The final article dealing with the Ministerial Alliance (part 3) is the article inside, but this slot will highlight the fundamental problem of all those who claim that salvation is by “faith only.” They want man to have no response at all to God, but in actuality they know that this position is impossible and conflicts with the Scriptures. Here is the way the Ministerial Alliance, who took out a full-page newspaper advertisement to attack the Preaching Brother in another state, handled it.
They conclude with a lengthy paragraph of explanation with these words: “We are saved by Jesus’ death on the cross as the sinless Savior, not by anything we can do (Eph. 2:8-9).” Notice, we are not saved by anything we can do. Why do they say this? They say it in order to exclude baptism. They consider that baptism is something we can do, but it is not a work of man; it is the working of God (Col. 2:12): “buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God who raised Him from the dead.” Baptism is a matter of faith—of trust in God—that He will remove our sins when we are buried with Christ. But the Ministerial Alliance—to a man—does not want baptism to be part of salvation. God is the One Who included baptism as part of His plan for salvation. They want to remove it.
They view baptism as a human effort which cannot be part of a system in which man is saved by faith. They cite several verses which teach that salvation is by faith, and every Christian agrees with what those verses teach on the importance and significance of faith. But not one of them ever says “faith only.” In fact, “faith only” involves a human response—faith is built by looking at the Word of God and responding positively to the evidence (Rom. 10:17). John says that he recorded the evidence of the miracles of Jesus just so that people would believe (John 20:30-31).
But the real problem the Ministerial Alliance has is that they contradict themselves. They concluded that we are not saved by anything we can do, but look what they wrote earlier in the very same paragraph: “Salvation comes to all who confess their sin, turn from it, and place faith in Jesus as the crucified and risen Lord.” Wait a minute! Notice how they tried to sneak in repentance? One must “turn from” sin (or repent). Although they did not emphasize this point with a Scripture, Jesus taught that “unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). The problem for them is that repentance requires man doing something. It requires human effort (considerably more than it does to be lowered into a watery grave and raised up again). They hopelessly contradict themselves. They must choose—Is there effort on the part of man (such as in repentance) or not? Peter links repentance and baptism together in Acts 2:38. Both are required.
The Holy Spirit is the Christian’s guide to helpunderstand truth (John 16:13). Christians can be fallible, however, although the Holy Spirit (God) is not.
Thus continues the defense of denominationalism on the part of the Ministerial Alliance (MA) in a town in another state. They published a declaration in the local newspaper aimed at a Preaching Brother (P.B.) who decried Christians being divided. The MA sought to explain their rationale for unity in division. It is easy to see why it took him nearly a year to respond to what they wrote. Prior to the quote above they had, in effect, blamed Almighty God for being unable to communicate with His creation (mankind)—thus creating division among believers—but with the two sentences above they have actually found a way to make matters worse, which shall be demonstrated shortly.
Before getting to that, however, it must first be shown that every one of these men misunderstands and misinterprets John 16:13. Anyone reading the context would know that Jesus was not speaking to all Christians there—His words are applicable only to His apostles. Notice both verses 12 and 13:
“I still have many things to say to you [the apostles, GWS], but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.”
Denominational preachers often try to make this passage apply to the Holy Spirit revealing things to all Christians, which is problematic, to say the least. The fact is that Jesus was promising His apostles they would be guided into all truth, which both Peter and Jude claim was accomplished (2 Peter 1:3, Jude 3). But if this applied to all Christians for all time to come, then it would mean: 1) that revelation was still ongoing; and 2) that the Holy Spirit continually helps all Christians to understand the Scriptures. Now if that were the case, where is the additional truth that has been revealed since the first century? In fact, why do we not have an annual update of all the truth the Holy Spirit has revealed since last year? Imagine all of the volumes every Christian would need to read from the past two millenia just to keep current!
The truth that Jesus and the Holy Spirit gave to the apostles was completed by the end of the first century. He gave them all things that pertain to life and godliness; He delivered to them once and for all “the faith.” (Notice that Paul talks about “one faith” in Ephesians 4:5.) If all had been revealed at that time, then nothing further has or could be revealed since. Possibly the men of the Ministerial Alliance don’t understand that, or maybe they are just trying to deceive people. Jesus spoke similarly in John 14:25-26, but they did not refer to that passage; so it appears below:
“These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.”
In both passages, Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit will teach them all things and guide them into all truth, but in John 14 He tells them the Holy Spirit will enable them to remember the words that Jesus had spoken to them. No wonder this verse was ignored. Nearly anyone would conclude, “Wait a minute! I never heard the words of Jesus personally spoken to me.” People would know immediately that Jesus was speaking only to the apostles; so the MA omitted John 14:25-26 and used 16:13. This is an example of men using the Scriptures to prove their theology instead of studying them to discover what they actually teach.
Whence Therefore the Division?
But, suppose for a moment that the Ministerial Alliance (MA) were correct. Do they realize what they have just advocated? Do they understand that they have just blamed the Holy Spirit for the divisions that exist in Christianity today? They claim that the Holy Spirit guides us in understanding truth, but the very next sentence claims that Christians are fallible. Wait a minute! The Holy Spirit is not fallible, but Christians are. True. But if the infallible Holy Spirit is our guide to truth, why are we not all in agreement?
Is the Holy Spirit guiding some to be Methodists and others to be Baptists? Is the Holy Spirit causing various people to choose Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormons? Dare we mention the various groups of Pentecostals? They definitely claim to have the Holy Spirit; the only problem is that some of them believe that the Godhead consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit while others believe Jesus is the only one in the Godhead. Why is the Holy Spirit giving out so many interpretations that outright contradict one another? Has the MA never read 1 Corinthians 14:33? “For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.”
One certainly wonders, “If with the help of the infallible Holy Spirit, we have all these religious groups teaching doctrines diametrically opposed to each other, what would things be like if He was not helping?” Of course, the answer is that He is not. Men have created division. It is not God’s fault, nor are we too stupid to understand truth. Neither can the Holy Spirit be accused or blamed for the chaos. Let’s face it: Men do not have the desire to be united—or we would be.
Examples
Seeking to prove that the Holy Spirit is infallible but Christians are not, the MA provides examples. First, Peter was corrected by Paul (Gal. 2:11-14). Second, “The council at Jerusalem in Acts 15 is an example of Christian leaders coming to agreement when there had been opposing views.” Third, Apollos had to be taught the way of the Lord more perfectly. These are fine verses to study, but they have nothing to do with the subject at hand. First of all, Peter did not teach error. Paul rebuked him for his actions—which, by the way, were not consistent with his own teachings. Peter, apparently, responded properly to the rebuke and corrected his mistake. However, the event had nothing to do with any doctrine that the Holy Spirit taught Peter.
