This follow-up discussion on the subject of hell took place on The O’Reilly Factor just three days after the previous Spiritual Perspectives reported on last week. The first guest affirmed the idea that God would not send anyone to hell. The second interview was with Franklin Graham (the son of Billy Graham) on Thursday, April 28, 2011. He was apparently invited to offer a different view from the one previously presented. Bill began by referencing the book that was on the cover of Time and then proceeded to ask questions.
Bill: …a preacher in Michigan who wrote a book says there’s no hell, that God is not a monster; He wouldn’t assign any human being to eternal damnation. How do you answer that?
Graham: Well, first of all, I believe that man is a false teacher. I believe he’s a heretic—because the Bible is very clear that there is a hell. And if you look at Revelation 20, not only is a person condemned to hell, they are thrown into hell, Bill. That’s how serious it is.
Editor: Graham is correct in all that he said here; the man is a false teacher and a heretic, but remember that Graham would probably say the same thing of us as it pertains to our teaching on salvation.
Bill: Isn’t that a cruel action?
Franklin: A cruel action? What’s cruel is a person who rejects Almighty God and slams the door in God’s face.
Editor: Would hell be a more acceptable doctrine if God set each one down gently in the place of eternal torment? Graham went on to talk about God’s love for the world (John 3:16), the fact that we are all sinners (Rom. 3:23, 6:23), and that Jesus died for the sins of each person—thus explaining that it is man who rejects God and chooses his own destiny. Eventually Bill interrupted to pose (and answer) a question.
Bill: What about people who don’t know the Bible? See, some evangelicals say that you can’t get to heaven unless you are born again through Jesus Christ. But there throughout history have been people who have never heard of Jesus Christ.
Franklin: And that’s been an argument, Bill, from Day One. And it’s very clear what the Bible teaches. Jesus said, “I’m the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by Me.” But we know that, when people get before the great white throne of judgment in Revelation 20, that God has made Himself known to all of humanity, whether it’s through nature, watching the sun come up in the morning…. There’s not a person out there who doesn’t ask at some point, “Is there a God?”
Editor: John 14:6 is precisely what the Bible teaches. The only way to be saved is through Jesus. Acts 4:12 adds: “Nor is there salvation in any other for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” It should be observed that these are not the comments of evangelicals or theologians. Jesus Himself made the declaration that no one comes to the Father except through Him. Peter made the second statement in Acts 4:12. If words mean anything, then people must be saved through Jesus!
What Graham was arguing (time constraints did not allow for a full exploration of the topic) was that God has revealed Himself: 1) through the natural creation and 2) by special revelation. Paul made this argument in Romans 1. God’s attributes are clearly seen in the creation so that man is without excuse (Rom. 1:20). No one can say to God, “I didn’t know you were there.” The evidence is all around us. God also gave us the Bible, His revelation, which communicates the details of the ways in which we are to respond to Him. Every person wonders where the physical creation came from and knows that a powerful Builder exists.
Bill: Are you saying that, if somebody believes in the goodness of the Creator, they can be saved?
Franklin: Nobody will have an excuse when they stand before God. I believe if a person is sincerely seeking Almighty God, that He will reveal His Son Jesus in some way.
Editor: Bill’s question needs to be more defined. What does it mean, for example, for someone to believe in the goodness of the Creator? Observing the physical universe would cause one to believe that God is both powerful and good, but on what basis would that knowledge save anyone? Graham’s response may be based on verses such as Jeremiah 29:13. God knows those who are genuinely seeking Him, as well as those who have no real interest. Many believe that God will afford the opportunity for salvation through His providence.
Bill: Let me give you a stark example. You know there were millions killed in the Holocaust—Jewish people, who don’t accept Jesus Christ as God, but they were good people, good innocent people. Children. Massacred! I can’t imagine that they’re not in heaven.
Editor: This subject is too time-consuming for a brief spot on national television. First, if a person is innocent of any wrongdoing and unworthy of death, does being murdered guarantee an entrance into heaven? Many innocent souls are murdered in America every day. We are all saddened that such things occur, but no verse of Scripture teaches that those individuals shall be saved as a result of their ill treatment.
In fact, Jesus dealt with just such tragedies. There were some Galileans whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices. Jesus asked if they were worse sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered that fate. The answer was, “I tell you, no, but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.” The same was true of those upon whom the tower of Siloam fell (Luke 13:1-5). Jesus did not affirm that any of these victims were saved as a result of their untimely and cruel deaths. Quite the opposite is true, in fact. Because life is uncertain, one must be prepared and in a right relationship with God no matter what happens. Anyone could be murdered or accidentally killed at any time. Those events do not save. Jesus saved people from their sins. Even martyrs had no guarantee of salvation if they did not have love for their brethren (1 Cor. 13:3).
Second, the Jewish people killed in the Holocaust were unworthy of that destruction, not having committed any crimes meriting such treatment, but the fact that they were Jews meant that they rejected Jesus as the Son of God. As far as God is concerned, they were antagonistic toward Him by rejecting His Son. They had the opportunity to hear of Jesus and respond positively toward Him, but they chose to reject Him. The unjust manner of their death does not change their damnation into salvation.
Third, the fact that people are good neighbors and decent, moral people likewise does not merit salvation. All have still sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). Man cannot be saved on his own merit—by doing good or being generous. All these things are right, but if those could save us, we would not have needed Jesus to go to the cross for us. Man cannot be saved by his own goodness.
Fourth, the adults must be distinguished from the children. Children are born in a state of innocence, and it takes a few years before they have the ability to think and reason for themselves—before they reach the age of accountability. Since they are not lost, they will be in heaven. Ironically, only the children who were put to death in the Holocaust (or as the result of any other tragedy) are the ones who actually will enter heaven, but they do not do so by virtue of their suffering, but rather because they were never lost in the first place.
The exchange that followed was rapid, with both men sometimes talking at the same time. All of the stuttering and a few extraneous words have been removed to make the conversation more coherent.
Franklin: Bill, all I can tell you is what this Book right here, the Bible….
Bill: No, no, no. You gotta bring some logic to this, with all due respect.
Franklin: No, you have to have faith, Bill.
Bill: I do have faith. I have faith in a just God. I believe in a just God.
Franklin: And He is a just God. And He’s gonna judge sin. And He’s gonna judge all sinners.
Editor: Franklin did not make the four points listed above, but he was correct in trying to focus attention on the Bible and what it says. Bill inappropriately called that not being logical. Remember that in the previous conversation with the false teacher on Monday evening, he said that it was insane not to think that the victims of the Holocaust were not saved. It is obvious that this is an emotional issue for Bill (as it is for all of us), but what Bill probably meant was that disagreeing with his view was illogical. The four points listed above are a logical answer to Bill’s comments.
Franklin erred in agreeing with Bill’s charge. He implied that faith trumps logic, which is a mistake that many evangelicals make. God is logical; His Word is logical. To retreat to the idea that faith is better than logic makes it sound as though he agrees with many modern theological liberals, that belief in God and His Word is based on a leap of faith, which is false. “So then, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Rom. 10:17) The Word produces faith in us when we reason and evaluate the truths it teaches. We do not blindly accept what the Bible says, but its teachings were accompanied by miracles (It also has internal proofs of its origin – see www.MiraculousBible.org).
A full treatment of this subject would include the Bible’s amazing unity, the fulfilled prophecies, which no other work can claim, and the miracles that God set before the people to prove that Jesus is His Son (John 20:30-31). God never asked people to believe without intelligent reasons to do so, but once we know that the Bible is His communication to us, we know that it is entirely correct on any subject it addresses.
When Bill says that he believes in a just God, we do not doubt him, but whose definition of justice are we using—God’s or man’s? According to the guest earlier in the week, he could not accept eternal torment for anyone. It was simply not just, according to him. Man cannot sit in judgment on God; God sits in judgment on us. Franklin is therefore correct in saying that God will sit in judgment on all sinners.
Bill: But innocent people were killed without being revealed or didn’t know about Jesus or didn’t believe in Him because of their parents or something else. I can’t imagine that they’re damned. I can’t imagine.
Editor: These objections have been answered above, but one further comment is appropriate. Even atheists are wrongfully put to death on occasion. Apparently, Madalyn Murray O’Hair was cheated, robbed, and murdered by unscrupulous men. Does she get a free pass to heaven? Those who killed her God will judge, but the treachery committed upon her will not change the punishment she is due for a life of rejection of God and railing against Him.
Franklin: Bill, I’m not the judge. God is the judge, but when we stand before Him…. Forget the children of the Holocaust….
Bill: I can’t forget them.
Franklin: No, but I’m just saying right now for this argument, for yourself, for those that are watching—what have we done with Jesus Christ? Have we accepted Him? Are we ready? Are we ready to stand before the throne?
Editor: While it is true that God is the judge and we are not (gratefully) and that His judgment is just, He has declared certain things to us in His word, such as John 14:6 and Acts 4:12. His Word is not changeable; it is entirely credible. We either believe these verses, therefore, and know that those outside of Christ (of an accountable age) are lost, or we do not have the proper understanding of those verses. However, they both seem clear and unambiguous.
Franklin turns the discussion back from the past to the present (and just in time since a commercial break was forthcoming). In effect, he says that arguing over the fate of those killed in the Holocaust is irrelevant so far as we are concerned. We have the opportunity to study the Bible, and we have the opportunity to become Christians. Of course, he did not mention obeying the gospel or being baptized.
Bill: I just want to clarify. I’m 100% with you. God gives every human being free will. We can choose what we do. And we will be held accountable. I absolutely believe that, for what we choose.
Editor: This was the end of the discussion, and it closed on a note of irony and contradiction. If we will all be held accountable for what we choose, then why are not the Jewish adults who were killed in the Holocaust not responsible for their lifelong rejection of Christ? One cannot have the issue both ways: Either we are responsible for the choices we make, or we are not. If we hear the truth and reject it, we are indeed accountable for that decision. Bill stated it right at the end but erroneously during the discussion.
Bill’s agreement at the end did not imply that he was changing his position on the Holocaust. He reaffirmed that position the next evening (Friday, April 29th) in response to an e-mail from a viewer who claimed that O’Reilly had let Graham off the hook. The host said he challenged him on it, and that was all he could do.
It is interesting that both men agreed that we have free will when so many religious leaders are Calvinistic. One wonders how a more in-depth analysis of the subject would have turned out, but both parties agreed that human beings have free will, which is true, or there would be no basis for discussion. If everything were ordained concerning what we believe, then trying to change a point of view would be useless. So would analysis of any kind because, after we finished the examination, we would all still believe what we were decreed to believe.
God can only hold us accountable for what we choose to believe and practice. This eliminates children because they believe largely what they are told until they reach an age where they can evaluate things for themselves.
These two discussions were of interest. Graham did a good job, considering the time constraints—except for pitting faith against logic, but the original guest, who took the position that hell does not exist, probably reflects the thinking of the majority of ministers today. Many of these got their theological training, apparently, from the rock group, Blood, Sweat, and Tears. From the song, “And When I Die,” come the lyrics: “I can swear there ain’t no heaven, and I pray there ain’t no hell. But I’ll never know by living; only my dying will tell.”
Of course, that last line is not true. God revealed the truth to us about what occurs after this life so that we can know before death happens (Luke 16:19-31). We need to know now because this is the only time to make changes and be sure that we are pleasing to God. Repentance is too late after death. Every rotten person who ever lived will be repenting then. Those who are teaching the error that there is no hell will have much to answer for in the judgment; like the false prophets of old, they are assuring people that they are safe and will not face judgment, which contributes to what they already wanted to believe in the first place. This is a case of the blind leading the blind (Matt. 15:14).
On Monday evening, April 25, 2011, the host of The O’Reilly Factor engaged in a discussion with “Pastor” Jack McKinney, Ph. D. (which in this instance surely stands for Philosophically Deficient), of Raleigh, North Carolina. He was invited to appear after Time published an article on the same day, titled, “What If There Is No Hell?” That article centers around Pastor Rob Bell of the Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, Michigan (just south of Grand Rapids). As with most who start down this road, he is a universalist—a person who believes that all people are saved through Christ’s death on the cross.
McKinney was selected to represent Bell’s position, and, as is typical, O’Reilly got right into the interview after providing the background for the discussion.
Bill (referring to the Time article): So, good news for Adolph, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and other villains who slaughtered millions of people, right? … They’re not gonna pay. That sounds like good news, hunh?
Jack: Yeah, Bill, I think that would not be the issue—except the church doesn’t just teach that mass murderers go to hell. They teach that people like Gandhi go to hell, and that puts God in a very difficult place. We’re turning God into a monster by teaching…a literal hell.
Editor: No, I wasn’t on O’Reilly, but since I am reporting the conversation, I get to comment on what each individual said. First, Bill is asking a legitimate question, which Jack sidestepped. If there is no hell, then none of these men is punished, and the world is left without a system of justice because justice certainly does not prevail on earth. Ask the family members about those who murdered their loved ones and were released and unpunished due to a legal technicality. Or what about the high percentage of murders that are never solved in the first place?
The only place where true justice can be rendered is on the Day of Judgment by the One Who gave Himself for the sins of the whole world, the One Who is the perfect Mediator between God and men (John 5:27; 1 Tim. 2:5). Rather than deal with the fate of the wicked, Jack tried to put Christianity and the Bible on the defensive. The Gandhi allegation will be dealt with later, but notice how typical it is for those who try to discredit hell to be so bold as to call God a monster if hell exists.
Matson spoke similarly in his debate with brother Warren; Edward Fudge does the same thing in his work, The Fire That Consumes. What these men ought to realize is that, first of all, these words will be brought up in the Day of Judgment (Matt. 12:36-37). Second, if they possessed an ounce of humility, they would surely think twice about sitting in judgment on God! Rather, it is Deity Who sits in judgment upon us. God has all power and can do whatever He wishes. Furthermore, will him who is created actually have the lack of good sense to tell the Creator how to operate His universe? Is it possible that God might have just a little more knowledge than a Ph. D.? Both “pastors” need to read Job 38-41; they obviously missed the point.
Unfortunately, O’Reilly, who is not always knowledgeable in the Scriptures, responded by saying that his church, the Catholic Church, does not teach that all non-Christians are lost.
Jack: Other segments of the church teach a literal hell for anyone who doesn’t accept Jesus. I think it’s a theological and historical mistake.
Editor: Adversaries of the Bible are always blaming the church for teaching doctrines they do not like, but their actual problem is with the Scriptures themselves. Jesus said, “…for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). Nevertheless, Bill went on to defend the Catholic Church.
