Several people said, when homosexual “marriage” was legalized, that the war to have perversion accepted was not over. It has not even taken a year for the next assault on sane-thinking Americans to occur. Our president is pushing really hard for the “rights” of transgenders, even reading into laws what is not there. He apparently has the eyesight of Alice in Wonderland. When asked on one occasion what she saw, she replied, “I see nothing.” “Such marvelous eyesight!” came the response. “To be able to see nothing—and at this distance, too.” The president is seeing problems that do not exist and in his usual dictatorial style is coercing his solutions on states whether citizens want them or not.
He insists that men be allowed to use the ladies’ bathroom—or shower with young women in their locker rooms. When are people going to say, “This is ridiculous, as well as dangerous!” and stand up to a man who has taken upon himself powers that he does not, as president, have? He has politicized the “Justice” department with Eric Holder and continues to do so with the new Attorney General. The IRS has been proven to be prejudiced against those not of the president’s party. Oh, but don’t forget; he promised to get to the bottom of it. Right! On The Charlie Rose Show, writers are laughing about the false claims they made to get Obamacare passed, such as, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” They now admit that this and other statements were lies that they used to gain public support.
It is not unusual for elitists to think they can pull the wool over the eyes of the “rubes,” but how often do they admit their lies while they are still in office? And why don’t those taken advantage of muster up a little anger over these tactics? “He who sins is of the devil…” (1 John 3:8). Why are not more people outraged by those who do what the devil, the father of lies, does? Now the elitists are becoming so bold that they no longer feel a need to use much subtlety. They want men to be able to use just any restroom or shower without even a formal intention (such as a doctor’s evaluation that a procedure is in progress) of changing one’s gender, which is both bold and sick.
Ultimately, the goal of such schemes must be the destruction of both Christianity and the family. If it is not the intention, it will nevertheless bring about the same result. It’s time for people to quit obsessing over entertainment and pay attention to what is happening in this nation. It’s time that all people began to read the Bible again and resume standing by God’s standards.
What a power the church would be:
If all of the sleeping folk would wake up,
And all of the lukewarm folk would fire up,
And all the dishonest folk would confess up,
And all the disgruntled folk would sweeten up,
And all the discouraged folk would cheer up,
And all the estranged folk would make up,
And all the gossipers would shut up,
And all the true soldiers would stand up,
And all the church members would pray up,
And all that are in debt would pay up!
Article by T. Pierce Brown
For almost fifty years I have been trying to encourage personal evangelism and soul winning from the classroom and pulpit. I have conducted workshops on personal evangelism and teacher training. I have taught preacher-training classes. In all of these I have tried to emphasize not only proper methods and actions, but especially proper attitudes. I have taught teachers how to use the blackboard, audio visual aids and study materials. I have taught personal evangelists how to sit around the table in an open Bible study, or show a filmstrip.
I have taught preacher students how to walk to the pulpit and breathe properly. I have taught proper methods of study and exegesis. Not only have I dealt with homiletics, hermeneutics and apologetics, I have emphasized the need for understanding general semantics, enunciation, pronunciation, gesticulation and grammar. Especially have I stressed the importance of properly relating the doctrine we teach with the practice we perform.
There is one aspect of the subject of sowing the seed that I have probably neglected as much or more than any other. That aspect is suggested in Psalm 126:5-6, which says, “They that sow in tears shall reap in joy. He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing seed for sowing, shall doubtless come again with joy, bringing his sheaves with him.”
It is my judgment that much of our failure to produce the great harvest of souls that we should be producing is the failure to feel as deeply as we should the sorrow for and horror of sin and its consequences. Probably one reason we do not feel any more emotion about the sacrifice of Christ is that we do not care enough to cry about those for whom that sacrifice was made. It seems that many of us find it relatively easy to sound like Jesus did in Matthew 23:13 and other places when He said, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” We do not find it as natural to feel as He did in Mark 19:41 when He wept over Jerusalem. Paul said in Acts 20:19 that he had served the Lord with many tears. Far too few of us have.
The tears of which I speak are not tears of disappointment because we are not properly appreciated for our great sacrifices and devotion. They are not tears of frustration because our pet project is not appreciated, applauded and supported as it should be. They are not tears of bereavement for the personal loss of some prized possession or a loved one.