Yes, the error of the Judaizing teachers was resolved in Acts 15. Peter made a logical presentation for not keeping the Law of Moses; no one had ever kept it perfectly (except for Jesus). Furthermore, God gave the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews, thus showing His approval of them. Paul and Barnabas gave evidence concerning what God had done with respect to the Gentiles. James quoted Scripture to prove Gentiles were acceptable. So the doctrine of the apostles became clear at this point, but some of the Judaizing teachers refused to cooperate with the decision. As late as A.D. 62-64, Paul was still denouncing such men in Philippians 3.
All might well wonder why the Judaizing teachers refused to cooperate with their brethren on this matter. The logic of Peter, the Scriptures given by James, and the examples of God’s receiving and blessing the Gentiles was sufficient evidence for any fair-minded Christian; the problem was that some of the Jews who had become Christians could not overcome their bias in favor of the Law of Moses. The dispute had been resolved—by the Scriptures. They just refused to accept the truth on the matter.
And that is the problem with all denominations. The things that divide those who desire to be Christians have already been resolved—and by the Scriptures. People just do not want to accept the solution. Suddenly matters of doctrine become opinion, or, “Human beings are just too fallible.” No, the problem is that people refuse to see beyond their biases—just like the Judaizing teachers.
The third example had to do with Apollos being taught more perfectly. The MA should not have mentioned this illustration because it utterly destroys the whole point they are making. Yes, the eloquent Apollos was in error concerning John’s baptism, but he studied with Aquila and Priscilla and came to a knowledge of the truth. If he had behaved like the men of the MA, he would have muttered something about being a fallible Christian and continued on his merry way. When people discuss the Scriptures, there is hope for unity, which occurred in this case. The three of them parted in harmony—not agreeing to disagree.
By the Leading of the Holy Spirit
The authors of the newspaper article from the MA never seem to notice when they have blundered beyond recovery. They just go from bad to worse. Consider the final three sentences of their third paragraph.
Since all Christians are in the process of learning and growing in understanding by the leading of the Holy Spirit, we are not perfect nor do we have perfect knowledge. Some things are difficult to understand. Some things we will only understand clearly when we are in heaven in front of God Himself.
This paragraph would be entirely true if it were not for the phrase, by the leading of the Holy Spirit. If the infallible Holy Spirit is our guide and leading us, why is our understanding not better than it is? Why do we not all believe the same teaching? Why do some believe in original sin while others don’t? Granted that we may be at different levels of understanding and the degree of our spirituality, but how, if we are all led by the Spirit, can we hold to doctrines that are the exact opposite of each other? Do we really want to blame the Holy Spirit for that?
Notice that the Scriptures teach that it is possible for unity to exist. Paul commanded that brethren be “perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). Despite the MA’s attempt to make the verse only refer to purpose, it is obvious what Paul meant. In Ephesians 4:4-6 he provided seven reasons for unity. The first one listed is that there is only one body or church (cf. Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23). Since there is only one church, how is it that the MA’s members belong to several churches?
Second, there is only one Holy Spirit—not several spirits leading Christians in different directions. Third, all Christians have the same hope—the resurrected Jesus. Fourth, we have only one Lord, Jesus. Fifth, there is only one faith—which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). So why are the members of the MA willing to accept the idea of several “faiths”? Sixth, God authorizes only one baptism, yet some in the MA probably sprinkle instead of immerse. A simple lexicon would explain the meaning of the Greek word translated “baptism”; they don’t even need the Holy Spirit on this one. Seventh, there is only one God and Father of all.
In the first century, the church really was led by the Holy Spirit. He inspired the apostles to teach the truth regarding salvation, worship, and all other matters. And what do you know? As long as brethren followed those teachings, they remained united. After three thousand were baptized on the Day of Pentecost, they “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine…” (Acts 2:41-42). The Holy Spirit does not create disunity; the Words He inspired do not, either. Brethren enjoyed fellowship with each other during this time. Only one thing disrupts unity—error, which is the opposite of truth. Unity can only be restored through adherence to truth.
“We are a guinea-pig generation for an experiment in mass debasement that few of us would ever have consented to, and whose full nefarious impact may not be known for years. The march of technology is irreversible, and we aren’t so naïve as to believe that any kind of imposed regulation could ever reseal the Pandora’s box of pornography.”
Those are pretty hifalutin words, but the last line makes clear that the complaint is against pornography, which does indeed debase people. Since the 1950s, this culture has been bombarded by wave after wave of pornography in its various formats. It began with slick magazines, moved into the genre of movies which became available to watch (and still is) on cable stations (also videocassettes, books, DVDs, and online). Some would not agree, but pornography is a “dead-end outlet for people too lazy to reap the ample rewards of healthy sexuality.” Certainly, the statements quoted are accurate, but it is surprising that they come from Pamela Anderson Lee.
Does that name sound familiar? It might. She appeared on the television series, Baywatch, from 1992-97. Yes, she is an ex-Playboy model and no stranger to nudity or sex tapes. So, it is interesting that she has now concluded that at age 49 much of what she has devoted herself to is unhealthy for the public. Lest the reader think that she has been busy earning a Ph.D., however, she does have a co-writer for this Wall Street Journal column—a rabbi named Shmuley Boteach (no, I didn’t make that up). Presumably, much of the verbiage is his, although both agreed with the final product.
No one could argue successfully against the fact that viewing pornography is an exercise in dehumanizing men and women. God created us in His image (Gen. 1:26-28). Yet many in society want to exalt the human body. Within 100 years, the design of the swimsuit for women went from nearly total coverage to nearly total exposure. The girly magazines with their centerfolds went further, but then the floodgates were opened with various movies depicting various aspects of intimacy. Although the lust of the flesh offers a strong appeal to many, it will not encourage anyone to be pure in heart. The sin (Matt. 5:27-28) may not be irreversible for everyone, but a few are already on record as having gone past the point of no return. The use of pornography will ruin homes, healthy relationships between males and females, and (most importantly) one’s relationship with God. We wish Pamela Anderson Lee success in her efforts to combat this evil influence on society.
A Preaching Brother (P.B.) wrote a few weeks ago about a challenge he received from a ministerial alliance in the town where he lives and works. Having mentioned some of those matters in Spiritual Perspectives, which he receives, he wrote back and provided a copy of the document that those men had published in the newspaper. He offered to meet with them (which they ignored), and he answered all of their arguments over a period of time in the same newspaper they had used. Their argument on 1 Corinthians 1 is particularly interesting. That paragraph will be cited below, after which appropriate comments will be offered.
During the first century of the church, God spoke through the Apostle Paul to the church at Corinth to dissolve division. Some people in the church wanted to follow Peter (Cephas), others Paul, some Apollos. One group arrogantly divided on the grounds they were “of Christ” (1 Corinthians 1:12). Paul confronted them and said, “…by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and there be no divisions among you, but you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10, NAS).
