Baptized = Incorporated

I believe that the word "baptism" (Greek Baptizó - βαπτίζω) means, in many places in the new testament, "incorporation" and the verb baptized means incorporated. 

The word "incorporation" means "making something part of a whole"; And denotes "consolidating two or more things," and "union in (or into) one body." In this sense we may also substitute the words "placed into" or "placed within" for the word baptism (noun or verb). 

With this in mind let us read some verses and substitute those words (synonyms) for baptize and baptism.

"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?" (Rom. 6: 3)

Here we would read "incorporated into Christ Jesus" and "were incorporated into his death." This act of incorporation makes Christ and believers a corporate unit, or corporation. We could also read "placed into Christ." 

"For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit." (I Cor. 12: 13)

The church is the body of Christ (a social body, as a family corporation). It is a spiritual corporation representing its members. Water baptism is a picture of being placed within, or incorporated into, Christ and his mystical body. 

Literally and physically, our bodies are incorporated or placed into water, not Christ. So, water baptism is not the thing that places the heart, mind, soul, and spirit within Christ. This is effected by faith and faith comes before water baptism. 

There are lots of other verses we could refer to. However, let the reader keep these thoughts in mind as he or she reads the new testament and comes across such verses on baptism. It will often help to illuminate those verses. The substituting of "incorporated into" or "placed within" for baptism will also apply to other baptisms in the new testament, such as the baptism of Christ into sufferings and death, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and the baptism of fire, etc. 

Recall also how both the Lord's Supper and water baptism symbolize incorporation. In the Lord's Supper Christ is pictured as bread being incorporated into the person eating it. In water baptism the believer is pictured as being placed within the Lord and washed in the blood of the Lamb.

Dr. Trader Nails It!

In a posting titled "Who God Will Bless," Dr. Richard Trader (here) says (emphasis mine): 

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ" (Ephesians 1:3). God will bless everyone "in Christ." That means we are in union with Christ. It is a faith union, when you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. It is a spiritual union. We are sealed with the Holy Spirit when we trust in Christ (Ephesians 1:13)."

Those words ought to sum up our belief about soteriology and the ordo salutis.  Why cannot both Calvinist and Arminian (and those in between) not simply unite in affirming what Dr. Trader here says?

He said:

"God will bless every believer in Christ. We do not earn God's blessings by our works, rather all the blessings of God are for us through the finished work of Christ at the cross. Therefore, God will bless us by grace through faith in Christ alone." 

Again, this is so simple and yet so profound! It is the basic gospel message. All should rejoice in the fact that all the good they have or experience is a result of the grace of God and the work of Christ. 

Bought All Men

The following is from a posting of mine at the Baptist Gadfly from 2008 (here).

 

Spurgeon said it well in a sermon entitled “Good Cheer for Many that Fear”: 

“We believe that by His atoning sacrifice, Christ bought some good things for all men and all good things for some men. And that when He died He had a definite purpose in dying and that His purpose will certainly be effected.”

 

http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols49-51/chs2815.pdf 

This is my view also.

There are general aspects or common grace that come via the death of Christ. By his death on the cross Christ became the "Lord" of all, and in becoming "lord" there is the idea of being owned by purchase. 

"For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living." (Rom. 14: 9)

I believe that this verse says that Christ became Lord of all, both living and dead, both elect and non elect, by his purchase. Christ did purchase things by his sacrificial death. Here are a couple other texts that support this thesis.

"But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction." (II Peter 2: 1) 

False prophets and teachers bought by the Lord. But, being bought does not necessarily mean salvation. It simply denotes ownership and authority over. 

"And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?" (I Cor. 8: 11)

I believe that this verse, like others, speaks of Christ dying "for" those who ultimately perish. The question is this, however: in what sense "for" those who perish? And, in what sense "for" the elect, for believers, for those who are actually saved? The Greek words for "for" may denote substitution (such as "anti," "pro," or "huper") or may not denote it, but simply denote "for the benefit or good of." And, like Spurgeon, the death of Christ bought some good things for all men.