The tears of which I speak, of which we are probably in short supply, are tears of sadness for our own insufficiency, lack of concern and lack of true Christ-likeness. They are tears of compassion as we contemplate the lost condition of the majority of those about us and their consequent destiny.
I have heard church members moaning because the elders do not assign them some official task for which they can get recognition. I have heard some wail because the church does not promote some program to satisfy their desire for entertainment, fellowship or ease. But I have not heard or seen many who go forth sowing the seed of the kingdom, weeping for the lost or weeping in intense awareness of the sacrifice Christ made for us.
A few years ago a man left a congregation because of its lack of spirituality. He said he knew it was not spiritual because he never saw a tear fall or a chin quiver when the Lord’s Supper was taken. I asked him how he knew there were no tears or quivering chins if he was partaking properly. True spirituality is not proven by a tearful eye or a quivering chin. Yet there is little doubt that many professed Christians never feel any more emotion at the contemplation of lost souls or a dying Savior than they would feel if their pet died.
I am not advocating that we cultivate the ability to cry on demand, nor that we equate outward expressions of emotion with true concern. But I am suggesting that, until and unless far more of us who preach, teach classes or do personal evangelism have the kind of feeling and action suggested by David in Psalm 126:5-6, we will not be able to come rejoicing, bringing in the sheaves. As important as techniques and methods are, none of them are as significant as the loving concern that can cause us to weep as we go forth sowing the seed. —Copied
[Editor’s note: T. Pierce Brown preached for the South Seminole Church back in the late ‘70s. He was instrumental in calling attention to the problems associated with the Crossroads movement. His article, “Cultism in the Church,” opened the eyes of a multitude of brethren. It was published in The Gospel Advocate of February 22, 1979. He has also served as a director of personal evangelism and taught up to 3,000 students in Africa by correspondence. He passed to his reward in 2008.]
Article by T. Pierce Brown
Last year I was picking blackberries when an inspiration for an article came to me. I wrote it, but do not remember it being published. Today, however, I went again and was again inspired. It was not the kind of inspiration that Paul had, but it may be worth considering. As I picked berries, the thought occurred to me that there are many lessons that relate to principles of personal evangelism.
First, if you are more concerned with being bitten by chiggers, stung by yellow jackets, scratched by briars or other trivial things, than you are with picking berries, you will never be a great berry picker. If anything is more important to you than glorifying God by being a fisher of men, you will never be a great soul winner.
Second, you may find them where you least expect them. If you are really interested in picking berries, you will discover them by the side of the road, in little patches hidden here and there in the field. They are ready whether you are or not. “But sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord: being ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15). You should be ready!
Third, you either get them when they are ripe and ready, or you do not get them. In my 50 years of experience in trying to do personal evangelism, I have noted two significant things, both of which are bad. There are those who are always procrastinating. They plan to try to win a soul for the Lord when the time is ripe. The time never gets ripe, and those who would obey the gospel if it were presented to them are forever lost.
On the other hand, there are those who are so eager to get someone baptized that they “pick them while they are green.” A person who “obeys from the heart the form of doctrine which is delivered unto him” (Romans 6:17-18) and then is made free from sin must first be taught. It is true that he does not need to know all that he will learn in the next 50 years, but he has to understand the facts of the gospel and realize what it means to accept Jesus as Lord. In the 50 years I have been picking blackberries, I never remember picking a green or red one that ever ripened properly. I doubt that I could find many persons who were baptized without having been taught properly who have ever matured properly.
A fourth lesson came to me as I was leaving one clump of vines. I had picked all I saw as I was going in, but as I was coming out, I saw almost as many more. The principle is: If you think you have done all the good you can do by using one approach, and have not been very productive, it might be worthwhile for you to look at things from some other angle. This applies not only to the methodology by which you set up a Bible study, but the techniques by which you study with an individual.
Fifth, occasionally I found a whole bunch that were ripe, and it appeared they could all be picked with one clutch of the hand. Many times, when such is tried, half of them are dropped, and many are mashed into a pulp. It is generally better to pick one at a time, so individual attention can be given to its welfare.
