Luke 16:31, "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

This morning, we live in a "not good enough" world.  Economically, people's financial situation is never good enough as they always want more.  Socially, people complain about things not being good enough with their spouse, children, friends, etc.  Politically, those in offices of authority over us do not ever measure up to either expectations or their own promises.  Sadly, these ideas of culture spill over into church thinking.  Today, people in church desire the "good old days" when preachers preached a certain way, buildings had more attendants than they do today, and meetings seemed "more spiritual."  While there are generally kernels of truth in most of these thoughts – politicians could do a better job, our relationships with family and friends could be improved, and churches could certainly be more vibrant than we are at times – that does not excuse or justify that we fail to follow the injunction from Scripture to have godliness and be content. (I Timothy 6:6) However, a prevailing mindset with some today about God, His church, His Book, and spiritual matters in general is seen from the lens of the "not good enough" viewpoint.

Our study verse is found at the end of Christ's discourse on the rich man and Lazarus.  Since it is not our point of the study today to examine this story in detail, we suffice to say that this account reads like a literal account of two real men that lived and died.  Christ shows not only their life on earth but the end result in eternity: one is in heaven and the other in hell.  Before moving to our thought of the day, should one read this as a figurative story that is not talking about two real people, consider that such a premise still does not change the fact that Christ's parables are never based in imagination.  Whether He is talking about a sower of seeds, net with fish, labourers in a field, etc., He always takes real situations to teach His points.  So, should this story not be about two real men, we have every Scriptural precedent and pattern to believe that His description of the afterlife is nothing short of a real situation that will be experienced just as He laid it out.  People will really live in the comfort, peace, and love of Abraham's bosom (heaven), while others will really and truly experience the flames and torments of punishment (hell).

Leading up to our verse, the rich men begs Abraham to send Lazarus back to earth to warn his brethren to "save themselves" from coming to the awful place he now inhabits.  Abraham's response to him is that they have the law and the prophets.  Let your brethren hear them.  When the rich man makes a second plea, he exposes the faulty logic that our study verse will then address.  His logic is that the law and the prophets are not good enough.  One coming back from the dead will be good enough to accomplish this – he thinks.  In our verse, Abraham informs the rich man that if what he thinks is not good enough will not work, what he thinks is good enough will not work or be good enough either.

While the rich man's thoughts come from a non-elect suffering the flames of hell, his mentality is not regulated to the wicked unregenerate man.  All of us – even post-regeneration – carry the vestiges of the depraved old man that lead to this kind of faulty and unreasonable thinking.  Whenever we get in the "not good enough" mindset, we fall prey to not being able to see things honestly and clearly.  Have you heard people today, even professed Christians, make the claim that the Bible is not good enough?  Just having the written word of God to go by is not sufficient for them?  They follow after people that talk about dreams, visions, revelations, etc.  More than anything, they seem much like the mob on Mars' Hill that wanted to hear something new.

These people oftentimes will make the claim that if they saw some great sign like the Bible talks about, they would be amazed and follow it wholeheartedly.  Truly, they would declare that if someone came back from the dead, they would believe.  If they had seen Lazarus come back in John 11 from the dead, they would rejoice and accept the message.  However, that mindset of thinking is never permanent.  People who follow after amazement and emotional tickling never perpetually follow what they rejoiced in for a season.  Permanence comes from something that we follow for reasons other than those.  Whenever people's "amazement and 'Wow!' meter" is ramped up, they expect it to stay that way, and when it goes back down, they look for other ways to ramp it up again.  Maybe a resurrection today is seemingly good enough, but does that heightened sense of emotion content for tomorrow or the next day? 

What did our examples do?  Paul tells us in I Corinthians 10 that the children of Israel in Moses' day were an example for us not to follow.  They saw repeated signs, miracles, and wonders, but after the "Wow-o-meter" went down, they quickly forgot the glory and majesty of the experience.  Things became not good enough anymore.  Are we any different today?  The Lord blesses repeatedly, and sometimes we stand back in wonder at the gracious kindness of the Master.  Then, things are never good enough anymore.  Eventually, it takes more and more to even impress us anymore.  So, how do we take Abraham's words to the rich man and see that what we have is sufficient for our present needs?