"For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." (I Tim. 4: 10) 

The death of Christ was good for all men, but it was especially good for believers, for the elect.

NT Citations and Allusions

The following comments are from Dr. John MacArthur from "Grace To You" (here). They are said in relation to his analysis of II Corinthians chapter six (particularly verses 17-18). In that passage Paul alludes to some things that are said in the old testament scriptures, though without citing them completely or word for word. He does this often in his epistles (and other writers also do the same). Sometimes the new testament writers will allude to an OT passage but not quote it word for word. There is a wide difference between "alluding" to a passage and directly quoting it verbatim. In the following citations the highlighting (emphasis) is mine.

Said Dr. MacArthur:

"But in no case are these references to the Old Testament direct quotes.  And I just want to comment on that.  What I told you in our first session is that Paul takes a mosaic of Old Testament teaching and puts it all together to create this particular inspired text.  And it leads me to tell you that when you study the Bible, you need to keep this in mind.  Let me tell you how New Testament writers use the Old Testament. 

First of all, there are times when they directly quote it.  There are times when New Testament writers will directly quote the original Hebrew Old Testament.  Secondly, there are times when New Testament writers will quote a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, such as the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation.  And there are occasions when they quote the Greek translation of the Hebrew. 

Thirdly, there are many times when New Testament writers give the sense of an Old Testament passage without directly quoting the words of it.  In other words, they take inspired liberties to give the sense of the text without the exact words, which, of course, conveys the same meaning.  Fourthly, New Testament writers will often blend together a combination of Old Testament passages so that you don’t get the sense of one passage, but you get the sense of several blended together to make one point. 

Fifthly, there are times when New Testament writers simply give the general teaching of the Old Testament without referring to any specific passage.  So when you read in the New Testament and it says “The Lord said,” or, “As the prophet said,” it could be any of those usages of the Old Testament.  There are times when such usages aren’t identified by the phrase “As God said,” but are just drawn out of the Old Testament.  But one final note.  New Testament writers never quote as authoritative anything but the Old Testament.  So it is the only authoritative source.

And so, here is the apostle Paul, then, in that fashion, drawing from the Old Testament, basically drawing the general sense of it, a few combined Scriptures, maybe a few specific words and blending them together in a mosaic of absolutely inspired truth to make the point that if we will make the severing and the separation and come out and get away from the unclean, the Lord will throw open His arms to pour out blessing upon us.  And so I say to you, I would be an unfaithful pastor to you if I let this church get involved in any form of violation of this.  I would be accountable to God for having brought you into a situation in which you would forfeit blessing.  Why would I do that?

Others have said the same thing as Dr. MacArthur. Sometimes understanding this instruction about how the NT writers referred to OT texts is important to keep in mind.

Does God Have Personality?

Is God a person?

If so, does he have personality? Can we psychoanalyze God?

Let us begin at "Got Questions" web page and the entry titled "Is God A Person?" (See here) There we have them answer the question this way (emphasis mine):

"Yes, God is a person. But, when we say that God is a “person,” we do not mean that He is a human being. We mean that God possesses “personality” and that He is a rational Being with self-awareness. Theologians often define person as “an individual being with a mind, emotions, and a will.” God definitely has an intellect (Psalm 139:17), emotions (Psalm 78:41), and volition (1 Corinthians 1:1). So, yes, God is a person."

I agree with this answer. We should be able to ask "what kind of a person is God?" And we should be able to tell others about the kind of person (being) he is, what he is "like." Every child of God, especially the more mature of his children, should be able to describe his or her father.

Further, the article says:

"No one doubts the personhood of man, and man is made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26–27). All through the Bible, the personal pronouns He, Him, and His are used of God."

