Apparently, many people have been criticizing the Muslim religion for one of its verses in the Qur’an—the one that states: “O Believers! Take not the Jews or Christians as friends. They are but one another’s friends. If anyone of you taketh them for his friends, he is surely one of them! God will not guide the evil doers” (Sura 5:56 in the translation by J.M. Rodwell). Therefore, a defense of these words has been given on www.alislam.org.
The main thesis is that these words were only valid during the lifetime of Muhammad. The first problem for the reader of the Qur’an would be, “Which parts are relevant only for the time of Muhammad, and which are always true?” For example, verse 40 of the same Sura commands: “As to the thief, whether man or woman, cut ye off their hands in recompense for their doings. This is a penalty by way of warning from God himself. And God is Mighty, Wise.” Was this punishment temporary, or was it to be followed for all time?
What about the other passages in the Qur’an that echo similar sentiments? Consider, for example, this one:
Let not believers take infidels for their friends rather than believers: whoso shall do this hath nothing to hope from God—unless, indeed, ye fear a fear from them: But God would have you beware of Himself ; for to God ye return. SAY: Whether ye hide what is in your breasts, or whether ye publish it abroad, God knoweth it : He knoweth what is in the heavens and what is in the earth; and over all things is God potent” (Sura 3:27).
The question to ask is: “Are Christians still defined as infidels, or did this classification change after Muhammad’s death?” It certainly seems that many Muslims feel hostility toward Christians. Many persistently shout, “Death to the Infidels!”—which brings about the last point with respect to this “change in meaning after Muhammad’s lifetime” doctrine: “How are Christians or Jews supposed to distinguish which Muslims believe this new doctrine of friendliness and which believe what Muhammad wrote in the Qur’an?” If Muslim men in Europe would gang up on isolated women to rape them, they would scarcely blush at lying about which kind of Muslim they are, would they? See the problem?
In the September Issue of Think is an unfortunate article by Keith Parker (one of the board members of the magazine) titled: “Fussing And Fighting Over Words.” Having thought about the contents of the brief message, it merits a refutation. The words recorded on page 14 are both unwise and misleading; furthermore, they ignore the context of the passage in 1 Timothy 6, as well as the overall context of the Scriptures. The entire issue devoted itself to promoting unity; this article attempts to uphold that theme, but it leads instead to disharmony.
Psalm 133:1 is the Scripture quoted at the outset, and it is followed by Jesus’ prayer for unity in John 17:20-23 and Paul’s admonition in 1 Corinthians 1:10. These contain excellent truths on the importance of unity in which all Christians ought to be agreed. Then comes a one-sentence thesis: “One thing that often divides us is words, the proper or improper use of words.” So, what comes to the reader’s mind when digesting that thought?
Many will probably recall the way that false teachers change the definition of words to suit themselves and their doctrines. Grace, for example, has been redefined by some as excluding obedience, which was not the case in Genesis 6:8. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord, but it included—not ignored—the concept of obedience: “Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he” (Gen. 6:22; cf. 7:5; Titus 2:11-14).
Other words have likewise been mangled by some to support strange doctrines, but the article under review did not deal with any of those matters, which is strange since the author told us that he was writing about words that often divide us. He said he memorized 1 Timothy 6:4 years ago but for a long time had no idea what it meant. He still does not. While he made an effort to get to the meaning of the verse, he neglected to look at the verse in its context. Primarily, verse 3 has a profound influence over verse 4, both of which are cited below.
If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions.
Whatever the violation being discussed, it is serious and certainly not a minor disagreement. Furthermore, it cannot be saying that words and their meanings are not important. God changed the names of both Abram and Sarai for a significant reason. He changed Jacob’s name to Israel because it indicated a fundamental change in his character.
Balaam explained to a frustrated Balak that he could only speak the words that God put in his mouth. Words to the contrary God would not accept. The important doctrine of the Scriptures being inspired of God depends on the writers being given the right words and recording them faithfully. In fact, words are so important that Jesus said: “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matt. 12:37).
The Meaning of 1 Timothy 6:3-5
So, whatever Paul means in 1 Timothy 6:4, he is not contradicting the fact that words are important and that it really doesn’t matter what we say. What, then, is Paul’s point in 1 Timothy 6:4? First of all, Paul is talking about false teachers, something that he began commenting on in 1 Timothy 1:5-6, and which he provided examples of in 1 Timothy 1:18-20. Now he again refers to those who do not teach wholesome (healthy) words—even the words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Their message is especially offensive if they teach against that which is according to godliness. Verse 5 adds that their motivation is to make money with religion.
This shameful practice totally misrepresents the life and teachings of Jesus. This controversy should not be taken lightly; it is not inconsequential. Yet Parker boils it down to: “Don’t go around looking for a fight…especially over words.” This quaint notion does not begin to cover the thought of the text; it misrepresents it entirely. It makes it sound like a minor disagreement over word usage. What comes to mind is the quip by Groucho Marx that most people have probably heard: “Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I’ll never know.” Obviously, he should have said, “While wearing my pajamas last night, I shot an elephant. Below is Parker’s first example of the way we should not strive about words.
Sometime ago, a lady came into my office. She told me that one of our church members had tried to get her to “join the church.” I could have picked a fight with her. I could have said, “Lady, you don’t join the church, God adds you to the church.” I didn’t. I understood what she meant. “Added” or “joined”? No big deal. Both are okay. Read Acts 5:13-14.
It is sad to have to say how incredible shallow this line of reasoning is—especially for someone who seems to be a spiritual leader in the Lord’s church! The reader has probably already thought of the points about to be made, but here they are anyway.
1. Parker indicates how weak the congregation he is associated with is. How embarrassing that members do not themselves know the difference.
2. Would Parker argue that we should leave all people in ignorance? What did he further say to her? Did he tell her she could join the church by being baptized? How did this conversation end up, and why would anyone send someone on her way without knowing the truth?
3. No one intentionally picks a fight by giving a precise answer to a question. To inform someone of the truth ought not to make them angry.
4. He understood what she meant. Did he? Does he also understand what people mean when they mistakenly call a preacher a pastor? It is not a question of, “What do people mean?” It is a matter of, “What does God mean, and how did He choose to characterize it?’ For decades faithful preachers and brethren have been explaining the difference between the denominational concept of “joining the church” and the Bible concept of obeying the gospel, yet Parker just casually shrugs his shoulders and says, “No big deal.” He is the one creating disunity in this instance.
5. As it happens, most of us have read Acts 5:13-14. The word joined in verse 13 does not refer to obeying the gospel. It means that people did not want to be associated with them or become part of the group—which would have necessitated eventually becoming baptized. Verse 14 is a more direct reference to those who had obeyed. The Lord was still adding them to the body of Christ.
Parker goes on to imply that it does not matter whether we say born again or converted. No, it does not matter to us since we know what we are talking about, but we do not live in a vacuum. Does he not know what denominational people mean by the phrase? In fact, they often ask, “Are you a born again Christian?” Does he bother to explain to them that such a phrase is redundant? Or is that something else that is “no big deal”?
He goes on to advocate for the usage of the word communion. Yes, we know that we are communing with the body and blood of Jesus, and we know to what it refers. Does that mean it is all right, however, to mislead others who have a different concept entirely? He also points out the various terms by which the church is designated in the New Testament. Has anyone actually objected to Biblical terminology? We use those designations all the time, but if we have visitors, we will clarify what we mean. If Catholics came to visit and asked if we had a bishop, we might correctly say, “We have two or three,” but would we leave them in ignorance? The same thing would occur if a denominational person asked if we had a “pastor.” Do we really want to ignore how others use terminology? This is the point of the article. These different definitions are “no big deal.” If the thrust of this article is not to leave people in ignorance, what would it take to make that point? The way false teachers succeed is by changing the definitions of words.
Witnessing?
