Many brethren have been convinced that within the church “doctrine doesn’t matter,” which is surprising. It would have been astonishing thirty years ago because in those days Bible study was greatly emphasized. Of course, now so many other activities require our time that many are content to merely have a passing acquaintance with the Scriptures. Consequently, many today are satisfied with short sermons composed of a lengthy story accompanied by a Bible verse (to keep up appearances).
So, few people are terribly interested in such tedious things as doctrine so long as they receive their weekly dose of encouragement from the pulpit, in which they are assured that they are fine people and that God’s grace will cover everything. Why concern ourselves with such deep things as acceptable worship, church organization, or the truth about the second coming of Christ?
It is incredible, however, that members of the church are also willing to listen to liberals when they decide to discard what the Bible teaches about salvation. Not content with destroying the validity of New Testament doctrine, to which we must give heed (1 Tim. 4:16), now (in the alleged pursuit of unity) some want to count anyone as a Christian who thinks he is one. Once again we quote from Cecil Hook’s article on unity.
For many of us in the Church of Christ, the most formidable barricade to unity with other believers is our judgmental mindset, and it centers around our definitions of baptism. If the claims of salvation and sonship of others do not meet our critical criteria, we deny their proper relationship with God which we claim to enjoy (7).
It is obvious that Hook is not using “the Church of Christ” in the Biblical sense, but rather in a denominational sense. Since only those who are baptized for the remission of their sins were added to the Lord’s church (Acts 2:41, 47), how could there be any “other believers”? Hook and a host of other liberals view us as a denomination. If we were a denomination, begun and maintained by men, we would have no reason for existence; no denomination can justify its existence).
But, just as Hook denies that restoration is possible, he also denies that Christians can just be part of the church for which Jesus died. If we affirm that truth, we just have a “judgmental mindset.” Apparently, then, THE church does not exist today–just denominations exist. Or maybe he thinks that all denominations comprise the church. It would be interesting for him to find a Scripture that justifies that rationale!
So, to hear Hook tell it, all these denominations have different teachings regarding salvation, and we must not judge others or question them. What is his proof for this view?
As I have associated with various congregations, my conversion has never been questioned. My new birth was taken for granted because I professed to be a child of God. Yet others do not know if I have been baptized, whether I was immersed or sprinkled, what I believed about baptism at the time, my purpose in being baptized, or if I was sincere. You accept me on my profession. I accept you on your profession. If my baptism was invalid, that is my problem, not yours. Out of loving concern, you may discuss it with meÉ.
The student of the Word should notice how far afield this gibberish is from the Book. There is an absence of Scriptures for a reason. Since when do we use the practices of denominations as our standard? Because others are gullible enough to accept that a person is a Christian because he says he is, should we imitate them? Are denominations our yardstick?
Paul found some disciples and asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit since they believed. They answered that they did not know there was a Holy Spirit. Paul did not say, “How curious, but I must not question these men.” Instead, he asked them unto what had they been baptized. When they answered, “Into John’s baptism,” Paul did not conclude that they were certainly sincere and that the whole matter was none of his business. He taught them the truth (Acts 19:1-5).
When Hook does eventually cite a Scripture, he mentions Romans 14 and Romans 15:7, neither of which has a thing to do with salvation: “Therefore, receive one another, just as Christ also received us, to the glory of God.” Does he really think that Paul is speaking to people in different religious denominations and solving their problem of unity for them? It is incredible that anyone could so misapply Scripture.
Every one of the people to whom Paul was writing had been buried with Christ in baptism (Rom. 6:3-5). How could anyone honestly, in good conscience, apply such a verse to people who have been baptized either not at all or for some reason other than those given in the Bible (to join the Baptist Church, for example)? If Peter did not have this kind of mistreatment of the Word in mind when he spoke of those who wrest or twist the Scriptures to their own destruction, then we do not know what the apostle meant (2 Peter 3:15-16).