These divisions caused Christian people to take sides and refuse to cooperate or fellowship with one another. That is why the apostle emphatically asks, “Is Christ divided?” The answer is a resounding, “NO!” God had encouraged their cooperation and unified spirit. “Same mind” does not mean that every Christian thinks exactly alike. It means to unify on the basis of their goal or purpose.
The first paragraph above is entirely true with the possible exception of one statement. How do these men know that those who were saying they were “of Christ” were arrogant? They could have been, but is it not the case that this claim is what all of them should have been saying—that we are “of Christ”? It may be that these were the only ones trying to be Scriptural— and not belong to any faction at all.
The second paragraph likewise denounces division, but then opens the door to let it in. Why is it that the first thing denominationalists (and some liberal brethren) say is that to be joined together “in the same mind and in the same judgment” does not mean that Christians must think alike? Do those words actually mean the opposite—that thinking alike is not required? Did Paul say that he was referring only to a goal or purpose? Where does he state or imply that explanation? Here is the humor in the situation. This article is signed by men who work with different denominations, but they are talking about unity! Since they do not agree on what the New Testament teaches, they must re-interpret 1 Corinthians 1:10.
How fascinating is this! Men who cannot belong to the same “church” or worship together because of their differences are quoting what Paul wrote against division! The only thing that brought them together was their disdain of the Lord’s church. Perhaps we should feel honored. But, since they brought up the passage, why not try to determine what it means—instead of just asserting that it means one thing but not another? What do the Scriptures teach?
Katartizo
Three words in 1 Corinthians 1:10 deserve to be looked at closely. The first of these is katartizo. These critics of the church of Christ used the New American Standard, which did not translate the word very well. They rendered it “made complete.” Here are the words other translations chose.
KJV – “perfectly joined together”
NKJ – “perfectly joined together”
ASV – “perfected together”
Some translations have “united”; even the NIV has “perfectly united.” The idea of perfection comes from the root word, artios [739], which is combined with the preposition, kata [2596]. The Greek word artios is only used one time in the New Testament—in 2 Timothy 3:17, where it is rendered “perfect”—as in “that the man of God may be perfect….” To leave out the idea of perfection seems to be an injustice to the meaning of the word.
The combined word, katartizo [2675] is found 13 times in the New Testament. Twice it refers to fishermen mending their nets (Matt. 4:21; Mark 1:19). The word perfect shows up in 7 renderings out of the 13. Paul once tells brethren to be perfect (2 Cor. 13:11). It’s the word used in Galatians 6:1, where Paul says to restore one overtaken in a trespass (Gal. 6:1). Two related words also carry this idea. Paul’s desire for brethren was their “perfection” [2676] (2 Cor. 13:9), and the spiritual offices and gifts were for the “perfection” [2677] of the saints (Eph. 4:12). God wants brethren to be perfectly joined together.
Nous and Gnomee
Nous, which is translated “mind” [3563] appears 24 times in the New Testament. Several times the translators used “understanding.” Nothing indicates goals or purposes. The word gnomee, translated “judgment” [1106], is translated “purpose” but only one out of nine times. It is found as “advice” in 2 Corinthians 8:10. In 1 Corinthians Paul gives his “judgment” in 7:25 and calls upon the brethren to abide after his “judgment” in 7:40. Twice the King James’ translators chose “mind” to represent the Greek word (Philemon 14; Rev. 17: 13). Paul was referring to their thinking.
The Essentials
The apostle wanted the church at Corinth, then, to be united—perfectly united. He wanted them to be perfectly joined together in their thinking and their understanding. Even if the time to examine these words had not been taken, most people reading the text would have come away with the correct meaning. It is so obvious that one has to work hard to miss it. The men who wrote the newspaper article have to say they believe in unity even though it’s obvious they do not. After affirming they are united, then they try their hardest to twist and contort 1 Corinthians 1:10 to make it mean something else. Here is what they wrote next:
Every church background in the world has members with varying opinions on doctrines (teachings). In any congregation in any church, there will be a variance of opinions. Differing opinions are tolerated when they are considered to be over “non-essential” issues. The term “nonessential” does not mean the doctrine is unimportant. It means it is not essential for salvation.
Seriously? So, after claiming that Christians do not have to be united in their thinking and understanding, then they extend that notion to doctrine, also. Where is all of this floundering going to end? One huge problem that the reader may have already thought of is, “Who decides what is an essential doctrine and what is nonessential?” The world has already seen the Jesus Seminar attempt to define what words the Lord actually spoke and what ones He did not. Now we have a group of denominational ministers telling us that the teachings of the New Testament can be divided into essential and non-essential teachings!
Why didn’t the Holy Spirit simply have the apostles write, after a doctrinal section of Scripture, E for essential and NE for non-essential? Then we would all know, and maybe some would not be so confused. Of course, if some doctrines are non-essential, why did God put them in there to start with? Ay-yi-yi. Should we rewrite a few passages? “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, but some of it is non-essential” (2 Tim. 3:16). How would that do? “Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, but try to figure out which ones are non-essential” (1 Tim. 4:16).
Truth Exists But Can’t Be Known
Just when one thinks the men who placed this article in the newspaper could not manage to make themselves look any worse, they manage to outdo all previous efforts. They continue: “Although God has one correct teaching, human beings are often unable to understand it.” What? Okay, Who created the universe, including man? Are they actually affirming that the God who created the human brain and gave us the ability to vocalize our thoughts is somehow deficient in being able to communicate with us? They admit that God has one correct teaching but then say that we have trouble understanding it.
So, whose fault would that be? Either God was not able to express Himself in a way that human beings could understand His truth, or He made us incapable of understanding it. Which one of these is the explanation? If God is unable to effectively speak to mankind, then the fault lies with Him. If we are too dumb to get what He’s saying, then we may be blamed to some degree, but ultimately this comes back to God also. Why didn’t He make us a little bit smarter?
These comments highlight the problem that denominationalism has. There is only one correct teaching; they agree on that, but somehow they must justify the division that keeps them apart. They answer that we as human beings are unable to understand that one doctrine that God gave to us. This attitude may sound as though they are trying to be humble, but it is nothing more than gibberish. Those in denominations seek to justify their division when they all know there is only one doctrine. So they say, “We are weak human beings; sometimes our intellect falls short of understanding God; so we admit that we’re fallible human beings, but we’re trying.”
No, they are not! If they were really trying, they would make an effort to understand the truth, which is what Paul commanded brethren at Corinth. Believing the same one doctrine is not only possible, Jesus expected it. Did He not say that if His disciples continued in His word, they would “know the truth,” and that the truth would set them free? So, which ones of those who signed the article for the newspaper have not yet been set free? Jesus says we will know the truth if we abide in His Word (John 8:31-32); denominationalists say, “We human beings are often unable to understand it.” In effect, they are arguing against what Jesus taught.
