Baiting God

Everyone has probably heard about the atheist who stood up in a public meeting and said, “If there is a God, I’ll give Him sixty seconds to strike me dead.” Everyone looked around nervously until halfway through the allotted time one man replied, “Does this man think he can exhaust the patience of the eternal God in just one minute?” Hmm, good point. If God punished mankind for every evil deed the moment it occurred, the population would be considerably smaller.

Some are not bashful about challenging God either directly or through some actions they know would violate His righteousness. It was Onan’s responsibility, for example, to raise up children in his brother’s stead, whom God had killed because of his wickedness. When he refused at the last minute to do so, God slew him, also (Gen. 38:1-10). In a sense, one could say that Onan was just asking to be punished. No one had more of an obnoxious attitude, however, than Jezebel. Her prophets were first defeated and then slain, and she might have questioned her values, but instead she swore revenge against Elijah (1 Kings 19:1-2). Even when her death was inevitable, she taunted the one God sent to bring judgment upon her—shortly before she became dog food (2 Kings 9:31-37).

The latest widespread offense against God was organized by a Mexican “adult hospitality” firm, called Original Group, according to the Orlando Sentinel (July 3, 2016). Royal Caribbean Cruises operates a luxury line—Azamara Club Cruises (F1). Royal has chartered the Azamara Quest for an 8-day cruise in the fall of next year, which will travel from Italy to Croatia and Slovenia. The 690-passenger ship will sport a sex theme and be designated the Desire Cruise. “The couples-only voyage is slated to have ‘mix-n-mingle’ private playrooms and clothing-optional areas of the ship, such as the pool deck.”

It is comforting to know, however, that the erotic adventure will not be a “free-for-all.” The ship has some really, really strict rules, such as keeping noise levels down after midnight. How thoughtful! No one is allowed to hit on staff members. How utterly uninclusive! And no means “no.” How well will that work if they have been selling alcohol to their patrons? Those seem to be the only limits besides restricting passengers to couples-only areas. Anyone who has ever read Hebrews 13:4 knows that such an idea is nothing more than baiting God to judge them. Probably, no icebergs will be lurking along the route, but that is no guarantee of safety. None were needed to bring death upon Er, Onan, or Jezebel, either.

So What Is The Christian Chronicle Chronicling? (Part 2)

Okay; it has been 15 years since part one of this series. They have continued to publish interviews and news stories about liberal churches and schools, but the July issue caught the attention of several people, mainly due to three articles in it—one of which was an interview with a “one cup” group. But let’s begin with the “opinion” piece— “Restroom Debate Requires Loving, Kingdom Answers to Questions of Gender Identity” (28). The title is enough to turn the reader’s stomach.

The “kingdom” answer is for each individual to accept the way God made him. Only those born hermaphrodites have a legitimate problem. One knows that the ride is going to be bumpy when he reads that the kingdom perspective is, “Everyone sins.” Of course the statement is true, but it is irrelevant. No one is allowed to entertain sin or practice sin. Jesus called sin sin, but we are living in an age where some try to excuse everyone instead of holding them accountable.

Adultery, for example, is sin. Should an adulterer be forgiven? Yes, but not if he continues to practice it. Jesus told the woman taken in adultery to go and sin no more. He did not tell her, “Aw, shucks, we all sin.”

And while we should not “mock, belittle, or marginalize another human because of their sin or temptation,” neither are we to support them in their error.

Is it the case that no group should receive “worse sinners” status? Really? Does that hold true for child molesters and mass murderers? Why does the author of this article think that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed—because the inhabitants cheated at cards? Did God Himself not assign them “worse sinners” status? While all sin—even private sin—is an affront to God, how can it not be seen that the results of some sins are far worse than others? Homosexuality left unchecked in the cities of the plain caused the sin to spread even further.

When Herod killed all of the children two years old and under, he committed an atrocious act. Most people would say that it is worse than coveting an extra piece of pie or cake. Will God destroy a nation for allowing 60 million abortions, which approves of Planned Parenthood selling body parts of infants? Perhaps we should be blasé and conclude that everyone sins and there is no group that has “worse sinners” status.

The statements become more outrageous as the article continues. “Identity confusion is common.” Says who? If it is (which seems unlikely based on the past experience of most of us), it has only recently become so and probably due to those who are intentionally trying to confuse others. Who has heard anyone wonder if he should be male or female on a given day?

The writer goes on to say that we all “fall prey to the lies of the enemy that convince us we are not enough, that we need to be something more or different than we are.” The Bible says that Eve fell for Satan’s lie that God was keeping something from mankind—something we deserved to have, but nothing indicates she was experiencing feelings of inadequacy. The devil did not attempt to get her to change genders. We do not hear her muttering, “I want to be more like Adam.”

The writer then ties gender ”confusion” to God not knowing what He is doing and a legitimate principle of the need of self-improvement. He says: “How God made me is not sufficient, and I need to change myself so I will be better than I am.” Then he cites eating the forbidden fruit as an example. This analogy fails because the first couple was not trying to better themselves; they were trying to have more than what God desired for them. There’s a reason the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes are termed covetousness. The desire is for something that one should not have or for what is not even available. Certainly, we should improve on the skills that God has given us, but Satan promises what is not even realistic.

The author rightly observes that the way we treat someone personally is not the same way we deal with issues publicly. But he way oversteps the truth when he avers: “Judgement [sic], condemnation, harshness and disgust do not reflect Jesus.” Has he never read

Matthew 23 and all of the times Jesus said, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites”? His personal conversation with Nicodemus was totally different.

But Jesus never said, “Don’t judge, period.” Rather He said, “Judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24). Who condemned sin more than Jesus did? “And this is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19). As for harshness, some would say that Matthew 7:13-14 is way too harsh. Concerning the word disgust, perhaps the author should read Leviticus 20:13: “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” The word abomination means “an abhorrence for someone or something.” That just might include the concept of disgust.

The public has been talked into thinking that homosexuality is just an alternative “lifestyle.” No, it still disgusts God; it is an abomination. Now those claiming to be Christians are falling for the propaganda of the homosexual agenda. We do not hate individuals, but the sin is disgusting. The writer is correct in saying that the issue is not about restrooms; it is not—it is about advancing the homosexual agenda.

