Who Rejects God's Messengers Rejects Christ and God

WHO REJECTS GOD’S MESSENGERS

REJECTS CHRIST AND GOD

“Does Romans 10:14-15 teach that we need a minister to explain the Bible?”
INC ANSWERS

WE ALREADY HAD two discussions with this Romans 10:14-17: (1) “A Real Minister Answers Conley”; and (2) “Do Deuteronomy 30:11-14 and Romans 10:5-8 proves that we don't need God's messengers in understanding His will?”

In these two articles, we saw how Conley misunderstood and misinterpreted the verses of the Bible. He even ignored the context and some part of the biblical passages in order to make a point. But, as we seen, he is wrong in his conclusion regarding these verses of the Bible.

However, Conley again insisted that these verses do not teach that we need God’s messengers in understanding God’s words. This is what he insists regarding Romans 10:14-15:

“The ‘Iglesia Ni Cristo’ teaches that Romans 10:14 tells us that we need the preaching of an ordained minister in order to comprehend the words of God. Is this the correct understanding of Romans 10:14?

“Romans 10:14-15 (ESV) - 14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!’

“When we examine the passage, we see that the INC's understanding of the passage is wooden and incorrect. It is not speaking about needing a particular kind of messenger, but about needing the word of God to be delivered by any means.”

Take note of Conley’s understanding of the Romans 10:14-15: “It is not speaking about needing a particular kind of messenger, but about needing the word of God to be delivered by any means.”

What are his arguments to prove his contention that Romans 10:14-15 “is not speaking about needing a particular kind of messenger, but about needing the word of God to be delivered by any means”? Let us discuss and answer it one by one:

(1) This verse speaks of hearing through any other means that don’t include a minister to preach the words of God to us?

Conley argued that:

“Romans 10:14 mentions someone hearing, not understanding. Therefore, the verse says absolutely nothing about our ability to understand without the help of a minister. What it does mean is that Paul was concerned about people hearing the word. There are many ways people can hear the word that don't include a minister.”

Conley argued that what the verse says is hearing and not understanding, and we can hear the word that don’t include a minister (or sent by God to preach the words of God to men), thus, why he concluded that Romans 10:14-15 “is not speaking about needing a particular kind of messenger, but about needing the word of God to be delivered by any means.”

His interpretation of Romans 10:14-15 that “we can hear the word that don’t include a minister” and thus the verse “is not speaking about needing a particular kind of messenger” CONTRADICTS what the verse itself said. Let us again quote Romans 10:14-15:

“Romans 10:14-15 (ESV) - 14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? AND HOW ARE THEY TO HEAR WITHOUT SOMEONE PREACHING? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” (Emphasis mine)

Conley, the verse DID NOT SAID, “we can hear the word that don’t include a minister.” The verse CLEARLY SAID, “AND HOW ARE THEY TO HEAR WITHOUT SOMEONE PREACHING?”. The verse explicitly said, HEARING THROUGH PREACHING” and not "“hot hearing through any other means that that don’t a minister to preach.”

(2) Another case of Conley VS Conley

“When Paul talks about hearing, he is speaking of receiving the word. If we take this to literally refer to the hearing we do with our ears, it would mean that the deaf cannot be saved! People cannot call on Jesus unless they have received the word of God from somewhere; whether it be through a minister or even reading the Bible directly.”

Mr. Conley fell again to “Conley VS Conley situation” (he ends up again in contradicting himself). He first said:

“When we examine the passage, we see that the INC's understanding of the passage is wooden and incorrect. IT IS NOT SPEAKING ABOUT NEEDING A PARTICULAR KIND OF MESSENGER, BUT ABOUT NEEDING THE WORD OF GOD TO BE DELIVERED BY ANY MEANS.” (Emphasis mine)

And talking about the same verse, he also said:

“When Paul talks about hearing, he is speaking of receiving the word. If we take this to literally refer to the hearing we do with our ears, it would mean that the deaf cannot be saved! People cannot call on Jesus unless THEY HAVE RECEIVED THE WORD OF GOD FROM SOMEWHERE; WHETHER IT BE THROUGH A MINISTER OR EVEN READING THE BIBLE DIRECTLY.”

Conley objecting on the INC doctrine of needing the preaching of a minister or preacher sent by God for us to received and understand the words of God contending that the Bible doesn’t teach so but that we can received or hear the words of God through any means (that don’t include a minister) like through reading the Bible directly. But, he contradicted his own previous statement and saying that “People cannot call on Jesus unless THEY HAVE RECEIVED THE WORD OF GOD FROM SOMEWHERE; WHETHER IT BE THROUGH A MINISTER OR EVEN READING THE BIBLE DIRECTLY.”