For years members of the church have been careful not to be tied to the denominational practice of “witnessing.” But for Parker this is just one more “no big deal.” He writes:
Does it really matter if a Christian refers to evangelism as “testifying” or “witnessing” or “soulwinning”?
Yes! One practice is Scriptural, and one is not. When denominations use witnessing and testifying, they mean that they should go forth and tell everyone else what God has done for them—all of which is subjective and incapable of being verified. What we mean by winning souls is that we present the gospel, which is objective and was verified in the first century with signs, wonders, and miracles. Is it not strange that such things must be pointed out to an alleged leader of God’s people? No wonder many do not know the difference anymore between the Lord’s church and manmade denominations. How can they not be confused when the definitions of key concepts become fuzzy and “no big deal”?
Scriptures cited to support the practice of “witnessing” are Acts 20:21 and Acts 26:22. Of course, Paul could testify and witness because he was an actual witness to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (1 Cor. 15:8). He was doing no more than what Peter did on the day of Pentecost when he testified and exhorted the Jews to obey the gospel (Acts 2:40). Did Peter not first mention that he and the other apostles were witnesses of the resurrection (Acts 2:32)? Even if Paul and others did use the term witnessing as an equivalent of preaching (which has yet to be proven), his definition would still not have been the same as the way denominational people use the term today.
After Nehemiah rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem and set things in order, he departed for a time from Jerusalem. Upon his return trip, he found several things that were wrong. One of them was that the Jews had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab. As a result, “half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod, and could not speak the language of Judah, but spoke according to the language of one or the other people” (Neh. 13:24). Will that not likely happen in the Lord’s church if we are not careful? Will not our children end up speaking some denominational language instead of labeling things accurately? Whatever happened to “calling Bible things by Bible names”?
Some may think this response is too harsh, but it does not even compare to what Nehemiah did: “So I contended with them and cursed them, struck some of them and pulled out their hair…” (Neh. 13:25). No, that won’t be happening, but brethren need to reject this Think article as one that is ill-advised and not one that promotes harmony within the body of Christ. Let us speak the way the Bible speaks and use the terminology the way God defined it. We must recognize that Satan has perverted much of God’s terminology.
An article on another subject inside examines 1 Timothy 6:3-5, in which it is shown that some unscrupulously use religion to make money off people. Jesus overthrew the tables of the moneychangers who were profiting from religion; some are still fleecing others today in the name of Jesus. In fact, one wonders if those who are selling cures and healings—for a price—actually believe in God at all. One such scoundrel was mentioned in the Orlando Sentinel as recently as September 24, 2016.
The person in question’s first name is (ironically) Christian—one thing he is definitely not. He once had a program on the Trinity Broadcast Network and was “pastor” of the Church of Victory in Longwood. He should have changed it to the Church of Shame, considering what he did, and now it is certainly the Church of the Defeated, since the entire ministry has closed down. It needed to end.
So, what was he charged with? He is accused of “running a gambling operation out of his garage and serving alcohol to two underage brothers, according to the arrest affidavit.” Was the evidence against him sufficient, or was it just the hearsay of these two brothers? It looks fairly convincing. Police have photographs and video footage in their possession. In the garage, there were
“obvious gaming tables” covered in cash and bottles of liquor “arrayed in a manner most commonly seen in commercial bars and lounges,” an Orlando Police Department detective wrote…. Besides depicting the tables, the photographs showed people holding cash… (B2).
The home where these things occurred is in a gated community. Nothing was mentioned in the article of a response from Christian. We do not know the backdrop of the events. How well did he know these boys? Were they members? Why did they take the pictures and go to the police? Presumably, that all might be shown later, but (unless the photos were falsified), the case looks damaging. Atheists must love situations like this. No one associated with Christ should be encouraging young people (or older folks) to sin. This very practice is denounced in the Scriptures. “It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones” (Luke 17:2).
“Hate? I thought Christians weren’t supposed to hate.” That may be a popular myth, but it does not square with the Bible. Brother Dub McClish mentioned this point in an October 23, 2016 bulletin article, but it deserves an expanded treatment. He brought up Psalm 97:10, which is a command: “You who love the Lord, hate evil! He preserves the souls of His saints; He delivers them out of the hand of the wicked.”
We are so accustomed to hearing, “God is love” (which is true) that it sounds odd that God would tell us to hate anything, but it’s not just anything we are to hate—we must hate evil (Amos 5:15). Why? First of all, evil separated man from God, which is not good for any person. Second, God must punish evil, as He did the great wickedness in the days of Noah (Gen. 6:5). While it is true that God will forgive us our sins, it is also the case that we must repent and give them up. God cannot tolerate evil forever; so hell is a place created for those who love sin more than God Himself.
Evil occurs in many forms, and God’s people ought to despise every manifestation of it. David wrote: “I will set nothing wicked before my eyes; I hate the work of those who fall away; it shall not cling to me” (Ps. 101:3). Those who fall away from God are a discouragement. How could they love the things of this world more than God? But some choose alcohol or some other drug over God. Maybe it’s the glorification of the flesh in immodest dress or in pornographic displays. Perhaps it is the pride that accompanies false doctrine. Whatever errors or immoralities a former believer chooses, we must declare hatred for that work.
Quite often, some brethren wonder why we emphasize false doctrine the way we do. The answer is found in Psalm 119:104. “Through your precepts I get understanding; Therefore I hate every false way.” It is through truth that we know God and please Him (John 8:31-32). Outside of truth stands error! Why don’t Christians often understand that point? It’s not that hard to comprehend. Believing error causes people to be lost! And that is just as true for Christians as unbelievers. Can we not all understand what Paul meant when he said, “Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men”? He had declared unto them the whole counsel of God so that they would know the truth and reject error (Acts 20:26-27). For that reason he also exhorted Timothy to take heed to himself and to his doctrine (1 Tim. 4:16; Rev. 2:15). What we believe saves us or condemns us.
For that reason we devoted our entire One Day Lectureship this year to current errors in the church (which will cause people to be lost). How many elders and preachers were concerned enough to come? Many brethren seem not to take the work of elders seriously when it comes to protecting the flock. They should be like the psalmist and hate every false way.
The writer considered this point important enough to repeat: “Therefore all Your precepts concerning all things I consider to be right; I hate every false way” (Ps. 119:128). Solomon named some specifics, such as pride, arrogance, and a perverse mouth, but he also adds another reason why some may not hate as God does; they may simply not fear Him: “The fear of the Lord is to hate evil…” (Pr. 8:13). The wise man links the two together. Do those who prefer to hear positive messages about love and self-esteem lack a fear of God? Why, then, do they not deal with those matters?
The Seven Things God Hates
These six things the Lord hates;
Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
A proud look, A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren.
Solomon provides quite a list for all to consider. A proud look would be one that communicates to others, “You better not challenge me if you know what’s good for you.” Pride does far more damage to the one who possesses it than it does to others.
A lying tongue is almost common fare today, and most people even freely admit it. Obviously, the population does not take it nearly as seriously as God does. The psalmist says: “I hate and abhor lying, but I love Your law” (Ps. 119:163). John wrote that “all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (Rev. 21:8). God hates dishonesty and will surely punish it.
Innocent blood probably denotes all who do not deserve to die. In other words, they were not put to death for any crime they committed. Like Naboth, whom Jezebel set up with false witnesses against him, some are not worthy of death. However, it is difficult to read this description without thinking of an abortion doctor employed by Planned Parenthood (or someone else), killing and removing an innocent life in the womb. It is hard to think of a more despicable person unless it would be those who finance them, such as various politicians. How could anyone conscientiously vote for a person who fits this category that God hates? Furthermore, that Planned Parenthood would harvest body parts from slain infants is unconscionable. These people should be jailed and tried—not given taxpayers’ dollars. One thing is certain—God shall deal with them as they deserve. Unfortunately, abortion has been a scourge upon America for more than 40 years, and we shall have to answer for it (Pr. 14:34). More than 60 million children have been put to death legally during this time. Not one has perished with God’s approval.