Many misapply compassion. It should not be granted to those who have no intention of changing. Jesus was willing to grant forgiveness to Zacchaeus for his genuine repentance of stealing from others and the willingness to restore fourfold. Did he not have compassion on others? Yes, but He expressed it in the form of warning. He told Judas it would be better that he had not been born (Matt. 26:24). To tell people steeped in sin, “Unless you repent, you shall all likewise perish,” is the demonstration of compassion. To say that we are all sinners helps them not at all.

The writer of this unfortunate article claims that “this issue is not new, and it involves people in the pews of more churches than most might think.” Preposterous! Of all the problems that brethren and churches have had in the past 50 years, this notion has not once surfaced—until now. “Historically, Christians struggling with gender dysphoria did so in silence due to fear.” Where is the evidence for all this confusion? Where is the Scriptural evidence for it?

The writer says we need to view gender identity problems from a “kingdom perspective.” Okay. Here it is. If you want to be valuable in the kingdom, quit being self-absorbed and introspective to the point where you think you are the most important individual in the universe and that God made a mistake in assigning your gender. You are what you are; now make the best use of it to mature spiritually and teach others.

The second article under consideration from the July issue of The Christian Chronicle reviews a speech given at the so-called Christian’s Scholar Conference, hosted by David Lipscomb University in June of this year. This activity travels to various schools around the country. The conference has had a reputation for being a showcase of liberalism for decades since its inception at Pepperdine in 1981. The speaker who claimed that the need for Christian universities is greater than ever is a graduate of Lubbock Christian University and Abilene Christian University—two places that faithful brethren would warn young people to stay away from. He was a former professor at Pepperdine and has been the head of Southern Methodist University since 1995 (3).

One might ask, “What is one of ‘our guys’ doing as the head of a Methodist School?” Could it be that “our guy” is so compromised that nobody cares? It may also be that SMU is no longer concerned about its original beliefs all that much. One thing is certain: Most of the universities established by brethren and associated with the churches of Christ no longer stand with the religious convictions of those who founded them. Most have departed from those principles. The only school somewhat trustworthy at the current time is Freed-Hardeman, but if it joined Lipscomb, Lubbock, Pepperdine, Abilene, OCU, and others next week, few would be greatly surprised. How sad that institutions founded to do so much good have resulted in so much damage!

Ideally, a Christian College sounds like a wonderful idea, and for decades after their origin, many of them were. Young Christian men and women met their mates at these institutions, and strong Christian families were formed. But things have changed. In order to get the doctoral degrees needed now to teach in Christian universities, a teacher must get degrees from secular universities which have no respect for the Bible. Not many can reject the peer pressure and the desire to fit in with the kind of thinking in these institutions. Undergraduates can resist with a strong support base from the local congregation, but with advanced degrees it is different. Students in a particular discipline are more likely to know and interact with each other, and one needs great resolve in order to stand alone.

One example will suffice. Brother Thomas B. Warren encouraged brethren to obtain advanced degrees in order to fight against atheism. Rubel Shelly took up the challenge, but if he has battled any atheists, it must be a well-kept secret. What happened while he was getting his Ph.D. at Vanderbilt is anyone’s guess, but he has never been the same since. Prior to his attending school there, he published Liberalism’s Threat to the Faith, which is a solid, right-on-the-money book. He has become, however, the very person (a liberal) that he wrote so eloquently against in the 1970s.

He agrees with very little of what he was taught and what he believed in during his younger years, including important subjects such as salvation, correct worship, various doctrines, and fellowship. He became President of Rochester College (formerly Michigan Christian College) in 2009, where he undoubtedly influenced young people to follow in the pathways of liberalism and compromise. The reader can just imagine what his latest book is about, published in 2011: I Knew Jesus Before He Was a Christian and I liked Him Better Then. This is the higher Christian education that The Christian Chronicle hopes to preserve?

The thesis of the article is that “Christian beliefs are under assault.” Yes, we quite agree—they are under assault by liberal professors. What is the point of saving students from atheism and then turning them over to teachers who present a false gospel to them? While it is true that atheism still needs to be opposed with all our might, do we have no responsibility to warn young people against false prophets who appear in sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15)?

The speaker talks about young people being trained to make a difference in the kingdom of God. Why cannot the local congregation do that? No Christian universities existed in the first century. Christianity grew and prospered because brethren had been converted and convicted by the truth (Acts 8:3-4). Having a Ph.D. is not required in order to be evangelistic. Possessing truth and a love for souls is sufficient. Most young people are either saved or lost depending on what the home and the church do. Some of the most effective Christians are “home-grown” (as with Paul and Timothy).

Brethren should pray for wisdom in this regard.

So What Is The Christian Chronicle Chronicling?

[Editor’s Note: The following excerpt appeared in the July 1, 2001 Spiritual Perspectives (then published in Denton, Texas) in response to some articles that appeared in The Christian Chronicle in May and June of that year. June’s issue also interviewed Rubel Shelly, another well-known heretic.]

… So what “leaders” does The Christian Chronicle interview for a sampling of their “wisdom”? Below are some of the names of those who were consulted:

1. Lynn Anderson announced nearly thirty years ago that the church of Christ is a “BIG, SICK DENOMINATION.” He has since written Navigating the Winds of Change and is regarded by all faithful brethren as a “change” agent. Dave Miller reviewed his book in the 1995 Spiritual Sword lectureship book, God’s Amazing Grace (507-38). Yet Anderson was the man chosen to discuss “Leadership Renewal” (May) and “Empowering Leaders” (June).

2. Gregory Sterling is a Notre Dame professor and preaches for a congregation in Warsaw, Indiana, which other churches in that area do not fellowship—one that has appointed deaconesses. His topic was “Leadership in Churches of Christ” (May).

3. Don Browning was assigned “Diversity, Strength for the Church.” He worked with the Singing Oaks Church of Christ here in Denton for a number of years. He is the one who got that congregation to host a drive-through “Easter” program (see “Why Pearl Street Does Not Fellowship Singing Oaks” in the April 9, 2000 Spiritual Perspectives). Browning can fellowship Leroy Garrett (who has been on the cutting edge of apostasy for more than four decades) and at least some religious denominations (June).