He also said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). But if we are unable to understand the one doctrine, the truth, then how can we come to the Father? Does no one in these religious groups see that this attempt to justify division is disastrous? How can it even be entertained as a serious defense—let alone be published in the newspaper? Here is their case: We are all divided over what the one doctrine is that God has revealed (because human beings are often unable to understand it), but we are actually united—especially against those who point out the fallacy of denominationalism.
Gospel preachers have long shown—from 1 Corinthians 1:10— that God expects His followers to be united—the very thing for which Jesus prayed (John 17:20- 21). Denominationalism is divisive and confuses the average person, who wonders, “Why are there so many churches?” The answer is that men like those who signed the letter are comfortable with it and do not intend to change. They devise justifications for it which are laughable. The solution is to give up manmade doctrines and study the Word, as Jesus taught. Only then might we all be perfectly joined together “in the same mind and in the same judgment.”
This wicked queen of Israel did have physical children of her own—both of whom died young—but the title refers to her figurative offspring. And who are they? They are the ones who share her shameless character and her irrational way of thinking. The designation of Jezebel’s Children could refer to her callous disregard of innocent human life. Without a qualm or a single twinge of conscience, she devised a plot whereby the innocent Naboth was accused, convicted, and killed—just so her husband could possess his land that contained a fruitful vineyard. All those who murder in cold blood are her children—and Cain’s as well, who was the first to resort to violence without provocation. All the women who have allowed the lives of their innocent babies to be terminated without any remorse are truly daughters of Jezebel. Those who operate or support Planned Parenthood are also her kinsmen.
However, she represents evil in an even greater way—besides the one that allows for immorality and the kind of heartlessness described above. She symbolizes everyone who knows the truth but rejects it anyway. Her husband had witnessed an extraordinary event. Queen Jezebel’s prophets of Baal had tried all day to call down fire from above to consume the bull they had laid out on the altar for him. They leaped, they cried aloud, they cut themselves—all in a vain effort to prove their god’s existence (1 Kings 18:26-29). Then Elijah soaked his sacrifice with water, along with the altar and the ground around it. Then his God—the true and living God—consumed all of it with fire (1 Kings 18:30-39).
King Ahab told Jezebel what had happened, including the fact that Elijah executed her prophets. Such a tremendous event was unparalleled. The land also enjoyed rain for the first time in 3½ years. Surely the queen would now see the error of her ways and repent of all her wickedness. It never happened. Despite whatever wonder and excitement there had been in Ahab’s voice, Jezebel remained unmoved. In fact, she swore that Elijah would be dead within one day’s time (1 Kings 19:1-2).
She could have given birth to those Pharisees who rejected Jesus. They too rejected the evidence of the miracles time after time. Centuries later, the atheist Voltaire claimed that he would refuse to believe a miracle if he saw it with his own eyes. He truly was a son of Jezebel. When Jesus healed a man lame for 38 years, they sought to kill Him because He had broken the Sabbath (so far as they were concerned) and made Himself equal with God in the process (John 5:18). They cast the blind man whom Jesus healed out of the temple and claimed Jesus was a sinner, although they had irrefutable evidence that the man had been blind from birth. When Jesus resurrected Lazarus from the dead, the chief priests sought to put both of them to death. Those who reject both the natural evidence of the existence of God (Rom. 1:18-20) and the supernatural revelation of God, confirmed by miracles (John 20:30-31) are all Jezebel’s children.
In the preceding article, “The Concept of Restoration” (September 4, 2016), we examined a portion of an e-mail exchange dealing with the necessity of restoration. The writer, KB, also had asked twice about the need of being baptized “for the remission of sins,” and the second time I told him I would stand by what Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost. In his last communication, he finally got to the main point (apparently) of the discussion. All that he wrote will be examined, but we will consider it a paragraph at a time. After concluding his comments about Catholicism, he wrote:
The audience in Acts 2 was Jewish, or at least they all had a background in Judaism. Peter’s sermon was a murder indictment directed at the house of Israel. This was the generation of Jews that rejected Jesus our Lord. He said Judgment Day would be easier on Sodom and Gomorrah than this generation. Matthew 23. Toward the end, Peter says, “Be saved from this crooked generation.” They had refused to be baptized by John the Baptist. “Repent and be baptized?” That’s straight out of the John the Baptist handbook. Does it apply to us Gentiles for our salvation? Repentance of unbelief in Jesus Christ and belief on the Lord Jesus Christ obviously does. Acts 3:19, Acts 10:43, Acts 16:31.
My first response was: “Well, I must admit I didn’t see where this was heading.” He began to set forth the untenable position that there are two gospels instead of one—one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles. The New Testament speaks constantly about the gospel; nowhere does it discuss two different gospels—one for Jews and one for Gentiles. Consider a multitude of Scriptures, beginning with Matthew 4:23, where it says that Jesus went forth preaching the gospel of the kingdom (cf. Matt. 9:35). Mark says in his very first verse: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (1:1). The great commission that Jesus gave to His apostles was to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15-16). Isn’t it strange that He did not mention that there were two gospels—one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles?
In addition, there are 6 references to the gospel in Acts and 11 in the Book of Romans—not the least of which is: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation to everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also to the Greek” (1:16). How many gospels does Paul speak of—two—one for Jews and one for Greeks? No, there is only one gospel for both. Paul writes of the gospel 8 times in 1 Corinthians (occasionally 2 or 3 times in a verse), 5 times in 2 Corinthians, 7 times in Galatians, 4 times in Ephesians, 8 times in Philippians, twice in Colossians, 6 times in 1-2 Thessalonians, and three times in 2 Timothy and Philemon. 1 Peter includes it 4 times.
My reply did not mention any of these verses, but they do make it clear, beyond any quibbling, that there is one and only one gospel. Below is what I did write:
The audience of Acts 2 was Jewish, but the goal of Peter’s sermon was not to indict the Jews. That was incidental. To see the point more fully, read Peter’s next sermon. He indicts them all right in Acts 3:14-15 but then adds in verse 17: “Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers.” The purpose of the sermon on Pentecost was to prove that Jesus rose from the dead, which is the reason that he quotes David’s prophecy. It is the reason that he proclaims in Acts 2:36: “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this same Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” That’s when they asked what to do, and Peter told them to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:37-38). It is false to say they had refused John’s baptism. Have you not read Matthew 3:5-6? “Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him, and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.”