A heart that devises wicked plans recycles old plots and invents new ones. The history of the world is replete with examples of those who went forth to conquer—just for the sake of doing so. But individuals often try to get by with mischief in their personal lives as well. As Forensic Files illustrates, people plot murder all the time, thinking they will not be caught. However, God always knows, even if no court of law can prove it. Some cannot go to sleep at night unless they have devised some evil for the next day (Ps. 36:4).
Some develop evil plots; others use their feet to swiftly carry them out. They would not hasten to do something right. They would not use their feet to swiftly do a good deed for a neighbor, but they will joyously run to do mischief. What a sad set of priorities.
False witnesses were brought in to testify against the Lord. Not much tops that sin on the Scale of Despicability. They even knew that it would bring about His death, but they were so perverted that they did not
care. Sometimes women are brought in to testify against a man who could not possibly defend himself against charges of bad conduct that allegedly occurred 10, 20, or 30 years ago. Uncorroborated (and false) testimony nearly kept Clarence Thomas off the Supreme Court. The woman who testified before a Senate committee described several unsavory actions—none of which could be proven or denied. The fact that she invited the alleged sexual pervert to speak at her college and even picked him up at the airport was irrelevant (somehow). A great man’s reputation was nearly destroyed. “Let not a slanderer be established in the earth…” (Ps. 140:11).
One who sows discord could be a whisperer and a talebearer, just as Iago was in Othello. Or he might be a false teacher, who certainly does separate brethren from the unity they once shared. In either case, it is a shame and a disgrace. Some seem to think that the church belongs to them instead of Christ, Who is the Head over the body. Once again, the fear of the Lord seems to be lacking.
Isaiah 61:8
God specifies some other bad behavior not included in the list just examined. Isaiah recorded His words: “For I the Lord love justice; I hate robbery…” (61:8). Although robbery may not be a very high priority for police these days, nevertheless God hates it when someone takes what does not belong to him; it was part of His Ten commandments—right after the prohibitions against murder and adultery and right before warnings against bearing false witness and coveting.
God hates it when people steal the property of others. How many people today are defrauding the government, which means they are stealing from all taxpayers? Above all, God is not pleased when people rob Him (Mal. 3:8-10). People can rob God in the poor quality offerings they bring to Him; they can also rob Him of time in worship and in service.
Idolatry
God sent His prophets early each morning to tell the people: “Oh, do not do this abominable thing that I hate!” (Jer. 44:4). What could that possibly be? The preceding verse spells it out. His people “went to burn incense and to serve other gods whom they did not know…” (v. 3). How ironic is it that Jehovah delivered them out of Egypt, but they worshiped and served other gods for hundreds of years! In doing so they provoked God to anger. He absolutely hated the abominations they committed, which included offering their children to false deities.
Hate Thy Neighbor?
How people treat others has always been of prime importance to God. Loving one’s neighbor as oneself is the second greatest commandment from the Law of Moses (Matt. 22:37-40); it appeared first in Leviticus 19:18. God expects His people to speak the truth to his neighbor, as well as execute proper judgment and justice (Zech. 8:16). He adds: “‘Let none of you think evil in your heart against your neighbor; and do not love a false oath. For all these are things that I hate,’ says the Lord” (v. 17).
Perhaps another way of making this point is to say that God hates hypocrisy—whether it consists of phony devotion toward Him or whether a “follower” of His is acting hypocritically against a neighbor. When he mistreats others, he loves neither neighbor nor God.
I hate, I despise your feast days, and I do not savor your sacred assemblies. Though you offer Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them, nor will I regard your fattened peace offerings. Take away from Me the noise of your songs, for I will not hear the melody of your stringed instruments. But let justice run down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream (Amos 5:21-24).
What Some People Hate
A Christian will stand with God and hate the same things He does. They will hate evil in all its myriad expressions. People can tell a great deal about someone by observing what he loves. One can also discern much about someone by noticing what he hates. The ungodly hates the one who rebukes sin and abhors “the one who speaks uprightly” (Amos 5:10). Yes, they “hate good and love evil” (Micah 3:2). Did Jesus not affirm that the world hated Him because He testified that its works are evil (John 7:7)? Yes, people hate the light “because their deeds are evil” (John 3:19).
Would it be wise to make the statement: “I don’t hate anybody or anything”? No, we do not want to hate people
who have been duped by Satan, but we certainly must hate evil. Why is it that many are reluctant to speak out against wicked deeds? Is it political correctness? Or maybe they are fools—who hate knowledge.
Just released on October 21, 2016, is the prequel, Ouija: Origin of Evil. The trailer (available on the Internet) shows several horrific scenes of people being attacked and bad things happening. All the while the viewer hears a recording of Herman’s Hermits singing, “Something tells me I’m into something good.” How’s that for irony? In the movie a mother dupes clients by giving “readings” through the use of a Ouija board. It’s all a scam, but she uses her techniques to “help” people. Inevitably something goes haywire, and an evil spirit is unleashed who manages to kill almost everyone but the cameraman.
Usually, movies like this generate a surge of interest, especially among young people, to ask questions about, if not actually try out, the use of one of these mystical little products. Linda Rodriguez McRobbie’s article on Smithsonian.com explains that the origin of the practice originated with the popularity of Spiritualism and the Fox sisters, who in 1848 conducted séances and received answers to questions through rappings on the wall. Yes, it was a scam, but people were enthralled by the possibilities of the dead communicating with the living.
With short lifespans and many young people dying early, such attempts became popular. Even Mary Todd Lincoln conducted séances in the White House after her 11-year-old son died in 1862. Many others tried to contact their loved ones who died in the Civil War. By 1886, the Ouija board had come into existence. It was patented and distributed as a novelty item in early 1891. It consisted of the “talking” board, which has letters, numbers, and a planchette-like device to point to them. The word, Ouija is a combination of the French and German words for “yes.”
These devices surface from time to time in the movies, such as Thirteen Ghosts (1960), Tales from the Crypt (1972), Amityville 3-D (1983), Awakenings (1990), What Lies Beneath (2000), and a host of others, including Ouija (2014). According to the October 16, 2016 Parade Magazine: “Scientific studies have shown that the planchette [the heart-shaped piece of wood or plastic] is actually guided by unconscious muscular exertions of the players, not by ‘spirits.’” Isn’t that what most people instinctively knew all along? It is probably better if Christians ignore the nonsense altogether—especially for séance purposes, since God does not allow communication with the dead (Luke 16:19-25). Unlike the song cited earlier; nobody gets into something good when fooling around with a Ouija board.
Yes, it has only been two years since medical marijuana was on the ballot in Florida. It was Proposition 2 then, and it is Proposition 2 now. We were opposed to it then, and we are opposed now. This article will close with the same paragraph that was used for the October 5th, 2014 Spiritual Perspectives. Two years ago, the Orlando Sentinel presented both sides of the issue; maybe having the facts dissuaded some people for voting in favor of it. It missed becoming law because only 58% of the public (60% is needed) voted in favor of it.
On September 30, 2016, the Orlando Sentinel published an opinion piece by Republican Paula Dockery, a 16-year veteran of the Florida Legislature. She pled for people to vote yes in order to pass the amendment; no stance for the other side was published (at least on the same day). Some might find her reasoning compelling, but it is full of logical fallacies. In making an argument, one should examine the issue at hand and present the merits for it or the drawbacks against it. If the position is weak, advocates will frequently use techniques that constitute logical fallacies. Paula did so throughout her article.
After framing the issue, she offered an explanation for the reason the amendment failed the previous time. A mean dastardly, worthless outsider mounted a campaign against it. Well, no, she didn’t use those terms, but she might as well have. She wrote that the previous amendment had a good chance of passing
until a strong and well-financed opposition went on the attack. Billionaire casino boss Sheldon Anderson—resident of Nevada—was a major financial backer of the “No on 2” effort.