Sixth, learn to stick to one bush until you get the maximum good done. If you are always looking around to find more likely places to find berries, it may be you will cover half an acre and not get a bucket full. There are preachers who almost always think the grass is greener or the field is more productive on the other side of the fence, but one needs to try to finish what he starts to the best of his ability before flitting around.
Seventh, be gentle and careful. It is possible that if you step on all the briars that get in your way, or jerk and slash unnecessarily, you will not only destroy many future plants that would be productive, you will actually shake off many berries you could be picking now. Another interesting side effect may be that one of the briars you jerk around may slip loose and slap you across the face with its sharp thorns. Colossians 4:6 says, “Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer each one.” There are many other references that teach the same principle. Many of us feel that most of our remarks to those of other religious persuasions should be seasoned mostly with pepper. [Copied and slightly modified]
At our Evangelistic Review meeting last Sunday afternoon, we discussed several of the efforts various members had been trying of late in order to have Bible studies. This article is to inform the members of the congregation, as well as brethren elsewhere of what is being tried. Several are doing traditional things that we have always done, such as carrying some cards with us, which have information about the church—including its website—in case we get into a conversation and someone asks us for information. Some also carry the tip card, which thanks a server at a restaurant and also invites them to join us for worship. Of course, contacting visitors is an important source. Members have frequently studied the Scriptures with brethren whose attendance has been infrequent and whose involvement has been minimal. Some also contacted those from whom fellowship has been withdrawn.
Back in January, we had our door-knocking campaign, and about one-third of the members went out one or more times. Three have been baptized as a result of those efforts, and four other studies remain in progress. Many hours were spent to find just a few interested people, but that is what it takes in the materialistic world of today. A few Christians have continued this program on their own, spending from one to two hours a week in a territory assigned to them. This part of the city may consist of from 500 to 1,000 houses, but it is exclusively theirs. Some begin by writing down every street number within the parameters. If someone is not home, it will be noted and visited later. Using plastic door hangers, workers are prepared to leave behind something that advertises the church. It may be something the South Seminole Church has produced, or it could be a paper or DVD produced by others. They call back from time to time on those who have shown an interest. (Sometimes it takes several contacts to set up a Bible study.) We have territories available for as many members who volunteer to do this work.
Over the years, at least five have been baptized from the nursing and rehabilitation center where we regularly conduct worship on Sunday afternoons. Three of these have passed on, but for these efforts, they might have entered eternity unprepared. This past Sunday thirty were present. Members who participate in the worship there are assigned to find and bring various patients to the meeting. Many of the residents tell us how much they appreciate us coming and conducting worship. We take some time afterward to visit with them and see who might be interested in a Bible study.
Universities now have a free speech zone, in which students are free to say or distribute whatever they wish. Some of our students have set up a table with various materials available for free. Many students are actually interested in what has been made available to them. A few Bible studies have resulted from this technique. Some of our young people have done the same thing in a park. These efforts have just recently begun, but they look promising.
Another member stands on the corner of a well-traveled intersection where it’s a four-way stop, offering free materials. Yes, the police questioned him, but there was not much they could say, since his sign says, “No Donations Accepted.” He has free materials for those who are interested. Some have expressed interest in, “Why Are There So Many Churches?”; “Where Do We Go When We Die?”; and “Is the Bible From God?”
Those who are Internet savvy make use of Facebook, Tweet, Twitter, Instagram, and other social media that some of us have no clue concerning. However, younger members may be able to use these advantageously. The important thing is that we use our time and resources in spreading the gospel. Each Christian needs to learn to be effective in reaching others.
Who has been a member of the Lord’s church for very long and does not know of Jesus’ plea for unity in John 17:20-21? Who does not know of Paul’s rebuke to the Corinthians for being divided over personalities (1 Cor. 1:10-13)? How often have we recognized that Paul called those Corinthians carnal-minded (1 Cor. 3:1-4)? Virtually all brethren know these truths, yet unity does not exist. Furthermore, all agree with these principles, yet unity does not exist. Why not?