Obviously, the rich man also had faulty logic in thinking that his brethren could do something to save themselves from hell, as the salvation from hell is accomplished by Christ wholly apart from human aid or action.  However, passing over that point, Abraham's statement is applicable generally to all today.  If someone refuses to hear the law and the prophets, they will not hear one though he came back from the dead.  Why?  When people refuse to accept Biblical testimony (law and prophets included), why does that insufficiency immediately condemn the sufficiency of a literal resurrection?

Considering the testimony of a resurrected person, that testimony will only be believed if one truly believes their circumstance.  In other words, do they really believe he was dead?  Do they really believe that he has been resurrected?  What evidence would it take for them to accept it?  Seeing him come out of the grave?  There has to be some measurable amount of faith (confidence) that his case is true for one to accept his testimony.  To believe the man's case takes some amount of faith.  To believe Biblical testimony, it takes faith to see and accept the evidence that these accounts within the pages are verily real and infallible.  It takes faith to perceive that references to the dead rising are in fact real.  It takes faith to perceive that the story of Jesus Christ – as testified and prophesied by the law and the prophets (Romans 3:21-22) – is verily a true story about His majesty, greatness, and power.

To draw the two points together, the heart and soul of the law and the prophets is a testimony of Jesus Christ.  The heart and soul of His course here on earth for us centers on His literal and bodily resurrection.  Paul staked his gospel message on the testimony of the Scriptures of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (I Corinthians 15:1-3) The testimony of Scriptures are hinged upon the reality of Christ's resurrection.  Without that, the whole story is not worth anything.  Everything in Scripture points to that blessed event and takes from that a forward looking glance to the final resurrection of the family of God to righteousness and joy and the wicked to everlasting punishment.  If someone denies that testimony, they are – in fact – denying the power, reality, and manifestation of the resurrection of the dead.  So, why would they believe another testimony about the same thing?  Point of fact, as Abraham declares, they would not, nor do many today.

Friends, we live in a world that is never satisfied, never content, and will never be in peace.  Since there will never be a utopia on this earth, may we seek to live contented lives looking forward to complete satisfaction in the world to come.  Do we have all we need?  Positively and certifiably we do.  The evidence of our sufficiency is found within the cover of the Book we call the Bible that tells of One who conquered over death, hell, and the grave for us.  Because He triumphed, we triumphed with Him and through Him.  We do not need the testimony of anyone else as we have His.  We should not be looking for something new, as the same old story grants all the necessary information to live contented lives walking and talking with the Saviour.  Instead of saying, "Things just aren't good enough," may we instead declare, "Thank God that things are not only good enough but greater than anything we could possibly ask or think."

In Hope,

Bro Philip

Luke 12:51-53, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth?  I tell you, Nay; but rather division:  For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.  The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

This morning, too often the world and society rubs off on God's people.  When the winds of change blow through modern man's thinking, those things have a tendency to subtilly distort the mindset of the saints to be more accepting of things that they would not have at other times and seasons.  Consider as an example the modern perception of homosexuality vs. 30-50 years ago.  Little by little and bit by bit the general perception of society has been shifted in thought regarding this particular sin.  People that would not have entertained nearly as accepting a mindset toward it 50 years ago promote tolerance and open-mindedness today.  The problem with being too open-minded is that eventually your brains will spill out.  The gears of the mind should be firmly rooted in the tenets of Scripture, for they do not shift and change like the doctrines of men and their cunning craftiness do.

One of the problems that modern-day Christianity faces (regardless of denominational affiliation) is that many professing Christians allow current thinking of openness and tolerance to blind them from appreciating real and absolute truth.  The tenets of Scripture are non-negotiable.  The way of Christ is changeless.  Tolerance in the world’s modern sense basically equates to swallowing something that should rightly disgust us.  Now, we should follow after liberty and not seek to bind people as slaves to our way of thinking, but in turn, we should not be bound by the fetters of tolerance to have to accept theirs whether we like it or not.  The liberty must be bi-directional.

One of the great misconceptions about the way of Christ is that He simply promoted peace and goodwill.  This is the same misconception about God in general when people only see the God of love.  To see Christ properly, we have to indeed see Him as the Prince of Peace, but in order to appreciate the peace that He is for us, we have to be grounded in truth as the truth was vitally important to Him.  To see and appreciate the God of love and mercy, we have to also understand the justice and judgment of God as well.  One without the other makes for short-sighted and dangerous ground for God's people as they contemplate God and Jesus Christ.  Christ in our study verses plainly says that His way will bring division, even down to the midst of families.  This is not something we have to actively pursue (trying to make people mad), but the nature of following Christ will anger others.