Some of the other “leaders” are associated with Abilene Christian University; most are with…liberal churches. They even interviewed one who actually preaches the Truth, but why do they mostly select apostates? Are change agents the only ones we have to lead us? God forbid! Why was there no interview with…directors of sound schools of preaching? These men have a profound influence over those who will be working with congregations for decades to come. Of course, these schools are not producing change agents, advocating the appointment of deaconesses, or teaching their graduates how to host drive-through “Easter” services. Is it the flair for defying the Word of God that made these interviewees desirable to The Christian Chronicle?

Muslim Beliefs and Claims (Part 2)

Having considered what the New Testament writers teach about Jesus, let us now observe what the Old Testament prophets taught regarding Him. Jude records what an early prophet foretold of Jesus. Enoch, the seventh from Adam said these words:

Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him (Jude 14-15).

This is indeed a prophecy that occurred even before the Flood, but it is describing not that judgment but the one that occurs at the end of time. It harmonizes well with what Jesus taught in John 5:27-29, as well as what Paul described in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9. The Lord, then, in Jude 14-15 is not Allah or even the Father. It is Jesus, the Son of God, the Son of Man.

King David also prophesied of Jesus, and Peter quoted what he wrote in Psalm 16:8-11 on the Day of Pentecost to prove that Jesus would rise from the dead. Muhammad, however, did not believe that Jesus rose from the dead because He was never crucified. This is the teaching of Sura 4 (about 155-58):

And for their saying, “Verily we have slain the Messiah, Jesus the Son of Mary, an Apostle of God.” Yet they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness. And they who differed about him were in doubt concerning him: No sure knowledge had they about him, but followed only an opinion, and they did not really slay him, but God took him up to Himself.

So, how can David prophesy of the resurrection of Christ, when, according to Muhammad, He was never crucified or buried? David also wrote the words that Jesus spoke on the cross: “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me” (Ps. 22:1). If Jesus was not crucified, then He was not on the cross, and He could not have spoken these words. In this same Psalm, David writes:

They pierced My hands and My feet; I can count all My bones. They look and stare at Me. They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing cast lots (Ps. 22:16b-18).

All of these were fulfilled at the cross, which Muhammad said Jesus was never on! Muslims do not believe the Old Testament prophets—neither Enoch nor David. Their advertisement which claims they do is a lie. They do not believe the prophets at all.

Isaiah prophesied of the virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14), which Matthew says was fulfilled when Mary gave birth to Jesus (Matt. 1:18-23). Luke explains that the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and overshadowed her. Therefore the Holy One Who was born of her would be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). However, Muhammad rejected the Deity of Jesus (as seen in the previous article). One would think Muhammad would reject the virgin birth, but he does not per se. He seems to accept the fact that Mary gave birth to Jesus.

He does not necessarily attribute the birth to the Holy Spirit, but just says that Jesus resulted from “an act of divine will,” which is true but ambiguous. Muhammad did not believe Jesus is the Son of God (as per the previous article); so, although he accepts Isaiah 7:14 in some measure, he does not accept the implications of the verse (along with the explicit statement of Luke and all of the evidence of the Deity of Jesus in the New Testament).

Isaiah 53 prophesies of the death of Jesus on the cross. He was “wounded for our transgressions” (v. 5) (except He was never crucified). “And they made His grave with the wicked—But with the rich at His death” (v. 9). Oh, but wait. God didn’t allow Jesus to be crucified; so He could not have been between the two thieves (the wicked). And since God took Him to heaven Himself, He could not have been buried in a new tomb owned by a wealthy man (the rich). When did Jesus, therefore, suffer “the travail of His soul” (v. 11) and pour out “His soul unto death” (v. 12), if not on the cross? Muslims do not believe Isaiah any more than they do David.

Speaking of the death of Jesus, He Himself foretold it on three occasions prior to its occurrence, as the following verses indicate:

And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again (Mark 8: 31).

or He taught His disciples and said to them, “The Son of Man is being delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him. And after He is killed, He will rise the third day” (Mark 9: 31).

“And they will mock Him, and scourge Him, and spit upon Him, and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again” (Mark 10:34).

Notice Jesus did not say that the Father would save Him from crucifixion and death—but that they would kill Him. Muhammad is wrong about the prophets.

Almost everyone knows of the prophecy that Jesus was to be born in Bethlehem—from Micah 5:2, but it is important to notice the description that occurs at the end of the verse concerning Jesus.

But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting.

The Muslims have the same problem with this passage that Jehovah’s Witnesses do. Clearly this is a prophecy of the birthplace of Jesus. We know that because: 1) That is the city in which He was born (Luke 2:4-7; and 2) When the wise men asked what city He Who was to be born King of the Jews would be born in, the chief priests and the scribes answered, “Bethlehem,” based on this verse (Matt. 2:1-6).

But notice the description of Jesus in the last part of the verse. His future kingship is noted, but so is His Deity! His ways have been “from everlasting,” a phrase that is only ever used of God (Ps. 90:2). Jesus is God! But since Muhammad denied that fact, it is evident that he did not believe the Old Testament prophets. The Old Testament prophets believed in the Deity of Jesus. And Jesus’ Godhood is further tied in with His Kingship.

The Old Testament prophets often wrote of the coming king. His kingdom is everlasting, as is the king.

And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people… (Dan. 2:44).

The prophet is talking about the church which was established during the days of the Roman emperors (the fourth world kingdom). It would never be destroyed which means it has continued until this very hour. It has never fallen into the hands of anyone else because Jesus is the King, and He continues to live and reign. Later (Dan. 7:13-14), Daniel describes One like the Son of Man (a phrase often applied to Jesus) as coming in the clouds to the Ancient of Days (which occurred in Acts 1:9-11), and being given a kingdom, which Peter mentions on Pentecost has having occurred (Acts 2:29-35). Peter here says that Jesus ascended to Heaven and has received His kingdom.

Furthermore, people in the first century often associated the kingship and the Deity of Jesus together. After a brief conversation with Jesus, Nathanael concluded, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the king of Israel!” (John 1:49). Jesus is the everlasting king of an everlasting kingdom. Muhammad did not believe Daniel.

Thus far these two articles have dealt with the first statement that Muslims make in their current advertisement in the Orlando Sentinel—that Muslims believe in all the prophets of the Old and New Testaments. It has been made abundantly clear that they do not. This claim is deceptive and untrue; how can they not know it?