That is true and are not mere anthropomorphisms (giving human characteristics to God). God is a person although he is no human person. He is like us in some ways, but he is also so unlike us, being infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, immutable, etc. He does not have a physical body as we have (though the Mormons would disagree). Attributing eyes, nostrils, arms, hands, etc. to God are anthropomorphisms.

The article says:

"God shows His personal nature in that He expresses anger (Psalm 7:11), laughs (Psalm 2:4), has compassion (Psalm 135:14), loves (1 John 4:8), hates (Psalm 11:5), teaches (John 14:25), reproves (John 16:8), and leads (Romans 8:14). All of these actions imply the fact that God is a person."

The bible tells us who God is. To describe who he is requires that we speak about what he does, what he thinks about this or that, what he values, etc. What does he like to do? What makes him happy? What makes him sad? What things does he not like? What emotions does he have and when do they manifest themselves? 

The article says:

"We can only know God as he has revealed himself to his creatures. God tells us who he is, what he thinks, what he values, what he likes, what pleases him, what are his doings, and he does it in the most human of terms (adjectives and adverbs), in anthropopathisms and anthropomorphic metaphors."

I believe that God has passions, but I also believe in the impassibility of God (as the old confessions teach). I will be writing on this on a separate posting. How God experiences emotion is not the same as his creatures.

We know the bible says that God is a "person" (Heb. 1: 3) but the Greek word is hypostasis and "person" is probably not the best word for giving us the meaning of the Greek word, which rather means "essential (divine) substance" rather than personhood, much less personality. The "face of God" (Gen. 33: 10, etc.) is one way we can say that God has a persona ("the aspect of someone's character that is presented to or perceived by others"). Personality is defined as "the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual's distinctive character." By that definition we must say that God has personality. We can also say that he is three persons, though probably cannot say that God is a multi personality person, or schizophrenic. The three persons of the Trinity have the same personality generally but not in every respect.

Jesus says "he who has seen me has seen the Father," (John 14: 9) for he is "the exact image" of his Father. (Heb. 1: 3) Yet, the Son is not the Father. The Son and the Father are perfect images of each other. They have the same values, mind, purpose, goals, characteristics, etc. 

Frequently we have it said that God will "hide his face" from people. (Gen. 31: 17) There are exhortations to "intreat now the face of the LORD thy God," (I Kings 13: 6; II Chron. 30: 9; Psa. 27: 9) and to "cause his face to shine upon us," (Psalm 67: 1, etc.) and the message that says "your sins have hid his face from you." (Isa. 59: 2) The Lord also speaks of "my fury shall come up in my face."  (Eze. 38: 18) In some respect God's face is his persona.

Face of Jesus Christ

"For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." (II Cor. 4: 6)

The word "face" is from the Greek word prosopon. Said W.E. Vine (Vine's NT Words):

pros, "towards," ops, "an eye," lit., "the part round the eye, the face," in a secondary sense "the look, the countenance," as being the index of the inward thoughts and feelings (cp. 1Pe 3:12, there used of the face of the Lord), came to signify the presentation of the whole person (translated "person," e.g., in Mat 22:16). Cp. the expression in OT passages, as Gen 19:21 (AV marg., "thy face"), where it is said by God of Lot, and Gen 33:10, where it is said by Jacob of Esau; see also Deu 10:17 ("persons"), Lev 19:15 ("person"). It also signifies the presence of a person, Act 3:13; 1Th 2:17; or the presence of a company, Act 5:41. In this sense it is sometimes rendered "appearance," 2Cr 5:12. In 2Cr 10:7, AV, "appearance," the RV corrects to "face."

Do you ever wonder what Jesus Christ’s personality was like? About what he was like as a son, neighbor, friend, student, teacher? What was it like to be around him and to interact with him?

If Jesus took a modern personality assessment, what would the results look like? Would he be more of an introvert or extrovert?

Those who know God and the Son of God most intimately can better answer the questions "what does the Lord think about it?" And, "what would Jesus do?" And, "what pleases him?" 

