TALKING BACK TO GOD

     Thank you and a pleasant good morning to each listener. I call
your attention to a statement made by the apostle Paul in Romans 9:20,
"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" Here Paul
strongly reproves the impiety and wickedness of questioning God's
wisdom and righteousness. Such shows a lack of reverence and respect
for God. Such really charges God with unfairness. Who is man that he
should find fault with God? Who is man that he should talk back at
God?
     Parents dislike the idea of their children talking back to them.
We even punish them when they chide or dispute with us. And yet, many
people today who pose as God's children will chatter and chide God by
holding to theories which are contrary to His Holy Word. To them Paul
would say, "O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" Who is
mortal man that he should reply to the Infinite God? Man is a mere
human creature who knows comparatively nothing as compared to God's
wisdom. Why, then, should he question God's justice and God's ways.
Such is presumptuous.
     When God speaks in declaring His righteous will, man should be
silent before Him. Isaiah the prophet said, "Hear, O heavens, and give
ear, O earth; for the Lord hath spoken" (Isaiah 1:2). We should adopt
the attitude of the prophet in all that God has said to us today in
His holy Word. We should say with the prophet Habakkuk, "But the Lord
is in his holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before him"
(Habakkuk 2:20).
     To the Hebrew Christians, Paul said, "God, who at sundry times
and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the
prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his son" (Hebrews
1:1-2). From this passage we learn two things: First, that God "spake
in time past unto the fathers by the prophets." Second, that God "hath
in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." In the first two
dispensations, the Patriarchal and Mosaic Ages, God spoke to His
people by His holy messengers. For the first 2500 years of the world's
history, during the Patriarchal Age, God spoke through Adam, Abel,
Noah, Abraham, Joseph and others. For the next 1500 years of the
world's history, during the Mosaic Age, God spoke to His chose people,
the Israelites, through Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Elijah, Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Daniel and many others. But in the Christian Age, that under
which we live, beginning at the first Pentecost following Christ's
resurrection and continuing until the end of the world, God has spoken
and continues to speak to us through His Son.
     Thus we conclude that in every age God has spoken to man. The
very fact that God has spoken to man makes man solemnly accountable.
God has spoken to man because "the way of man is not in himself; it is
not in man that walketh to direct his steps" (Jeremiah 10:23). Also,
God has spoken to man because "the foolishness of God is wiser than
men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men" (1 Corinthians
1:25). Therefore, why should man dispute with God? When the Lord has
spoken, that should be an end of all controversy. Man should be silent
before Him and not protest, regardless of what God has said.  Hence we
should say with Paul, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom
and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways
past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath
been his counselor?" (Romans 11:33-34).
     There have been those who have felt their own Sufficiency and no
need of God. Nebuchadnezzar felt mighty important when he looked over
his kingdom, and he swelled with pride as he surveyed the works of his
own hands. Listen to his own words of self-praise, "Is not this great
Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might
of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?" (Daniel 4:30). But God
pulled him from his throne and gave him the heart of a beast, and
after this haughty king walked on his all-fours for awhile, ate grass
as an ox, with his hair grown like eagle's feathers, his body bathed
with the dew of heaven, and his nails as bird's claws, he accumulated
a great respect for God. Hear him in his moments of deep humility,
"And at the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto
heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the
most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose
dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from
generation to generation: And all the inhabitants of the earth are
reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of
heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his
hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?....Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise
and extol and honor the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and
his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase"
(Daniel 4:34-35, 47).
     There have been those in every age who would attempt to talk back
at God. Cain attempted to offer sacrifice to God by substitution. Paul
said, "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than
Cain" (Hebrews 11:4). In view of the fact that faith cometh by hearing
and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17); it therefore follows
that the word of God demanded the kind of sacrifice which Abel
offered. We read these words in the Old Testament account of Cain and
Abel, "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of
the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also
brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the
Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to
his offering he had not respect" (Genesis 4:3-5). It is not hard for
us to understand why Abel's offering pleased the Lord and Cain's did
not. Abel's pleased God because it was according to His will and
Cain's was not. God commanded the kind of offering that Abel made, but
Cain's offering was a substitution for what God had commanded. Hence
Cain's sin was the sin of presumption--the sin of talking back at God-
-that of saying that something else will do as well as for what God
had said. In the offering of Abel's lamb there was blood, hence it
pointed toward the sacrifice of the Messiah. But in the offering of
Cain's fruit of the ground there was no blood.
     Aaron attempted to worship a golden calf. God had given to him
and his brother a law which said, "Thou shalt have no other gods
before me. Thou shalt not made unto thee any graven image, or any
likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" (Exodus 20:2-3) But
after making the golden calf, he then said to the Israelites, "These
be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt"
(Exodus 32:4). This was outright presumption on the part of Aaron.