In addition to this response, I probably should have told KB that I didn’t know that John the Baptist had a handbook. Apparently, he means that the teaching on baptism in Acts 2:38 is out of the Baptist Manual, but he would be wrong on that, also. They do not teach that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. They clearly teach that one is saved from sins first and then baptized. Next KB tried to confuse the issue by bringing in Holy Spirit baptism. He wrote:
As for water baptism…a transition was being made from water to the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:1-8)—from John the Baptist to Jesus our Lord—from a Levitical cleansing ritual (which only people with a background in Judaism would understand) to a cleansing done by God the Son himself (Matt. 3:11; 1 Cor. 12:13). In Acts 3:19, the same preacher tells another Jewish audience just to repent of their unbelief, of their having rejected Jesus the Messiah in order to procure the remission of sins. How do we reconcile 3:19 with 2:38?
First of all, no such transition took place. Second, Jesus preached baptism in water, and John’s disciples came to Him (John 3-4). Third, not one verse in the New Testament connects Holy Spirit baptism to cleansing from sins. God never designed Holy Spirit baptism to remove sins, nor did He design it to last. It was only for a time—and to accomplish a specific purpose. After that, it ceased. The answer to this segment of KB’s final e-mail follow:
Your transition theory is greatly flawed. Johnand Jesus were preaching the gospel of the kingdom (Mark 1:1, Matt. 3:2, et al.). Water baptism is part of Christianity; it certainly was not part of the Law of Moses. The way you present it requires two different systems following the Law, but there is only one prophesied (Jer. 31:31-34; Deut. 18:15-19), and only one was installed (Heb. 8:6-7). The New Testament does not teach two new systems—only one.
Baptism has nothing to do with Levitical cleansing. The worldwide Flood was the type of which baptism in water is the antitype (1 Peter 3:21). This is the one baptism (Eph. 4:4-6) for all. The type-antitype model does not work with Holy Spirit baptism, which had ended by the time Paul wrote Ephesians 4:4-6.
KB then went on to make a totally unwarranted parallelism with two concepts that are not parallel:
Acts 2:38 is an example of Jewish parallelism, I’ve read. Repentance of our unbelief in Jesus Christ and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ we can all agree this is required for the remission of sins. “…and be baptized, each one of you in the name of Jesus Christ” goes with “…and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
One can only wonder where he read that, since he does not cite a source. Certainly it was not in a reputable commentary. I answered:
Acts 2:38 is the first time the gospel is defined and obeyed (Acts 2:41). Acts 3:19 must be harmonized with it and all the other passages (Acts 8:35-39; Acts 9:18; 22:16, et al.). It is obvious to most people that “be converted” includes being baptized, since forgiveness of sins is associated with it. The “times of refreshing” are equivalent to the blessings included in the gift and promise of the Holy Spirit. I have never heard anyone try to make equivalent baptism for the remission of sins and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. The parallelism is with the gift in verse 38 and the promise of verse 39.
Then he moved on to Cornelius, which most people who do not study the Bible seriously fail to comprehend.
Later, in Acts 10:43-44, God reveals how gracious He’s going to be when the Gentiles receive the Holy Spirit at the point of belief. A person who has received the Holy Spirit is not a lost sinner (Eph. 1:13; 4:30; 1 Cor. 12:13; Matt. 3:11; Rom. 8:9, 14). People received the Holy Spirit in various ways in the book of Acts. How do we receive the Holy Spirit today? Obviously not by the laying on of hands by the apostles. That leaves either “repent and be baptized” or at the point of belief. Paul tells us the answer in his letters to the Gentile churches (Eph. 1:13, Gal. 3:2, 5; Rom. 8:9,14; 1 Cor. 12:13). Grace and peace to you from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Just because someone can string together a bunch of Scriptures does not mean that they prove the point asserted. Quite often, they relate only slightly to the subject. The reader may have noticed that the two sections of Scriptures are almost identical, but he does not explain how any of them relates to his thesis. My reply is set forth below:
You are simply wrong about Cornelius and his family being saved by the Holy Spirit. What makes you think so? Balaam spoke by the Holy Spirit in Numbers, but it is evident that he was not saved. The high priest in John 11:49-51 spoke by the Holy Spirit; do you want to argue that he was saved? Cornelius was not saved because the Holy Spirit came upon him—the purpose for that was to show the Jews that God received the Gentiles. Read carefully Acts 11:1-18. Peter recounts all that happened so they would know that God accepted the Gentiles. They agreed. But also notice that it was not by the Holy Spirit they were saved; verse 14 states: “Peter was to tell them WORDS by which they would be saved.”
Baptism in the Holy Spirit can only be shown in two instances—on Pentecost and at the household of Cornelius. It is not stated that Paul was baptized by the Holy Spirit, but we know that he was (implication). Can you name and prove that one other individual received the Holy Spirit in that manner? Many received miraculous gifts, but these instances are not the same as baptism in the Holy Spirit. Being baptized in the Spirit was a promise, which was fulfilled; baptism in water was a command (Matt. 28:18-20, Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). And it is still in force.
Jews and Gentiles are all one in Christ Jesus, and they all got there in the same way—through baptism in water (Eph. 4:5), which the Flood prefigured (1 Peter 3:21). The New Testament does not teach two plans of salvation; there is one faith (Eph. 4:5).
I pray these few comments prove helpful.
So—that was it. KB did not respond further. It would seem that he really only wanted to unload the false doctrine that he believes onto someone else rather than engage in a meaningful study. Just looking at the Scriptures declaring that there is one gospel should be sufficient to put the matter to rest. Baptism in the Holy Spirit was never a command, as Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15-16 are. It is never said to cleanse anyone’s sins, and there is no mention of it after Acts 10. One cannot assume that passages that mention the Holy Spirit are, in fact, referring to baptism in the Holy Spirit, since some received miraculous gifts of the Spirit in various congregations. We must all read carefully the Word of God.
Years ago, advertisements for the latest Clint Eastwood movie said, “The man with no name is back again.” Recently, I received an e-mail from a person with no name—but he or she did have what looked like a telephone number. Since no name was used, this individual will be called the Person With A Number (PWAN). Whoever it was initiated an even briefer e-mail exchange than the one described last week. This one occurred on August 17-18, 2016.
In past years, when not everyone knew that Max Lucado was a false teacher, I wrote several articles showing what he had said or written, pointing out the way in which his writings contradicted what the Bible teaches. Usually, emotionally-wrought fans of his would write me to criticize what I had written. Many of them were just like the one written by PWAN. He asked: “Why don’t you focus on your own shortcomings instead of trying to destroy Max Lucado?” This message contained nothing that I had not heard before. People had written, accusing me of being envious of Max’s success or some other such tripe that was totally irrelevant to the errors he teaches. So, I determined to approach the subject humorously and therefore answered: “According to recent findings, Max has not been harmed at all by any of my articles. Besides, nothing was said but the truth. Do you have a problem with that?”