So, who likes billionaires? They probably stole their wealth from the little guy. This is what the reader is supposed to think. Yes, the opposition to passage was well-financed. Boo! And they don’t even have a dog in this fight, being from Nevada. How despicable!
This logical fallacy is the ad hominem attack. It is primarily aimed against the man. Notice what she did not say. Why does a casino owner care about a medical marijuana issue in Florida? It is not apparent that he has anything to gain by opposing it. Did he have a reason? If so, what was it? Maybe, being so close to California, he knew how well the law had worked there (suddenly everyone had a prescription from his doctor). Surely, more than 40% of the public did not vote against the amendment based on advertising bought by a casino owner. What were the other reasons people had for opposing the amendment?
Dockery had more ad hominem attacks to dish out: “Critics relied on doomsday scenarios and scare tactics… They enlisted the help of…the sheriffs.”
So how unfair was that? Of course, law enforcement would be against it. They’re all just trying to scare people. Really? How? By providing facts? Is it a scare tactic to show what has happened in other states? How about these news stories?
Fatal crashes involving drivers who recently used marijuana doubled in Washington after the state legalized the drug, according to the latest research by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
Last year, 545 people died in Colorado traffic accidents, an 11.7 percent increase from the 488 traffic deaths recorded in 2014, according to the Colorado Department of Transportation.
Of course these states legalized marijuana, period, but legalizing “medical” marijuana has a similar effect because it is more available in general. These are not scare tactics; they are called facts.
Paula Dockery praises John Morgan for contributing millions to get this law passed. Rich men spending money against the amendment are evil, but rich men in favor of it are good guys. Some have wondered if Morgan’s advertising campaign should be: “Morgan and Morgan: For the Stoned People.” A great many young people are hopeful that the amendment passes.
The next argument that Dockery employs is a variation of the “poor poor pitiful me” ploy. Yes, Morgan and his organization “jumped through all the hoops again” to get the amendment on the ballot. Are we supposed to be sympathetic? He’s a lawyer, and he knows how to file forms. This is reminiscent of the meeting members of the church here had before the Seminole County council, when we protested a bar opening up across the street. A woman from the county testified how a man had to come out and measure the distance between the two doors (ours and the one that would belong to the sports bar). She further protested that he had to drive so far (just because we objected to it)— and take the measurement on a hot day. The board was not swayed by such tactics.
Next, Dockery uses the bandwagon approach. In other words, the measure will surely succeed this time. The public may as well vote for it. The data here includes that it just barely failed last time. Polls indicate that from 65% to 73% of the public are now in favor of it. Hmm. If that’s true, then why write the article? If it’s a shoo-in to pass, why stir things up by calling attention to it? In addition, 24 other states have already adopted such laws. What a source for information! Why isn’t any of it mentioned? Of those states who have made marijuana use legal, have they had any increased problems as a result? More automobile accidents? More home invasions? More traffic accidents?
Why doesn’t Dockery cite information to prove that allowing marijuana just for medical use has worked well? Why doesn’t she say that no social problems have increased or broken out and put to rest any fears that someone might have?
And while we’re on this subject, what is the penalty if someone forges a doctor’s signature? Jail? Do we even send anyone to prison now for using marijuana? Why will it not get worse if there are no safeguards on this legislation? If the amendment does have built-in protections, what are they? When someone writes an article to persuade the public about the need for this law, why doesn’t that individual—especially a 16-year Florida legislator—provide assurances that Florida society will remain the same—and back it up with data? Why is she relying on logical fallacies to make her case instead of legitimate information?
Paula has argued little more than what might be termed propaganda. The bandwagon argument, for example, only proves what is popular today. Many will remember that when the Equal Rights Amendment was first passed by Congress, it was ratified by 30 states within a year. It only received 5 more states’ support, and even with an extension, it died three states short of ratification. The point is that sometimes people and states jump on the bandwagon before they know what song is going to be played. There might not be one more state that ever legalizes medical marijuana, but even if five more do, so what? That does not make it right. Incidentally, some states rescinded acceptance of the Equal Rights Amendment, and the same thing could happen here.
The last fallacy was to appeal to anecdotal evidence. Dockery included a letter from a veteran who complained essentially that he could use marijuana legally in Maine, but when he came to Florida for the winter, he could not. He mentions that he received his wounds in Viet Nam. Most Americans have profound respect for those who have served their country and risked being killed. Our natural response is to honor all veterans, as well as those parents who have lost their sons (or daughters).
However, that respect and gratitude does not extend to the breaking of the law. (Do soldiers not serve to protect the rule of law?) Nor does it grant the right to Khizr Khan to be obnoxious, launch a political attack, and lecture on the Constitution. Most of us have read the document more than once—particularly, the second amendment, which some are trying to eradicate. We can honor soldiers and their parents for the hardships they have endured, but that does not include indulging everything they might be in favor of.
But even if Dockery had cited 15 cases (and probably hundreds more could be furnished), it would not prove that legalization is the best solution. No doubt some would be helped by passing the law, but how many more will suffer and die? How many innocent people will lose their lives due to car accidents? How many will become addicted to marijuana, losing both their focus and their way. Sure, we all desire to alleviate suffering, but is there a way to do it besides opening Pandora’s Box? Before we make something legal that potentially can do great damage, we should be certain that all loopholes are closed and that this is not merely a pretext to expand marijuana use in the state of Florida. The following paragraph concluded the 2014 article.
Only one clear choice presents itself in voting on Amendment 2: “Should we vote to expand the number of users of marijuana in Florida?” A “yes” vote will most assuredly accomplish that goal. A “no” vote will not eradicate marijuana use; the buying and selling of it illegally will continue to be done. Chances are that those who need the drug for health reasons are already getting it. Society does not need another element of corruption. No one is employing scare tactics in recounting what will happen. They just have examined what has happened elsewhere and are simply acknowledging reality.
In case the reader was not aware, today [October 9, 2016, gws] has been designated “Clergy Appreciation Day.” This observance began seventeen years ago:
In 1992, layperson Jerry Frear, Jr., was brainstorming with church colleagues about how they might be of help to their minister when he glanced at a calendar and noticed that it was almost Groundhog Day. “I thought, if they have a day for groundhogs, there ought to be a day for the 375,000 clergy people in America,” Frear says.1
There are three problems with Clergy Appreciation Day—Clergy, Appreciation, and Day. Concerning Day, this smacks of a religious holiday. And the New Testament simply does not authorize any religious holiday, much less a man-made holiday:
But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain (Gal. 4:9-11).
Paul indicated that the observation of religious “days” was to turn to “the weak and beggarly elements” of false religion. He indicated that such observances would render vain all his labor on their behalf. As for Clergy, this is not a Biblical designation. Clergy is defined as “the group or body of ordained persons in a religion, as distinguished from the laity.”2 The concept of a priesthood separate from the laity was part of the apostasy that led the people away from New Testament Christianity and from the true church it creates (Luke 8:11; Matt. 13:19). The New Testament designates all Christians as priests (1 Peter 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6).
And concerning Appreciation, this is a misplacement of our appreciation. The Lord does not authorize the designation of certain Christians as clergy, while omitting others. And if it is not authorized it is sinful (Col. 3:17). And as the Lord says, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isa. 5:20).
However, if the term “clergy” refers to Biblical “priests”—that is, all Christians—we should indeed have appreciation:
Appreciation for the “clergy” who have gone before. We all stand on the shoulders of those who have found and fought for the Truth. Those departed faithful remain an example and encouragement to us all (Heb. 13:7).
Appreciation for the “clergy” who labor for the Lord today. They are not all preaching in the pulpit, but all the members of the body working together make the body function (Eph. 4:16).