Even though God had spoken His will to Aaron and Moses, yet Aaron
disputed and chided with God in disobedience.
     Not all of those who have talked back at God are in the past. Not
all of such people are dead; many of them are still living. There is a
refined form of blasphemy or pious profanity today that is nothing
short of arraignment with God. For an example of such, some are saying
that, "One church is as good an another."  But what does the Lord say
about the matter? The New Testament teaches that there is just one
church. Jesus said, "Upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH" (Matthew
16:18); not "my churches." Luke said of the Jerusalem church, "And the
Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved" (Acts 2:47);
not "the churches.
     When the New Testament speaks of the church under a figure,
without a single exception, it uses only figures of speech that will
admit there is but one church For instance, the church is presented in
the New Testament under the figure of a body. But Paul said, "There is
one body" (Ephesians 4:4), and Paul further declares that Christ "is
the head of the body, the church" (Colossians 1:18).
     Thus when one contends for a multiplicity of churches he is
merely saying, "God you don't know what you are talking about when you
say "There is one body," for we have over 400 bodies or churches here
in America alone."
     Another bit of pious profanity is that, "One can be saved outside
the church as well as in it." Such an expression is equal to saying
that one can be saved without the blood of Christ, for it was Christ's
blood that was paid to purchase the church. Paul exhorted the Ephesian
elders to "feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his
own blood" (Acts 20:28). Hence, if one can be saved outside the
church, then Jesus shed His blood in vain, and Calvary was nothing
short of being just another murder. Therefore, when men contend that
one can be saved outside the church of our Lord as well as in it, they
are saying, "God, You must be mistaken about it, for we know those who
are going to be saved who are not in anybody's church." But "who are
thou that repliest against God?"
     Another expression of disputing with God is, "Any name in
religion is all right, for there is nothing in a name." But, Solomon
said, "A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches" (Proverbs
22:1). In the New Testament we find such names for the church as "the
church of the Lord," (Acts 20:28); "the church of God," (1 Corinthians
1:2); "the body of Christ," (1 Corinthians 12:27). It is "the church
of the Lord" because Jesus owns it, and it "the church of God" because
God planned it (Ephesians 3:10-11). In the New Testament we find such
divine names for the members of the church as, "Christians," (Acts
11:26); "saints," (Ephesians 1:1); "children of God," (Galatians
3:26); "disciples," (Acts 11:26); and "brethren in Christ,"
(Colossians 1:2).  The church should be called after the name of
Christ because it truly belongs to Him, and those in the church should
be called after the name of Christ because they are truly His
disciples.  Hence Peter said, "But if a man suffer as a Christian, let
him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God in this name" (1 Peter
4:16).
     Denominational names glorify some religious reformer, ordinance
or system. Thus, when men become dissatisfied with the name God gave
and wear names of human origin that is simply disputing with God.
     Another expression you hear often today, which is but an insult
to God is this, "We are broadminded; we allow a candidate to be
baptized any way he chooses." But man has but one choice in obedience
to God--simply to obey God or disobey Him. When Jesus was baptized He
"went up straightway out of the water" (Matthew 3:16). When Philip
baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch, "they went down both into the water,
both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him" (Acts 8:38). Paul
said, "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that
like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father,
even so we also should walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:4). And
again, "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with
him..." (Colossians 2:12). Paul concludes the matter by declaring that
there is "one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5). We have no trouble in reaching
an unbiased decision that the "one baptism" is immersion in water, "in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"
(Matthew 28:19), which is "for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38).
Hence when men contend that sprinkling or pouring water over a
candidate is just acceptable as immersion in water, they are calling
God in question.
     Do not be such an egotist as to talk back to God. You and I are
mere mortal creatures--we are the creation of God; it should, then,
behoove us to assume the attitude of David when he said, "Speak; for
thy servant heareth" (1 Samuel 3:10).
     Great pressure is sometimes brought to bear upon the plain
churches of Christ as to why we do not teach and practice certain
things. But we exclude the innovations and doctrines of men from our
worship and preaching, because they are without divine origin. They
represent humanism in religion. Unless a things is found in the New
Testament, either by command, inference or principle, we cannot
practice it. This is not egotism--it is conviction. We are not seeking
to reform the religious world. That has been tried time and again
during the Reformation, without success. We are seeking to restore, to
the extent of our humble ability, the church of our Lord, as it was in
the beginning, in doctrine, organization, work, worship and practice.

Return to Index
Home