Bill: I think that’s an extreme position. [Then he read a statement of the Catholic Church position, GWS.] “Non-Christians who seek God with a sincere heart [which would be Gandhi, BO’R] and moved by His grace try to do His will as they know it through the dictates of conscience, can also be saved without water baptism. They are said to desire implicitly. That is called the baptism of desire.” I was taught that in the 3rd grade. That the Holocaust victims—who were principally Jewish—they’re damned because they’re not Catholic? That’s insane. All right. Little babies who die upon birth—they can’t get baptized. They’re not going to heaven? That’s insane.
I think the problem is with this “no hell” business is that you have to deal with the Hitlers and the Pol Pots and these tyrants. And if you say there is no hell, then there really isn’t any regulation of behavior at all. And Scripture goes right against that, does it not?
Editor: First if all, it is not an extreme position to say what the Bible says. Jesus was speaking to Jews when He told them that they would die in their sins if they did not accept Him as the Son of God, the Messiah, the Savior. They would not be lost because they were Catholic but because they rejected Jesus as the Christ. “No one comes to the Father except through” Jesus (John 14:6). There is no other name under heaven whereby men must be saved (Acts 4:12). This is not what a church says; it is not manmade theology. These are simple words spoken in the New Testament. To reject them is to reject the Bible, period. This is not an extreme position; it is the truth.
The Catholic quotation is very interesting, but it is not inspired of God. Furthermore, it is a relatively recent position, since the Catholic Church once taught that all non-Catholics were lost. They also taught not too long ago that babies must be “baptized” (although they mean sprinkled), or they would be lost. But now they have developed “the baptism of desire,” which is totally foreign to the Scriptures.
Jews are not saved because they were victims of the Holocaust. We all sympathize with those who endured such inhuman treatment, but being treated unmercifully does not save anyone. Atheists have been murdered; does that mean they are saved? Salvation comes through Christ, not by being the victim of murder. Such events are tragic, but they underscore the need for being prepared because no one knows when they may enter into eternity as the result of an accident or at the hands of evil men.
Babies are not in danger because they are guilty of no sin. The only individual in need of salvation is the one who has sinned against God and can comprehend the plan God gave for redemption.
O’Reilly is correct in pointing out that, without fear of punishment, few would find motivation to behave properly. Scripture does teach punishment for bad behavior (Rev. 21:8).
Jack: No, I think there’s been a real historical and theological misinterpretation of Scripture about hell. But your point, there, Bill’s, a good one—that all across the church you have different interpretations about what hell really is and who’s headed there.
The end result, though, is, if you’re talking about eternal damnation for people—that is a very psychological debilitating thing. I see it all the time in my counseling practice. I see good committed Christians (for instance, gay people, good committed gay Christians) who’ve been told they’re an abomination; they’re going to hell forever. It does enormous damage.
Editor: Hey, Jack. Have you considered how much damage they will sustain in eternity by your telling them they are all right now? Can one envision John telling Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother Herod’s wife,” only to have a weepy-eyed Herod respond by saying, “Oh, that’s so psychologically debilitating”? How debilitating is it to be thrown into prison?
Pastor Jack would have to rebuke Paul for reasoning with Felix and Drusilla about “righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come” (Acts 24:25). It simply would not do to have debilitated rulers, would it?
Who was surprised that the example of poor, persecuted Christians would be good, committed, homosexual couples? Why is it always them? Why not talk about the good committed adulterous couples (like Herod and Herodias)? What about the singles living in fornication? Surely, some of those are committed Christians. Let’s not forget the committed covetous couples or the committed liars such as Ananias and Sapphira. All of this overlooks the simple principle that, when people become Christians, they must repent of their sins—not continue to live in them. If they refuse to give up sin, they cannot even be deemed Christians, let alone committed Christians. Jack needs to quit reading theology and concentrate on simple verses of Scripture, such as: “…unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3); cf. Acts 2:38).
There has been no theological or historical misunderstanding; these verses mean just what they say. They are so uncomplicated that you would need a Ph. D. to misunderstand them. Consider what Jesus said:
“Then He will say to those on His left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels’” (Matt. 25:41).
“And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal” (Matt. 25:46).
“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matt. 7:13-14).
Theologians can make up all the interpretations they want to, but anyone can understand the plain words of the Lord. There is a right behavior and a wrong behavior, and God defines which is which. The narrow way is the way of obedience to the Lord; the broad way is the way that seems right to a man but leads to death (Pr. 14:12).
Bill: My church tells people, “You don’t make those judgments. … We’re all sinners. … I’ll submit to you, if there is no hell, Judeo-Christian tradition just breaks down.” [Bill gives Judas as an example of bad behavior. He betrayed Jesus and did not repent. Whoever does such a thing is wrong.] “You are gone! If that doesn’t exist, nothing matters, does it?”
Jack: But, Bill, you just articulated judgment is best left in the hands of God. But by teaching a literal, eternal hell, we turn God into a monster, Bill.
Editor: Really? We are not to make judgments (like calling God a monster)? What about when John called people a brood of vipers (Matt. 3:7)? If we could not make judgments, we could never preach the gospel because we would not be able to tell who was saved or who was lost! How could we ever tell anyone to repent? Both are wrong in that assessment, but Bill is correct in saying that, with Jack’s position, nothing else matters. Without an authoritative objective standard of truth, no one can determine right from wrong. Without the threat of punishment, no one has any motivation to be kind to another. Bill finally does a good job of expressing what the Bible teaches in his next comment.
Bill: I think God wants everybody to repent, wants everybody to be good, and gives everybody the opportunity to do that. Free will. But if you spit in the face of God and you kill millions of people, I think there has to be a reckoning.
Editor: Finally, the idea of 2 Peter 3:9 is stated; God does want all men to come to repentance. And if they do not, there is a day of reckoning coming. What would happen if a child were taught not to steal, but did anyway, if there were no penalty? What happens to most people if a law is given but no penalty is attached to it? No one feels any compulsion to obey. How hard is that to figure out? Even with the threat of a traffic fine, people still travel 80 mph (or more) on the interstate; what would things be like without an enforced speed limit? In fact, why bother to have laws, period?
Jack: So you think hell is designed for mass murderers, killers, those kind of people?
Bill: People who turn their back on good (unrepentant people who do evil in this world), I believe, will get something when they die. They will not be with the Lord in heaven.
Jack: Yeah. I wish that only that was being said out in the church…. [Bill noticed that he did not agree, however, as to those who practice evil; so he proceeded.]
Bill: But do you believe what I believe? Do you believe that?
Jack: No, I don’t believe in a literal hell. I think it’s a historical and theological mistake.
Editor: Not only has he now tediously repeated himself with this phrase three times, Bill finally got it out of him that he does not believe that even the worst of individuals will ever suffer torment. How pathetic. He does not believe that God would be just to sentence even the worst of human beings to eternal torment. Thus, he retains the right to sit in judgment on God (which is folly).
Bill: Do you believe in a literal heaven?
Jack (reluctantly and sheepishly): I do.
Bill: Okay; so that means you’re gonna see Adolph up there. Say hello to him for me; I don’t want to be anywhere near him.
For What Did Jesus Die?
Apparently, Jack thinks that all people will be saved through the sacrifice of Jesus, but why did Jesus need to die on the cross for our sins? Someone might say: “He needed to save us from the consequences of our sins.” Okay. So if Jesus had not endured the excruciating pain and suffering on our behalf, what would have happened to us? Don’t even think about saying, “We would have suffered torment in hell,” because according to this theology, hell does not exist.
The only thing that one could possibly argue is that we needed the blood of Jesus to cleanse us and make us fit for heaven. In fact, we are washed and made clean by the blood of Jesus (1 Cor. 5:11; Rev. 1:5), but where would mankind be if Jesus had remained in heaven? “Well, we would not be in the presence of God.” Okay; so where would we be? Have any of these Ph. D.s ever stopped to think that not being in the presence of God is being in hell?
Those who do not know God and have not obeyed the gospel shall spend eternity away from the presence of the Lord (2 Thess. 1:7-9). Even if one leaves out the “flaming fire,” it remains a dismal prospect. People must be somewhere, and there are only two choices—in His presence with all the blessings He has to offer or away from His presence where neither He nor any of His blessings are. Is God a monster to exclude from His presence those who did not want to be in it? Is He so terrible to set apart those who had the truth but refused to abide by it because they wanted their own way—their own religion? No, they did not want Him despite all of His pleadings and Jesus’ dying for them. They had free will, and that is what they chose.
Matthew 7:14 refutes the error that God will save all men. We all have the choice now, and what we decide determines where we abide. For eternity. Let us make the right decision.
No, you’re right if you said the above title is correct—except for the parenthetical remark. Since the 1840s, many people have taken issue with Jesus’ declaration in Matthew 24:42: “Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming.” William Miller convinced his followers that he had scientifically calculated from Old Testament prophecies when Jesus would return. However, 1843 came and went, and the Lord did not return. Miller figured that his calculations must have been off one year, and the hysteria continued until the Lord failed to return on the next designated date, either.
So it has occurred every time that someone boldly contradicted the teachings of the Scriptures. Without fail, those who set these days have turned out to have spiritual egg on their sad and embarrassed faces. The same will happen with Robert Camping and Family Radio (see http://www.familyradio.com), a group that is making the brazen statement that Judgment Day is coming on Saturday, May 21, 2011. The viewer does not have to search a long time to find the information he seeks on this topic when visiting this website. Displayed in red letters is the crucial date. The year 2012 is circled in red with a line drawn through it, and there is a countdown of how many days are left until the end of the world. This writer is neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but he predicts that these folks will fail as dismally as everyone else who has ever dared to contradict the Holy Scriptures.
One can click on the article under review. A man named Robert Camping seems to be behind this organization. He turns 90 on July 19, 2011; so he will probably not have many years to live down his vain predictions. Oddly enough, he was born one year after the Jehovah’s Witnesses published the 1920 book, Millions Now Living Will Never Die, which involves more busted predictions. It never seems to occur to men like these or their followers that Jesus meant what He said.
The Problem of Date-Setting
Anyone who decides that he wants to predict the end of the world immediately has two problems—selecting the right date and finding a way to get around Matthew 24:42. The document under review deals with this second question. The writer points out that the church was to concentrate on preaching the gospel rather than knowing the end times and that anyone who tried to select a time was always wrong. Obviously, since he has a time, something has changed. What?
He cites Ecclesiastes 8:5, which was written 1,000 years before Jesus came to this earth or any New Testament book was written. The verse states:
He who keeps his command will experience nothing harmful, And a wise man’s heart discerns both time and judgment,
The first thing that anyone interested in spiritual truth should do is to make certain that he reads Scriptures in their context. Most errors originate because someone reads a verse, lifts it out of its context, and begins making applications of it that were never intended. Jehovah’s Witnesses do this regularly; a great percentage of the time, if one will read just a few verses of the context, he will see that the idea being promoted is not in the text. So it is here: Family Radio ends verse 5 with a period instead of a comma. They also omitted the next verse, which is: “Because for every matter there is a time and judgment, though the misery of man increases greatly.”
Of course, the first thing that anyone should think of is: “Did Solomon write about the second coming of Christ?” Right, the idea is laughable. He did not write about neither the second coming nor set a time for the Judgment. By lifting the verse out of its context, Camping suggests that he is applying the passage correctly.
Probably he does know better than to apply the passage the way he does; therefore, he did not finish the sentence. When anyone reads Ecclesiastes 8, he sees that the context is obeying the command of the king. It is not the command of God that is under consideration in verse 5 but the command of the king. The conversation then shifts to man not knowing the day of his death. The verse is not teaching that those who are obedient to God have some sort of secret knowledge. Such is preposterous. The citing of this verse utterly fails to establish that anyone today would know the day or the hour of Jesus’ return, a claim which defies the Scriptures.
As to the time being calculated, the author makes claims, some of which are totally without merit. He says that “about 35 years ago God began to open the true believers’ understanding of the timeline of history” (2), which means (apparently) Camping. The rest of us are not true believers because we do not have his special “insight.” So what did he learn? He provides four dates, as listed below:
Creation – 11,013 B.C.
The Flood – 4900 B. C.
The Exodus – 1447 B.C.
Solomon’s death – 931 B.C.
The last two dates are close to what many scholars (but not all) think, but the first two have no foundation whatsoever. All one has to do in order to see the fallacy of the first two dates is to consider the genealogy of Genesis 5, which meticulously provides the years of Adam to Noah. Regardless of the date of the Creation, the Bible lists only 1,656 years between the Creation and the Flood. Yet Family Radio says that God revealed to true believers that it was more than 6,000 years between the two events. The problem with these people is that they do not believe what the Bible teaches on any subject—whenever they decide to ignore it.
The type of thinking shown in this document is analogous to this line of reasoning. The Bible teaches that you should give me $1,000. “Wait a minute!”” you protest. “The Bible says no such thing.” I respond by saying, “Well, God revealed this fact to true believers.” Do you want to consider yourself a true believer? If so, just send your thousand smackers to the church address. Now, no one would be so foolish as to waste their money upon some unsubstantiated claim when it involves their money. Why is it, therefore, that they will listen to charlatans who are peddling false doctrine?
The Old “Sealed Book” Gambit
Every date-setter who ever lived cites Daniel 12:4, 9, in which the prophet was told to seal up his prophecies “until the time of the end.” The allegation is made that the date selected for the end of the world is not new information; God already revealed it, but men have not understood it until now. The writer cites Luke 24:45 as a time in which Jesus opened the understanding of His disciples, which is true.
But it does not resolve the difficulty; it only removes it one step. Instead of God giving a new revelation, He just opens the understanding of what has now been revealed. The question is, “To whom did He give that special understanding?” Apparently, God gave it to Camping and his true believers. Of course, anyone could claim to have new insight into the Scriptures; however, all such claims must be evaluated as to their trustworthiness. Next, Family Radio moves on to explaining this newfound “understanding,” and guess what? It involves an interpretation of the book of Revelation. Surprise! Surprise!
Now the explanation just turns plain bizarre. The writer seeks to explain to us the silence in heaven from Revelation 8:1. “This period began on May 21, 1988” (4). What?! Where did this marvelous bit of information come from? But wait! Allegedly, during the next six years “very few, if any people, were saved.” Oh, sure, you remember that. Churches were all about ready to close down because no one obeyed the gospel for more than 6 years—not! This guy is missing the string section of his orchestra, but he has plenty of percussion. On May 21, 1988 heaven rejoiced because the silence was over and people were being saved once again. Who can believe this nonsense?