But they make a second claim in their ad which is also false. They say:

The Scriptures declare this claim to be false—even though they were written 600 years earlier. First, the reader ought to know that Qur’an was not always in the form we have it today. Muhammad never wrote a single word of it down. He composed it to be sung by him and his men. It was not written down until two years after his death. Therefore, all the variations were destroyed before it was ever published. It may not be the original, but it is the only version there is.

Second (and more importantly), the New Testament is God’s final testament to humankind because it says that it is. Jude said that the faith was once for all delivered to the saints (v. 3). Peter said that God had given us all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). So, who is telling the truth—the Bible or Muslims? No doubt the followers of Muhammad would say they are right. They don’t believe the Old Testament prophets—furthermore, they do not believe what any of the New Testament writers say, either. They will not hesitant to contradict Peter and Jude.

Muslims have the same problem as Mormons, who have no choice but to tell Muslims that they are wrong because Joseph Smith received an even later covenant than they did. Muhammad allegedly received his in the early 600s, and Joseph Smith got his in the 1800s. Perhaps they should debate each other.

The New Testament tells us that it is complete precisely to avoid those who would come along later on claiming to have new insights, more revelation, or a final covenant. The Old Testament pointed to the New. A Messiah was coming—a king, a prophet, the Lord, Deity, Savior—and Jesus fulfilled them all. A new covenant was coming (Deut. 18:15-19; Jer. 31:31-34). But where is the promise in the New of an even newer or another covenant to come? None exists.

Muslims try to say that Muhammad was the Comforter that Jesus promised, but this is foolish. Besides, people are not comforted by Muhammad; they are terrified and threatened with death for disagreeing with Him. Muslims may know their own religion, but they know next to nothing about the Old and New Testaments.

Becoming Wise

What’s the best way to become wise? Most people might answer that the best way to attain wisdom is to read and study the basic principles that pertain to living in this world. Some might add that it would be helpful to be given real-life practical situations and practice problem-solving techniques. One might throw in, along these lines, finding a person who possesses wisdom to observe what he does. All of these are helpful suggestions, but how many would suggest Proverbs 9:10?

That verse tells us: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” A similar verse is Proverbs 1:7: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Yet another verse adds this thought: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have those who do His commandments. His praise endures forever” (Ps. 111:10). What do these verses teach? One can find knowledge, understanding, and wisdom in some measure in secular teachings. But those will only help in earthly matters. Spiritual knowledge and wisdom can only come when one fears God.

The problem with society in general today is that people have no fear of God. His attributes include both justice and wrath against sin, but His nature has been diminished to basically only include love. To be sure, He is love, and we are right to emphasize the immense boundaries of that love—but not to the exclusion of His attitude toward sin, disobedience, and rebellion. Even religious people no longer want to hear about God’s anger; as in Isaiah’s day, they want to hear “smooth things” (Isa. 30:10).

Such an attitude will never achieve wisdom. God has the power to terminate our lives any moment He chooses, as He did with Er and Onan (Gen. 38:2-10). He also has the power to cast the eternal soul into hell, which He will do unless their name is in the Book of Life (Rev. 20:15). If we do not fear Him and His awesome power, we are foolish indeed. We can be motivated by both the fear of the Lord and love of Him as well (since He desires that all be saved). We should never lose sight of the fact that He expects our love to bring about obedience (John 14:15), which in turn gives us a good understanding.

Muslim Beliefs and Claims (Part 1)

The Orlando Sentinel publishes on Saturdays a page that they designate as “A Call to Worship.” It displays advertisements for all manner of religious groups—including Muslims. At the top of the third column (there are six across) and running four inches down (the average size) is an ad that makes the following claims. ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF INCLUSION. Some might want to dispute that, but that is not the subject of this article. The next two statements (the second will be considered next week) must be challenged:

No, they most certainly do not. They may or may not be intending to mislead people by making this statement, but it is totally false, and this article (and the next one) will show abundant proof that they do not believe the prophets of either the Old or the New Testaments. First, let us consider the New Testament. They claim to regard Jesus as a prophet. Okay, then, what did this Prophet say?

One of the most fundamental truths that Jesus taught is that He is the Son of God. First to consider are His tacit admissions of the fact.

1. When Satan tempted Jesus, he told Him to turn stones into bread if He was the Son of God. Jesus repudiated the temptation by quoting Scripture; He did not deny, however, that He was the Son of God (Matt. 4:3-4). Satan again used the phrase, if You are the Son of God, in connection with Jesus throwing Himself off the pinnacle of the temple. Again, Jesus refused to yield to temptation, but again He did not deny His Deity (Matt. 4:6-7).

2. When Jesus met two demon-possessed men in the country of the Gergesenes, they asked, “What have we to do with you, Jesus, You Son of God?” He cast out the demons, but He did not chastise them for what they called Him (Matt. 8:28-34).

3. Jesus was in the city of Capernaum and met a man with an unclean spirit in a synagogue. This man cried out, “‘Let us alone! What have we to do with you, Jesus of Nazareth? Did you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!’” (Luke 4:31-36). Satan and the demons recognized the One Who had power over them. From the synagogue, Jesus went to Simon Peter’s house and healed his mother-in-law (Luke 4:37-39). When the sun set, Jesus began healing those who had various diseases. He also cast out demons, who kept crying out, “You are the Christ, the Son of God!” (Luke 4:40-41). Once again, Jesus did not tell them they were mistaken or that He was not worthy of such an honor. He surely would have if He were not, lest people be confused.

4. When Jesus told Nathanael that He had seen him under a fig tree in a location that the Lord had not visited, Nathanael concluded: “Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” (John 1:49). Jesus did not rebuke him with words such as, “No, Nathanael, you have glorified Me beyond what I deserve.” Instead, He told him he would see even greater things that would cause him to believe (John 1:50-51).

Not only did Jesus never contradict men, demons, or the devil when they said He was the Son of God, He made the claim Himself and agreed with others when they called Him Divine.

1. Referring to Himself, Jesus taught plainly: “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he had not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18). Muslims should consider this verse carefully. If they reject Jesus as the Son of God, they stand condemned.

2. Referring again to Himself, Jesus claimed that someday “the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live” (John 5:25). A person will be condemned for not believing Jesus is the Son of God; instead, if he hears His voice (is obedient), he will live.