It is Conley who asked the question, “Does Romans 10:14-15 teach that we need a minister to explain the Bible?” It is also Conley who answered, “People cannot call on Jesus unless THEY HAVE RECEIVED THE WORD OF GOD FROM SOMEWHERE; WHETHER IT BE THROUGH A MINISTER OR EVEN READING THE BIBLE DIRECTLY.”

Conley, if this is a formal debate, the debate is already finish because the negative party already agreed with the stand of the affirmative party.

(3) This verse speaks of “receiving the word” that include “reading the Bible directly” without a minister preaching to us?

“When Paul talks about hearing, he is speaking of receiving the word. If we take this to literally refer to the hearing we do with our ears, it would mean that the deaf cannot be saved! People cannot call on Jesus unless they have received the word of God from somewhere; whether it be through a minister or even reading the Bible directly.”

Conley again fell to error because of giving private interpretation to the biblical passage which the Bible strictly forbids (cf. II Peter 1:20 KJV). Conley argued that it is not a literal hearing because if so “it would mean that the deaf cannot be saved!” Thus he concluded that “People cannot call on Jesus unless they have received the word of God from somewhere; whether it be through a minister or even reading the Bible directly.”

This argument, as Conley himself puts it, a “wooden argument.”

Who says that “hearing” here in Romans 10:14 referring ONLY with literal “hearing we do with our ears.” This is the reason why we should not give “private interpretations” with what the Bible says or we will end up in error. The biblical passage (Romans 10:14) explained what do it means when it says “hearing.” Let us again quote this:

“Romans 10:14-15 (ESV) - 14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? AND HOW ARE THEY TO HEAR WITHOUT SOMEONE PREACHING? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”

Take note that when we quote Romans 10:14-15, we are using the quotations of Roman 10:14-15 Conley made. To make you see how Conley himself did not understand the verse he quoted.

Take note of what the verse said, “And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? AND HOW ARE THEY TO HEAR WITHOUT SOMEONE PREACHING?” The “hearing” of God’s words referred to in Romans 10:14-15 is “receiving (“hearing”) the words of God through the PREACHING of the messenger SENT by God. Everyone knows (but I think excluding Mr. Conley) that preaching can be done orally, or one can also preach through the use of sign language, and also through written form.

Here we can see that Conley again ignored what the verse said: AND HOW ARE THEY TO HEAR WITHOUT SOMEONE PREACHING?

(4) Hearing comes to the words of Christ?

Previously we saw how Mr. Conley misinterpret the biblical passage, how we contradicted himself and how he ignored the content and other parts of the verse itself. Here we can see how Conley ignored other related verses just to make a point:

“We are told that hearing comes through the words of Christ.

“In the next two verses, we are told how one comes to faith:

“Romans 10:16-17 (ESV) - 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”

Using Romans 10:17 that says, “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ,” Conley emphatically said, “We are told that hearing comes through the words of Christ.” This is to prove that it is enough to read the Bible directly and we don’t need a minister (the preacher sent by God) to preach to us the words of God written in the Bible.

Does Romans 10:17 means it is enough to read the Bible directly and we don’t need the messengers of God to hear the words of Christ? This is Apostle Paul’s statement, so let Apostle Paul explained it and not Mr. Conley. Let us again use Conley’s quotation of Romans 10:16-17 and let us also quote verse 8:

“Romans 10:16-17 (ESV) - 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”

“8 But what does it say? ‘The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, THE WORD OF FAITH THAT WE PROCLAIM).” (Romans 10:16-17 and 8 ESV, emphasis mine)

Yes, verse 17 says 17 says, “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” However, Apostle Paul also said in verse 8, “THE WORD OF FAITH THAT WE PROCLAIM.”

Thus, his interpretation of Romans 10:17 that “hearing comes through the words of Christ” so we don’t need the preaching of a messenger of God is indeed erroneous because Apostle Paul explained in verse 8 that he heard the “words of Christ” or the “words of faith” through THEM. He said, “THE WORD OF FAITH THAT WE PROCLAIM.”

(5) “Someone can hear the words of God without an ordained minister: all they have to do is have someone read the Bible to them”?

On his continues objection of the importance of God’s messenger, Conley argued:

“Additionally, Paul's question, "how can they hear?" is obviously rhetorical. Theing  answer is that they can't hear. If we were to say one takes this verse to be only speaking of ordained ministers, Paul's question does not make sense. Of course someone can hear the words of God without an ordained minister: all they have to do is have someone read the Bible to them. In order for Paul's question to make sense, he must be speaking af all forms of proclaiming the gospel; all forms of delivering the message. The issue is not whether or not there is a properly selected messenger. The issue is that the people need some vessel to deliver the message.”