Yes, on May 21, 1988, the last 23 years of the world’s history began, and the Holy Spirit was poured out all over again (5)! Yes, it’s the early and the latter rain, don’t you know? The author cites two verses (Zech. 10:1; James 5:7)—neither of which has anything to do with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The first one even mentions showers of rain and the grass in the field; the second verse should likewise be read in its context. Like a bad dream, the explanation becomes less clear and lucid as the explanation unravels. Apparently, the Holy Spirit revealed to Camping all of this information; the reader has no idea how vast his ego is, but he is about to learn.
The Church Obsolete?
So, souls resumed being saved on May 21, 1988, but that is not occurring “in any church” (5). It is obvious that the writer never distinguishes between manmade churches and the church of the New Testament, but any church includes the one for whom Christ died. Jesus not only promised to build His church (Matt. 16: 18), but He gave His blood for her (Acts 20:28). Furthermore, He is the Savior of the body (Eph. 5:23), which Paul defines as the church (Eph. 1:22-23). Since He built the church, died for her, and promised to save her, how can the church suddenly be irrelevant?
The church is also the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). But, no, this newly-acquired “wisdom” was not given to the church; it was given to the “true believers” instead. The implication is that there are no true believers in the church, the body of Christ. Wow! If it weren’t for Camping and Family Radio, we would all be clueless. Thus, he pits himself above the Lord Jesus Christ and His church.
Rapture?
Just as God sent Noah and Jonah, so has he sent Camping and Family Radio to warn of the “Rapture” and the first day of the Day of Judgment. No major translation uses the word rapture, although in the Greek disciples will be “caught up” to join the Lord in the air (1 Thess. 4:16-17). That verse does not teach “the rapture” as defined by most religious groups, however. Notice that it occurs at the last trump, that Christians depart earth for the heavens (and do not return), and that Jesus comes to the earth but does not set even one foot upon the earth.
Now what is this—the first day of the Day of Judgment? Is there a second day of the Day of Judgment? If so, how many more days of the Day of Judgment might there be? And why is it called The Day instead of the days of judgment? Never mind; there is probably some new understanding that explains that, also.
The upshot of this malarkey is that people—Christians—are supposed to believe this gobbledegook as if the “true believers” were like Noah or Jonah. Well, excuuuuse me, but none of these words has any foundation whatsoever. The way the author of this doctrine grabs Scriptures out of context and tries to make them fit together is both sloppy and unconvincing; he makes Jehovah’s Witnesses look like expert theologians by comparison. Whoever accepts such far-out thinking certainly has no love of the truth or respect for the Word of God, or he would object vociferously to this abuse of the Scriptures.
Final Warnings
The rambling continues by warning that anyone following any church will be lost on May 21st. The writer stumbles onto a truth when he says that churches teach “a plan of salvation that is contrary to the Bible” (6). Denominational churches stand guilty of that charge because they eliminate from it repentance and baptism, the two things Peter mentioned on the Day of Pentecost as absolutely necessary (Acts 2:38). “Faith only” is an invention of man and not taught in the Scriptures when the full context is considered. (See Salvation By Popular Vote.)
Family Radio also knows and has declared that the Holy Spirit has abandoned all churches (6). He was never with those originated by men, but He remains with those who are faithful (and some do exist). Christians are the temple of the Holy Spirit, according to the Spirit’s own word (1 Cor. 3:16). If the Holy Spirit has withdrawn from the church, then there are no Christians, period.
He further chides churches for teaching their members that no one knows when Christ will return. Churches may or may not teach that doctrine, but it remains true—not because of what any “church” does—but because Jesus said it. The Bible says it, and it will still say it on May 22nd.
Jesus Meant What He Said
What did Jesus mean in Matthew 24:42? Did He not mean what He said? The point was to always be prepared. He gives an illustration about an unfaithful servant (Matt. 24:42-51). If this illustration were insufficient, Jesus gives another one about the five wise and the five foolish virgins; the foolish ones were unprepared. They knew that the bridegroom was coming, just as we know Jesus is returning. But they did not know when He would come, just as we do not. They needed to be prepared, but they were not. They did not have enough oil in their lamps and so were excluded. The five wise virgins had oil enough to last when the bridegroom delayed (Matt. 25:1-13).
Men will continue to set dates based on either new “revelations” or new “understandings” of things heretofore sealed up. God did not tell us when the time would be for a reason. If anyone pays attention to this “true believer,” what are the odds that he might repent May 20th? And if he is wrong (which he most certainly is), how many will proceed with a life of sin on May 22nd? This is precisely the problem with setting dates.
As a further consideration, has Family Radio canceled all its contracts as of May 21st? Surely they will not plan to be broadcasting after the Lord returns. How much do they really believe their own doctrine? Those who know, read, believe, and study the Scriptures will not accept any portion of this date-setting bilge. In fact, we can all meet for lunch and have a good chuckle on Sunday, May 22nd.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I WENT FISHING
Tom Leavins
I have not been fishing for a long time,
And I never did mind the slime.
I put forth the effort and had some fun,
And brought home my catch
When the day was done.
Sometimes I got wet and didn’t catch any,
But looking back over the years,
I’ve caught plenty.
I guess you might say I love to fish,
And it’s great to see them fried up in a dish.
But now my Lord has called me
To fish for a different kind,
And it’s strange because these are blind.
And so I had a different catch today,
His name was Bob, and God washed his sins away.
[P.S. Written at the time of his baptism into Christ. Bob O’Neal died in an accident a young man (March 21, 1997) and had repented the Sunday before his death.]
[Editor’s Note: Last week, e-mail correspondence was set forth between myself and a person we gave the pseudonym of Swagger to—partly because of his initials and partly because of his attitude. Although in his first two communications he vowed “love” for me, it becomes increasingly obvious that there is no love expressed at all; he just wanted to vent his feelings. We left off with his comments relating to baptism last week; following is my response to them. The claim that he is not listening is not intended to be a derogatory statement (although I occasionally do make some); it is factual. He ignored many of the points made.]
Gary: 1. What we have here is a failure to communicate. You are not listening. Part of your problem is that you are placing the writings of men above the Holy Scriptures. You highly esteem Max Lucado, the Webster, www.Answers.com, and a book by Dr. Larry Dyer, but you do not value the Scriptures. You quote what others say about the Scriptures as valid—even when they do not cite a single Scripture to demonstrate the validity of their views. Where does the BIBLE call baptism a ritual? It does not, and you should not, either. It is an unwarranted assumption on your part (and the part of others).
2. Are you refusing to acknowledge the context of the Judaizing teachers, for which I supplied you abundant evidence, which you ignored? This indicates you are not willing to study the Scriptures for what they say—but for what you would like them to say.
3. No, but I will admit that you lack a great deal in knowledge. The correct application of John’s promise was fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2, a chapter you really do not want to study. Jesus repeated John’s promise to the apostles in Luke 24:49. They received that promise in Acts 2:1-4. Baptism in the Holy Spirit was given to very few. Baptism in water has always been the baptism associated with salvation.
a) John 3:5. It is part of the new birth.
b) Mark 16:16. It is required along with faith.
c) Acts 2:38. It is required along with repentance.
d) Acts 8:35-39. The eunuch was baptized in water.
e) Acts 10:47. Peter commanded water for Cornelius.
In short, water baptism is always part of the salvation process. And, in fact, after Paul wrote Ephesians 4:4-6 around A.D. 64, there was only that one baptism. The one in Colossians is water baptism, also. The circumcision of sins from our souls corresponds to the circumcision of the flesh from the Jews—except that it is without human hands. God does the cleansing with the blood of Jesus. You might want to compare Revelation 1:5 with Acts 22:16. The blood of Jesus cleanses—not when a person believes nor when he repents—but when he is baptized in water.
4. I’m sorry; I can’t follow you on Acts 2. They were pricked in their hearts, and they asked what they should do. If I understand you correctly, you think they were already saved at that point—and then accuse me of using assumptions! Exactly when did they determine that they were saved? What in the text indicates that? Nothing is said about it in the text. The question is asked with the intent of learning what they should do in order to be saved. So you’re saying that now that they are saved, they should repent? Earlier you said that repentance came before faith. Your position is quite confusing. Just read the text for what it says and try to put your theology aside.
5. What Scripture says that baptism is a sign?
As I mentioned in my first response, is there someone discounting our need of grace? Is there someone arguing that we do not need faith? BTW, since the word grace does not appear in Acts 2, is God a legalist, also? Faith leads a person to repent, to confess that Jesus is the Son of God, and to be baptized in order for his sins to be washed away. You said that man must accept God’s gift. All I am saying is that God says this is the way to accept His gift. Acts 2:38 supports it—even if 15,000 theologians disagree. Why can’t you just study the text?
Swagger: (1) It is not true that I place the writing of men before the Scriptures, I test both. But you on the other hand have your own way-out opinion of what the scriptures say and fail to heed to men of greater learning, which is foolish on your part. I hear and read what other men say, and I am confirmed by their writings. You seem to be out there in the ‘twilight zone’. You have confused the real baptism of the holy spirit with the ritual of men. It is clear to me that you think there is some work you must do to ‘save yourself’. Again, below is from Bob Luginbill, who answered the question, “Is Baptism necessary for Salvation?” His answer is: “Absolutely NOT”:
Salvation comes “by grace through faith” (Eph. 2:8-9). And whatever is of faith is by definition not of “works”, that is, not as a result of something we have done (Rom.3:28; cf. Gal. 2:16; Eph.2:9). God calls upon sinful, unsaved mankind to repent of dead works of the flesh (Heb. 6:1; cf. Matt.4:17) and turn to Him by putting our faith in the person of the Son of God and in His work on the cross for us, dying for us and thereby cleansing us from our sins. So to add water baptism or any other condition to salvation by definition makes the process one of works rather than of grace. In fact, anyone relying as a guarantee of salvation on the fact that they were baptized with water is badly mistaken. Salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ, pure and simple, not by any ritual or organizational membership. Whenever anyone attempts to add to God’s requirements for salvation they are putting those who listen to them at risk, because anyone who thinks they are saved because they have been baptized is wrong according to scripture, and if such a person is not a believer in Christ, then it is not only a matter of having a warped view of salvation but of not having salvation in the first place.
(2) Ditto on this point. Are you ignoring hundreds of statements by the Apostles that salvation comes from believing in Jesus as Lord and Savior, with no mention of Baptism? Are you blind to this simple truth?
(3) You seem to ignore my point about ‘Circumcision made without hands’. Col 2:12 is speaking of the spiritual acts of circumcision and baptism, not the physical. And, baptism with water is DEFINITELY not always associated with salvation. See the following scriptures: (John 3:16, John 3:18, John 6:29, John 8:24, John 11:25, John 12:36, Acts 15:6-11, Acts 21:25, Rom 4:24, Rom 6:8, Rom 10:9, Rom 10:14, I Cor 1:21, Gal 3:22, I Tim 4:14, Heb 11:6, I Pet 1:21, I John 3:23). Do you totally ignore the most important and recognized scripture in the entire Bible; John 3:16?
You seem to follow a doctrine that is totally at odds with mainstream Christianity, and it is dangerous to make such interpretations that are not coherent to other believers. I don’t see any point to continuing this argument.
I’ll challenge you to find three respected well known theologians who would agree with you that:
1. Water baptism is not a ritual which symbolizes the spiritual baptism of Jesus upon a new believer.
2. When one truly accepts Jesus as his Lord and savior, that it does not mean the person has repented.
3. That more than believing in Jesus as Lord and Savior is required for Salvation per the Bible.
Good luck, and I hope you don’t find many followers.
[Editor’s note: You will notice the increased hostility as the correspondence continues; Swagger is no longer expressing any love, and he increasingly ignores any arguments that I bring up.]
Gary: After denying that you vaunt men above God, it is amazing that you turn right around and quote from men again! Then you challenge me to find three theologians (presumably that you would accept as such) who would agree with me. The irony is probably lost on you, but I’m lol.
What good do you think it is to throw out four thousand Scriptures as if I would disagree with any one of them? My disagreement is not with the Scriptures but with you. You cannot explain Acts 2, so, like JWs, you wander all over the place and throw up as many red herrings as you possibly can.
I could quote myself from many of the books where my chapters appear, or I could quote dozens of other books from those who acknowledge the truth that you cannot stomach and refuse to see, and many of them are denominationalists (Dr. George Beasley-Murray, for example), but what good would that do? To paraphrase what Abraham told the rich man, you would not change your mind if one arose from the dead to tell you.
The point is not what others say. Do you think Christians do not know Ephesians 2:8-9? It was one of the first Scriptures I memorized. Do you think we do not believe in faith? We spend a great portion of our time setting forth Christian evidences in order to help people believe. And I am the dangerous extremist? Your attitude seems to be: “If you don’t agree with me and my friends, you’re a nut.”
Why don’t you try coming to grips with the text—regardless of what anyone else has written or said on the subject? Let me make it easier for you. Answer the following questions true or false, based on Acts 2:21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41.
1. Peter was addressing on the Day of Pentecost Jews who had crucified Christ.
2. Peter provided Scriptural evidence that the Messiah would be raised from the dead, along with eyewitness testimony.
3. They asked him, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”
4. When they asked that question, the text makes clear they were already believers and saved.
5. When they asked that question, they wanted to know what they should do to make amends for having crucified Jesus.
6. Peter told them to do two things in order to receive forgiveness of sins: repent and be baptized.
7. Peter told them to save themselves from that perverse generation.
8. Telling them how to be saved (2:38) and that they needed to be saved (v. 40) means they were still lost.
9. Since Peter told them to do two things, Peter is a legalist who thinks salvation depends on what we do.
10. Since Peter told them to do two things, he did not believe all the passages that would be written about grace and faith.
Now, Swagger, looking at this text and facing it squarely will get us a lot further down the road than hurling passages of Scripture at each other.
Let the Word open your mind.
Swagger: I do see the Irony. You tell me not to rely on the interpretations of other men and to read the scripture myself; then you proceed to insist on your interpretation. I have read the text myself, all the text, and I believe you are wrong in your interpretation, dead wrong. But Oh, that’s not irony on your part is it; that’s hypocrisy! Probably lost on you, lol.
I normally do not take such advice to not include the interpretations of other men in my thinking: I.e. The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but he who heeds counsel is wise (Prov. 12:15). However, in your case, I will heed your advice.
As a check on sanity, I did ask two independent Dr’s of Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary regarding your interpretation of Acts 2. They were in complete agreement with each other, and they agreed with my interpretation. Frankly, I was impressed. However, they did comment that even if your interpretation of Acts 2 was correct, that later, Paul corrected Peter regarding adding any act of the flesh to the doctrine of salvation by faith alone; and Peter succumbed to Paul’s correction. Therefore, your Acts 2 interpretation is a mute point regardless of how loosely you interpret the event.