3. Jesus healed a man who had been blind from birth (John 9:1). After the man had been interrogated by the Jews, Jesus found Him and asked him if he believed in the Son of God (although some texts have son of Man). When he asked, “Who is He?” Jesus answered, “You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking with you” (John 9:35-38). The man declared His faith and worshipped Him. (Since only God is to be worshipped, the man must have understood that Jesus was proclaiming His Deity).

4. Jesus asked the Jews why they wanted to stone Him since the Scriptures could not be broken. He wanted to therefore know why they said, “‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’” (John 10:36). In other words, it would only be blasphemy if it were not true. But He is the Son of God!

5. Jesus was intentionally not present when Lazarus died. He and His disciples would not arrive until this friend had been in the tomb four days. The reason for His delay was so that all would realize that Lazarus was fully dead. Jesus proclaimed: “This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it” (John 11:1-4). Jesus then restored his life.

6. At Caesarea Philippi Peter made the confession: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:13-16). Did Jesus rebuke Peter for making an impetuous and untrue statement? No. Instead, He commended Peter for being blessed because “flesh and blood” had not revealed this truth to him, “but My Father who is in heaven” (v. 17). Clearly, Jesus acknowledged His Godhood.

7. Before the high priest, Jesus was adjured to reveal to them whether or not He was the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One. He answered, “I am.” How much plainer could He be in identifying Himself as the Son of God?

Jesus both by implication and declaration claimed to be the Son of God. Furthermore, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all recorded these incidents, and they believed also that Jesus is Divine. In addition to what we have already noticed, Mark makes it plain at the outset what his view of Jesus is: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (1:1). No one need wonder where he stood on the subject. John says that the very reason that he recorded the miracles of Jesus was “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31).

Paul, who wrote about half of the New Testament books, made it clear that, prior to His coming to earth, Jesus was in the form of God and did not count it robbery to be equal with God (Phil 2:5-8). The New Testament is united in its insistence that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Therefore, Jesus and the New Testament prophets stand together in proclaiming this fact.

Neither Muhammad nor his Muslim followers believe all these passages of Scripture written by New Testament prophets. The proof comes from the Qur’an itself. To those who think that “God hath begotten a Son” the Qur’an teaches: “No knowledge of this have either they or their fathers! A grievous saying to come out of their mouths! They speak no other than a lie” (Sura 18:3-4). In addition to all the teachings previously reviewed, Luke records the angel saying to Mary that her Son would be called “the Son of the Highest” (Luke 1:32). When questioned further, the angel tells her: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:36). Nevertheless, Muhammad said:

Christians say, “The Messiah is a Son of God.” Such the sayings in their mouths! They resemble the sayings of the infidels of old! God do battle with them! How are they misguided! They take their teachers, and their monks, and the Messiah, the son of Mary, for Lords beside God, though bidden to worship one God only. There is no God but He! (Sura 9:30-31).

Muhammad could not let Jesus be the Son of God because to him that idea suggested polygamy. To him the Holy Spirit was not a personality in the Godhead, either. Below are more comments about the Godhead:

Whoever shall join other gods with God, God shall forbid him in the Garden, and His abode shall be in the Fire; and the wicked shall have no helpers. They are surely Infidels who say, “God is the third of three:” for there is no God but one God: and if they refrain not from what they say, a grievous chastisement shall light on such of them as are Infidels (Sura 5:76-77).

Muhammad does not deal with the eleven passages (or the others previously cited) that show Jesus to be the Son of God. He just says it is not possible and that all who believe it are infidels. One might understand Muhammad’s confusion; he may not have had access to the New Testament or studied it carefully. He was (eventually) opposed to polytheism in any form. However, today Muslim clerics have adequate access to the New Testament; they can read for themselves the passages already examined. They cannot, therefore, say with a straight face that they believe the New Testament prophets when they absolutely repudiate what they teach concerning Jesus being God, as well as the Son of God. Let’s express their dilemma this way.

1. Muslims say they believe the New Testament prophets.

2. Those prophets include Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and Peter.

3. All of those men taught that Jesus is the Son of God.

4. Therefore, Muslims, if they believe those men, must accept that truth as fact.

5. However, they do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

6. Therefore, they do not believe New Testament prophets.

7. To claim that they do when they do not is deceptive.

Muslims do not believe the Old Testament prophets, either, which shall be shown in the next article. When they say that they believe Jesus is a prophet or that they believe in Jesus, they do not mean what the Christian means—that He is the Son of God. So, what good does it do to proclaim that He is a prophet when they do not believe His own testimony about Himself? If a prophet says, “I am the Son of God,” on what basis can anyone reject this teaching? To deny Jesus’ Deity is to call Him a liar! And where does that leave them? In effect, Muslims must say, “We know that Jesus is a prophet, but sometimes He lies.” Really? Of what value would such a prophet be, and who is going to tell us when He is lying and when He is telling the truth? Such is chaos.

Are You Tired of It Yet?

Okay, it’s been three weeks since the massacre at an Orlando night club, and probably after one week everyone was tired of hearing about the event. But newspapers and broadcasts continue to emphasize what happened— especially since this tragedy facilitates keeping the homosexual agenda alive. Large portions of the newspaper continue to revisit the ghastly scene, and who knows when they will at last relent from all the emphasis? Are you tired yet of hearing about how discriminated against and downtrodden homosexuals are? Actually, as we have said for years, most people would never know or care—except that they keep pushing for acceptance of their sin, as shown by their insistence for homosexual marriage, which perverts God’s holy institution. When that was achieved, many sympathetic to their “cause” said it was only the beginning.

The Orlando Sentinel never misses an opportunity to promote the practice. In the “People and Arts” section on page A2 for June 23, 2016, they encouraged people to screen a 2007 film about religion and homosexuality, called, “For the Bible Tells Me So.” Does anyone wonder what position the film takes? The Sentinel would probably not endorse it if it concluded that homosexuality is a sin. Just calling the work by the title chosen is a slap upon the face of Christianity because the Bible does define homosexuality as a perversion. It was so thorough in Sodom and Gomorrah that God destroyed the cities with fire and brimstone.

So, now someone comes along and wants to mock the Scriptures, as well as a beloved children’s song, and most of society is all for it. The film-maker says that that LGBT community consists of “people who must fight just to be.” That is not true; they are fighting for approval, which will never happen. He implies that Christians are interpreting the Bible wrongly in their condemnation of homosexuality. How absurd. What could be plainer than when God says in the Law of Moses, “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a female, both of them have committed abomination” (Lev. 20:13)? The penalty assigned for this practice was death. No interpretation is necessary. People, like the film-maker, twist the Scriptures to their own destruction.