“Someone can hear the words of God without an ordained minister: all they have to do is have someone read the Bible to them... The issue is not whether or not there is a properly selected messenger. The issue is that the people need some vessel to deliver the message.” This deliberately contradicts Acts chapter 10 (the case of Cornelius):

“There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always. About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God coming in and saying to him, ‘Cornelius!’ And when he observed him, he was afraid, and said, ‘What is it, lord?’ So he said to him, ‘Your prayers and your alms have come up for a memorial before God. Now send men to Joppa, and send for Simon whose surname is Peter.” (Acts 10:1-5 NKJV)

God commanded Cornelius through an angel to “send men to Joppa, and send for Simon whose surname is Peter.” God did not said to Cornelius, “just have someone to read the Bible to you.” Why did God commanded Cornelius to fetch for Apostle Peter?

“And said, 'Cornelius, your prayer has been heard, and your alms are remembered in the sight of God. Send therefore to Joppa and call Simon here, whose surname is Peter. He is lodging in the house of Simon, a tanner, by the sea. When he comes, he will speak to you.' So I sent to you immediately, and you have done well to come. Now therefore, WE ARE ALL PRESENT BEFORE GOD, TO HEAR ALL THE THINGS COMMANDED YOU BY GOD."

“And HE COMMANDED US TO PREACH TO THE PEOPLE, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins." While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.” (Acts 10:31-33, 42-44 NKJV, emphasis mine)

God commanded Cornelius to fetch for Simon Peter because through him they will HEAR the words of God. Cornelius said, “WE ARE ALL PRESENT BEFORE GOD, TO HEAR ALL THE THINGS COMMANDED YOU BY GOD.” This is because it is to the messengers of God that He commanded to preach the words of God to the people. Apostle Peter said “HE COMMANDED US TO PREACH TO THE PEOPLE.” And Conley says ““Someone can hear the words of God without an ordained minister: all they have to do is have someone read the Bible to them”? A case of Conley VS the Bible.

In light of these biblical facts, Mr. Conley, your interpretation of Romans 10:14-17 (that “Someone can hear the words of God without an ordained minister: all they have to do is have someone read the Bible to them... The issue is not whether or not there is a properly selected messenger. The issue is that the people need some vessel to deliver the message.”) is erroneous, very erroneous indeed.

(6) Just the Bible itself through the printed page?

In claiming that we don’t need God’s minister he deliberately says that “Just the Bible itself through the printed page”:

“...Being "sent" does not imply any such thing. This verse just refers to any proclamation of the gospel from any source or commissioning, whether that be the words of a minister or just the Bible itself proclaiming through the printed page.”

This deliberately contradicts Acts 8:26-38:

“Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, ‘Go south to the road-the desert road-that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.’  So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship,  and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet.  The Spirit told Philip, ‘Go to that chariot and stay near it.’ Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. ‘DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE READING?’ Philip asked. HOW CAN I, HE SAID, "UNLESS SOMEONE EXPLAINS IT TO ME?’ So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture: ‘He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is silent, so he did not open his mouth. In his humiliation he was deprived of justice. Who can speak of his descendants? For his life was taken from the earth.’  The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?’ THEN PHILIP BEGAN WITH THAT VERY PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE AND TOLD HIM THE GOOD NEWS ABOUT JESUS. As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, ‘Look, here is water. Why shouldn't I be baptized?’ And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.” (Acts 8:26-38 NIV, Emphasis mine)

When Philip the Evangelist saw the Eunuch reading the Bible (the Book of Isaiah), he asked him, “DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE READING?” The Eunuch answered, “HOW CAN I, HE SAID, "UNLESS SOMEONE EXPLAINS IT TO ME?” The Eunuch only understood what the Book of Isaiah referring to when he heard Philip’s preaching. And Conley says “just the Bible itself proclaiming through the printed page”? Another case of Coley VS the Bible.

(7) Romans 10:14-17 says nothing about ordained ministers?

Conley deliberately concluded that Romans 10:14-17 says nothing about ordained minister:

“While this verse mentions preaching (literally "proclaiming" in Greek), it does not say anything about the credentials of the one who is preaching. It does not say they were ordained with the laying on of hands or that they were ordained at all. Being "sent" does not imply any such thing. This verse just refers to any proclamation of the gospel from any source or commissioning, whether that be the words of a minister or just the Bible itself proclaiming through the printed page.”