Myself, I will cling to the grace of Jesus and salvation by faith in Him alone, and I will add nothing to that of my own works of the flesh (including the ritual of baptism, the sacraments, etc.) While these things are good and for the benefit of God’s kingdom, they have nothing to do with salvation. (Gal. 3:1-13). I will not allow Satan or anyone to rob me of that joy!
With your continued unstable interpretations and heavy attitude, I find the need now to end this by blocking any further emails from you.
Gary: It figures. You initiate contact, and when I ask you for some simple true-false questions to bring out the meaning of the text and help you clarify your thinking, you become abusive. Then you say, in effect, “I will take my marbles and go home.” I think anyone who reads this correspondence (and I do intend to publish it) will see who had the Biblical case and who just talked about having one.
[Thus the conversation came to an abrupt end. Swagger kept talking about “my interpretation,” but all I asked him to do was answer ten simple true-false questions. My answers are listed below:
1 – True 2 – true
3 – True 4 – False
5 – True 6 – True
7 – True 8 – True
9 – False 10 – False
All of these answers can be determined by reading the text; there is nothing difficult or mentally strenuous. It is not unlikely that Swagger realized that he could not answer these simple questions without giving up his position.
Swagger was both a bully and a coward. When he could not deal with one passage of Scriptures, he drove off in a huff (so to speak). My prophecy that naming an expert who held the same position that we do proved to be accurate. I mentioned Dr. George Beasley-Murray who wrote a well-known book on the subject of baptism a number of years ago. Although he is from a Baptist background, he was honest with the text and did not let his theology color his views. As predicted, Swagger passed right over the reference without comment. Either he is too inexperienced to be aware of the book, or he knows that it refutes his point. All he can do is claim that all his buddies agree with him. Such is hardly rare. I could provide all the references that agree with me, too, but what is the point? The only thing that matters is what the Bible teaches, and Swagger did not want to go there. He preferred to continually quote men rather than deal with the text.
If a Dallas Theology professor said that Paul corrected Peter over adding anything to “faith only,” he is more ignorant than Swagger. Paul rebuked Peter for his treatment of the Gentiles—not for any doctrine he taught—particularly one inspired of the Holy Spirit, as Peter was on Pentecost. Unfortunately, for Swagger, his professors will not be able to get him into heaven.]
Everyone has probably heard the expression, “It’s not what you know; it’s who you know.” Apparently, some people believe that principle applies to salvation. They think, “If I can find enough people to agree with me, then that proves that my position is right.” In actuality, however, truth is not determined by popular vote. This attitude was expressed a few months ago by an e-mail correspondent who would never answer a question or deal with a passage of Scripture by reasoning through a verse himself; he would always cut and paste from what someone else wrote. In fact, he was incapable of answering a simple question; so, after about 100 exchanges, I terminated the discussion.
Recently, a different fellow, who shall be called Swagger, wrote to tell me that I had “missed the whole point of the gospel.” He rambled on for a few paragraphs and then quit by saying that Max Lucado has done a wonderful job communicating to people the heart of God (which is false). I wrote back and asked him if he might clarify what was the intent of his e-mail. Swagger apologized for not being clear and then began to explain his position and why he had written in response to my article on Max Lax (Feb. 25, 2001).
Swagger: The word ‘Metanoia’ is translated ‘Repent’ in the New Testament, which means to change one’s mind. So what are we to change our mind to and from? The answer, in context, is to the Gospel and away from evil ways or anything that is opposed to Jesus. This is what is meant by ‘believe in Jesus’, for even the demons know who Jesus is, but they do not believe the Gospel; that Jesus is our Lord and Savior, the Messiah. Without belief in Jesus as Lord and Savior, there is no salvation. Often, the idea of believing is expressed by the word repent. In the context of John 3:16, a person cannot believe (trust) in Jesus Christ as taught in the verse without repenting (changing his mind about Jesus) in the process. [Note: all misspellings and incorrect punctuation is his.]
This meaning of repent is belief in Jesus that Max Lucado adheres to; admit that Jesus is Lord of your life, agree with Him in all He teaches, and accept the salvation Jesus gives freely, and which is impossible to earn. This IS repentance! The acts that follow are not ‘repentance’, they are the deeds that are worthy of repentance.
Gary: You say many right things about repentance, but your position that it is included in belief is wrong and cannot be substantiated. Repentance is a change of heart, resulting in a change of life, as the verse you cited demonstrates. But it is separate from faith, and that fact can be seen by what occurred at the close of Peter’s sermon on Pentecost. Many of those present were pricked in their heart when they became convinced through Peter’s preaching that they had crucified the Son of God who had been raised from the dead. They said, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37).
It is obvious that they believed. Now consider this carefully. If what you outlined were true, then Peter should have said, “I see that you have already repented because you believe. Furthermore, this means you are already saved, and there is nothing further you can do to avail yourself of salvation. Why are you even asking that question?”
The fact that repentance is not included in belief is seen in Peter’s answer: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins…” (Acts 2:38).
[Note: The reader might wonder why Swagger is trying to include repentance with faith. The answer is that, in order to teach “faith only,” one must do something with repentance, since it is obvious that it is essential; so teachers of this false doctrine attempt to include it in faith. The true-false questions later expose this error.]
Baptism
Swagger [from the same e-mail]: But what about baptism….
An excellent theological explanation of the spiritual meaning and symbolism of the ritual of baptism is a tiny book written by Dr. Larry Dyer: Baptism, the Believers First Obedience. Google it, I think you can purchase it for under $6.
Baptism is the first of many commands that Jesus and the Apostles gave to Christians. Each command is valuable and important to the Christian and Christian community. But on none of these commands (including physical baptism) does our salvation depend. Salvation for the believer is already settled, and no believer can say he is not Baptized. The ritual of baptism we perform on each other with water (whether dripped or doused) is only a symbol of what just happened when we truly believe (repent) in Jesus. The moment we believed in Jesus, we were baptized. The physical ritual is only a symbol of what happened. This is why I personally like the full body baptism of new believers. The symbol is that of dying and being raised from dead to living. This is exactly what happens when we believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior. First we die. We die from our old self under the penalty of the old covenant, which brings death. We are no longer under the law, where sin brings death. We are raised to a new liberty in Christ and we are now under the power of Grace. We have all been baptized by the spirit the moment we ‘believe’. And, even a man in the desert who is 1000s of miles from water is baptized upon his belief in Jesus as Messiah!
Gary: Peter did not tell them that baptism was a command they should obey some time later. It was necessary for salvation. This is the way that someone accepts God’s gift of salvation. It is the gospel as preached by an apostle inspired of the Holy Spirit.
Now let me predict that you are going to object to the facts just presented and argue that baptism is not necessary in order to be saved, but before you do, you should notice that no one objected to what Peter said on that day. In fact, those who gladly received his word were baptized (Acts 2:41).
I know this is not what you have been taught, but this is what the Bible teaches. Please give it serious contemplation, and study the text carefully. There is much more that could be said, but this will do for a start.
Looking forward to hearing from you again.
Swagger: We do disagree, it appears, on some of the basics of the Gospel. We seem to agree on “Belief” in Jesus as key to salvation, but we disagree on the meaning of repentance and role that ritual baptism plays in the believers sanctification. It appears to me you have exchanged the old law for a new law (which is the false Gospel that Paul speaks of). Apostle Paul was saying if you add any works to ‘salvation by grace’, you believe in a false Jesus.
You take a great liberty in assuming the listeners in Acts 2:37 became ‘believers in who Jesus is’ when they were ‘cut to the heart’ after Peter reminded them they crucified a man created by God. I would also be cut to the heart if he reminded me that I murdered a man of God, but I would not necessarily believe he is the Messiah. This requires repentance in their heart and mind as to who Jesus is and who they are in relation to Jesus; they need him as Savior. Peter went on to explain they needed to be saved from their sins, and yes, the first command to a Christian (after he is saved) is to be baptized. The statement you made, “it is obvious they believed (in Jesus as Messiah)” is simply a false assumption, which sets you up for continued false logic.
Reader, see Acts 2:33-36, especially Acts 2:36 to see what pricked their heart (Acts 2:37). They believed Jesus was “both Lord and Christ” (Messiah). And if you doubt that Christ is the English term for the Greek word Χριστός (Khristós) which is a translation of the Hebrews word transliterated into English as Messiah, check Wikipedia or a lexicon for yourself. Christ and Messiah have the same meaning.
You cannot take instances like Acts 2 apart from all other scripture. We find many cases where Jesus requires that we believe and the Apostles tell us to ‘believe’ or ‘repent’ in order to be saved, without mentioning baptism (i.e. Luke 8:13, John 1:12, John 3:16, John 3:18, John 6:29, John 8:24, John 11:25, John 12:36, Acts 15:6-11, Acts 21:25, Rom 4:24, Rom 6:8, Rom 10:9, Rom 10:14, I Cor 1:21, Gal 3:22, I Tim 4:14, Heb 11:6, I Pet 1:21, I John 3:23).
But in no case will you find that a person is told to be saved by baptism absent from believing. John the Baptist declared that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit; whereas he (John the Baptist) only baptizes with water. Given the various instances where water baptism is not mentioned as a requirement of salvation, logic alone should tell you that a person is saved by faith in Jesus as Savior, absent baptism by water.
The case is very specifically answered in Acts 16:30-34. Paul answers the question of what must they do to be saved and he answers: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Later he takes them down to be baptized (fulfilling a command, but not part of his answer to the question regarding the requirement of salvation).
The fact that no one objected to Peter’s command to be baptized in Acts 2 is of no logical consequence. I also didn’t object to the command of baptism by water, but I understand it is a ritual, and the real baptism occurred when I accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior, yes a free gift, a gift, a gift. How about you? Are you saved by God’s grace alone, by accepting the gift of salvation which was purchased on the cross by Jesus? Or, are you saved because you accepted the gift, and you were baptized, and you later repented, and you did other things? If so, when do you declare you’ve done enough to be saved?
As I said brother, I do love you, but I don’t agree with you,,,, [The reader can judge how much love Swagger shows throughout this correspondence.].
Gary: I was hoping that you would keep your response brief and to the point, but instead you wandered all over the place. It would take hours to answer all of the false statements you made; so I will start with a few (and in order). If you wish to respond to those and resolve them, then we can move on.
1. First of all, baptism is not a ritual. It is not described as a ritual; it is not called a ritual. There is nothing ritualistic about it. You have made an assumption that is not valid.
2. The old law has been replaced by a new law—the perfect law of liberty (James 1:25). The false gospel Paul was referring to in Galatians 1:6-9 was that of the Judaizing teachers who were binding requirements from the Law of Moses upon Christians (cf. Acts 15:1-6). That action is totally irrelevant to this discussion. It sounds as though you are trying to slur rather than discuss the Scriptures.
3. You imply that baptism is a work (of man), and you are wrong. It is the work of God (see Colossians 2:12), in which He washes away our sins, thus sanctifying us (see 1 Cor. 6:11). In being baptized, man is simply complying with the command of God. It is not a work of merit and anyway, “How could one person be baptized in any better fashion than another?” It is a passive act of compliance with God.
4. Being cut to the heart would not by itself indicate belief, since the same phrase is used of those who stoned Stephen, but the fact that they asked what they should do demonstrated belief in what Peter had preached. This is further demonstrated by their doing precisely what Peter told them to do. They were baptized (Acts 2:41). They believed, repented, and were baptized. Aren’t you ashamed that you must waltz all the way around the barn to get away from this simple truth?
5. Peter did not tell them they were saved and then say the first command for all you new Christians is to be baptized. Your theology is blinding you to a very simple text. He told those who believed his message (not an assumption, but a fact) to do 2 things: repent and be baptized. Anyone with a 4th-grade education (and not prejudiced by false doctrine) can understand this situation. Read the text a little more thoughtfully and try not to defend the errors you have been taught.
Swagger: (1) Regarding your statement that Baptism is not a ritual, again we disagree. In short, below is an excerpt from ‘Answers.com’ regarding Baptism, which I happen to agree with and I have been trying to get you to realize:
“Baptism is a sacrament, and it is performed as a ritual. All sacraments are rituals; ritual is not a bad word. Rituals are signs that incorporate a sacred meaning. Marriages, for example, can be represented by a ritualistic exchange of rings.
“Baptism is both a ritual and the reality of what takes place in a person’s life who gives his/her life to Christ Jesus. The scripture says of Jesus that he baptizes with fire and the holy spirit. When we perform a baptism in water, we are acting out, through a physical practice, an expression of what Christ does in the life of the believer. When He allows the fire of trials to take place in our lives, He is submerging our old sinful self so that we might rise in the image of Him; in newness of life. This is where the holy spirit brings us comfort to know that He is with us.
“Baptism is expressed in the process of planting as well. When the seed is placed under the earth it undergoes a shedding of the exterior skin so that the life within can be produced. It then rises from the ground, a wonderful new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). Through baptism (the actual baptism that Christ performs) we shed our tendencies to focus on meaningless external things, and have our relationship to God which is of the heart.
(2) Regarding Paul’s message to the churches of Galacia: again we disagree. Paul was clearly saying there is only one Gospel, that of Grace, which is again what I have been trying to convince you from the beginning. Grace is apart from works, whether you consider the works of ‘circumcision’, ‘water baptism’, or saying ‘Hail Mary’.
(3) As stated above…water baptism is a work of men (i.e. John the Baptist); whereas, the baptism of Christ occurs at the time of belief on every believer, even the man 1000s of miles away from water (are you saying the man in the desert is not saved when he believes?). The baptism in Col 2:12 refers to the spiritual baptism of Christ on the believer, not the water baptism that men perform. NOTE: If you think different, then you must also argue with the same ignorant logic that the ‘circumcision made without hands’ in Col 2:12 is the same one as the physical circumcision made by the doctor!! Both the circumcision made without hands and the baptism referred to in Col 2:12 are spiritual, not physical. Both physical acts are rituals, symbolizing the spiritual realities. You have to admit I got you on this one.
(4) Your assumptions of truth rely heavily on what you assume the audience of Peter knew and believed before and after he told them they needed to repent and be baptized. Since you assume the audience ‘believed’ already, then Peter was telling them what they need ‘to do’ as obedient Christians; which again is what I have been saying all along. Christians are commanded to do many things, but this is after Salvation is a settled issue.