Further, we can truly say "to know him is to love him." What attractive persons are God the Father and God the Son!

"Thus says the LORD: “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, Let not the mighty man glory in his might, Nor let the rich man glory in his riches; But let him who glories glory in this, That he understands and knows Me, That I am the LORD, exercising loving kindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth. For in these I delight,” says the LORD." (Jer. 9: 23-24)

Amen.

H. Boyce Taylor

H. Boyce Taylor 

1870 - 1932

In my writings over the years, and in "The Hardshell Baptist Cult" series of chapters, I have referred to several opponents of Hardshellism, and Taylor was one. I cite from his work titled "Bible Briefs Against Hurtful Heresies" (See here and here) 

Concerning Hardshellism, he wrote:

"The second heresy of Hardshellism is like the first, a half-truth. They teach the doctrine of personal, unconditional, eternal election. That is the truth, but not all the truth on that subject. "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (II Peter 3:16). But they warp and wrest and twist that truth and make it teach a lie, namely, that if God elected a man unto salvation, he will be saved, whether he ever hears the gospel or not. The God, who elected the men unto salvation, also elected the means for their salvation. To preach the personal election of men, as Hardshells do, and leave out or deny the divinely chosen means, is not only not the truth, but is a wicked perversion of the truth.

When Paul states the doctrine of election he states the whole truth. Rom. 8:28-30: "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." He clearly teaches that all the elect will be glorified; but between their predestination and their glorification he puts in the two things the Hardshells leave out, namely, their calling and their justification.

They are called, Paul said, by the gospel and they are justified by faith or believing the gospel. So that the whole truth as to election is that all the elect will be called by the gospel and be justified by believing the gospel and be glorified by reason of the hope obtained through the gospel. Or take this passage in II Thes. 2:13-14: "But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ", Paul again tells the whole truth about election: There is eternal election, from the beginning; personal election, "you"; unconditional election, "God chose." But that is only half the truth. God's election was "unto salvation." This salvation was not unconditional, but was "through the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." This unconditional election was unto a conditional salvation to which the elect were called by the gospel.

These unconditionally elected ones could only obtain the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ through a conditional salvation to which they were called by the gospel.

Since Hardshellism preaches no gospel, no one has been called unto salvation through it. Since being called unto salvation by the gospel is necessary to obtaining salvation and Hardshellism has no gospel for the unsaved, no one was ever saved by Hardshellism. Since God's elect are all called unto salvation by the Gospel and the Hardshell elect are all saved without the gospel, Hardshell elect are not God's elect. Since all God's elect are saved "thru sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth" and Hardshells are saved without the belief of the truth. Hardshells are not saved or not God's elect and Hardshellism is not the truth.

Since God's unconditional election is unto a conditional salvation and Hardshell unconditional election is unto an unconditional salvation; Hardshell election is not the truth but a perversion of the truth and is not unto a salvation at all but unto damnation.

Remember that God's unconditional election is unto a conditional salvation and when Hardshellism teaches an unconditional salvation the election they preach is unto damnation instead of salvation. An election which does not include the preaching of the Gospel as a condition of salvation is not God's election at all; for "it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (I Cor. 1:21). God's election included both the men and the means. But once more Paul said: "I endure all things for the elect's sake, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory" (II Tim. 2:10). The elect will obtain eternal glory; but how? By the missionaries enduring all things that they may preach the gospel by which the elect are called unto salvation. Since Hardshell election leaves out missions it is not God's kind, not Paul's kind and not the truth."

Amen!