This statement is true. Despite all the articles I (and others) have written analyzing what Max Lucado teaches, not once have I ever received a note from anybody, saying, “I was going to buy a Max Lucado book, but after reading your article, I decided not to.” His sales have not seemed to slump in the slightest. Yet despite having no impact at all on his popularity, somebody always feels compelled to criticize me. I have asked repeatedly for anyone to point out even one thing I said about Lucado that was false. In nearly two decades, no one has pointed out a single misrepresentation. PWAN sent one more message, saying: “I am for Max not against him, and, yes, I have a problem with people being unfactual.”
Unfortunately, these comments did not spell out anything in my articles that was erroneous. So, I sent him something that showed his misplaced emphasis: “I am for Christ—not against Him (Matt. 12:30). Max is against Him. If you think I said something unfactual when I was quoting Max’s own words, please say what it is.” PWAN sent nothing else. As usual, one of Max’s devoted fans disappointed me again by failing to expose any wrongdoing on my part. Jesus once said, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil…” (John 18:23). Likewise, according to this principle, I’m still waiting.
Occasionally, someone sends an e-mail in the form of a question which may lead to a brief (or a lengthy) discussion. This one turned out to be brief, but the ideas brought into it were quite broad. All of the comments came from someone who will be referred to as KB, and his first question was: “Do you maintain that Alexander Campbell restored the church?”
The obvious answer is, “No,” but what was behind the asking of this question? The direction of the conversation could go anywhere from here; so after thinking it over a bit, I wrote the following answer:
No. Martin Luther and others began the Restoration process (trying to go back to practice what the Bible teaches rather than continue in the traditions of men); Campbell and many others continued it.
A question for you would be: Do you think anything needed to be restored?
Anyone who knows the history of Christianity knows why Luther and others saw the need for reforms because of the direction that the Catholic Church took from about 350 to 1500. Luther and the Reformers did indeed begin a process of returning to what the Bible teaches, but they only went so far. Campbell and others realized that fact and determined to go all the way back to what was taught in the New Testament. They made more progress, and we continue to have the same attitude today. But thus far, KB had not stated the reason for asking the question. His next message was not only astounding; it became clear that he wanted to go a different direction:
I don’t think the church needed to be restored. Matt 16:18. We are in a constant state of reformation (repentance) though. Do you maintain that the design of one’s water baptism must be “in order to obtain the remission of sins” in order to be valid?
His first sentence leaves one flabbergasted. The church that Jesus established (Matt. 16:18) in the first century bore no resemblance to what was taught concerning salvation in the 1500s—or what worship had become. Furthermore, there were the doctrines regarding relics and indulgences which is mainly what Luther opposed. His second sentence is a little closer to the truth. We should always have an attitude that, if we learn more truth, we have a responsibility to practice it. However, we do not expect, in light of the last 200 years of discussions and debates, to find anything earth-shattering at this point.
The question asked in the third sentence came as a surprise. Since we had begun discussing restoration, I was not quite ready to switch topics. I responded:
That’s interesting. The original church (although not all Christians) morphed into a system that, pertaining to organization, had an unauthorized pope and an unauthorized priesthood; in terms of salvation changed immersion (the definition of baptism) into sprinkling; and perverted worship in about every way possible—yet you say it did not need to be restored. One question: What would it take further to need restoration?
This response pretty much explains itself. An additional clarification might be helpful regarding the original church changing the way it did. Some departures had already occurred from the New Testament at the time that Constantine issued the Edict of Toleration in 311 A.D. After that date, this Roman emperor had a huge effect on the church—especially as it regards structure. The Biblical design of elders and deacons over one congregation was scrapped, and a hierarchy was instituted not unlike that of the Roman government. Men were appointed over districts and regions; the eventual result was the establishment of a universal bishop, or pope, in 606. Not all Christians accepted these changes, but the majority did, and they regarded anyone who did not as a heretic. KB’s next response made it clear that he had not really written to discuss restoration. Read his first sentence, and try to keep your jaw from dropping.
Brother Gary, the Catholic Church could just stop doing un-biblical things, couldn’t they? They could reform (repent). Many Catholics will make it to heaven in spite of themselves…just like you, me, and mother Teresa. Eph. 2:8, 9, 10. Do you maintain that the design of one’s water baptism must be “in order to obtain the remission of sins” to be valid?
Wow! How should one respond to this message? I decided not to deal with his opinion of whom he thought might be saved; the truth is that only those who have obeyed the gospel can be saved (2 Thess. 1:7-9). Just because I “feel” that I am or others are saved does not make it so. The New Testament defines who is saved and who is not. Salvation is not a subjective experience but rather obeying what God said to do. It would probably prove counterproductive to the remainder of the discussion to challenge what KB said at this point; so I sent the following reply:
Have you ever seen any sign that the Catholic Church will cease doing un-biblical things? It’s been a thousand years. Do you know how long the list is of things they changed from the New Testament? That is the reason that the practices of the New Testament need to be restored. Have you not read how that Hezekiah and Josiah restored Israel? They went back to doing things the way Moses said. The only way the church can be restored is to go back to what Jesus and the apostles taught. I’m not understanding why that is a problem for you.
As to baptism, I have no power (nor the will) to change what Peter, the apostle of the Lord taught, when asked, “What shall we do?” Are you going to take issue with Acts 2:37-38?
At this point KB launched everything that he had been wanting to say but had held back on. Here we will only deal with what he had to say on the subject of restoration. The rest of his comments will be examined in a subsequent article. He wrapped up his thoughts about Catholicism in this way:
Brother Gary, if we were to debate a Catholic clergyman….and we argued that we need to follow what Jesus and the apostles taught, his response would be, “How do you think the Bible came in to existence? Do you think it just dropped down from heaven miraculously? The church fathers put it together. Out of all the books floating around, they decided which books belonged in the canon. Therefore, we, the clergymen, have final authority, etc.” How would we counter this argument?
Notice that he deserted the discussion of restoration, nor did he answer the questions I asked him concerning how restoration is achieved. He ignored all of that (remember he is the one who began the correspondence with a question about restoration) and tried to point out why my comments to a Catholic clergyman might be irrelevant. My response to him answered his question:
A Catholic can claim anything he wants. Jesus still says that we will be judged by His words—not some pope’s or priest’s interpretation (John 12:48). Furthermore, Paul said that all Scripture was given by inspiration of God—not inspiration of God and approval of the Roman Catholic Church (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Peter writes that holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). Yes, the Bible is a miracle (see miraculousbible.org for lots of information). Can the God Who created the heavens and the earth instantaneously (Ps. 33:9) not inspire AND PRESERVE His Scriptures? The church fathers only included what was already accepted. How do you know the providence of God was not involved in this decision? According to the books of the Bible (which Catholics say they chose), their “clergy” has no authority for existing. The Bible speaks not of cardinals, archbishops, or popes. Peter said that God had given Christians all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). Those offices were not included. Jude said “the faith” was once for all delivered to the saints (Christians) (Jude 3). Nothing was reserved for future Catholic clergymen. Their hollow claims have no validity.