In February, the Gospel Advocate published some articles on the subject of unity. The first of these says that humility is the first essential ingredient, which is one of the key reasons behind division. If brethren would practice humility, almost any matter could be cleared up—because many of them involve past mistakes. Pride prevents brethren from saying, “I’m sorry” or “I made a mistake.” No, rather than do that, a situation remains unresolved for days, months, and years. Of course, if a difficulty between two individuals were confined to them, at least, it would only involve two parties. But how often does that ever happen? Pretty soon others are dragged into the fray, thus establishing a barrier that will unlikely be torn down any time soon. Escalation usually results.
Other qualities frequently absent in conflicts are gentleness, patience, and love (pages 12-14). People become so outraged in a personal dispute that the civility we all know ought to exist immediately flies out the window, taking with it any chance of reconciliation. We would all be appalled if a brother became so angry that he struck a fellow Christian. Why are we not equally distressed when a brother (or sister) becomes so angry that a grudge develops that lasts for years? Neither one is right, yet we condemn the former and say nothing about the latter.
Another article correctly states that unity could be achieved if we all listened to Jesus. The fact is that we do not, nor will that willingness change. This precept is obviously for other people to keep. If I do not abide by it, I have justifiable reasons. Oh, sure, we all quickly criticize denominational folks who deny the authority of Christ, but if we do so, it’s all right. What’s that unflattering term for people who do that? Oh, that’s right— hypocrites. Is that designation a bit strong? Hang on.
There’s no shortage of proof.
“Unity is possible when brethren devote themselves more to the teaching of the biblical text than they do to their opinions, traditions, or desires” (20). That is exactly correct, but again it is not followed. If our first priority was to God and His Word, and we committed ourselves to unity, a number of the divisions we currently have would have long since been resolved. Is this a harsh indictment of brethren? If we know the truth and the importance of unity, then, yes, it is— because we fail to take our responsibility seriously.
Barriers to Unity
Pride has done so much damage to the kingdom of heaven that only error surpasses it. In fact, pride prevents many doctrinal errors from being changed, also. For example, someone may have taught a particular thing that he had not quite thought through. When challenged somewhat, rather than admit he may have overstated the case, he digs in his heels and goes even further than he had originally. He ends up defending what he would have condemned only a short time previously. The more resistance he meets with, the more certain he becomes that his false doctrine (and now all of its applications as well) are correct.
The process occurs something like this. I cannot admit to having taught or practiced error because I am Brother Highly Regarded, and it will damage my reputation if I back away from anything I have ever taught. Rather than admit having misstated something or making a correction, which brethren would have welcomed, the choice is made to entrench oneself even further. Sadly, some never emerge from the quagmire they have created.
But even worse than situations involving error are those where none exists. Both sides are Christians who otherwise adhere to Biblical teaching. “Aunt Matilda said she would fix a blueberry pie to take to the potluck.” “No, she never said that. She only said she would think about it.” “But she was seen buying blueberries at the grocery store.” “So what? It’s a free country. Maybe she was going to use them later in the week for a family get-together.” “Now, look. Everybody expected her to bring the pie to the church supper, and Cousin Murgatroid was greatly offended that he didn’t get his usual piece—especially since he had given her $5.00 to purchase the ingredients.” ”She never understood that the money was to be used for blueberries. Anyway, he didn’t have to be so vocal about it at the dinner.” “Well, I don’t know. He gave her the money and expected just one piece. And it wasn’t there!”
Pretty soon there are allegations that Aunt Matilda probably had used the money to buy something else and that she refused to make the pie to get even for a practical joke Cousin Murgatroid had played on her favorite niece. “He didn’t know that the Jack-in-the-box would actually explode.” “Well, what else did he think gunpowder would do when ignited by a spark?” On and on the silliness goes. So there have been two churches in the town of Harmony (population 300) for nearly 40 years now. Aunt Matilda and Cousin Murgatroid are long gone, but the feud continues. Would it have been so hard for the woman to have apologized for not making the pie and offer to fix one he could have all to himself? As sad as such a situation might be, it could be worse. Brethren from other congregations could have chosen sides, also.
So, people are offended and refuse to be placated. Defensiveness sets in, and people begin assigning motives to others which were never even thought of. Humility, gentleness, patience, and love cannot be found in evidence. An “Us Versus Them” mentality forms, and unity falls by the wayside. What is more important—someone’s feelings, or the church of the Lord? Division loudly proclaims the wrong answer.