Appreciation for what the “clergy” together constitutes. Since all Christians are priests, together they constitute the church (1 Peter 2:5; compare with 1 Tim. 3:15). This is the church for which Christ died (Eph. 5:25); this is the kingdom which will be delivered to the Father at the end of all things (1 Cor. 15:24).
Appreciation for the greatest of all “clergy.” Of Jesus Christ it is written,
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted (Heb. 2:17-18).
If “clergy” is used to refer to the New Testament priesthood of all Christians, then and only then should we have appreciation for the clergy. But let us be thankful for that “clergy” every day.
1 Annie’s “Clergy Appreciation Day” page available at http://www.annieshomepage.com/clergyday.html.
2 Dictionary.com. s.v. “Clergy.”
Having covered some of the fundamental matters concerning the debate, let us look at some of the issues raised. One of these involved the prophecy of Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2 concerning the man of sin. Neubauer affirmed that this man was the high priest and that Jesus destroyed him in AD 70. Accompanying this assertion was that the Jews were the persecutors of Christians and that God would thus destroy them when Jesus came in AD 70, as per 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9. This is also supposed to correspond to what is being described in the Book of Revelation.
Several problems with this interpretation virtually leap off the pages of the New Testament. First of all, the persecution described in Revelation was intense. No one thinks only a few were put to death; the cry is heard of the souls who were under the altar, asking how long it would be until their blood was avenged in Revelation 6:9-10. This fits well with the Roman persecution of Christians since hundreds and thousands were put to death. How many Christians did the Jews put to death? Stephen was the first (Acts 7:59-60). Paul indicates there were some others in Jerusalem (Acts 26:9-10). He gives no indication of a vast amount, however. Neubauer indicated that the Jews had persecuted many in Thessalonica, and they had, but how many Christians died there? Acts 17:9 says the rulers of the city took security for Jason and the rest but then let them go. So far as we know, no Christian lost his life there.
Brother Neubauer correctly says that we ought to look for what a text meant to the ones who first received it before we ask what it means to us. So what did 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9 mean to them? It was assurance that those who troubled them (by way of persecution) would be troubled by the Lord. Since Paul was writing to those yet alive, they are the ones who would receive rest. Paul says nothing about those put to death as part of their persecution in either 2 Thessalonians 1 or 2. So, did the Jews persecute Christians? Yes, but nothing indicates that the Jews themselves caused very many deaths of Christians—not like the amount of martyrs described in Revelation.
2 Thessalonians says that Jesus would come in flaming fire to take vengeance on the persecutors. Is that said of the destruction of Jerusalem? No, fire is a sign of eternal judgment, as in Matthew 3:10-12, 25:41, 46. How would Christians persecuted by Jews in Thessalonica have been rewarded by the destruction of Jerusalem? Neubauer’s theory does not match the facts.
The Man of Sin (2 Thess. 2)
Bible students have always been intrigued by the identity of the man of sin. Neubauer insisted that he was the high priest and that any other interpretation—especially, the man of sin being the pope—was wrong. Of course, if one is talking about the literal temple of God, the high priest does seem to fit, and the explanation of Jesus destroying him in AD 70 logically follows.
However, Denham repudiated that idea by saying that Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 they should not think that what he had previously taught them was “at hand” (the translation of the King James). Neubauer took high exception to that translation, saying that the New King James and Vine’s Expository Dictionary were correct when they rendered the words: “as though the day of Christ had come.” Greek technicalities aside, frankly, what is the difference? How is “the day had come” different than “the day is at hand”?
The American Standard also contains “at hand.” The Revised Standard uses “has come,” as does the New American Standard and the English Standard Version. Young’s Literal Translation renders it “hath arrived.” All of them are expressing what Paul meant. Do not think that the Day of the Lord (even the beginning of its fulfilment) was at hand, had arrived, or was present. Why should they not think that? Because there would first be “the falling away” and “the man of sin” would be revealed (v. 3).
How can this description refer to the high priest? Did Christians not already know the sinfulness of that man? Had he not been instrumental in determining that Jesus be crucified (Mark 14:60-64)? That is quite revelation enough as to his character. Also Paul had letters from the high priest to bring Christians bound to Jerusalem (Acts 9:1-2). What more evidence does anyone need to have in order to know that he is a sinful man, acting contrary to the interests of God?
Did the high priest claim to be God (v. 4)? Perhaps in a way he acted as though he were, but he never said he was. And what was restraining him (v. 6)? Nothing. He constantly took as much power as Rome would give him. Rome never stepped aside so that his power could increase. He was eventually taken out of the way, but he meets only a few of the characteristics Paul listed. All the things that apply to the man of sin must fit. And what signs and lying wonders did the high priest ever claim to do (v. 9)? Christians were never duped by him to the point of not possessing salvation (v. 10).
Although Neubauer ridiculed the idea that the passage refers to the pope, that interpretation actually fits better. Consider first that before the Lord returned to destroy him, there had to be first the falling away (v. 3). What falling away was there between AD 52 and AD 70? No one has ever heard of one. But all know that the church fell away during the Dark Ages.
The pope does indeed oppose God and exalt himself (v. 4). Several references throughout history have called him, “Our Holy Lord God, the Pope.” These have been challenged by the Catholic Church as being unwarranted comments and mistranslations. But even if they are incorrect, does not the pope accept worship? Peter refused to do so (Acts 10:25-26); even an angel refused (Rev. 19:10). Only Jesus accepted worship because He was God in the flesh. The pope is not, but he accepts worship. The pope also prays to Mary, and so do many Catholics. Various websites deny all these things, but there is more than sufficient information to confirm the truth of the matter.
Neubauer objected that the pope was never in the temple (church) of God. But exactly when did the original church go into apostasy? It began in the second century and continued in that direction until Boniface III proclaimed himself universal bishop over the church. Sprinkling did not become common for baptism until after 1100 or 1200. Some claim that the official change was “in 1311” at “the Council of Ravenna,” which allowed people to choose immersion or sprinkling. It may be that Boniface III had been immersed for his sins and entered the church that had increasingly wandered away from the New Testament. But even if he was not a member of the Lord’s church, he claimed to be and thus set himself up as God in the temple.
The mystery of lawlessness was already at work, which is the desire for self-exaltation. Diotrephes would display such an attitude (3 John 9), and Paul would warn against those who would draw away disciples after themselves (Acts 20:30). When the nation of Rome was destroyed (around 476), the papacy soon became full blown. There were already five bishops over various regions of the world prior to 606. The office of pope will remain until the Lord returns and destroys him with the brightness of His coming.
Over the years popes have claimed to do miracles (v. 9), and many have been deceived. When people do not have a love of the truth, they will believe anything. They “did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (v. 12). Was that true of those who followed the high priest? What corruption were they involved in? They were greedy, yes. Jesus exposed that attitude in the moneychangers. But those who profited from such endeavors were few. What did the Jews as a whole gain by following the high priest? They were rewarded with death when Jerusalem fell.
However, adherents of Catholicism get precisely what is stated in verse 12. Their system of religion allows them to have pleasure in unrighteousness. They confess their sins, do some penance, and then go engage in the same sin again. Just prior to the Reformation—and helping to bring it about—was the sale of indulgences, which allowed a person to purchase pardon for sins in advance of committing them. Thus, people have pleasure in unrighteousness. Which of these two proposed explanations best fits the data?
Date of New Testament Books Being Written
Several books of the New Testament have been assigned dates that come after AD 70. Among them are the gospel of John, as well as the epistles of 1, 2, and 3 John, Jude, and the prophetic book of Revelation. However, if everything was fulfilled in AD 70, then all the books had to be written previously. One problem for those who assert that idea (in the face of historical evidence to the contrary) is that not enough time elapsed for the development of Gnosticism.