Restoration
KB did not reply to these comments, which were sent on August 13, 2016. The Catholic Church makes a lot of claims they cannot prove. One pope even claimed that they changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday (so why do they have services on Saturday, then?), which the Seventh-Day Adventists are fond of quoting. They did not, however, do so. New Testament Christians met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7)—the same day Paul authorized a collection to be taken up (1 Cor. 16:1-2). They can claim they decided what books are in the New Testament, but that was decided more than 200 years before there was a pope. No one has the right to change what the New Testament teaches—not a pope, not Joseph Smith, not Ellen G. White—not anyone. God delivered to the saints in the first century “the faith” (Jude 3). It does not change.
However, when men make changes, then Christianity is no longer the true religion Jesus gave to the world. The same thing had happened in the first century, and Jesus dealt with that problem. The Pharisees had established a tradition that violated the fifth commandment. They should have honored their fathers and mothers by supporting them when they became elderly, but they devised a way to get around that, which involved saying, “It is Corban,” meaning that they had dedicated the money to God that would have helped their parents (Matt. 15:1-9; Mark 7:11). Jesus said that this practice made their worship vain because they were teaching as doctrine the commandments of men. The only way out of this predicament was to quit the man-made practice and take care of their parents.
Likewise, they had, over the years, arrived at the point where some taught that they could divorce their wives for just any cause. When they asked Jesus about it, He went to Genesis and asked if they had not read what Moses wrote there about God creating one woman for one man for life. The only way to get out from under what is being done wrong today is to go back and read the New Testament. God established the structure for the church that He desired it to have, which included elders and deacons (1 Tim. 3:1-13). He did not authorize any type of church government beyond the local congregation. Every congregation of the Lord’s church is supposed to be self-governing and independent.
How many religious groups would be willing to give up their national headquarters and conventions? Yet they are not in the New Testament. If we are going to be pleasing to God, we ought to restore the truth and the correct practices of the church of the New Testament. What we teach regarding salvation should be what Jesus and His apostles taught. Our worship should be as simple as theirs was. Our government must echo theirs. Our doctrines should come from New Testament passages. Only then can we be the restored New Testament church. No man (or group of men) has authority from God to make changes in any of these areas. And why would we want to? Should it not be the goal of each Christian to believe and obey the truth?
Probably few people care, but the Playboy Mansion has been sold for $100,000,000. According to the August 17th (2016) Orlando Sentinel, the five-acre piece of property was purchased by the next-door neighbor (A4). The terms of the sale allow Hugh Hefner, who is 90, to stay there the rest of his life. How disappointing! One might have hoped that the house would have been razed and then watered by tanker trucks full of Lysol. But the neighbor is only going to combine his property and Heffner’s into one. The two were originally one until 40 years ago when they were split, the larger portion being sold to the current tenant. No word was mentioned as to what the former editor of Playboy would do with the money; one thing is certain—he will not be able to buy his way out of death and the judgment.
The real estate owned by Hefner is infamous for its immorality. Even the news blurb, which contains just factual information, could not help but report the truth concerning what occurred there for years. He turned “it into a playground for countless celebrity-filled parties and hedonism that defined the Playboy ethos.” If someone did not know what the word hedonism meant, he might, when reading the above sentence, envision a well-landscaped place with a merry-go-round, monkey bars, and teeter-totters, where the socially elite hung out.
Needless to say, many women were immodestly clad at that location, but now too much clothing is being protested. The day following the Hefner story, a column by Kathleen Parker was published on page A17. She opened the subject with the following irony:
Once upon a time, a scantily clad lass padding down a beach might cause a riot—at least of eyeballs eager to extend a sidelong glance. Today, it’s the fully-clothed woman who overheats passions in France, where three towns have banned the burkini. Leave it to the French to criminalize modesty.
Yes, three towns in France have banned the attire that Muslim women wear. Their outfits (dubbed burkinis) are modest, covering the hair and the entire body down to the feet. They seem to call attention to the style and color of what the woman is wearing rather than to the flesh that is exposed. Compared to the women who are on the beach with most of their bodies exposed, they look a little bizarre. However, an interesting question should be asked: Which type of clothing led to the hedonism that took place at Hefner’s house? Hmm.
About 15 years ago, brethren in a Bible class at Pearl Street were studying the subject of church discipline. This writer asked the question, “Why don’t brethren withdraw fellowship the way the Bible says they ought to?” Brother Dub McClish answered succinctly that the problem was the three F’s: “Friends, family, and finances.” Even though that particular answer was new to many, it made immediate sense.
Concerning the latter of these three, one speaker told of a congregation in Tennessee whose elders had a meeting with their preacher and told him that he could not teach on marriage, divorce, and remarriage because, having just moved into their new building with a high mortgage payment, they could not afford “to run anybody off.” Apparently, they did not want to hear any of that “in season, out of season” preaching (2 Tim. 4:2). One cannot even imagine the church budget determining what was suitable preaching material in the first century.
The other reason why brethren do not fulfil their Christian responsibility to wayward members is that they are related to or are best friends with an influential member of the church. How sad if Christians are saying things, such as, “Yes, it’s a bad situation, but his father’s an elder,” or, “She’s the daughter of the preacher.” Do people not realize that, if someone is guilty of sin, they do not get a free pass because they are related to or are friends with brethren in the leadership? How well is that going to work on the Day of Judgment? “But, Lord, I should be in heaven because I’m the child of a preacher.” “Lord, I was really good friends with an elder; he would really want me to be here.” If anybody recognizes that such excuses will be rejected then, why are they tolerated now?
Biblical Grace Versus Modern Grace
Two other applications of this awful practice need to be considered. The first relates to another topic about which the Preaching Brother (P.B.) wrote. He had been trying to teach New Testament Christianity in the area in which he lives (not the state of Florida). So, he wrote some newspaper articles in which he distinguished between the grace that is taught in the Bible and the grace that is being taught and practiced by many folks in the 21st century.
The way that some folks believe it today is summarized by saying: “Let us sin that we might receive more grace” (Rom. 6:1, 15). In other words, people like to sin, and God likes to be gracious. Hey! It’s a great plan; we both get what we want. All facetiousness aside, this really is the way some people teach grace; they have tossed out the need for man to repent (that is, cease practicing what is sinful). Many people are really not enthusiastic about hearing that they should live holy and righteous before God (2 Cor. 7:1).
