Last week we began our study of the four avenues in which we can set aside God's law. We seen that the payment for lawlessness is death, and how that we can be lost through stubbornness and rebellion. This week I want us to look at the sin of neglect.

Moses, being God's prophet to Israel, relayed the word of God concerning the functions of the priesthood. In this word, we read, “The fire on the altar shall be kept burning on it; it shall not go out. The priest shall burn wood on it every morning, and he shall arrange the burnt offering on it and shall burn on it the fat of the peace offerings. Fire shall be kept burning on the altar continually; it shall not go out.” (Leviticus 6:12, 13)

In settling any question, whether theoretic or practical, the first thing to be agreed upon is the standard of final appeal. Without this our discussions are mere endless wranglings, and our arguments little else than mere circular talk. Neither error in thought nor error in practice is corrected. Strife is engendered and issue joined, but neither that nor this ever finds an end. Positions are taken which are untenable, and replies are made which are illogical and gratuitous; while parties are formed seemingly without the hope of remedy; and all this for the want of some standard to which appeal can be at once and decisively made. Now that we as a people have agreed to accept the New Testament as that standard is a fact too notorious to admit of question. To this we have consented to bring the smallest point of doctrine, and the most trivial feature in practice. And furthermore, we have solemnly convenanted that whatever cannot be clearly shown to have the sanction of this standard shall be held as not doctrine, and shall not be practiced.

“Seeing that his divine power hath granted unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that called us by his own glory and virtue.” (2 Pet 1:3) We are in the habit of saying that God has given us in the gospel everything that is essential to life and godliness; but Peter goes a little farther than that and affirms that God has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness. There is a difference. To illustrate: There are certain things that are essential to an automobile; and there are other things that pertain to an automobile; but are not essential to it. When you have all things that are essential to an automobile, you can go to a supply house and purchase a lot of extras that pertain to an automobile. But suppose you have all the essentials of an automobile, and then you add all the things that pertain to an automobile, nothing else could be added that would make it any more complete. God has not only given us all things that are essential to life and godliness, but he has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness.

But do religious people believe it? If so, why all these flummeries that God has said nothing about? If you will read the verse again, you will notice that He has given us all these things through the knowledge of Christ. The knowledge of Christ means the knowledge that has been revealed about him – the gospel of Christ. Hence, through the gospel God has not only given us all things that are essential to life and godliness, but all things that pertain to life and godliness. If there is, therefore, anything in your religion that did not come to you through the gospel, it does not so much as pertain to life and godliness. Is it not time to check up on our religion and see if we have anything that we cannot find in the New Testament? Any person of intelligence can do that for himself.

We hear much in religion on the subject of faith and being justified by it. Paul tells us, “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Rom. 5:1) The common approach to this verse by many religious leaders is to attach the words “only” at the end of this phrase. Is this what the apostle Paul meant? Can the words ‘by faith’ include the obedience to that faith, or are we justified the moment we believe? Let us take a look at this much debated question.

In the quest of properly understanding the Scriptures we must employ sound interpretation techniques. Such as, if one would take a word of the Scriptures and replace it with its definition, one will not hurt its meaning. For example, let us look at the statement: “John is going to his house.” Webster’s defines ‘house’ as “a building that serves as living quarters for one or a few families.” If I take the word ‘house’ and replace it with its definition the meaning is still the same and perhaps better understood: “John is going to his building that serves as living quarters for one or a few families.” Let us now take this sound technique and replace the phrase ‘by faith’ of Romans 5:1, and let us let Paul define his own phrase ‘by faith’.