No, apparently in a judgmental mood that day, Jesus answered, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me” (John 8:42). How did Jesus know their character? It could have been from Divine insight, of course, but the reason He cites is that they did not love Him. They challenged Him and took issue with what He taught. Is there no one who claims God as his Father today who does likewise? Many who profess to love Jesus contradict His doctrine.
Jesus rather judgmentally concluded of such: “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it” (John 8:44).
How was Satan a murderer? He taught a false doctrine, which was a lie. When it was believed, it resulted in death. The same thing occurs today. When Satan convinces someone to believe a false doctrine (one that clearly contradicts the Scriptures), he is guilty of murder again. When he sends forth pious-sounding people with the message, “Doctrine doesn’t matter,” and entire congregations accept the false idea, he becomes a mass murderer.
No wonder the Bible says, “If anyone speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11) and “My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment” (James 3:1). The one teaching the Word of God had a responsibility to speak the truth–not his own imaginations.
BUT the hearer also has a responsibility to be like the Bereans (Acts 17:11). Jesus cautioned His disciples, “Take heed WHAT you hear” (Mark 4:24). John warns: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). Peter promises: “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction” (2 Peter 2:1).
Consider what Paul wrote to the preacher Timothy about his message: “Take heed to yourself and to your doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you” (1 Tim. 4:16). What happens to the one who fails to take heed? The implication is that if a preacher does not continue in correct doctrine, he will grow lax and begin substituting opinions or, perhaps, his own wisdom. Maybe he will not add anything; he may just omit teaching the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). The upshot of his failure to continue in the truth, however, is a loss of salvation for him and those who listen to him. Doctrine is THAT important.
Those, like Max Lucado, who teach fellowshipping everyone who calls God his Father, have gone beyond what our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did. He refused to accept at face value what those men said. Jesus did not use the Cecil Hook approach or the denominational custom of acceptance without question someone’s professed Christianity. We are within our rights to ask the question, “Do those making such a profession really love Jesus?” If so, they will keep His commandments.
These men certainly mouthed high-sounding and lofty sentiments. Few asked, “Where will all of this new perspective and new hermeneutic take us?” Hook makes it clear (and so do many others by their actions, if not their words) that their destination (which they were not honest enough to admit at the start) is simply this: to fellowship anyone spiritually, regardless of whether or not he or she has been baptized. Consider Hook’s comments one more time.
Never have I encouraged anyone to be satisfied with sprinkling or infant baptism. My conscience would not allow that. But others are not bound by my conscience. While I hold strong convictions about various matters, I am not necessarily obligated to assemble with those who violate them in full participation in all their activities. But I am forbidden from rejecting them (6).
What can this be but gobbledegook–when someone equates preaching the gospel message with binding one’s conscience on another! How about binding the TRUTH on others? Can anyone seriously imagine Paul writing such sentiments–considering his compassionate cry of saving some by all means? Can anyone possibly think that the vigorous and enthusiastic preaching of Paul would be tempered by, “but I don’t want to bind my conscience on you”?
Hook says that Romans 14 forbids him from rejecting as brothers and sisters those who have been sprinkled or “baptized” as infants. Oh, really? How does a discussion of eating meat and observing days apply to whether or not someone is Scripturally baptized? Talk about eisegesis! Is it the question, “Who are you to judge another’s servant?” that is being applied here? Jesus said, “He who is not with Me is against Me” (Matt. 12:30). Those who have never obeyed the gospel are not the Lord’s servants; they are still Satan’s. They need to hear the gospel, not erroneous rationalizations from someone willing to give them a bogus pass into the kingdom.
Liberals must be exposed as false teachers. Too many have already listened to them–at the expense of their souls. They began broadening the borders of the kingdom by counting as brethren those who had been immersed for any reason; now they want to fellowship all who claim to be Christians. What more can it take to open the eyes of some brethren? We ought to follow the Word of God rather than the “wisdom” of men.