Lack of Communication (obviously) keeps brethren from resolving problems. William Shakespeare died 400 years ago—on April 23, 1616, which is the reason Google had his picture (along with scenes from some of his famous plays) on their Website that day. Othello, one of his famous tragedies, involves a trusted friend getting the title character to believe something that was not true. He contrived situations and information to make it look as though Othello’s innocent wife, Desdemona, was cheating on him with one of his military men, Cassio. So inflamed does he become with jealousy and rage that he kills her. Only too late does he discover that she had always been faithful to him and that he had been “played.”
Logically, the tragedy could have been avoided if he had taken the time to talk with her. She never had a chance to explain anything and did not even know that she had been accused of wrongdoing. Likewise, how many times do brethren fail to sit down with each other to discuss a problem in a non-hostile environment? One brother had a lot of animosity toward an eldership but was asked to sit down and talk with them. He clearly had some anger issues, but to his credit he controlled himself. The meeting got off to a bumpy start, but after some questions were asked and answered, it became clear that someone had been feeding him misinformation. Communication resolved the problem. Unfortunately, these circumstances are all too rare. Often, it is the case that someone or some group has done a hatchet job on a preacher, an eldership, or a congregation, and they may not even be aware of what has been alleged. Brethren can make no attempt to solve a problem when they do not know it exists.
When some brethren are asked why they have not tried to effect unity with others, they shrug their shoulders and say, “It will not do any good.” One wonders how they know that when they have not tried. Preconceived ideas, suspicions, and rumors (apparently accepted) will not suffice as reasons to make no effort to achieve unity with our brethren for whom Christ died.
If one church knows that a sister congregation has departed from the truth, then we are not dealing with the same thing. If they have announced publicly that they will have women serve as deaconesses or that they are adding instruments of music to the worship (any worship), then they have clearly rejected the authority of the Scriptures. But many things that occur are not nearly this drastic, and perhaps loving communication might help. We should not make the mistake of assuming that brethren delight in practicing error; oftentimes they lack knowledge..
Intentionally rejecting what the Scriptures teach leads to division. How incongruous is it for Christians to extol, “how good and pleasant it is for brethren to dwell in unity!” (Ps. 133:1)—but then do nothing to make it happen! As already discussed, pride is a compelling factor in propagating division, as is the failure to communicate. This third barrier overlaps with the second, but it involves a direct violation of what Jesus said to do.
Jesus taught: “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother” (Matt. 18:15). How often does a wounded brother or sister tell almost everyone BUT that individual? By this time, the difficulty has already spread, and chances of resolution have diminished. Some may have already chosen “sides” based on partiality rather than on evidence. Or the offended soul may keep the problem to himself, saying nothing at the time, but allowing his feelings of anger to fester. Later they may express themselves in a way totally unrelated to this initial situation. Someone may ask him, “Why are you so vehement against this brother?” “Well, he has done other things before this,” comes the response, but since he never discussed it, he does not know if the original problem may have only been a misunderstanding. Jesus was wise to insist on communication because most things between brethren of good will can be mended.
An offended brother has an obligation to communicate. “Go” sounds a lot like a command. On the other hand, what if a person knows that a fellow Christian has something against him? Jesus covered that, too:
“Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift” (Matt. 5:23-24).
Unity is so important that Jesus does not want anything to get in the way of it. Did someone indicate that he was offended by something a Christian said or did? He should then go to him—make the time to sort out what happened—find out what it is that is troubling another. Jesus wants problems resolved so that unity would exist in His church and so that nothing would hinder the work.
Yet brethren will not apply these principles. On a few occasions concerned brethren have telephoned or written to protest something they deemed offensive only to be greeted with a huge yawn and an “I really don’t care” attitude. How is that fulfilling Matthew 18:15? Or Matthew 5:23-24? Some just refuse to communicate, period. On the other hand, conscientious brethren have never refused to meet with or discuss an issue with a brother. What some apparently fail to realize is that neglecting to do these two things is being disobedient to the Lord. Surely, the Lord, Who gave His life for the church, cannot be happy that some are not nearly so interested in unity as they profess.