(5) Peter indeed did not tell them they were saved. He told them how to be saved, after the message pierced their hearts. He told them to repent (believe in Jesus as the Messiah), and be Baptized (be crucified with Jesus and raised to the new covenant). Water baptism is the ritual that was performed as a sign that they did exactly that.
Gary, it is truly your theology that is legalistic, and misses the point of the grace Jesus bestows on all who believe in Him. You rattle on about the audience at Pentecost, but only offer conjecture and circular reasoning as to why they believed before Peter told them to repent (as if that makes some theological difference). You totally ignored my point that there are many statements by Jesus and the Apostles that to be saved you must believe in Jesus, with no mention of water baptism.
Do you see what baptism symbolizes? The act performed by water is a symbolic ritual. Every prominent theologian I can think of agrees with that.
[To be continued]
Mac Deaver, the champion of “the direct help from God” heresy, occasionally prompts the reader who is considering his 2007 book (The Holy Spirit) to laugh. He does not intend to be humorous, but the reader cannot help but chuckle at his tactics. In his first chapter, Mac tried to establish that Gus Nichols agreed with his position while at the same time saying that in his oral debates he “never claimed brother Nichols to be in agreement” with what he had publicly defended (11). It remains confusing, then, to hear him say that brother Nichols probably did agree with him (12). Anyone who has read Gus Nichols’ book on the Holy Spirit knows that he did not agree with Mac, despite Mac’s suspicions to the contrary. Do these quotes of brother Nichols (from his book, Lectures on the Holy Spirit, published in 1997), sound like he believed that the Holy Spirit directly helped or influenced the Christian?
Question: Should we pray to God to give a preacher a ”ready recollection?” Is this providential, miraculous, or what?
Answer [from brother Nichols, GWS]: That’s all borrowed from the Apostles in John 14, when Jesus promised them that the Spirit would inspire them to reveal Christianity, to reveal the Gospel. He said, “He shall bring to your remembrance all things whatsoever I have said unto you.” (John 14:26) Jesus did not want them to go out and preach without knowing exactly what he had taught, without any perversion whatsoever. He would not let them preach until they had received that power.
In Luke 24:48, he said, “Ye are witnesses of these things.” And then in v. 49, “Tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high.” It is error for a man to claim that same power tonight, when he is not an apostle, not in the same class they were, when the world is not in the same condition. (Acts 1:8)
They had no New Testament at that time, not a line of it. And I say again, it is a pity for people to reason in circles and ignore the facts that make a difference (151).
The reason that this quote is particularly pertinent is that many of Mac’s supporters are constantly asking, “Don’t you ask for the Holy Spirit to help you when you preach?” or some variation of that sentiment. Brother Nichols, who allegedly agreed with Mac, utterly demolished that view. Below is a further comment that cannot be misunderstood.
Question: How does the Holy Spirit guide men today other than through the Word?
Answer: Tonight I have been saying over and over that he does not! The Holy Spirit’s guidance is in the written word of God, and by it he does a thorough job guiding us. “Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel.” (Ps. 73:24) (83).
Unlike Mac, brother Nichols believed that the Word of God was sufficient and that we did not need direct help. This next quote is equally clear.
Question: Does the Holy Spirit speak through men today in a direct way? Does he motivate them to speak by “influence” on this behavior?
Answer: The Holy Spirit now through the Bible influences us to speak; but there is now no direct “independent of the word” operation, or revelation, for us. Such ideas “make the word of God of none effect” today because people will ‘turn up their noses’ to the word, and look forward to, or expect, imaginary direct revelation. This is absolutely a “decoy” to get people away from the word of God. The whole thing is a work of Satan, who wants to belittle the “word” of God and render it ineffective (82).
It is both comical and sad to see Mac Deaver trying to get brother Nichols to agree with his position. His treatment of brother Woods is both puzzling and humorous. In chapter one of his book, Mac spent a good deal of time trying to show that brother Warren utterly defeated Woods’ position on the Holy Spirit’s indwelling at a forum in 1967. Then Deaver begins his third chapter by attacking what Woods wrote concerning the Holy Spirit. But after doing so, he then tries to convince the reader that this man with lame arguments actually agrees with him (does that make Mac equally lame?). In other words, if a man was so erroneous in his Holy Spirit views as Deaver alleges Woods was, then why would he trumpet that Woods agrees with him? Mac does not seem to be able to help it. Sooner or later, everyone agrees with him.
It parallels the global warming enthusiasts. If it is hot, that is evidence of global warming. If it is severely cold, that is also evidence of global warming. If it is too wet or too dry, guess what? It is just further proof of global warming. So it is with Mac. If someone’s views are different from Mac’s, he nevertheless agrees with him. Even if he plainly denies what Mac believes, he still wrote a phrase or sentence that could possibly be construed as agreeing with Mac. There is no escaping this irresistible conclusion—everyone agrees with Mac!
James 1:5
Since this discussion focuses on James 1:5, let us see what Mac says, Woods says, and the Scriptures teach. To begin with, James 1:5 teaches: “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him.” The first thing that one studying the book of James would notice is that this verse is not isolated but is part of a text. The wisdom being sought here is probably that which will enable the Christian to understand the reason for various trials which must be endured in order to develop patience (vv. 2-4). After this verse come three that encourage the seeker of wisdom to pray in faith; if he doubts, he will not receive an answer because he is unstable and double-minded.
Brother Woods kept this verse in its context; he wrote: “The ability to see great blessings in sore trial is not an inherent one, and must, therefore be acquired” (40). Brother Woods then elaborates on the means by which this wisdom is and is not acquired. He made clear that this wisdom does not come from:
1) a study of philosophy;
2) meditation;
3) consulting with wise men.
In other words, brother Woods differentiated between a) knowledge obtained through study by the accumulation of facts, and b) wisdom, which is the ability to apply the knowledge one has learned. In that connection he wrote that facts stored in the head “are obtained only through mental effort” (40). Wisdom, on the other hand, can only be bestowed by God.
Whether the reader agrees or not with brother Woods, the point is that this is what he taught in his commentary. He closed this section by saying that the manner in which God grants the wisdom prayed for is not dealt with in the text, which is absolutely correct. James did not tell how God would grant the wisdom—just that He would.
Everybody Agrees With Mac
Perhaps a television network would like to pick up the above title as a religious sequel to the secular Everybody Loves Raymond. Although brother Woods simply stated a fact—that the manner of God’s granting the wisdom was not specified—Mac immediately (and incorrectly) draws the conclusion that therefore brother Woods believed it was a direct infusion from God. He argues that, since the wisdom can only come from God and not through mental effort or study, that it must come direct from God’s mind to ours. Mac concludes: “Now, will someone please explain to me how it is that brother Woods did not imply direct help from God!” (49, emph. Mac’s).
Okay, Mac, read the following explanation carefully. What are the ways in which God can grant His people wisdom? Of course, there is the direct method, which was actually done in the first century. Wisdom is one of the nine spiritual gifts that Paul lists in 1 Corinthians 12; in fact, it is the first one he mentions (v. 8). The second is knowledge. In granting these gifts, God gave Christians the information or the ability directly. Just as prophets were given the words to speak, those with these gifts could communicate spiritual knowledge they had not studied to obtain or impart wisdom which usually came from observation and application of principles. By the way, to say that God grants wisdom today directly implies that these gifts are still operational. If it is argued that even one of the gifts remains operational, how can anyone shut the door to the other eight, which includes speaking in tongues and the working of miracles? To suggest that brother Woods would have opened this door would be a repudiation of everything that he ever taught on this subject.
Although brother Woods affirmed that wisdom did not come through mental effort, which studying would require, he did not rule out thinking, period. Suppose, for example, that the one praying for wisdom to understand why Christians face trials was brought face to face with a situation in which a brother had suffered. God, through His providence, might allow him to overhear a conversation in which a pagan was so impressed by the demeanor of the Christian in the face of the trial that he was considering the authenticity of Christianity. Having heard of the benefit of a brother’s suffering, he immediately achieved the understanding for which he had prayed. Did this wisdom come from study or mediation? No, he grasped the point in a moment, in a flash (as it were). This sudden realization that came through God’s providence required a minimum of mental activity—totally unequal to that which is achieved through mental effort.
Mac immediately rules out the explanation just provided for God giving wisdom through providence, but he does so erroneously. Misapplying what Woods said about knowledge requiring mental effort, Mac then concludes that no mental effort is required in wisdom, either: “Thus, it has nothing to do with reflection or any other mental activity at all” (49). As already shown, the mental activity required in studying and learning and the mental activity in coming to a sudden realization are two entirely different matters.
Andrew Connally
Now the careful reader notices a bit of misinformation in Mac’s book on the Holy Spirit. Below the quote from brother Guy N. Woods is footnote 50, which begins on page 48 and finishes on page 49. Mac states that Connally quoted the Woods’ passage and then drew the following conclusion: “But God gives it, directly to us, and He gives it ‘liberally’” (49). The only problem is that Connally made that statement before quoting the passage by Guy N. Woods. Whoops! All right, it is only a technicality, but is it one that a man who prayed for wisdom would make? Surely, Mac prayed for wisdom in writing his book.
Connally was assigned James 1:1-12 for the ninth Annual Denton Lectureship book, which was published in 1990. The quotation cited above came before the Woods’ quote. Immediately after it, Connally wrote “Thus here is something God does for the child of God personally and directly in response to believing prayer” (50). What Connally meant by the word directly only he knew. In 1990 Mac did not hold the position he currently advocates, let alone Andrew Connally. Although it is possible that Connally believed what Mac now teaches, it might be the case that he was thinking of God’s providence, in which God brings something about apart from the Word versus something that comes about as a result of our studying the Word.
Certainly brother McClish, who edited the book, did not understand brother Connally to be saying that God infuses wisdom directly into our minds, just as He would have a spiritual gift in the first century. As editor of the original Gospel Journal, brother McClish devoted an entire issue that dealt with the various aspects of Mac’s teaching. Mac did not say that either Connally or McClish agreed with him (which is surprising), but he did offer this comment in the footnote 50 already alluded to: “Notice that Connally uses the word “directly,” and please consider that this book was edited by Dub McClish” (49). The reader is left to draw his own conclusion.
Wisdom
James says to pray for wisdom, but Jesus had earlier promised others that they would be granted miraculous wisdom. In Luke 12:11-12, He said that, when His disciples were delivered up to authorities, they should “not worry about how or what” they should answer. In other words, both knowledge and the wisdom to use that knowledge would be provided. Jesus added that the Holy Spirit would tell them in that very hour what they should say. This same idea is repeated in Luke 21:14-15 when Jesus told His disciples: “Therefore settle it in your hearts not to meditate beforehand on what you will answer; for I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries will not be able to contradict or resist.”
This means that God gave them the words directly and the ability to speak with wisdom. Again, this clearly indicates a miraculous ability. Do we still have this ability today? No, the promise was made to Jesus’ disciples in the first century who did not have the Scriptures—not to us who do have the opportunity to learn and use them properly. Stephen literally did what Jesus promised. As he faced his adversaries, “they were not able to resist the wisdom and the Spirit by which he spoke” (Acts 6:10).
Of course, Jesus Himself set the standard. When He finished teaching on various matters, no one had anything else to say. He perplexed those with His question on John’s baptism so that they admitted they did not know how to answer Him (Matt. 21:23-27). When He gave His answer on taxes, they marveled and left (Matt. 22:22). When He answered the Sadducees concerning the woman married to seven husbands “they were astonished at His teaching” (Matt. 22:23-33).
Jesus silenced His adversaries with His great wisdom. Mac has silenced no one. Daniel Denham wrote 90 pages of criticism of Mac’s book, which is included in Profiles in Apostasy #2, recently published by Contending for the Faith (Feb. 2011). He had at least three times that material which he has accumulated on the subject, showing the fallacies of Mac’s reasoning and positions. If Mac had a fraction of the wisdom of Stephen, the apostles, or the Lord, no one would be able to refute the positions set forth in his book, but brother Denham, this writer, and others have shown that Mac’s teachings do not reflect wisdom but folly.
Brother Denham points out that Mac wrote “that God in answering our prayer would be increasing our personal capacity to grasp or comprehend that wisdom provided in the Scriptures…” (109). Really? And Mac knows that—how? Mac’s problem is that Mac teaches that man, when he prays for wisdom, cannot receive information; so he fancies instead that God will enhance his “Capacity to comprehend or better grasp that source material” (109). In other words, he alleges that his “comprehension skills of the revealed Word would increase.”
Brother Denham rightly says: “There you have it! Just accept Mac’s doctrine and God will multiply your brain cells, energize your cognitive functions, and/or juice up your intellect” (115). Once again, we see that Mac’s case is built on assumptions that are only conjectures. James is not teaching that our brain cells will be supersized if we pray for wisdom. In some manner God will grant our request, as brother Woods wrote. God is capable of supplying wisdom in a way other than directly.
Kristin Swenson, an Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Virginia Commonwealth University, wrote a book which was published in hardback last year (2010) and is now available in paperback—Bible Babel: Making Sense of the Most Talked About Book of All Time. A review of the book can be found on The Huffington Post website (which is not generally recommended). The claims for the book are grandiose; the author’s material is supposed to “catapult” the reader “to a new level of biblical literacy.” The five key things taught in this book are supposed to change the way we look at the Bible. So—how well does the associate professor do?
The Bible’s Organization and Contents
The first point in this section is that the Bible was written over a long period of time, which is, of course, true. Almost any materials that members of the church write in regard to the Bible’s history point out its books were written over a timeframe of around 1600 years. We do not know when the book of Job was written, but otherwise Moses wrote in the 15th century B.C., and the New Testament was completed by A. D. 96. One clue that the author may be a modernist is that she says the New Testament took a century or two to write. No, it did not. Historically, the book of Revelation has been last (A. D. 96), although some argue for an earlier date. No books were ever thought to be of a later origin than the first century until the rise of Modernism, which without any factual basis, theorized that some books may have been composed in the second or third centuries.
A second eye-catching statement is the following, and it could be labeled the “Which of These Does Not Belong?” category. It is claimed that the Bible had input from “ancient Israelites, Babylonian Jews and Greek pastors.” Since the book was written about and by Israelites, that cannot be disputed. Nor can the fact that they were taken in captivity to Babylon. But “Greek pastors”? To whom does that refer? Matthew, John, James, Peter, Paul, and Jude were all Jewish—which only leaves Mark and Luke—neither of whom are said to be “pastors.” Paul gives the qualifications for pastors in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1:5, but nowhere does the Bible describe “Greek pastors” providing input to the Scriptures.