But the worst statement is this one made by the film-maker: “I came to the conclusion that not to honor my sexual orientation would be an insult to God.” Right! And the adulterer would insult God not to seduce married women. And the drunkard would insult God by trying to be sober. How can people be so blind? It only shows how entrenched the love of sin is in people like him and serves to remind us of the warning of the prophet: “Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil…” (Isa. 5:20).

Republicans Kill 50 People in Orlando Nightclub

What? Where did that headline appear? As far as is known, such a claim did not appear in any newspaper. Even so, a poll taken among New Jersey residents last week revealed that most people there thought that Republicans were responsible for the massacre. Why? The perception is that Republicans want everyone to have firearms, which enables someone like Omar Mateen to commit mass murder.

First, Republicans may (on average) defend second amendment rights more than Democrats, but it is not a one-party issue. Anyone who doubts that should realize that from 2008 to 2010 the Democrats had the presidency and both houses of Congress, which means they could have passed any legislation they desired to put severe restrictions on gun control. That did not happen because many Democrats do not want overly strict controls, either.

Second, guns are not needed to commit mass murder. On July 13, 1966, Richard Speck broke into a townhouse serving as a dormitory and, armed only with a knife, killed 8 student nurses in Chicago. The Boston Marathon bombing, which occurred on April 15, 2013, killed 3 and injured 264 others. Obviously there are means other than guns (even airplanes) by which to kill people. In fact, bombs are usually far more deadly. It was only November 13 of 2015 that 137 were killed in Paris, 368 being injured.

Third, gun control laws seldom do any good. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws anywhere, yet in 2015, almost 3,000 were killed there; so far this year 1,792 have been victims of shootings there, which would surpass the deaths recorded last year if the second half of the year is anything like the first half.

Fourth, if more citizens were carrying a weapon, fewer atrocities might occur. Notice that terrorists often select targets where no one is likely to be armed so that they can do as much damage as possible—a marathon, a school, a movie theater, etc. But if no one had any firearms whatsoever, who could prevent a terrorist from either detonating a bomb in a public place or serving as the weapon himself?

Another aspect of this matter is to consider who wants to fight Islamic terrorists and who will not even call them that? Who wants to suspend immigration until we have a vetting process that works? Who is crippling the FBI so that they cannot legally use information they receive and have access to? For people on the streets of New Jersey to blame Republicans for terrorist attacks is absurd. Republicans can be blamed for a lot of things, but that is not one of them. Omar Mateen was an Islamic terrorist and a registered Democrat, but it was not his politics that motivated him to murder; it was his religion. He claimed to be acting on behalf of ISIS.

Both Adam and Eve knew God’s law regarding the forbidden fruit. Satan, however, told Eve that she would not die—that God was just withholding from her and her husband the ability to be like Him. Departing from the facts that she had from a reliable source, she instead subscribed to the word on the street (so to speak). Only later did she figure out that she had been lied to. The same thing occurs today. The news media, the entertainment media, and “higher education” are among the worst at providing slanted views.

The following headlines and stories were presented on The O’Reilly Factor on June 16, 2016. These are not made up for a comedy skit. They are actual headlines and stories. The first is from ThinkProgress, which describes itself as “Hard-hitting progressive political news and analysis.” They put forth:

What? Conservative—and especially Christian conservatives have never called for violence against these people. Islam has (see the front page). No one is scapegoating Islam. Mateen declared that he was acting in concert with ISIS. Where has even one “Christian” or conservative (with any credibility) called for their murders? The headline is ridiculous, but the story continues in the same vein.

ISIS may sensationalize anti-gay violence— specifically to spark the anti-Islam sentiment that fuels it—but that doesn’t make radical Islam more violent against LGBT people than the conservative Christian sentiment that permeates the U.S.

This is so much blather. There may be some such lunatic or group somewhere, but they do not define conservative Christianity. Yes, we point out that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin, and we vigorously oppose homosexual marriage as a perversion of the institution God gave to man and woman when He created them. God explains and defines sin so that people can know right from wrong. Homosexuality is just one sin; people also commit many others (Rom. 1:21-32; Gal. 5:19-21; Rev. 21:8, et al.). All of these are wrong; every one of them needs to be repented of, and Christians are not bashful about declaring the truth of the matter.

But God’s instructions to us are to teach the gospel and show the way out of sin. Not one New Testament passage can be found that would command Christians to harm or kill anyone. The New Testament teaches us to love our neighbors—even the sinful ones. We have ourselves made a conscious decision to give up sin; we want others to do likewise. Violence is wrong.

Somebody named Zack Ford wrote those inane words, vainly attempting to prove that Christians are just as violent as Muslims against LGBTs. The problem is that some may think such irresponsible statements are true. The next one was written by Muna Mire for Teen Vogue:

Seriously? Now America is going to be blamed? It is in Muslim nations that homosexuals are put to death with the approval of their Muslim governments. Precisely what laws are in force either in the United States as a whole (or in any one state of the union) that calls for killing these human beings? We live in a free nation that allows people the right even to make stupid statements. Below Mire wrote more gobbledegook:

Omar was the product of American culture. The rage he held in his heart for gay people, and perhaps for himself, is the same rage fueling street harassment of visibly queer and gender nonconforming people….

Perhaps a few people on the street are not fond of homosexuals; certainly that is possible. Some people on the street may be thieves, but that does not make them the product of American culture. People have been guilty of numerous sins from the beginning— some that they had never seen before.

Cain killed his brother Abel. This was not an act of imitation. He did not learn it from his father or mother; he did not succumb to killing his brother because he had seen too many murders on television and was unduly influenced by the violence of his society. Why did Richard Speck and John Gacy do what they did? What about Jeffrey Dahmer, who killed 17 young men and ate some of them? Was he “the product of American culture?” Allegations such as these simply have no merit.

A third story was written by Amanda Marotte for Salon. The headline reads:

What? Too much testosterone is now the problem? What does she have to say about the Muslim woman who blew others up along with herself? The reader has probably noticed that all of these people are desperately trying to find some other motive for the Pulse shootings other than the real reason. Marotte muses:

For obvious political reasons, conservatives are hustling as fast as they can to make this about “radical Islam,” which is to say they are trying to imply that there’s something inherent to Islam and not Christianity that causes such violence. This, of course, is hoary nonsense….