On the other hand, Neubauer defends A. T. Robinson who opined that any New Testament book written after AD 70 would surely have mentioned the Destruction of Jerusalem. It is true that the gospel of John omits all of the prophecies concerning that horrible and bloody event. But why does it not occur to these scholars that the reason these latter books do not mention it is precisely because everyone was aware of it? Would anyone expect there to be references to World War II immediately upon its conclusion? Sure, there might be analyses, etc., but everyone knew about it and did not have to be informed. In a world considerably less full of information than ours, all of John’s readers would know what had happened there.
The Death of the Law
In the second speech on the third night of the debate, Neubauer put up a chart that read: “The Law died by means of the Cross but not at the Cross.” “What?” someone says, scratching his head. “Oh, yeah,” emphasizes Neubauer. “The Law was nailed to the cross but wasn’t taken away until AD 70. It was only passing away (Heb. 8:13)”. According to him, Jesus’ coming the second time without sin to salvation (Heb. 9:28) means that Jesus took away the Law at the Destruction of Jerusalem and established His law. This is the way Jehovah’s Witnesses argue.
The Law was nailed to the cross, period (Col. 2:14). Did Jesus die that day? Then so did the Law. The hatred between Jews and Gentiles was fueled by the Law of Moses. According to Ephesians 2:11-15, Jesus became our peace, having broken down the middle wall of division between them. Therefore Jew and Gentile could be one in one body (Eph. 4:4-6). This did not occur at AD 70—but at the cross. Otherwise, Jew and Gentile could not be heirs of Abraham and united together until AD 70. But they clearly were long before that date (Gal. 3:26-29).
In Hebrews 8:6-7 we read that Jesus established (past tense) a better covenant which contained better promises. Then the writer quotes from Jeremiah 31: 31-34 which prophesied of the new covenant. Afterward, the prophet, quoting the phrase, a new covenant, says that the old, therefore, was ready to vanish away—at the time Jeremiah wrote! Neubauer (perhaps intentionally) tries to make the verse applicable at the time Hebrews was written rather than when Jeremiah wrote. Hebrews 8:6-7 said that it had already passed away, thereby disproving Neubauer’s thesis and showing him to take the verse out of context. The reader should study Hebrews 9:27-28. It refers to the death of men followed by the judgment—not a new law. Jesus came the first time to save us from sin, but His second coming will involve eternal salvation.
The New Math
In the second speech of the last night of the debate, Neubauer introduced the audience to his special brand of arithmetic (reminiscent of the bit Rush Limbaugh used to air of “Louis Farrakhan’s Million Man Math Made Easy”). After pointing out that no one in the Old Testament ever lived to be 1,000 years old, he stated that Adam lived 930 years. Then he said that Jesus was baptized at age 30 and Jerusalem was destroyed 40 years later, thus making 1,000 years. How amazing!
Well, consider this. After the resurrection, Jesus’ disciples caught 153 fish. Divide that by the number of those in the Godhead (3), and the quotient is 51. Now subtract the number of days that Jesus fasted in the wilderness (40), and the result is 11—the number of apostles Jesus had left after Judas betrayed Him and hanged himself. What do these numerical manipulations prove? Apparently, they serve as evidence for whatever someone desires of them.
Boasting
Holger Neubauer made two boasts on the final night of the debate. In his second speech, he claimed rather forcefully, “Do you realize that we have already two people who have changed their minds, who had your view before the debate? We’re whippin’ you very well.” In his last speech he spoke more temperately, but nonetheless he exuded the same level of confidence as he said:
But we’re not gonna give up. We’re not gonna shut up. We’re not gonna back up. We believe that we have the truth, and we’re changing minds. I can tell you about anti preachers in Indianapolis. I can tell you about brethren in Ohio who are reading our material. I can tell you about brothers in North Carolina, I can tell you about brothers in Florida, who have contacted us. So, if we’re just so heretical, how do seasoned men, gospel preachers rethink some of the arguments that we’re making?
That’s a question we all wish we had the answer to. How did Mac Deaver, Bob Berard, Glenn Jobe, and others rethink their views on the Holy Spirit? Neubauer moderated for Ben Vick when he debated Mac Deaver in 2011. He certainly knows that Mac changed his mind. How seasoned men are swept away by error is one of the great mysteries. Can Neubauer explain why Rubel Shelly became a liberal? Daniel Denham gave a great response to these two statements by pointing out we were once united, but the introduction of this doctrine has created division. “This has become their golden calf…they’re dividing churches, and he’s proud of that.”
When brother Warren debated Antony G.N. Flew 40 years ago in 1976, those who attended were excited to see what would unfold: Would the atheist with his use of logic prevail—or the Christian, a man of faith? Brother Thomas B. Warren, the Christian, began in his first speech to present logical arguments, and he never relented. One can only imagine what Flew expected to occur in the debate, but it was the Christian who used logic while the atheist ran away from it. Brother Warren pointed out in his book, Logic and the Bible that David Hume wrote that “no man turns against reason until reason turns against him.”
Holger Neubauer was trained by Thomas B. Warren (among others), but during this debate there was no evidence of it. He refused to answer the logical arguments which brother Denham made, even though he signed his name to do exactly that the first two nights and therefore obligated himself to do so. Nor did he set forth any arguments of his own—except for one on the third night of the debate. So what did he do? Just as Flew came prepared with classroom lectures which he gave instead of debating, so Neubauer obviously came prepared to make speeches designed to explain the major tenets of his doctrine. Neither Flew nor Neubauer actually engaged in debate. Occasionally they commented on something the opposition said, but that was about it.
The proof that this was Neubauer’s aim is that he often times would bring up a verse or a passage, and when brother Denham would explain it, he would drop it like a hot potato and never mention it again. It was a strange way of debating. On the other hand, Daniel Denham fulfilled his affirmative obligations by setting forth logical arguments which Neubauer, for the most part, ignored. When he was in the negative the last two nights of the debate, Denham spent his time looking at what Neubauer had said and answering the points. This is what a debater is supposed to do. Unfortunately, only brother Denham came to actually debate.
When one of the two disputants engaged in a controversial matter refuses to fulfill his obligations, those who are observers should ask themselves, “Why?” Especially those who share Neubauer’s position should ask themselves why he would choose to “debate” the way he did. Does he know that his position is wrong? Why can’t he discuss the subject logically? Whether he realizes it or not, the answer is that a position that cannot be logically set forth or defended is wrong.
The Proposition
The first two nights of the debate, the proposition was: “The Scriptures teach that the general resurrection of the dead is yet future and is a bodily resurrection.” Those words mean probably what the reader thinks they mean and which he has heard all of his life. It means that there is (as we often sing) “a great day coming,” in which there shall be a resurrection from the dead, as Jesus taught:
“Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of commendation” (John 5:28-29).
On that day, all shall be raised bodily from the dead. All shall first be changed to a resurrected body before being rewarded or punished. Those, like brother Neubauer who hold to the AD 70 doctrine (also called Realized Eschatology or Max Kingism) deny that there is a future general resurrection and that all people will be bodily raised from the dead. They believe that the resurrection described in John 5, along with the second coming of Christ, occurred in AD 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed. Thus they argue that no future coming of Christ and no future day of resurrection will occur.
Now, everyone agrees that Jesus came in judgment upon Jerusalem (figuratively, through the Roman armies) in AD 70, but we deny that this destruction was what Jesus had reference to in John 5:28-29. Brother Denham pointed out that there are several comings of Christ mentioned in the New Testament. Jesus came figuratively in the person of the Holy Spirit (John 14:17-18), in judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70, and in judgment later on Rome, the persecutor of the church, according to the Book of Revelation. He even threatened to come in judgment on the church at Ephesus when He urged them to repent, or He would remove their candlestick (Rev. 2:5). However, there is only one second coming in judgment on the whole world.
Neubauer’s response was to say that these brethren had more comings of Jesus than Old MacDonald had animals on his farm, with, “Here a coming, there a coming—everywhere, a coming coming.” He probably thought this was a good laugh line—one that would score well with his folks—until one realizes that these various comings were not invented by “these brethren.” The Holy Spirit describes them in the Holy Book. Brother Denham later chastised him for his frivolity.