The final comment in this category speaks volumes about Swenson’s view of the Scriptures: The point is made that the different time periods and the variety of writers explains “why some texts disagree with others.” Hmm. There are two basic approaches to viewing the Bible: 1) The first is to believe that it is what it claims to be—the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16-17); 2) The other way is to assume that it was written by men who were not inspired of God. Those in the first group recognize that, while some statements may appear contradictory on the surface, a study of the contexts resolves whatever difficulties may have existed. Those with the second perspective do not generally advance beyond a cursory examination of the text. The reader should keep in mind, when statements like these are made, that little of what follows will be Bible-based.
The Inclusion of Books
It is pointed out rightly that the books of the Old Testament are arranged differently than in the Bibles used by Christians. This variation in order, however, does not change the contents of the books. The other note is that the Apocryphal books (of Jewish origin) are not included, either (although Catholic Bibles have them), but the reason is not the one assigned—to distance ourselves from Judaism. The reason for their omission is that they do not pass the test of inspiration either by virtue of containing contradiction or in light of the fact that there is no historical basis for them or acceptance by the church in the first century.
The Bible Wasn’t Intended to be the Bible?
The third segment of the review of the book is astounding; the claim is that “the material that became biblical wasn’t written in order to be part of a Bible.” What? How does that square with 2 Peter 1:20-21, which declares: “knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit”? Even if we do not read the footnote that the word translated “interpretation” could also be “origin,” it is still clear that the writers were inspired of the Holy Spirit. God most certainly did intend that these writings would be part of the Bible; this claim of the author contradicts what the Bible says about itself.
Proof that certain writings were randomly included as Bible books is the odd array of contents, such as is a book of erotic love poetry (the Song of Solomon). [It would probably not be considered erotic by today’s standards, and it is difficult to even follow.] This same erroneous premise is supposed to explain why God’s name is not found in the book of Esther, why there is a personal letter to Philemon, and why Jesus did not write anything. These charges merit evaluation.
While it is true that the name of God does not appear in the book of Esther, this comment is misleading. The entire book is about trust in God. Consider the following comments this writer made in 1992 for the Annual Denton Lectureship book, Studies in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther (22):
The book of Esther (figuratively speaking) sits on an island apparently out from the mainland. Everything about it suggests separation and isolation from the other books of the Bible. Names generally used of God (Jehovah, Elohim, Shaddai, Adonai) never appear…. The city of Jerusalem did not figure in the crucial events at all… and the law of Moses (which seldom finds itself omitted) receives not even a meager reference.
So out away from the mainland sits this coverage of an important historical, Jewish event, and to the casual observer, water completely surrounds Esther.
However, the water is very shallow from the island to the coast; in fact, you can walk from one to the other and scarcely immerse more than your feet, because no matter how detached the island looks, it really is linked to the mainland of Bible doctrine. A lighthouse has been constructed on the island, and its beacon light is the providence of God. Though God’s name is absent, He nevertheless permeates everything. A person may not see His hand or hear His name, but He is involved in the affairs of men…
The omission of the name of God actually draws attention to His working out of the salvation of His people; such hardly constitutes a criticism.
The letter of Philemon is personal, but it nevertheless contains teaching concerning what love and brotherhood mean. Paul also makes an interesting statement concerning providence: “For perhaps he departed for a while for this purpose, that you might receive him forever” (15). Paul suggests here that it might be that Onesimus’ running away from Philemon was providential in that Paul was able to convert him during this absence. The Christian does need to consider the possibility of providence at work in his life; some things happen for a reason.
Jesus did not need to write anything. The Holy Spirit brought to the apostles’ remembrance all things that He taught them (John 14:25-26). The entire thesis concerning why these things did or did not happen in some of the books of the Bible is speculative; certainly other possible factors to explain these phenomenon were not considered.
A further claim is made in this section that is completely off the mark: “The biblical texts are not disinterested reporting of objective facts….” This is as false as it can be. One of the compelling proofs of the Bible is its objectivity. David was a man after God’s own heart, but his shameful conduct with Bathsheba was not omitted—his need for repentance, along with the fact of it, is also included. Peter was a devoted follower of Jesus and an outstanding apostle, yet his imperfections are noted in several instances. No one left out his mistakes. We see Biblical people as they really are. We even see some good things about the wicked King Ahab. The Bible objectively describes the people it discusses; to say otherwise is to reveal a lack of familiarity with the Scriptures.
Translations
The fourth section deals with the problems of translation. Nothing stated is actually false; it is more the implication of the section that is disturbing. Most people are aware that the Bible was not written in English; most are also familiar with the difficulties involved in translating words and various idioms into other languages. The public is further aware that English words change their meanings. But why are all these facts cited? The impression that these facts are calculated to give is that the Bible is therefore imprecise and unreliable, which is absurd.
Did not the one who made the various languages at the Tower of Babel and scatter peoples into various parts of the world know about language barriers? When the Holy Spirit inspired Hebrew writers or chose the koine Greek for the New Testament, did He not know that all these words would some day be translated into English? For that reason we have translations and paraphrases—not to mention word studies and commentaries. Besides, how difficult is it to translate, “You shall not commit adultery,” or, “Repent and be baptized…”? It is not that man cannot understand another language; they don’t want to obey God in the language they speak!
Postmodernism is Good
So where has all of this palaver been leading?
Finally, this information about the Bible is compatible with belief in it. A person can simultaneously accept these truths about the Bible and the Bible as the Word of God.
Do our eyes deceive us? In spite of the fact that, according to the assistant professor, the Bible says contradictory things, books of the Bible were included at someone’s whim, much of what is in it was not even intended to be “Biblical,” and it cannot be translated very well, we can still choose to call it the Word of God. Only a Postmodernist, who can dwell in the land of contradictions, could buy this argument. Those of us who live in the real world have a problem with it: It makes no sense.
The writer admits that we may have to recalibrate our assumptions. Just at the point when one thinks that the material could not get any more bizarre, it does. Just so that you cannot miss the point of all that has been said, the following is asserted: “Even the Ten Commandments, which would seem to be absolute as anything, show up in two places in the Bible—and with some differences.” Well, how is that for “spin”? Although the statement is not factually wrong, the implication is that once again the Bible contradicts itself. The writer fails to provide any facts. The first time the Ten Commandments are mentioned is in Exodus 10:1-17, when God spoke the words to the people. The second time they were spoken was by Moses, and it was to the next generation that was about to enter the land. The commandments are the same; he just adds a comment. Compare the Exodus passage with the one in Deuteronomy 5:6-21.
One would think that in one set of commandments that God said it was all right to steal and disagreed with Himself later. First of all, the commandments are in the same order in both passages. Imagine what someone would say if two of them were reversed! Commandment 5 is the same; Moses just interjected in the middle “as the Lord your God commanded you.” Six through nine are identical. Number 10 has the same contents in both passages; in the list of things presented, the word order varies, but nothing was omitted or added.
Commandments 1-3 are identical in both passages; Moses adds “as the Lord your God has commanded you” to number four. He also amplifies the original by adding ox and donkey to cattle. Wow! Is that a great contradiction or what? He also adds a few words to remind them about the way God delivered them from Egypt. The only significant difference in the two texts is that Moses does not repeat Exodus 20:8-11, which is not the commandment—but the reason for the commandment. He provided another reason in the Deuteronomy text, but in both instances the commandment itself did not change: Sabbath keeping was required.
“The Bible’s endurance is astonishing.” Really? Why is it so astonishing that God would preserve the words He inspired? Why would He provide prophecies from Genesis 3:15 onward and let them remain unfulfilled or uncommented on? Moses wrote in the 15th century B. C. that the seed of woman would crush the head of the serpent, which is fulfilled in Christ. He wrote that God promised Abraham that through His seed all the nations of the world would be blessed, which was fulfilled in Jesus (Gen. 22:18; Gal. 3:8, 16). He recorded that there would be a prophet raised up like unto him (Deut. 18:15-19), which was also fulfilled in Christ (Acts 3:22-23).
Jesus fulfilled all these prophecies 1500 years later. Why would anyone be surprised that God keeps His Word? Then, having brought all of these fulfillments about, why are we surprised that God would make this astounding information concerning fulfilled prophecies available to future generations—especially since it is all related to salvation? It would truly be astonishing if God just let it all fade away so that no one would know about it.
This Huffington Post article concludes with several phrases of high-sounding gibberish that are apparently intended to mollify those who believe the Bible. The Holy Book, according to the writer, continues to inspire, which is true, but then is added “in all sorts of interpretations and ways.” What does that mean, except that you can believe whatever you want?
“And it continues to ignite the imagination and enrich the speech, literature and art of people outside of the biblical faiths, too.” Well, whoop-de-doo! The same could be said of Homer’s The Odyssey and Shakespeare, also. This is nothing but throwing a bone to those who believe the Bible, but it is not even a tasty treat, since it ends with “Biblical faiths.” There is only one faith (Eph. 4:5), and Christians are exhorted to contend for it (Jude 3). While the Bible’s influence on our culture is undeniable, that fact is not nearly so important as the fact that it is the inspired, authoritative, and true Word of God. The article closes with these words:
This information is more than a starting point. It’s also a companion along the way, enabling new insights, providing correctives, and allowing space for the dynamism of your own ideas and learning.
What exactly do these words mean? They seem to convey the erroneous notion that the individual can make of the Bible whatever he desires it to be. Whatever he wants it to teach is what it says. How utterly elastic! One can bend it, shape it, stretch into something personally meaningful—kind of like Silly Putty.
The fact is that the Bible is Truth. We must conform our lives to its message—not make it say what suits our feelings at the moment. Commandments are not pliable; they are fixed. Furthermore, God means what He says, and we will be judged by those words and teachings (John 12:48). The Bible is not a novelty item in a curiosity shop; it presents words to live by (Matt. 4:4).
Recently, the Orlando Sentinel published some interesting articles about various religious groups, but none of them was favorable (what a shock!). The first of these (printed on January 30, 2011), was on the front page (although it was on the lower half); its title is “Even Churches Going Bankrupt These Days.”
The story focused on a local Church of God in Christ that owed, but could not pay, 1.6 million dollars for its “family life center” (A1). The writer, Jeff Kunerth (who writes glowing articles about the advancement of the homosexual agenda) laments:
What was once unheard of—a church declaring bankruptcy—has become increasingly common in this recession as declining plate revenues make it harder to pay the bills (A1).
He also lists a Baptist church that filed for Chapter 11 because their income declined in just a two-year period from more than $750,000 to just over $300,000 (A6). The writer estimates that in 2010 about 100 churches in various locations filed for bankruptcy, including “Robert Schuller’s 10,000-member Crystal Cathedral mega-church in California” (A-6).
According to the article, many “churches” began to expand in the 90s and in the 2000s. Even Northland (the closest megachurch to South Seminole’s location) has had to “cut its staff from 125 to 75” and eliminate certain programs. They do not feel they can ask their members to help pay off the church mortgage when so many are struggling to pay off their own. Another local religious group raffled off gift baskets, raising $7,000, but one can only conduct so many fundraisers before they lose their effectiveness. Bankers used to be willing to loan to churches, the article states, but now they have grown quite reluctant to do so. The implication is that any group with an increasing attendance and contribution will still not get a loan.
The reasons for some religious groups having a declining attendance were not explored, but many of these groups are built around the personality of the leader; thus, if there is a change of leadership, many may leave. Such was not the case in those mentioned, but often the success of a group depends upon one person and his ability to motivate others.
Another factor that was not considered is that religious groups often have splits and divisions amongst themselves. To hear liberals among us, one would think that splits only occurred in the Lord’s church, but such is not the case. This writer knows of a small town where two different Presbyterian churches sit on opposite corners of a main thoroughfare. At one time, one group had around 60 members and the other 100; still they could not find common ground upon which to merge. In another city two Baptist churches are next-door neighbors. Being ecumenically-minded works so much better in theory than it does in practicality.
Sometimes people fail to make realistic plans, also. Kunerth offers the following assessment: “The 24,000-square foot family life center is the dream God placed inside” the “pastor” (A6). Obviously, it was his own idea, rather than the Lord’s, unless God just wanted to humiliate him. Many times, religious leaders think that the ideas they originate must have come from God or the Holy Spirit. They did not.
The church of Christ does not do fundraising; she depends on the members’ faithful support for income. Furthermore, we restrict ourselves to works that are Scriptural. Operating a family life center for the community is not one of the outreaches authorized in the Scriptures. Our mission is to help people grow spiritually in order to spread the gospel. May brethren remain faithful to the purposes given to us by God in the New Testament! May He continue to bless us in all of our legitimate spiritual efforts.
Benny Hinn
The second article under consideration appeared on February 18, 2011. Believe it or not Benny Hinn is being sued by a Lake Mary (about ten miles north of Orlando) publisher for breaking a morality clause in their contract. Is it possible that a religious figure, watched and adored by millions of people, has been immoral? Well, he has actually only admitted to having a friendship with female “evangelist,” Paula White. A picture published by the National Enquirer showed them holding hands in public in Rome (all information is from page B3).
Hinn, at the time, was still married, although his wife had filed for divorce a few months earlier. The article does not say why she filed, but a time once existed when a divorce of a public figure such as Hinn would have been devastating. Do his followers even care? Those who teach the Bible should know that Jesus forbade divorce—except upon one condition: the unfaithfulness of the husband or the wife. Was Benny unfaithful to his wife? Was she unfaithful to him? If neither one was unfaithful, then why are they getting a divorce? They cannot do so with God’s approval.
But it gets worse. Hinn agreed that the publisher was due a $250,000 refund, but as of the date of the article, he had not paid it. He also neglected to make appearances to promote the book, as per the agreement. What’s going on? Is there no one who can heal this situation? Someone should call the Fairly Legal team to sort this out. Perhaps, Hinn could resurrect his book contract, since he owes the publisher two more manuscripts.
Benny (short for Benedictus), has allegedly healed people over the years of many types of diseases, such as cancer—even AIDS. He claims to have healed the blind and made the deaf to hear as well in the course of conducting his Miracle Crusades. Such feats would be phenomenal, if true. They would rival Jesus and the apostles. The only problem is a lack of substantiation. Hinn lived in Orlando for 14 years; this writer has now been in the area for eight years. Not once has he been introduced to someone who said, “I was blind, but Benny Hinn healed me.” When Jesus traveled to an area, He healed everyone there (Mark 6:54-56). One would think that, having lived 14 years here, one would be running into someone Hinn healed about every other minute, which has not occurred.