Why is it that when the facts of the case are reported that Marotte portrays conservatives as scrambling to throw the blame on someone else? What she is doing is politicizing the issue, which some people seem prone to do. No one scrambled to blame Islam; Mateen credited ISIS for what he was doing. Conservative Christians didn’t immediately call a conference when this event occurred and ask, “Is there any way we can blame Islam for this?” Mateen made the connection—not us.

Why do liberals make such baseless accusations? It might be because that is what they would do. Perhaps that is an unfair suggestion, but consider this? What kind of political hay would the news media have made over this shooting if Mateen had been at a Trump rally? What if he were a member of the Tea Party? Everyone knows that the news headlines would have been along these lines:

Neither would have been true, but look what the left is already accusing conservatives of when they are not even involved in the matter! What would it be like if one had been? It is reported that Mateen supported Hillary for president, but no headline will accuse her of causing this massacre. And it shouldn’t—because the idea is preposterous! Why don’t people think it’s equally absurd to suggest that a Republican is inspiring hatred? Instead, people in New Jersey think the Republicans are responsible. The only difference appears to be that “journalists” would support and foster such foolishness were a conservative involved. No wonder so many people have a low opinion of the news media. They still retain a measure of influence over some, unfortunately, which they do not deserve having.

Satan thrives on deception, lying, and spin. Those who use such tactics themselves apparently do not care that they have climbed in bed with the devil. Christians need to avoid at all cost methods such as these. Jesus denounced the devil as a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44). Truth is the only thing that will serve an individual or a society well. Lies are all too commonplace, and many do not care if something is true or not—so long as it is against the other guy. This attitude is shameful. Jesus said to judge righteous judgment (John 7:46). He also proclaimed that the way we judge others is the way in which we shall be judged (Matt. 7:1-5). We cannot have two different standards—one for “our” side and one for our opponents.

When news events occur, we ought to only be interested in what happened. Political opponents should not be blamed—either directly or indirectly. Conservative Christians should not be blamed for what they have not done. Jesus never taught anyone to hate those who violate the will of God. He died to save them from their sins. True Christianity preaches love and calls all people to repentance. It is not unfair to notice that the Muslim religion does not do the same.

The Kindest Behavior toward a Homosexual

A Muslim cleric, Dr. Farrokh Sekaleshfar, is being reminded of his words from a 2013 speech given at the University of Michigan. “Death is the sentence. There’s nothing to be embarrassed about this. Death is the sentence. We have to have that compassion for people. With homosexuals, it’s the same. Out of compassion, let’s get rid of them now.” What do these words sound like to the average person? Do they not call for killing homosexuals?

But the speaker of those sentiments has backtracked after the mass killing of two weeks ago. He has now stated that he is “totally against the barbaric act of violence” that occurred. He adds that such a killing cannot “be justified Islamically.” Really? But that is not all he said. He tried to explain: “I never gave the call to a death sentence.” He was just explaining what Islamic law is “in a country whose people democratically desired Islamic law to be exercised….”

Oh, so it is only in an Islamic country that it is compassionate to kill homosexuals? In the United States, it is not compassionate? The Islamic doctor is playing with words. Everyone understands what he meant with his original statement. And we cannot help but wonder: “Is it the compassionate thing to do to kill Christians or anyone else who does not worship Allah?” Hmm.

Under the Law of Moses, God commanded homosexuals to be put to death—because what they practice is perversion (Lev. 20:13). It had nothing to do with compassion—at least, not for them. The purpose was to keep the nation of Israel holy. Furthermore, God showed His attitude toward homosexuality by destroying Sodom, Gomorah, Admah, and Zeboiim (Gen. 19). And that serves as a reminder still of the eternal punishment of those who practice that perversion (Jude 7). Killing homosexuals or abortion doctors or anyone else whose sinful behavior that is odious to us is not, therefore, compassion. It robs them of the opportunity to repent. Bernard Nathanson, who helped begin NARAL, changed his mind and recanted the practice of abortion. So did Carol Everett who once owned several abortion clinics. A few homosexuals have also repented. God will decide when they are past feeling and judge them. A Christian’s responsibility is to encourage obedience—not put anyone to death.

The Devil’s Use of Familiarity

A strategy was attempted at the Joplin Unity Meeting in 1984. The purpose of getting 50 members of the Christian Church and 50 members of the churches of Christ together was not to discuss differences between the two groups; it was to attempt to unify men “from both sides of the keyboard,” as it was often expressed. The ten discussion groups, each containing ten members were always split 5-5 for the sake of “balance.” But the groups did not generally discuss whether the use of instrumental music was right or wrong, but instead commented on the speeches made previously to the whole assembly. The attitude was more one of, “How can we get along? How can we work with each other?” Suggestions were made and later reported to the entire group of men present. Afterward, comments about the value of the meeting included, this assessment: “Well, we learned by the two diverse groups being together that neither of us has horns.”

It was a clever strategy and may have encouraged some to compromise. It is harder to oppose someone you are familiar with. Gratefully, some saw through the attempt and realized, “Whether or not I personally like a certain individual is irrelevant. Is his teaching true or false?” There’s a reason wolves wear sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15); if they looked like wolves and snarled, “I’m about to devour you,” they probably would not get many takers. But by blending in and appearing personable, they gain the sheep’s confidence.

Alexander Pope, famous for his mock-epic, The Rape of the Lock, and An Essay on Criticism, penned the verse below. Usually only the last four lines are cited, but the first four prior to them are exceedingly interesting and relevant to this topic. Carl Garner included them on page 94 of his chapter for Studies in Jeremiah (Volume 1); the emphasis is mine:

We don’t go down with a quick, hard fall;
We just glide along.
Little by little we lighten our load,
Till we cannot tell right from wrong.

Sin is a monster of such frightful countenance,
That to be hated needs but to be seen.
But seen too often, familiar with its face,
We first endure, then pity, and then embrace!