However, a good reason exists for concluding that the figurative coming in judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70 is not the second coming described in so many passages of Scripture. Denham went to the very plain verses recorded in Acts 1:9-11. He pointed out that these words were not part of a figurative or symbolic passage—but of narrative, which is to be taken literally.
Acts 1:9-11
Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner, as you saw Him go into heaven (Acts 1:9-11).
Since the angels assured the apostles that Jesus would come again in like manner, that means that Jesus will come literally (rather than just figuratively or symbolically), visibly, personally, and bodily. Each night the debaters had an opportunity to ask 5 questions, which had to be answered in writing before the first speech of the evening. Neubauer was asked the very first evening if Jesus would return visibly, and he answered, “False.”
Brother Denham pointed out all the words in the text relating to physical sight: watched, out of their sight, looked, gazing, saw. Furthermore, Revelation 1:7a says: “Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye shall see Him, and they also who pierced Him.” Neubauer could never get beyond this first argument.
Some time, in the course of his first negative speech, Neubauer cited Matthew 24:30, which does mention people seeing Jesus coming in clouds in judgment on Jerusalem, but this passage is obviously figurative and symbolic while Acts 1:9-11 is not. Apocalyptic language is used in Matthew 24, and “the sign” would appear. Neubauer began talking about the Scripture’s use of clouds as a motif. A cloud hides the presence of God. Whatever he was getting at, he did not answer the arguments made by brother Denham.
Neubauer also claimed that “all the comings are the same,” which no serious Bible student would say, in light of the fact that God came in judgment several times in the Old Testament—on Assyria, Babylon, Edom, etc. None of these involved the judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70. The only thing Neubauer ever said additionally on Acts 1:9-11 was in his first speech on the second night when he ridiculed the idea of a literal, bodily return. He wanted to know what height Jesus would have and if He would still have scars in His hands. Everyone knows that flesh and blood cannot enter heaven and that Jesus’ body had to undergo change before He entered heaven to be seated on the right hand of God, but that does not negate what the angels said. How are people to recognize Him if He does not have the appearance of His physical body?
In his opening speech, Daniel made one other argument based on 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17, which his opponent ignored in his next speech. Since Neubauer did not follow Denham’s lead, what did he do?
Neubauer’s First Response
He began by stating: “If you understand the time of the event, you can understand the nature of the event,” which is interesting. What did he mean by it? He first talked about the wolf and the lamb prophecy of Isaiah 11:1 being fulfilled. Okay, but what does that have to do with the issue? Then he went to Revelation 1:1 and 1:3, as well as Revelation 22:6 and 10 to show that the things written in Revelation were “at hand” and would “shortly” take place. Nobody disagrees with these Scriptures (obviously); we often use those verses to show that premillennialism is false.
But Neubauer and his cohorts will argue that Revelation was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, and thus it would occur within a year or two. No date for the writing was given by Neubauer, but usually the early date is AD 69, which would be about as shortly as possible. Denham eventually pointed out that the phrase at hand means that the prophecy is about to begin—not necessarily that all that is recorded would be completed shortly.
Neubauer went on record as saying the phrases are always immediate. He hammered that point repeatedly. Then he said, “However, there might be a marker in the text that signifies it does not begin until later. The second night of the debate these statements were played next to each other in a loop. “Always. However. Always. However.” As brother Denham pointed out, “If something is always, then there cannot be a however.”
By far, the majority of brethren believe that the Book of Revelation is referring to the destruction of Rome, the persecutor of Christians. Neubauer said that the seals, the trumpets, and the bowls are all referring to the same event, just as Pharaoh’s dreams of the seven skinny cows and the seven ears of grain confirmed the truth of the prophecy. The only trouble is that inspiration told us that the case involving the grain and the cows was so. Nowhere in Revelation does anyone reveal that the seals, the trumpets, and the bowls are the same message. Nothing in inspiration confirms that notion. And in fact, it would ruin the symbolism both in Genesis and Revelation. Two is a symbol of strength while three is the number of the Godhead. For something to be stated three times is one time too many.
One other topic Neubauer covered, which appeared not to have any relevance to Denham’s material was to give an exposition of Zechariah 14:1-9. He claimed that it referred to the coming of the Lord in judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70 and that all commentaries agree with him on that interpretation. This reviewer has three commentaries on Zechariah. Two of them disagree that what is being described is the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Neubauer also claimed that Peter and Paul were the two witnesses that went to heaven in Revelation 11. Agreement on that claim is slim, but even if everyone on earth were in agreement, it had nothing to do with answering Denham’s affirmative.
Observations
These first two speeches set the tenor for the debate; giving a full rundown for the four nights would be tedious; so key insights and statements will be examined. It was difficult to follow Neubauer. In his second speech on the first night, for example, he zipped through several Scriptures, and the connection between them was lost. This reviewer wrote down 18 verses so diverse that how they were logically connected is totally unknown. They vary from Deuteronomy, Galatians, Luke, Ezekiel, 1 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Revelation, Isaiah, John, and Hebrews. It began to dawn (perhaps, millennially dawn) on some people that Neubauer was using the tactics of Jehovah’s Witnesses and premillennialists in darting here and there to try to stitch up a doctrine.
The first speech of the last night of the debate proceeded in the same way—so much so that at the conclusion of the speech, this reviewer wrote down the following words about Neubauer—confused and confusing. In that same speech, he claimed: “I don’t care what secular history says about Isaiah 7:14. I believe it is a triple entendre.” [He had pooh-poohed secular history earlier when it disagreed with his “interpretation.” Most of those present were fairly shocked at that pronouncement.] What he meant here is anyone’s guess. But he is wrong about Isaiah 7:14. It does not have three separate fulfillments; it only has one.
Some think the first fulfillment was Isaiah’s wife having a son—or if not her, someone else in the same time frame. The problem with that is, since Isaiah and his wife were married, she was not a virgin. If anyone knew what the Hebrew word almah meant, it would be the Jews, and they translated it in the LXX as parthenos, a word which always means “virgin.” No young woman in Isaiah’s day was a virgin who gave birth to a son. If so, who was she? Could we have a name, perchance?
The one and only correct interpretation regards Mary giving birth to Jesus; that this is the correct interpretation and application of Isaiah’s prophecy is confirmed by the inspired writer, Matthew (1:22-23). However, Neubauer suggests another fulfillment. He had a theory about the male child born to the woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, being Jesus also. While it is obvious that the child born is Jesus (He is the male child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron—Rev. 12:5), He is spoken in this passage as having been brought forth by Israel (the woman described), who was anything but a virgin—either physically or spiritually. The two passages cannot be combined.
Throughout the debate Neubauer assumed that if certain language was used in one place, it meant the same thing elsewhere. While that does sometimes occur, such language may have a different meaning or a new meaning, building on what had happened previously. To assume that the same word or phrase always means the same thing it did elsewhere is the logical fallacy of equivocation. Having been taught logic, Neubauer should know better.
In the document that a Preaching Brother (P.B.) sent, written by a Ministerial Alliance (MA) in another state, the writers try to make a case for Biblical unity by saying that some things are not “essential” for salvation; however, others are. Some “doctrines are not open for debate because they are clearly stated.” Hmm. The first thing that ought to come to the mind of everyone reading those words is, “Who gets to decide what is essential for salvation and not open for debate and which topics are too difficult for us to understand, thereby allowing for disagreement?”
In other words, who gets to decide what is essential and clearly stated in the New Testament, and what is not essential to salvation because of its obscurity? The answer is, “Obviously, the Ministerial Alliance.” If they determine that “faith only” is a requirement that all Christians must agree upon, well, that settles it. If some object to the role that baptism plays in salvation, as per Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, they would probably say, “Why, that is too obscure to require agreement.” See how this system works? Anyone who has a question concerning what is “essential” Christian doctrine and what is not should just address it to these “learned doctors” of the Ministerial Alliance. Apparently, it has never dawned on them how presumptuous they are.