The other difficulty is that the miracles done in the New Testament were done for a purpose. The miracles served as proof that God was with the healer and his message. In that way people knew that they could believe whatever the man taught. God is not working with Benny Hinn. He is divorced and does not honor his contracts. His message concerning salvation is not even true. He never tells the multitudes what Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2). He is simply another charlatan among many, and his inappropriate conduct is not surprising.
Who Killed Jesus?
The pope has issued a statement, according to a news item on March 3, 2011, in which he “had personally exonerated Jews of allegations they were responsible for Jesus’ death, repudiating the concept of collective guilt that has long haunted Christian-Jewish relations” (A13).
While not wishing to sound arrogant, the fact is that this is not his decision to make. But definitions are in order here. First, what is meant by collective guilt? If someone says that the Jews killed Jesus, that is true. Yes, the multitude was misled by their rulers, but they still shouted, “Crucify Him! Crucify Him!” Much more than just the Sanhedrin was involved in bringing about Jesus’ death. Pilate attempted to talk the crowd out of their evil intention, but he could not prevail. When he tried to release Jesus, as per the custom, the Jews demanded Barabbas be freed (John 18:40; Acts 3:13-14). A second effort to let Him go resulted in the chief priests calling for His crucifixion, but just a little later the text says: “From then on Pilate sought to release Him, but the Jews cried out, saying, “’If you let this Man go, you are not Caesar’s friend. Whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar” (John 19:12).
After the Day of Pentecost, Peter had another occasion to address the multitude. He would address the leaders of the Jews on another day, but in Acts 3 he is addressing Jews as they were going to the temple for the hour of prayer. Addressing them from the porch called Solomon’s, Peter addressed those present as “men of Israel.” He told them they had killed “the Prince of Life” (Acts 3:15). To put an end to any doubt whatsoever, Paul wrote in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 that the Jews “killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets….” Clearly, the Jews killed Jesus.
However, these statements do not mean that all the Jews were in favor of putting Jesus to death. Certainly, neither the apostles nor the women standing by, observing His crucifixion, were in favor of the ungodly actions that occurred that day. Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin, was not in favor of the action. It would be wrong to condemn all Jews then or since that time based on their nationality. Probably, some who clamored for His death later repented, were baptized, and became part of the church.
No one has any reason to hate Jews for what happened 2,000 years ago. In fact, we all put Jesus on the cross. He died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2). We are all guilty and in need of repentance. To single out any group of people as the cause is simply not Biblical. We have no animosity towards Jews today; however, they should be careful not to be guilty of the sinful attitudes of their fathers. They should listen with open minds to the evidence for Jesus being their long-awaited Messiah. Everyone should be for honest open discussion, but if we fail to reach agreement, the penalty is not hatred of them. Our desire is that all might have the freedom to come to the truth.
The Westboro Baptist Church
On March 2, 2011, the Supreme Court handed down a decision concerning free speech that involved the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. Seven members of this group (who are not typical of any other Baptists, so far as we know) protested near the funeral of a soldier, who was killed in Iraq. They carried signs, saying, “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “You’re Going to Hell.” The Supreme Court decided 8-1 that the group has a right to protest in this manner. It is difficult for most people to follow the logic of the majority of the justices in this instance, but this is not the subject of these comments.
What most people wonder is how “religious” people could behave so abominably. They exhibit no respect for the military and no respect for a family in mourning—something that anyone with an ounce of patriotism and good manners would possess. Whatever message they are trying to get across is lost on the vast majority of people because of their insufferable tactics. How does anyone’s thinking even become this warped and twisted?
Theoretically, they believe that God is punishing our nation for its tolerance of homosexuals by causing our soldiers to die, which is a ridiculous idea even on the surface of it. Did God punish the thoroughly perverted Sodom by taking potshots at a few of its soldiers? Be serious! When God chooses to punish America for its 50,000,000 abortions since 1973 and its tolerance of homosexuality, He will probably do something greater than kill a few brave fighting men. Entire armies were defeated, and cities were plundered and razed in the Old Testament. The loss of four thousand soldiers over a ten year period (although a sad loss to their families and to us all) does not constitute punishment on a nation. To advocate such a position is lunacy.
If Westboro Baptist really wants to complain about the acceptance of homosexuality in this nation, which itself is a legitimate Biblical concern, why don’t they carry their signs to “Gay Pride” parades? That would be an appropriate place for a protest. Perhaps they could picket the movie and television studios where pro-homosexual fare is produced. Why not picket the companies with aggressive pro-homosexual policies? Why blame soldiers who are dying for the freedoms of those in other nations?
Were we attacked ten years ago by homosexuals who flew planes into the twin towers? No; they were Islamic terrorists who attacked unarmed civilians. These terrorists are dangerous, and they aim to bring about the downfall of America. Our soldiers are protecting us while trying to bring freedom to others. They, of all people, should not be the object of protest. Ironically, Westboro’s right to express themselves is being defended by the very ones they have targeted. They should repent of their errors, apologize to the families of soldiers for their rude behavior, and find a legitimate way to protest evil.
Secular Humanism
The religion of secular humanism (the rejection of God and the exaltation of man) is alive and sick at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. A Psychology professor, on February 21, 2011, scheduled a live sex act to be performed in his classroom as part of a discussion. Details will be omitted here, but they involved a woman who was naked. It was not part of the regular class session, and it was optional. The president of the university has called for an investigation, and the professor said he would not do so again. But one wonders, “Is this what taxpayer money buys? Is this what tuition goes for—for classes with this manner of content?” Is there a public outcry over this?
Evidently, some protests must have been forthcoming; the professor issued a weak apology, according to a story in the Orlando News-Sentinel on March 6, 2011. He did not pass up the opportunity to snipe a bit at his critics, however. He would issue an “F” to the arguments made by his critics (A9). If he thinks their arguments against what he did were so bad, then why issue an apology? Does that mean that he has better arguments against what he did than others? If so, he should have not done it in the first place. Or is this complaint just an example of to quoque: “Yeah, I did something wrong, but you guys aren’t any better in your logic for condemning me.”
The professor says that all people could do was make pronouncements against him, such as what he did, “Crossed the line,” “Went too far,” “Was inappropriate,” or “Was troubling.” Anyone who does not under-stand these sentiments probably needs more help than anyone will be able to give him. Yes, the demonstration went beyond the bounds of decency. The woman who volunteered should be ashamed; the students should be embarrassed to have witnessed such a seedy and vile demonstration. “Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? No! They were not at all ashamed; Nor did they know how to blush…” (Jer. 6:15).
Of course, secular humanists do not believe that God gave us moral standards to live by; so naturally, the professor would have no concept of wrongdoing. But those who live in the real world know something about the lusts of the flesh, lasciviousness, and uncleanness, as well as voyeurism. Even being present for such a demonstration would defile anyone, and the woman who volunteered is shameless.
The professor’s lack of judgment in such a matter should be grounds for removing him from the faculty. He says he regrets the effect his actions had upon the university’s reputation. This is nothing but the sorrow of the world (2 Cor. 7:9-10). He has no remorse for staging such a corrupt classroom project in the first place. Did he honestly not think that anyone would care? Did he not mention it to his colleagues in advance? Most assuredly, there should be an investigation, and he should be asked to leave. If he had any decency, he would resign, but then if he had any decency ….
The tract with the above title has been circulated, apparently, since 1933—with a revision in 1956. Its size, when unfolded, is less than half of an 8½ by 11 piece of paper. It is published by Lifegate, Inc., whose home is Beach Grove, Indiana, but various religious groups can personalize it with their name and address printed on the front cover. This one was distributed by a local group, “The Orlando Bible Church.”
The first tipoff that this “Bible Church” does not use the Bible correctly is that the name, “Rev. James Thomas, Pastor,” appears on the front page. Evidently, no one there has ever read Matthew 23:8-11, where Jesus told His disciples (and the multitude) not to use titles that exalt mere men. Nevertheless, men have continued to praise themselves in this manner for centuries in violation of what Jesus taught.
However, the inside contents are much more disturbing because they use the Scriptures out of context and present a plan of salvation so simple that some of the things required by God are omitted. It begins innocuously enough by asking if the reader is saved and sure that he is going to heaven. It even quotes part of John 3:7, which records Jesus telling Nicodemus, “Ye must be born again.” This is a fine verse, but one wonders why they did not cite verse 5, which contains a broader, more complete statement. What Jesus said first to Nicodemus was, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” No, the tract never returns to this passage. Could it be they did not want anyone to see that water is involved in the new birth?
The author next states: “In the Bible God gives us the plan of how to be born again….” It is ironic that, rather sticking with the John 3 passage which provides more information; they begin to skip all over the New Testament instead, which makes the reader wonder, “Just how simple is this plan?”
After rightly pointing out that sin separates us from God, which causes us to be lost, the author mentions that we will all face the judgment. He also correctly speaks of God’s love and the fact that Jesus shed His blood for our sins. He further adds a brief note about repentance, but afterward departs from applying the Scriptures correctly.
Conversions
If you wanted to show someone how to be saved, would you not go to a conversion and follow it all the way through? This tract does not. It does not say, “Let us examine carefully what happened on the day of Pentecost,” which occurred shortly after Jesus ascended into heaven. After a description of Peter preaching the risen Christ, which he established from both the Old Testament prophecies and the apostles’ own eyewitness testimony of His resurrection, then it would be simple to point out that, when they asked what they should do, Peter said, “Repent and be baptized every-one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins…” (Acts 2:38). Why did they not do that? The reason is that, although the Bible teaches baptism for the remission of sins, they (even though they call themselves a Bible Church), do not believe what the Bible teaches concerning the role of baptism in salvation.
They do not go to the wonderful conversion of the queen’s treasurer in Acts 8 (or that of the Samaritans in the first part of the chapter, either). Why do they skip this important occurrence? Could it be that, when Phi-lip preached Jesus, the eunuch said, “See, here is water [remember John 3:5?]. What hinders me from being baptized?” (Acts 8:36)? When they “preach Jesus” at the Bible church, no one asks this question, and the reason is that they are not teaching the Scriptures properly. Philip told him he could if he believed. He did and was, thus following perfectly Mark 16:16.
The tract could mention Acts 10:47, where Peter asked, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?” No, all of these were passed over, and they went to Acts 16, where the Philippian jailer was converted. He truly did ask Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30). However, re-member that they passed over all of the preceding conversions that mention being baptized (in addition to believing and repenting); they ignored all of those so that they could get to Acts 16:31: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” There is no nice way to say it: The tract is intentionally misleading at this point. We know that all conversions prior to this one involved baptism, but stopping at verse 31 makes it look as though the entire process of salvation involves only believing.
But what happened next? Why, one would think, from reading this tract, that the jailer then bowed down, and said, “I believe,” and that Paul said, “Hallelujah, brother, you’re saved now!” Having read prior conversions, the reader knows that such a thing did not occur—because no one was ever saved that way in the book of Acts. No, baptism in water had always been involved. Besides, what meaning did such words have to the jailer without any additional explanation? His logical question would be, “Who is this Jesus, and what do I need to believe about Him?” One would think that Paul had concluded a lengthy sermon, as Peter had on Pentecost, and that this was his final exhortation.
The fact is that Paul and Silas were just beginning to talk about the salvation that comes through Jesus, but someone just reading this tract would not know that. In fact, the very next verse says, “Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house” (Acts 16:32). The eunuch then “washed their stripes,” and “immediately he and all his family were baptized” (Acts 16:33). The “Bible Church” left out water baptism again. What makes this event truly remarkable is that it was after midnight. If the “Bible Church” baptizes, do they do so immediately when a person is convicted of the truth—or wait a few weeks? Those who see no connection between baptism and salvation wait; those who understand what the Scriptures teach desire to be baptized immediately because they know that, in doing so, they will have salvation. It was after the jailer’s baptism that the text says that “he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household” (Acts 16:34).
This reference to the Philippian jailer is the only account of conversion mentioned, and the tract stopped before Paul and Silas ever got to explain who Jesus is. This can only be intentional—to withhold from the reader of this tract the rest of the salvation process that occurred at Philippi—culminating in the baptism of the jailer and his family in the wee hours of the morning! Is it not Satan who is deceptive? This tract leaves out the water of the new birth in John 3, omits the first significant conversion of 3,000 on the day of Pentecost, and only presents part of the conversion in Philippi.
Ironies
This tract is full of so many ironies that it is incredible. In their aversion to baptism for the forgiveness of sins, they inadvertently call attention to it—but only for those who know the Scriptures. After the quotation of Acts 16:31 (where the author stopped and refused to go any further), he writes: “Simply believe on Him….” This makes it plain that he is not going to add anything further—just simply believe, which is not the message of the New Testament.
1. The first irony is that the tract then mentions that Jesus died in our place, that He was buried, and that He arose again. He not only did not quote a pas-sage that so teaches; he did not even reference one. Why not? Because the one will bring to mind the other, and it teaches baptism. Two passages are quoted below (in their entirety), and the pertinent words have been put in bold letters.
For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3-4).
Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection (Rom. 6:3-5).
The first passage cited above supports the tract and could have safely been referenced, but it is often linked in many Bibles to Romans 6:3-5, which explains that it is through baptism that we enter into the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. In fact, that is what baptism signifies—us dying to sin, being buried, and being raised up again.
2. The second irony is their use of John 1:12, which does not refer to anyone specifically being converted but is part of the introduction to the book of John. It states that Jesus gave power to those who believed to become the sons of God. They cite it to prove “faith only,” but it merely mentions the importance of faith and is not intended as a definitive statement regarding salvation.
3. The third irony is the bold use of Romans 10:13 and the comment following it. The verse says: “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved,” which immediately brings to mind Acts 22: 16, in which Ananias said to Saul of Tarsus: “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” The Scriptures thus show that the proper and effective way to call on the name of the Lord is to do so at the moment when one is being baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Many think that Saul was saved before Ananias came and spoke to him, but he still had possession of his sins, which would only be washed away when he was baptized. For that reason calling on the name of the Lord occurs rightly at baptism—not at the point of belief.
The passage in Romans 10:13 is one that emphasizes the necessity of having a preacher. No one can call on the name of the Lord unless they hear the gospel preached. However the purpose of the passage is not to provide an account of conversion, as it is spelled out in Acts 22.
Immediately after this deceptive reference to Ro-mans 10:13 (in which Acts 22:16 is not mentioned), the author of the tract writes these words: “Whosoever includes you. Shall be saved means not may-be, nor can, but shall be saved.” The inclusion of baptism as the way one calls upon the name of the Lord was mentioned previously (by us), but now compare their comments to a verse that is even more explicit—one uttered by Jesus Himself.