On The "Regulative Principle"

I have not been an advocate for what is called "the regulative principle of worship." So, just what is that? Let me begin by citing from a question and answer post at Got Questions org., from "Regulative vs. normative principle of worship—which viewpoint is correct?" (here)

That answer says (highlighting mine):

"The regulative principle of worship maintains that Scripture gives specific guidelines for conducting corporate worship services and that churches must not add anything to those guidelines. For example, churches following the regulative principle in worship often do not use musical instruments, since there is no New Testament command or example that would warrant their use in the church. The normative principle is the idea that anything not expressly forbidden by Scripture can be used in corporate worship. One of the foundational differences is that the former considers the Bible’s instructions as a strict code of conduct while the latter sees them as principles to follow. Both hold to the truth of God’s Word, but they differ on whether or not it clearly establishes an unalterable blueprint for corporate worship."

It is not doubted that the old covenant (testament) had a strict ritual of religious service (and gatherings). All worship activities were finely fixed (or set in stone). But, that does not appear to be the case in the new testament. Though there are certain customs and practices that characterized the church of the apostles, these are not always the result of apostolic command or instruction. The early Christians gathered together and their gatherings were called "churches" or "eklesias" (Greek). They began more as informal gatherings before they became more formal and patterned. They did have a strict code of conduct but that is not to say that they were too rigid in their manners of worship.

The authors of the answer say:

"The regulative principle is most often associated with Reformed churches, while the normative principle is widely promoted by modern evangelicalism." 

I think that is true. 

Again they say:

"One weakness of the regulative principle is that it can easily become legalistic in its strict rejection of anything not found in the Bible. It can also place worship in a category saved only for corporate settings, rather than encourage it as a daily practice. It also does not account for many aspects of a worship service not dealt with in the Bible, such as length of services, instrument use, how much technology should be employed, and dozens of other cultural questions not applicable in Bible times."

This being true, the regulative principle is closely tied to Landmarkism, to "patternism," to tradition. These are solid objections to the regulative principle, or at least against being too strict in regard to that principle. 

Again they say:

"The normative principle of corporate worship also uses the Bible as the final authority but teaches that anything not expressly forbidden may be incorporated in services. Drama, special music, movie clips, and PowerPoint presentations may all be used in normative worship services since they are not forbidden in Scripture." 

Most of those who claim to be guided by the regulative principle do many things for which they can find no express biblical warrant or example. Thus, they may profess to be regulative but they act often according to the normative principle. Paul's command for all to be done decently and in order should govern all things. All things should be done for the purpose of edifying the body is another principle. Trying to regulate every detail of the gatherings and public worship of believers is going too far I think.

Again they say:

"Here are some strengths of the normative principle: It encourages creative expressions of worship through the arts and technology. It creates a more relaxed and relevant environment for new believers and those not familiar with the “churchy” atmosphere. It allows for differences in taste and style, while still maintaining allegiance to biblical principles. It brings Scripture into current culture, minimizing the tendency of postmoderns to view the Bible as outdated and irrelevant. Some weaknesses to the normative approach are that it opens the door to worldliness in its efforts to incorporate culture. It can also tend toward entertainment-based gatherings rather than pure worship of God. It may also slide toward a man-centered focus as it incorporates whatever is popular with the congregation."

I think those weaknesses are to be guarded against.

Again they say:

"So which viewpoint is correct? Every Bible-believing church body must be regulated by the authority of Scripture. If it does not, it has ceased to be a New Testament church. But within those churches that hold fast to God’s Word, there is a vast array of acceptable expressions of worship." 

I think that is true. Each church should preach, pray, and sing. Each should have all kinds of gatherings, such as general Sunday church, Sunday Schools, bible classes, choir meetings, special singings, etc. Meetings in the "fellowship hall" after regular services should also be viewed as part of worship activity even though it is used for general fellowship (koinonia). Just gathering together to share thoughts is an act that God takes special notice of. Wrote the prophet Malachi:

"Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name." (3: 16)

Paul told the church at Corinth that each member came to church with a psalm, a hymn, a word of exhortation, etc., and that each would have opportunity to speak. (I Cor. 14: 26, 31) Church worship and practice is not restricted to what is done in the formal Sunday morning service.