Let us again quote the verse:

“Romans 10:14-15 (ESV) - 14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? AND HOW ARE THEY TO HEAR WITHOUT SOMEONE PREACHING? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”

Conley put his attention only to the word “preaching” but totally ignored the word “SOMEONE.” What the verse really said is “HOW ARE THEY TO HEAR WITHOUT SOMEONE PREACHING?” He ignored the word “SOMEONE” because this word refers to a person (one who is preaching). Because this totally contradicts his statement saying “it does not say anything about the credentials of the one who is preaching.”

The verse explicitly said, “HOW ARE THEY TO HEAR WITHOUT SOMEONE PREACHING?” And Conley says “While this verse mentions preaching (literally "proclaiming" in Greek), it does not say anything about the credentials of the one who is preaching. It does not say they were ordained with the laying on of hands or that they were ordained at all”?

Who is one of those mentioned by Apostle Paul as “someone preaching” sent by God? In verses 14-17 and 8 this is what Apostle said:

“How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a PREACHER? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!" But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "LORD, who has believed our report?" So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

“But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, THE WORD OF FAITH WHICH WE PREACH).” (Romans 10:14-17, 8 NKJV, emphasis mine)

What the verse mentioned as “someone preaching” sent by God is referring to “preacher sent by God.” The Bible says, “how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent?” And Apostle Paul belongs to those he mentioned “preacher sent by God.” He said, “THE WORD OF FAITH WHICH WE PREACH.” What is Apostle Paul’s credential that’s why he is indeed one of those “preacher sent by God”? In Colossians 1:25 this is what Apostle Paul said:

“Of which I became A MINISTER ACCORDING TO THE DIVINE OFFICE which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known.” (Colossians 1:25 RSV)

Apostle Paul is a minister of the Gospel! And he is one of those he mentioned “preacher sent by God” in Romans 10:14-15! But Conley insists that this verse “says nothing about ordained minister”?

Thus, Conley again end up in contradicting the Bible. Another case of Conley VS the Bible.

(8) Replacing Christ when we give importance to God’s messenger?

To make the people believe that we don’t need God’s messengers, Conley accused us of replacing Christ when we give importance to God’s messengers. He said:

“The INC misuses Romans 10:14-15 to say something it does not say at all. This passage is about the need for delivering the word of God to those who have not heard it, not the need for a particular kind of messenger. When we say that we need to hear the words of a minister in order to be saved, we replace our need for the word of Christ. Let us not replace Christ with a minister, but honor him as he ought to be honored.”

When Conley says that this passage “is about the need for delivering the word of God to those who have not heard it, not the need for a particular kind of messenger” he is erroneous indeed. Again he ignored what the verse said:

“How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a PREACHER?” (Romans 10:14 NKJV, emphasis mine)

Are we replacing Christ when we give importance to God’s messengers? Let us read what the Bible says in II Corinthians 5:18-20:

“All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. SO WE ARE AMBASSADORS FOR CHRIST, God making his appeal through us. WE BESEECH YOU ON BEHALF OF CHRIST, be reconciled to God.” (II Corinthians 5:18-20 RSV, emphasis mine)

The messengers of God in the Christian era are called “ministers” because it is to them that God gave the ministry and message of reconciliation. They are called “AMBASSADORS FOR CHRIST.” Thus, according to the Lord Jesus Christ, who is truly rejecting Him or setting Him aside? This is what the Lord Jesus aid in Luke 10:16:

“He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16 NKJV)

Thus, those who rejects the messengers (as ambassadors for Christ), rejects Christ and God.

CONCLUSION

Romans 10:14-15 indeed talked about the importance of the messenger of God in order for us to attain true faith. It is clearly written in the verse that “HOW ARE THEY TO HEAR WITHOUT SOMEONE PREACHING?” this part of the verse is continuously ignored of those who rejects the importance of God’s messengers, and instead misinterpret and misunderstood the verse but they only end up in error, in contradicting themselves and in contradicting the Bible itself.

The Bible is replete with instances showing how valuable God’s messengers are to man’s relationship with God and the salvation of his soul. One of this is II Corinthians 5:18-20, thus:

“All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” (II Corinthians 5:18-20 RSV)

If Conley rejects the messengers, the preachers, the ministers sent or commissioned by God who He gave the ministry and message of reconciliation. Thus, he and others like him who rejects the importance of God’s messengers cannot claim he was already reconciled to God. And this is what the Bible says to those who were not been reconciled to God but instead remained as God’s enemy:

“If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,  but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.” (Hebrews 10:26-27 NIV)

Remember that those who rejects the true messengers of God (the ambassadors for Christ) rejects Christ and God who send Christ.