Generally speaking, when people disagree about the right thing, correct thought, or proper course, argumentative techniques are employed.  Many of these techniques add nothing to the conversation but rather dodge the real and main issue of the discussion.  Have you ever talked with someone and been met with any of the following responses: 1.  Can't we all just get along?  2.  Don't make such a big fuss over this.  3.  That just can't be right.  4.  You must be foolish to think that.  Each of these avenues that so often rear their heads during a conversation fail to seek the truth of the discussion but rather seek to win by way of ill-designed techniques (sometimes called logical fallacies).

When having a discussion with someone that uses #1, they make the plea that different mindsets should just be able to find some common ground to agree on.  While there may be common ground between two people, that still does not change the fact that there is disagreement over the portion of ground currently under discussion.  When Christ walked and talked here, He could have simply avoided the disagreement with the Pharisees and scribes by using the common ground that they had.  They could have used Moses as their example, and Christ could have said that Moses was a good man and example.  Then everyone would have gone home happy.  They properly taught the tithing of various things, and Christ could have said that those were correct teachings.  However, Christ showed them that there was something important missing and being neglected in not only their teachings but also in their perspective of Moses.

If someone uses argument technique #2, they are trying to say that the discussion point is not essential.  We must take special care to ensure that we are earnestly contending for something essential (that cannot be compromised without damaging the teachings of the Bible)1, and if we are not, then we should follow their advice and leave it alone.  If however, the point is essential to our view of God and our behaviour in return, then we should not yield the ground.  Again, using Christ as an example, He could have yielded ground by simply saying it was not important enough to continue on.  However, when the questioning came and He responded to the silencing of His interrogators, He showed that certain ground should be contended for.

When #3 raises its ugly head, the person is simply resorting to base opinion without grounds.  The reason something is right or wrong is because God has said so.  It matters not what some man's opinion might be.  God's mind is what truly matters.  Recently, I read a rather foolish article in which the writer asserted that the Bible was full of glaring contradictions and was based on confused 1st century Christians that scrambled to assemble a religious structure after discovering that Christ was not imminently coming back.  Due to their foggy recollections of the Saviour's teachings, they could not assemble an error-free creed as their doctrine was made in their minds and hearts.  Truly, if any group of disciples had less fuzziness than anyone else, I would stake the argument that those in those early days did.  Not only did they have the Master, but they initially had His apostles and the very men that would be divinely inspired to pen His Book.  What was written must be right, regardless of what any man (including myself) might think about it.

Technique #4 is perhaps the basest of the fallacious techniques.  It seeks not to arrive at the truth but rather to make a personal assault on the other party.  Resorting to personal attack rather than conceptual discussion not only detracts from the conversation but it quickly kills it.  However, what I have always found interesting about those that employ this technique is that they always accuse the other side of doing what they do all too often.  When arguing a principle, the other party will play like they are being martyred unnecessarily, though they are some of the first to launch personal assaults rather than raising valid points and logical reasoning.

Regardless of what technique(s) we are posed with in discussion, the point is clear from the Saviour.  It happened to Him and because of Him, and we can expect that same kind of division today.  People resorted to name-calling against Him, and we can expect the same against us.  They dodged the issue(s) time and time again, and no less should be expected today.  However, what should never rear its head among us is the slow but silent poison that affects our minds away from the Bible.  Yes, the teachings contained therein are still just as relevant today as ever.  Morality and immorality are still just as pointed and valid now as ever.  Sins then are sins now.  Righteousness then is righteousness now.

One final thought that will hopefully bring some of this together is how the world has affected many Christian's view of Biblical doctrine.  They often today claim, "Doctrine divides, Christ unites."  Their message is transparent – don't stand for doctrine as that will run people off; let's just all follow Christ together.  However, the problem becomes manifest in our verses above.  Christ Himself divided people.  The doctrines of the Bible such as salvation, redemption, justification, glorification, the church, etc. will divide people.  However, they are worth contending for, even if that means standing in opposition to our own natural families.  Again, this is not something to necessarily go and seek out, but if we try to follow the way of Christ, rest assured dear friends that it will find us.  We will have to deal with the heartaches that come with division as a result of it.  However, all the heartaches we might experience when trying to follow the way of Christ all pale in comparison to one smile from the portals of glory.  As the hymn writer wrote, "And the smile of the Lord is the feast of the soul."

In Hope,

Bro Philip