“He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). What they said about Romans 10:13 would certainly be true here: “Whosoever [He, in this in-stance] includes you. Shall [will] be saved means not maybe, nor can, but shall [will] be saved.” Why did they not include this verse in which Jesus linked together faith and baptism as prerequisites of salvation? By now the reader knows why: The “Bible Church” does not believe what the Bible teaches concerning baptism being part of salvation.
The Sinner’s Prayer
Perhaps the greatest misrepresentation of this tract is what follows. It argues: “In Luke 18:13, the sinner prayed: ‘God be merciful to me, a sinner.’” Immediate-ly after this sentence, the reader is invited to say a sinner’s prayer that is much longer. The implication is that in Luke 18 there was a man desiring to become a Christian, and what he did is what everyone should do to become a Christian. This is a classic example of taking a verse out of context, and those who publish and distribute the tract know it. One wonders how “religious” people—and especially those who call them-selves a “Bible Church” could be so dishonest. Below are pertinent observations about the text.
1. Jesus was not describing how anyone becomes a Christian. He was teaching a parable (Luke 18:9).
2. The purpose of the parable was to teach a point to those who “trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others.”
3. Verses 10-11 describe a Pharisee who, when he prayed, exalted himself, and disparaged the lowly tax collector nearby.
4. The tax collector humbly reflected on how unworthy he was and said, “God be merciful to me, a sinner.”
5. Jesus praised the tax collector for his humility and said the Pharisee remained unjustified.
6. Neither Jesus nor the Pharisee referred to the tax collector as a sinner; he described himself that way.
7. Neither the Pharisee nor the tax collector was searching for salvation. They were both Jews already in a covenant relationship with God.
After this flagrant misuse of Luke 18:13, the tract has the gall to say, “Just take God at His word and claim His salvation by faith. Believe, and you will be saved.” It is clear that they have omitted baptism, which is always mentioned in connection with conversions. No prospective Christian was ever taught to say “the sinner’s prayer.” Not once! It is clear that this tract was designed to teach “faith only.” It tries to eliminate everything else, but obedience cannot be excluded, for in every conversion we see people acting on their faith and being baptized in order to have their sins forgiven.
In response to anyone who says salvation cannot be as simple as “faith only,” the writer answers that it is that simple—and Scriptural! No, they misused and misapplied the Scriptures; they have misled anyone lacking Bible knowledge who might read this tract. Apparently, the writer knew that this “simple” message was too good to be true; so he advised the reader to “read this tract over and over.” What would do much more good would be to study the Scriptures used in their context.
Final Exhortations
At the conclusion of the tract, the reader is encouraged to be baptized—but not to obtain forgiveness of sins; instead the tract asserts that all should be baptized “in obedience to the Lord as a public testimony” of their salvation, but no Scripture is provided for this declaration. The reason is that baptism is not a public proclamation that one has been saved; it is an act of obedience by which one is saved (Acts 2:38; 22:16). The people who follow the theology of this tract are not saved since they believe they were already saved before being baptized. How many people have been taught this error and are trusting in a baptism to save them that was not for the forgiveness of sins?
Finally, the tract advises that the one saved by faith only ”unite with a Bible-believing church” (which would not be the one distributing this tract). Referring to “a Bi-ble Church” implies that several choices are available, and we wonder which ones the “Orlando Bible Church” would approve of. Most churches are manmade, teach false doctrine, and have established traditions originating with men, not God. The fact is that Jesus only built, and died for, one church—the one over which He is head (Eph. 1:22-23). Let all seek that church.
Most of those who obey the gospel have been taught some basic information about the church. Usually, they know that Jesus promised to build His church (singular) (Matt. 16:16), that He purchased it with His own blood (Acts 20:28), and that He is head over it (Eph. 1:22-23). The church is the one body of Christ (Eph. 4:4). Furthermore, this church is the kingdom of heaven, which the Jews had long been awaiting (Isa. 2:-14, Matt. 3:2). These are fundamental truths which the New Testament teaches.
Unfortunately, there are some who are so focused on the benefits of salvation that they fail to realize that Jesus expects them to have a functioning role in the church-kingdom for which He died. Those who have been saved by the blood of Jesus oftentimes develop false ideas concerning what they owe their Lord. His grace is truly amazing—that human beings should even be offered salvation, let alone granted it, but we have an obligation to Him in return: “And He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again” (2 Cor. 5: 15). This passage brings us to our first misconception.
1. I am part of the church as a whole but not part of any local congregation. The problem with this kind of thinking is that it lacks Biblical authority. The Lord added to the church in Jerusalem daily those who were being saved (Acts 2:47). Does anyone think that anyone newly converted was roaming around the city unattached, aloof, and separate from his brethren? The disciples continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine (Acts 2:42). The brethren were building each other up.
Contrast that today with the habit of some who neglect Bible classes and worship opportunities. Why do some refuse to be edified, which is part of God’s plan for the church (1 Thess. 5:11)? Do they not understand they are playing into Satan’s hands?
One hears many types of excuses, such as, “I don’t like crowds,” or “I can get just as much out of studying the Bible myself.” Anyone who does not like crowds will really want to stay away from the Lake of Fire, where the majority of people are going to be (Matt. 7:13-14). The ability to study by oneself is admirable, but our own personal and private study does not eliminate the need we have to study together. If Jesus wanted everyone to be on his own, He gave no indication of it. In fact, we always read of brethren interacting with one another.
Sometimes people live long periods of time without being part of a local congregation. One family left one state for another but never placed membership. When asked about it, they replied, “We’re still members back home.” Really? How is that possible? Had they asked the “home” congregation, they would surely have been told, “You cannot be members here when you are geographically located elsewhere.” How can anyone be part of a local congregation they do not meet with for worship? What kind of relationships can exist in such a case? When Paul left Corinth for Ephesus, did he still con-sider himself a member of a church on another continent? It should go without saying that a person can only be a member of a congregation where he lives!
Paul did not address a letter to those in Philippi plus those who had moved from Thessalonica but had not yet placed membership. Imagine the writer of Hebrews exhorting brethren not to forsake the assembling of themselves together (Heb. 10:25) and some responding, “Oh, this commandment does not apply to us; we’re really members somewhere else,” or, “We’re just members at large.” How can one explain not having Christian responsibilities to others? The New Testament knows no other arrangement but that all are part of a local congregation.
2. Coming to worship fulfills my obligation to the Lord. The New Testament highlights worship as being important (John 4:23-24), but it never leaves the impression that such is the Christian’s only obligation. Actually, brethren are built up during worship and better equipped to live the Christian life.
First of all, we recognize that worship is to be directed toward God. The thinking of many in this modern age is that worship is for our enjoyment rather than something we offer up to God. Therefore the faulty notion has arisen that worship is designed to entertain folks. Elaborate musical programs and skits are presented to keep the crowds satisfied and returning. But worship in the first century was not so.
The Lord’s Supper causes us to focus our attention on Jesus, who suffered on the cross for our sins. Eating the bread reminds us of His body which was broken; the fruit of the vine recalls to our attention the blood that He shed. We are active in our remembrance as we examine ourselves and so par-take (1 Cor. 11:22-29). We have fellowship with one another (the other members of the body of Christ) when we remember His death (1 Cor. 10:16-21). If we do this by ourselves at home, we have removed ourselves from the fellowship of our brethren. This is a Christ-centered activity—but one that we participate in together.
Our prayers are addressed to God the Father. Our money is given to the Lord’s work. Our singing is also addressed to God, but we (at the same time) are speaking to, teaching, and admonishing one another (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). The proclamation of the Word of God is to be done in a way that honors Him, but we all benefit from the message. Thus, we direct our worship to God but are ourselves edified at the same time.
Being in the assembly of the saints, then, does fulfill an obligation to the Lord but not every obligation. Paul says that the Lord had a purpose in having apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Their function is to equip brethren “for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:11-12). Learning during the times we are together better equips us for the work we have to do in building up the body of Christ. How do we become spiritually strong? We grow as a result of the teaching of the Word and each other’s fellowship.
Satan is constantly working against us. He does not want us to be with other Christians because he knows we will be strengthened. He prefers that we do not attend Bible classes or worship assemblies. The more we isolate ourselves, the weaker we are likely to be. Why, when we are eating, do we keep the food in a pot until we are ready to consume it? The answer is that once it is removed from the warmth of the collective food, it begins to cool. The same holds true with Christians.
3. If I read the Bible and assemble with the brethren, that is all that the Lord requires of me. Just a few verses later (Eph. 4:16), Paul writes: “from whom the whole body joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.”
The Lord’s body is comparable to one’s own. How many parts of one’s own body would anyone like to do without? Most of us want all of our fingers and toes even though we have ten of each. We might be willing to part with an appendix, but anything that is removed no longer functions to help the body; so it dies and is cast away. Branches that do not bear any fruit are cast away and burned (John 15:1-8). Is it beginning to become clear that being isolated from the body is dangerous?
But a member who has no work to do is not fulfilling his purpose, either. He is not helping his brother, nor is he helping those lost in sin if he keeps to him-self. A Christian isolating himself is not God’s Divine plan. Such an individual cannot be helped by others spiritually, nor can he profit anyone. Jesus is head over a body that functions properly—not dysfunctional souls who are becoming progressively weaker. The assembly helps but further interaction is necessary.
What does the New Testament teach about the work of the church? Brethren were learning the apostles’ doctrine (Acts 2:41). Why? Was it to stop with them, or were they to, in turn, teach others? If we fail to encourage and teach others, we lose what we have to begin with (Heb. 5:12). Growth is necessary, and communicating what we have learned to others is essential. We share our knowledge of the riches of Christ with our brethren so that we can benefit each other; we share our knowledge of the salvation of Jesus with others so we can bring them out of darkness into the light.
The church also engaged in benevolent acts in order that the needy brethren might have enough (Acts 6). Again, the participation of all is required in order to be able to do necessary works.
Conclusion
Those who hold to any of the erroneous views set forth here ought to read the New Testament avidly to see if their opinions are upheld by any approved examples therein. Sometimes brethren operate on the basis of their own preference rather than what the Scriptures teach, but it is by every Word that proceeds forth from the mouth of God that we live. May we determine to always be a blessing in the lives of others. Even if we think we have little to contribute, let us vow to give at least that much for the cause of Christ. Jesus gave all for us—at a great cost. What are we giving back? Are we discouraging others or helping them to be saved by our good example?
MOTIVATION FOR FORNICATION
One of the most common sins of this era is that of fornication. According to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, the Greek word porneia refers to “illicit sexual intercourse in general” (531-32). This general word would include adultery and homosexuality, and bestiality, along with those who are not married. Many couples today are living in fornication, concerning which Paul wrote the following in Colossians 3:5-7:
Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience, in which you yourselves once walked when you lived in them.
Consider some of the crucial teachings of this pas-sage. First, there are worldly lusts that entice all of us in one form or another. Second, we must count our-selves dead to all these temptations. Christians can-not afford to entertain lascivious thoughts or behavior. Third, the wrath of God will come upon all those who do give in and practice such immoralities. Fourth, many Christians walked in such sins previously, even living in fornication. Fifth, such behavior should not now characterize the child of God.
Besides this passage, the sin of fornication is condemned throughout the New Testament (1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:18-21; Heb. 13:4). Jesus said for a man not to even entertain thoughts of lust for a woman or he had already committed adultery (a more specific form of fornication) with her in his heart (Matt. 5:27-28). Combining that teaching with the Greek word porneia, does anyone really need to say anything more about pornography? All such pictures and ideas inflame the passions, which is precisely what the devil wants.
Now some may be saying, “We know all that; why are you wasting our time rehashing what everybody already knows?” The problem is that knowing this in-formation does not seem to be sufficient. Just in the 21st century alone, the following events have occurred (no names or places will be used). One preacher in an area had a two-year affair with another preacher’s wife. A different preacher made an appointment to meet with a prostitute in another city; it turned out to be a sting operation, but his name and occupation were published in the paper and broadcast on television. Yet another preacher left his wife of more than two decades (and their children) to live with a younger woman. Several young people have entered into a live-in relationship with others without benefit of marriage. Why? The preachers had undoubtedly all preached against the sins they committed, and the young people had been taught all of their lives that fornication is sin that will keep someone out of heaven. How can it be explained that these events have occurred? It is doubtful that they are isolated examples.
Something is lacking when capable gospel preachers who know and can defend the Word of God desert the faith for a lust of the flesh. Something is wrong when young people enter into relationships that are contrary to what they have believed their whole lives. What is the problem and what is the solution?
First, Satan is more powerful and clever than we may give him credit for. To be this successful with so many of God’s people requires great diligence and the ability to know and exploit our weaknesses. Many of those referenced would never be talked into stealing money, but they were covetous for something else. Christians must be reminded that Satan is working earnestly for our destruction. We cannot lose sight of James 1:12-16. We must be alert at the earliest possible moment that our thoughts are straying in the wrong direction. Self-control is essential.
Second, we cannot ignore the fact that we live in a sex-saturated society. Magazines, billboards, television, and movies all sport women who are dressed in such a way as to glorify the flesh. Men are bombarded with enticing eye candy constantly, but there is more to it, and that is, the idea that all of those women are avail-able for and just desiring a man. The idea that most women are either “desperate housewives” or exceeding-ly lonely is an absurd myth perpetuated by the devil.
Third, a woman cannot do much about the entertainment media, but she can do something about herself. She can dress modestly, as the Scriptures teach (1 Tim. 2:9-10). A high neckline and knee-length skirts will not generally draw lustful gazes. Worldly women and young girls may advertise themselves thus, but godly women should strive for modesty. Single women should know that wearing the attire of a harlot is going to attract the kind of man who only wants to “hook up.” Married women should realize that husbands are faced with numerous temptations (and sometimes opportunities) and employ an effective counter-strategy.
Fourth, all should realize that the flesh is temporary but that the spiritual person lives forever. After everything is dissolved, only the inward person will sur-vive. Of how much value is a handful of decades when compared to centuries without number? Are we really willing to give up an eternity of genuine happiness for the brief possession of a human body, which shortly decays and deteriorates? As Jesus once asked: “What will a man give in exchange for his soul?”
Fornication involves the three avenues of sin. First, someone covets (the lust of the eyes) another person. Second, the imagination convinces him (or her) that having that person (lust of the flesh) is a must. Third, if the object of one’s desire reciprocates, one’s pride is nurtured as well (1 John 2:15-17); many claim they deserve to be happy. Yet the end is death. “Can a man take fire to his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?” (Pr. 6:27).