Concerning this position of theirs, we might legitimately ask, “What makes a doctrine essential?” For example, Jesus commanded that, as disciples of His, we love one another. Is that clear or obscure? Does it need to be repeated in order to count, and, if so, how many times? Or is one well-worded statement sufficient? Being baptized in water is a clear requirement for salvation, stated repeatedly in the Book of Acts (2:38; 8:35-39; 9:18; 10:47-48; 16:31-34; 22:16). Why isn’t that clear?
The Ten Commandments that God gave to Israel are clear, short, and completely intelligible. No one can read Luke 13:3, and muse, “I just don’t get it.” How hard is it to comprehend when Jesus said that “unless you repent you shall all likewise perish”? Does someone need a theological degree to understand that principle and to know it requires effort on man’s part to accomplish? Is it any harder than when Jesus said, “for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24)?
The necessity of baptism as part of God’s means of saving us is just as intelligble as any of these. If none of the other verses cited are clear enough, how about, “There is an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism…” (1 Peter 3:21)? Baptism saves! No—not by itself, any more than faith can save by itself. But it is certainly part of salvation. If we can understand the need for love, faith, and repentance, we definitely should be able to understand the requirement of baptism—unless we are biased against it.
Is Baptism “Sprinkling”?
The men of the MA did not address whether infants should be baptized or not, although, when denominationalists do so, they do not baptize—but rather sprinkle water on the child. First of all, were any infants in the New Testament ever commanded to be baptized? Is there an example of one being either sprinkled or immersed? The answer to both questions is no. Some have argued it is implied because whole households such as Cornelius’ and Lydia’s were baptized. The reasoning is that these households must have included infants. But this notion is not a fact but rather an assumption. Not one clear passage can be cited for the practice. And yet the MA will fellowship both those who do and those who don’t practice “infant baptism.” In their eyes, infant baptism must be too obscure to divide over. However, the truth is, “The New Testament provides no authority to baptize infants.” It’s not obscure; they are just ignoring it.
Also, in this vein, we might ask, “Do the men of the MA not know what the word baptism means? When someone is unfamiliar with a word in the English language, he looks up the word in a dictionary. Since the New Testament was written in Greek, a student of the Bible looks up the definition of a word in a lexicon, which is the Greek equivalent of dictionary. Anyone who looks up the Greek word baptizo (translated “baptise” in the English) in a lexicon will find the following definition: “1. Prop. To dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge…. 2. To cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water…” (Thayer 94).
One can study more than a column of information on baptizo and not find a single reference to sprinkling. Has no one in the MA ever bothered to check? Or are they just ignoring the fact that the word means “to immerse” and not “to sprinkle”? How can this group of men be of “the same mind” when some of them practice sprinkling instead of immersion? Now, the definition of the word resolves the problem all by itself. What a word meant to the people who spoke, wrote, and comprehended Greek is crucial. No one has the authority to force a word in another language to mean what it never meant. What kind of respect and reverence for the Word of God is that?
But God gave other means in the New Testament of knowing that baptism is immersion. John, for example, baptized in Aenon, for there was “much water there.” (John 3:23). If he only sprinkled people, why would he need much water? A single water pot would be plenty to baptize hundreds with. A person only needs “much water” if he is immersing people. God provided a specific example of that very point in Acts 8:35-39. It is not uncommon, while traveling, to take along water to drink. Many still do so even though not very far from water at any one time. People once carried canteens.
If the Ethiopian eunuch was traveling with water in his chariot, Philip could have taken some and sprinkled him; they would have not have even needed to stop the chariot! And when they did come to some water, Philip could have just reached down and taken enough to sprinkle the eunuch. Instead, however, the text says, “So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.” Obviously, the eunuch was immersed (in harmony with the meaning of baptize). Only one reason exists for going down into the water. Verse 39 adds that “they came up out of the water.”
When a person knows the definition of the word and notes the example of the baptism of the eunuch, he is not surprised when reading Romans 6:4 to learn that baptism is a burial in water: “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.”
Now are any of these passages difficult to understand? Are they too “obscure” to comprehend? What baptism is—is clear. Fallible human beings can understand it. It is essential for salvation and not really open for disagreement. But despite these facts, the MA would not agree, would they—not because they cannot understand it; after all, they have the same Scriptures in their Bibles that you have in yours. They have the same lexicons that are available to all. Their problem is that some of the members of the MA practice sprinkling, and they are not about to give it up even though it is not baptism.
They also will not baptize people so that they might be saved. They baptize them because they believe they are already saved. Yet John came “preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4). And he prepared the way for Jesus, who also baptized (John 4:1-2). On the Day of Pentecost, when the multitude asked what they should do, Peter did not answer like the MA would have. He did not say there was not anything they could do; Peter told them: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…” (Acts 2:38). This is the exact same message presented earlier by John, continued by Jesus, and taught by the apostles as well.
Even Saul, the former persecutor of Christians, was told, “And now, why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of
the Lord” (Acts 22:16). In baptism, God removes a person’s sins with the blood of Jesus (Rev. 1:5). That is the reason baptism is for the remission of sins. Not one of the MA believes that, although it is plainly set forth in the Scriptures. And they have the same Bible that everyone else does. Therefore, the only Scriptures that are “very clear” and not open for “debate” are those that the MA selects. If they do not believe it or refuse to practice it, then it suddenly becomes obscure. The MA is just playing fast and loose with the Scriptures while trying to sound high-minded.
Unity
In their emphasis on unity, the MA quotes from Thomas Campbell who “advocated closer relations with all Christians.” But what they do not point out is that Campbell was decrying arbitrary divisions that kept “believers” apart. His views changed as he understood the Bible better. But whatever his views were is irrelevant. The questions are, “What is our understanding today?” and, “What is actually taught in the Scriptures?”
Unity cannot exist between “Christians” when we do not all have the same definition of who a Christian is. If God requires people to be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins (and He does), it is at that point that they are born again (John 3:5). Three thousand repented and were baptized on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41), and they were added to the church (Acts 2:47). Those who are not baptized are not Christians Anyone who aspires to please God must do what He says. We must all be of the “same mind” on something so crucial as salvation!
If someone, therefore, comes to us and says, “I was sprinkled as an infant, can you accept me as a Christian brother?” The answer is, “No.” This response does not mean we don’t like the person or that we would not like to fellowship him; it means that we have respect for the Scriptures and the teaching of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The man must be taught the truth and obey from the heart that form of teaching concerning salvation (Rom. 6:17-18).
But even if we disregard the most crucial matter of salvation, how can the MA be united when they hold different positions morally? In most communities, at least one denomination supports abortion. Sometimes it is the United Methodist Church, as in Denton, Texas. In fact, the doctor who performed abortions was a member there. So how can pro-life “churches” have unity and be of the same mind with those denominations that promote abortion. Jesus is not both for and against the practice; how can His followers be?
Or take the subject of homosexuality. How many in the MA uphold this sin? How many will perform homosexual marriages? Do any of the men oppose the practice? If the MA has men in both camps, how can they say they are of the same mind? Jesus is not both for and against homosexuality. He condemned it (since it is included under the broad topic of fornication). Once again, a Greek lexicon would be helpful in discerning what porneia refers to.
The point is simply this. The Ministerial Alliance is not united in regards to baptism and the manner of becoming a Christian, nor are they united in the kind of morality the Bible teaches. (Or will they say that these two moral issues are so murky that they can still fellowship one another?) The MA has tried their best to insist they can be united when they neither believe the same doctrines nor practice the same morality. They are only fooling themselves about their so-called “unity.” They are only united against us.