Instrumental Music
But what got the ministerial alliance in an uproar was when P.B. wrote articles about instrumental music versus singing a Capella. He also included in one of them this comment: “Ask your preacher why he doesn’t preach on certain Bible subjects.” They responded with a half-page article in the paper in which they denounced him as “causing religious division.” Really? Since neither Jesus nor the apostles ever sang with musical instruments, why are they upset when people do not use them today? No church in the first century is said to have had mechanical accompaniment when they sang hymns. Brethren for hundreds of years sang a Capella. So, when someone introduced instruments into worship, that was the party that created division. If not, why not?
“Oh, but since most people use them today, isn’t it divisive to refuse to have them?” No. They were not authorized in the first century, and they are not authorized now. God has never made any changes in His New Covenant. God defines what true worship is, as well as who true worshippers are (John 4:24), and He did not include instrumental music as part of what He wants in the assembly. By simply singing, as God commanded, we are following His commandments (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Those who do otherwise are responsible for the division.
P.B. asked to meet with the ministerial alliance to discuss religious division. Believe it or not, they were not interested in doing so. So, he asked to meet with any group in one of their buildings to discuss any subject they liked. Again, they ignored him. He asked them if any or all of them would debate him on one subject; there were no takers. Since they would not engage in an honorable public discussion, he told them he would respond to their charges in the newspaper, which he did. It took eight months. They have not attacked him since.
Readers might be wondering, “Well, this is all fine and good, but what does it have to do with the main theme of this article?” It was necessary to provide the background for the next sentence in P.B.’s letter, which follows: “The bad/sad part was that some of our members got mad at me.” What? That was the situation, but why? He checked his records and was reminded that some of the members who had quit (over a period of time) gave the following reason—they did not believe there was only one church, as described in the New Testament. “How is that possible?” a sane Christian would ask. How could it be any clearer that Jesus only built one church (Matt 16:18) and died for one church (Acts 20:28)? Paul even says there is one body (Eph. 4:4). There was one overriding reason why they refused to believe the Scriptures on this point—they had family and friends in religious denominations!
Truth Versus Lesser Concerns
The correct response ought to be, “So what?” Are family members more important than truth? Jesus stated that His followers were His family—and more important than His earthly family (Matt. 12:46-50). We all want friends, but it would never occur to genuine Christians to compromise in order to keep them. If they say things, such as, “Your preacher is condemning us,” the response should be, “He is setting forth the Scriptures. Has he said something untrue? Has he advocated something false? Please show us from the Scriptures where he is wrong, and we will talk with him.”
It does not matter what a family member thinks or how insulted he may feel. The only question is, “What does the Bible teach?” Jesus said that He came to bring division among family members (Matt. 10:34-37). He and the truth that He taught is what sets us free from sin (John 8:31-32). No family died for us or can set us free. Christians submit to the teachings of the New Testament. It does not matter if we agree or disagree with them. The Bible is right. Our feelings must take second place as we consider objective truth. But if this is our standard, can we hold those in denominations to a lesser one? They too are subject to what Christ and the apostles taught (John 12:48; Heb. 2:1-4); their traditions are worthless. Unity can only result if we all walk by the same rule (Phil. 3:16).
While some use the Methodist Discipline, the Baptist Manual, Luther’s Catechism, Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, or some “Lateran Council” of the Catholic Church, the so-called “Christian” world will never be united. Only when people get back to reading the Scriptures can unity prevail. How can there be members of the church who do not understand this principle? Is it hard to understand Jesus’ prayer for unity (John 17:20-21)? Is it difficult to comprehend Paul’s command for unity and prohibition against division (1 Cor. 1:10-13)?
P.B. reports that those who had friends and relatives in those denominations then tried to get him fired—unsuccessfully. It is obvious that they have a higher regard for their earthly family than the spiritual family they are in (or have now left). And what message does that give to those folks? They are saying, essentially, “I think more of you than I do the Lord’s church. I esteem you higher than someone who preaches the Word of God. I love you more than Jesus Who died for my sins. I value your denomination more than the Lord’s church.”
Furthermore, those in this group are endorsing (by their actions) three things: a false gospel which those in denominations teach, the false worship that they conduct, and other false doctrines to which these groups subscribe. Paul warned against false gospels (Gal. 1:6-9); Jesus talked about useless worship (John 4:20-24); Paul warned against false teachings (1 Tim. 4:16). How could a supposed Christian be so wrong?
The Third Application
P.B. did not mention this application, but it needs to be pointed out. Some may have been in total disagreement with those timid brethren who will not stand (Eph. 6:10-17), but let me ask this question directly: “Why do you see what is wrong with family and friends being regarded more highly than the Lord’s church—but do not see that you are doing the same thing by fellowshipping congregations in error and false teachers?”
Those who would never allow the church to forego discipline or compromise with denominations often will not take a stand against liberal teachers. “What is so different?” one wonders. Did the inspired apostle write an amendment to 2 John 9-11 that the rest of us do not know about? At certain lectureships, some speakers are rubbing shoulders with those who teach real (not imagined) error, and they apparently think nothing about it.
The most common excuse for preachers fellowshipping liberals is, “Oh, I’ll go anywhere to preach the truth.” Really? What verse is that? “Jesus spoke in the synagogue.” Yes, He did—until the crowd heard what the message was. Then they wanted to kill Him (Luke 4:28-30). Jesus did not appear on a lectureship in Jerusalem with the high priest, and Paul did not allow himself to be scheduled on the same program with Hymenaeus and Philetus on the subject of eschatology.
Warning after warning is provided in the New Testament on the subject of fellowship (Rom. 16:17-18; Titus 3:10). Heretics are to be rejected—not given the right hand of fellowship! Why is this part of the New Testament not being followed by some brethren?
The answer is the same as in the other two instances—friends, family, and finances. “Hey! I’ve got friends over at the Apostasy Street Church. I won’t withdraw fellowship from them or refuse to participate in their activities.” ”My nephew is a deacon over at the Will Worship Church of Christ. He says that things are not nearly as bad as reported. They only use instrumental music in their Saturday evening service.” “We know that Brother Dynamo at the Expansion Street Church of Christ some-times goes a little far, but he is so well-loved, and we have 25 of our former members over there. You know they wouldn’t put up with anything really unscriptural.” Has anyone heard excuses such as these?
If some brethren choose to disregard clear-cut errors taught by false teachers and fellowship them anyway, should we all follow suit? No. What others choose to do is not our standard. The Word of God is our guideline. We must abide in the truth (John 8:31-32)—even if we are the only ones who do. (We are not talking about opinions here but actual plain teaching in the Scriptures.) How is it that the church ran into apostasy from the second to the sixth centuries? How were so many pulled away from the changes to worship and salvation that all had once held to? It may be an answer that is too simplistic, but it would not be surprising to learn that it had something to do with friends, family, or finances.
