. This is the fourth post, before reading this post, please take the time to read the first three posts. (Daniel Haynes)

Revelation and Unity

Farnsworth assumed that continuous revelation is necessary in order to unite Christendom. He seemed to assume that believers were not united because they had a volume 2,000 years old and that they would be united if they had continuous revelation. Continuous revelation is assumed to be essential to unity of Bible believers.

The falsity of that position. This is shown by two things: First, the Book of Mormon has helped establish other sects. Those who would be willing to unite on the Bible cannot on the Book of Mormon. Second, their continuous revelations have not brought them unity. There are at least three separate Latter-Day Saints organizations or churches. Furthermore, the church with its headquarters in Utah is not united within itself. When they vote on a president for their church, the vote is divided. Evidently they do not get the same revelation, and if continuous revelation is so necessary for today’s problems it is certainly necessary for voting for a president of the church for the New Testament does not tell us to have one or how to elect one. Here in a practical situation continuous revelation fails them. They are not united on polygamy. Some are practicing it today in Salt Lake City, according to the Mormons themselves. Some believe they should do it, live with many wives right here, but the leaders, as a rule, oppose it.

What we need is not continuous revelation, but to speak where the Bible speaks and to respect its silence. This will bring the unity for which Christ prayed.

Article written by James Bales

The Salt Lake City Debate (Part 3)

On Thursday night, August 20, 1942, the subject considered by Brother Gatewood and K.E. Farnsworth of the Latter-Day Saints was: “Resolved: That the Bible is the final and complete revelation from God to man.” I (James Bales) would like to notice a few of the assumptions used by Mr. Farnsworth. Those who are interested in the remainder of the discussion should secure a printed copy of the debate.

For the sake of space and time, I have decided to publish one point per post. This is the third post, before reading this post, please take the time to read the first and second posts. (Daniel Haynes)

Confusion Which Prevails In Many Minds

Farnsworth, with many others, confused what God can do with what he actually does today. The question is not: “Can God make revelations?” The question is: “Has he made additional revelations after the ushering in of the complete revelation of the gospel?”

Let us not confuse what God can do, or what we think he should do, with what he has actually done.

God can feed us with manna as he did of old. But is he doing it today? Is every man created as Adam was created? Has Christ become incarnate in each generation? The question is not: “What can he do, but what has he done?”

Time Does Not Turn God’s Will Onto Man’s Wisdom

Farnsworth seemed to imply that because God’s revelation of the gospel was made so long ago, and since it has been written down, that it is not able to save us and that therefore we need continuous revelation. He overlooked the fact that the gospel is powerful to save, whether we hear it from Paul’s lips or whether we receive it from his pen written down. It is the same message whether conveyed through voice or through pen.

Farnsworth could not sustain the assumption that yesterday’s revelations are not sufficient for today. He would not answer the question as to whether or not he had received a revelation on this day. This implied that he had not and that he was depending on the revelations of yesterday. And if we can depend on yesterday’s revelations, it makes no difference in the power and the helpfulness of the revelation whether the last one was received in July, 1942 or 2,000 years ago.

They ought not try to bind God by their measure of time. They ought not to assume that today’s essential needs are so widely divergent from yesterday’s that today’s needs call for revelation which was not demanded by yesterday’s needs. The fullness of revelation which flowed forth in Christ is able to meet the needs of each generation.

Furthermore, since most of us have been born within the last 100 years, a revelation made through Joseph Smith in 1830 is as much out of date – in that it came before our lifetime – as one 2,000 years ago. Perhaps we need a new dispensation every generation.

Article written by James Bales

The Salt Lake City Debate (Part 2)

On Thursday night, August 20, 1942, the subject considered by Brother Gatewood and K.E. Farnsworth of the Latter-Day Saints was: “Resolved: That the Bible is the final and complete revelation from God to man.” I (James Bales) would like to notice a few of the assumptions used by Mr. Farnsworth. Those who are interested in the remainder of the discussion should secure a printed copy of the debate.

For the sake of space and time, I have decided to publish one point per post. This is the second post, before reading this post, please take the time to read the first post. (Daniel Haynes)

Is Faith in Smith Essential to Salvation?

Farnsworth could not name one good that the Bible does not approve or one evil it does not condemn, by principle or in particular. However, he still contended for additional revelations.

Gatewood told Farnsworth that he (Gatewood) had obeyed the gospel as revealed in the New Testament. Is Gatewood a Christian? Farnsworth said that there was no light or understanding in Gatewood. The answer is no. And thus the implication is that the gospel which saved Paul will not save us and that faith in the inspiration of Joseph Smith is essential to salvation. Without Smith we cannot be saved. This further implies (though they may deny it) that Smith is ahead of Christ. Why? Because each dispensation has been better than the preceding (2 Corinthians 3:7-8). Christ was greater than Moses. Now if the dispensation ushered in through Smith – which the Latter-Day Saints call the latter-days – is not not greater than that of 2,000 years ago, it is unnecessary, because it would be a backward step. But if it is necessary, it is greater, a better and more perfect dispensation, and thus the one who ushered it in is greater than the one who ushered in the previous dispensation. He is as much greater as his dispensation is greater. Furthermore, they claim that the last dispensation was destroyed by apostasy, but that the one through Smith shall not be destroyed.

- Article written by James Bales