Observant souls quite often have lamented, “Brethren, we are drifting.” The way the poet would have said that is, “We are gliding along.” We have become accustomed to certain men from the denominational world, who have put together materials that fit the category of Christian evidences or who have produced popular books or videos on marriage and the family. But we must remember that many of these are Calvinists and will tell people to recite “the sinner’s prayer” (which cannot be found in the Bible) and then assure them that once saved, they cannot possibly be lost.

A greater danger, however, is the problem within the church. Many of the wolves are quite personable, and some apparently cannot bring themselves to think that underneath the sheepskin are wolf hides. It is not the outward demeanor by which brethren ought to be making judgments; what is the doctrine of the person in question. The same volume of Jeremiah has a number of interesting and vital comments, due to the nature of the Biblical book it is reviewing. Below are some of those. Don Walker wrote:

In my generation I have seen the forming of another denomination among many. It is sad enough that there would be the establishment of another body that stands in opposition to God’s way, but even sadder still, this denomination formed from within the Lord’s church. A failure to follow God’s will abounds and yet weak preachers proclaim that all is well. “Peace, peace,” is the mantra of the day for far too many (134).

This phenomenon happens when brethren refuse to take false teaching seriously. So we have a little annihilation doctrine here, a little direct influence of the Holy Spirit there, a little elder re-evaluation here, a little instrumental music or handclapping there. But many quickly assure us that the best course to pursue is not one of objection or criticism, but one of “peace.”
Wayne Jones wrote that Judah was taken captive by Babylon because “they trusted in a covenant that they had not merely broken but willfully shattered” (227). Interesting. If we know what the New Testament teaches and we willingly violate it on any subject, are we not today shattering our covenant? Sean Hochdorf made an incisive comment, also:

Whenever a message is preached that does not originate with God, unity will always be hindered (358).

The result of heeding the false prophet’s words is that “they make you worthless” (359).

This last reference is to Jeremiah 23:16. Both it and its succeeding verse are reprinted below:

Thus says the Lord of hosts:

“Do not listen to the words of the prophet who prophesy to you. They make you worthless: they speak a vision of their own heart, not from the mouth of the Lord.

They continually say to those who despise Me, ‘The Lord has said, “You shall have peace”’; And to everyone who walks according to the imagination of his own heart, ‘No evil shall come upon you.’”

How’s that for a deal? You can do whatever you want, and nothing bad will happen to you. Few are the ones to whom that message would not appeal. Are we far from that today? The only difference is that what some brethren are telling us today is, “You can fellowship anyone you want, and no one will hold you accountable for it. Nothing bad will happen to you.”

Dave Rogers, in analyzing Jeremiah 26:4-7, cites William S. Cline’s three sermon points on the passage from a previous Firm Foundation Commentary on Jeremiah, published in 1986 (2:77):

First [is] an appeal for obedience by the people in order to facilitate God’s desire to forgive and bless them. Second, the notion that absolute submission to God’s word is indispensable to this objective, which entails the people both hearing and heeding Jeremiah’s message. Third is the observation that there is no room for “compromise” on these points…” (392).

What was true in Jeremiah’s day remains true; we have no more of a license to rebel against any portion of the Word of God any more than they did.

Jeremiah pointed out that Judah’s problem was that the nation would not obey God nor receive correction. Jeremiah 7:28 closes by declaring: “Truth has perished and has been cut off from their mouth.” Jason Rollo, commenting on this verse, says: “They did not love truth. They did not adore truth. They did not care about truth. They did not value truth. They did not speak truth. They did not want truth” (151). Commenting on verse 30, Rollo declares that “anything contrary to God’s Law is evil” (152, emph. his). How true this is. Attempts to rationalize sin fail utterly. Whatever disagrees with God’s Law in speech or in practice is evil. There can be no two ways about it.

Rollo continues to observe from Jeremiah 2:35 the way the people “felt about themselves.” They claimed they were innocent! Seriously? Yes. He writes:

Amazingly, these rebels had rejected God’s teachings by doing the exact opposite of that which was required. They did not fear Him, which tells the reason for their departure. Yet, when Jeremiah rebuked them, they in essence said, “Who us? You must be joking; we haven’t done anything amiss” (152).

They must have graduated from the school of King Saul who, when he returned from the battle against the Amalekites, told Samuel, “I have performed the commandment of the Lord” (1 Sam. 15:13). He had not, but in effect, he was saying, “I am as obedient and as innocent as I know how to be.” When Samuel challenged him, he began to give excuses for his failures, but Samuel rejected those and implied that he was stubborn and rebellious.

Judah did that which God “commanded them not.” Rollo correctly points out that this phrase means that what they were doing was “wholly unauthorized” (155). God never approves of mankind doing what He has not authorized. The same thing was said of Nadab and Abihu. They “offered profane fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them” (Lev. 10:1). This phrase once again means that what they did was “wholly unauthorized.”

But here is the application. The truth of the New Testament includes what it teaches concerning fellowship. 2 John 9-11 and other related passages are the Law of God. Why, then, do some who insist that we only do what is authorized and stand for truth without compromise suddenly become mute on this subject or begin to make excuses for what they are doing, declaring their innocence? Something is not adding up.

Paul delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan, meaning that he withdrew fellowship from them. Why? The answer is that they had drifted so far away from the moorings of the faith that they had suffered shipwreck with respect to it. In the course of either propagating or defending their error, they were actually guilty of blasphemy (1 Tim. 1:18-20). Now, if some brethren had invited them to speak on a lectureship or workshop, does anyone believe that Paul would have been a co-speaker at that event—unless he took his time to expose their false doctrine?

Such individuals and their teachings are to be shunned—not promoted. Paul wrote:

But shun profane and vain babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some (2 Tim. 2: 18-20).

Did they not believe Jesus was Savior? Probably they did. Were they teaching something weird about salvation other than Acts 2:38? Nothing so indicates. Had they perverted the worship of the saints? Paul provides no evidence of such. But in teaching that the resurrection was already past, they strayed concerning the truth. Error is no substitute for truth. How many errors did it take for Paul to mark these brethren (Rom. 16:17-18)? What would be the difference between inviting F. LaGard Smith to a lectureship and asking Hymenaeus?

Now what are brethren supposed to think of those who invite false teachers and those who appear on the same program without objecting to the presence of Hymenaeus among the speakers? Are we going to ignore standing for the truth when it insists that we refuse fellowship to some? Do we really love, value, and care about the truth? Or will we compromise and then insist that we have not done anything amiss?