Again they say:

"Many congregations embrace a combination of both views. The extreme of either is displeasing to God. Extreme regulators can become pharisaical, creating rules out of principles and judging anyone who veers from those rules (Matthew 7:1). But extreme normatives can be guilty of walking on the edge of worldliness and justifying questionable activities by claiming they are being “all things to all people” (1 Corinthians 9:22)."

I think that is what is best, to practice a combination of both views.

Again they say:

"Paul addressed this issue in 1 Corinthians 10:23–24. “‘I have the right to do anything,’ you say—but not everything is beneficial. ‘I have the right to do anything’—but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others” (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:12)." 

Agree. Abide by the general directives. Yes, there are specifics, such as singing, preaching, and praying. But the forms of these things are not delineated in the bible under the new covenant. 

Again they say:

"The Bible does give us guidelines for the assembly of the church, and no congregation has the authority to completely disregard them. Several elements are vital for a healthy congregation: reading the Bible (1 Timothy 4:13), preaching the Bible (2 Timothy 4:2), singing hymns and spiritual songs (Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16), prayer (Matthew 21:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:17), and celebrating the Lord with two ordinances, baptism and the Lord’s Supper (Matthew 28:19; 1 Corinthians 11:23–26)."

I agree. Well said.

Still, I have my personal preferences. Choosing a church to attend and support by membership must first of all depend on my agreement with its beliefs. But, after that, style of worship is important. I enjoy a lively church with spirited singing and passionate preaching and solid bible teaching. I enjoy a church where people feel free to testify and exhort.

Be On Guard

"And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch" 

(Mark 13: 37)

There are many bible passages that exhort believers to watch, to be on the lookout. They are to be as soldiers who are "on the watch," or "on alert." They are to be "on guard" for enemies approaching the soldiers fort or camp or headquarters. So, our Lord said to his soldier servants:

"Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.” (Luke 21:36) 

As watchmen for the Lord we are to watch for ourselves in order that we may remain safe. But, we are also duty bound to "sound the alarm" so that others may be warned and take precautions. The above verse from Ezekiel deals with the duty of watchmen to blow the trumpet of warning. Said God through the prophet:

"Blow the trumpet in Zion, And sound an alarm in My holy mountain! Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble; For the day of the LORD is coming, For it is at hand." (Joel 2: 1)

As believers, or as sinners, we have many enemies. Satan is an enemy to people, especially to the Lord's people. Wrote the apostle Peter:

"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist stedfast in the faith..." (I Peter 5: 8-9)

A soldier who is on watch duty, or on alert, must be "vigilant" (Greek gregoreo - means to be awake). A soldier on guard duty has a duty to stay awake, yet some soldiers do shirk this responsibility. Of these the Lord complained by Isaiah the prophet.

"His watchmen are blind; they are all without knowledge; they are all silent dogs; they cannot bark, dreaming, lying down, loving to slumber." (Isa. 56: 10)

What good is a watchdog that cannot bark? What good is a security guard who sleeps on the job, or is blind? So many professing Christians are like this. But, how foolish is sleeping when lions are on the loose? The opposite of watching is sleeping. To watch and be on guard is to be awake, on alert, to be attentive and focused, being "circumspect." (Eph. 5: 15) It is to be keenly aware, cautious. 

But, Satan is not our only enemy. Wrote the Psalmist:

"Set a guard, O LORD, over my mouth; Keep watch over the door of my lips." (Psa. 141: 3)

Many believers fail watching out for what they say. The flesh (old sinful nature or old man) must be kept as a prisoner and we need to keep on guard against him. 

We should also be on watch for "the signs of the times" (See Matt. 16: 1-3). Wrote Paul:

"But you, brethren, are not in darkness, so that this Day should overtake you as a thief. You are all sons of light and sons of the day. We are not of the night nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be sober. For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. But let us who are of the day be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet the hope of salvation." (I Thess. 5: 4-8) 

Brethren and Sisters, let us not sleep but watch and be sober!