Recently, a letter appeared in the April/May issue of a magazine for people of “intelligence,” called Mensa Bulletin. The author of a letter to the editor, a Mr. Kmeco, claims to have read two versions of the Bible from cover to cover, although it does not show. When he found out that most Biblical scholars “considered Moses to be the author of the first five books of the Bible,” it dawned on him that the Bible was written by a man, not a Supreme Being (12). His first mistake is not distinguishing between Moses being the writer versus Moses being the author. Presumably, Mr. Kmeco started with Genesis on his excursions through Holy Writ. He should have noticed that the phrase, And God said, appears ten times in Genesis 1. Nowhere does it say, And Moses said.
Kmeco charges that Moses was merely a leader trying “to persuade his people not to return to Egypt.” Did he not notice the ten plagues that God brought upon Pharaoh and his people to get them out of Egypt in the first place? If Moses were merely a man without Divine guidance, how do we explain that Israel actually did conquer the land God had promised to Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3)? How did slaves suddenly become so adept at fighting military battles— especially against some warriors who were giants? These things occurred through the power of God—not Moses.
Next is the charge that the Bible records some fantastic things, such as a talking serpent, “a Methuselah who lived more than 800 years” (actually it was 969; why the estimate when the exact figure is so easily obtainable?), parting the Red Sea, and “cramming two of every creature into a boat to survive a flood.” Kmeco may be ignorant of the fact that almost every culture on earth has a flood story in its history. Crammed? Does he have any idea that the ark was 1½ football fields long?
The most incredible statement appears in the following question: “Why do such fantastic miracles disappear from the Old Testament after Moses’s death?” Really? How does he think the walls of Jericho collapsed in Joshua 6? Did Kmeco overlook the sun standing still (Joshua 10:12-13)? How does he explain the battles that Israel won with few or zero casualties? Does he not recall Elijah’s contest with the false prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18)? Perhaps he dozed off a few times. (Incidentally, Abraham and Isaac had nothing to do with the burning bush.) Moses did not originate the events that he records in the first five books of the Bible any more than he composed the Ten Commandments. He was inspired of God and quoted as accurate by Jesus and the apostles.
On April 9, 2016, appearing in the Orlando Sentinel, was an interesting article, whose headline offered the following declaration: “Grace for Divorced Catholics” (A3). Needless to say, that news might be of interest to a segment of the population; however, the subtitle was phrased as a contrast: “But Pope Reiterates Ban on Abortion, Contraception and Same-Sex Marriage.”
What does the subtitle say about the philosophy of the writers? What it says is that they approve of morality becoming less strict. In other words, the headline writer wants Catholics to know that there is “grace” (comfort, encouragement) for divorced Catholics, but those who want abortions, birth control, or to marry a member of the same sex are out of luck. Rats! All the praise in the article is for the concessions the pope is making; anytime he stands against the sins society wants to engage in, disappointment is expressed—as if to say, “Sigh, not yet.”
The article does not question the pope’s changes on divorce; they are just portrayed as him trying to create a “more merciful church.” So, up to now they have apparently not been a very merciful religious group. Hmm. And would they be even more merciful if they allowed abortions or accepted homosexual couples? Followed to its logical conclusion, they would be the most merciful church around if they just allowed their members to commit any sin they desire yet still be considered in good standing.
This news story centers on a 260-page document written by the head of the Roman Catholic Church, and he titled it Amoris Laetitia, which means, “The Joy of Love.” In this document we find these words: “By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth.” Perhaps a person should ask, “Could we apply this “wisdom” to the Ten Commandments? “Remember the Sabbath, to keep it holy” (Ex. 20:8). So, is that one of those back-and-white issues? Was that command for every Sabbath? We do not need to wonder. A certain man violated the commandment and was brought to Moses for judgement. God told all the congregation to stone Him (Num. 15:32-36). What? Why not let the man live and be a more merciful Israelite nation?
Yes, Francis is trying to have a more inclusive church, but as of this moment in time, he is not willing to include those who violate other teachings. On homosexual marriage he wrote that “same-sex marriage may not simply be equated with marriage.” He added: “No union that is temporary or closed to the transmission of life can ensure the future of society.” As for abortion, he wrote: “So great is the value of human life, and so inalienable the right to life of an innocent child growing in the mother’s womb, that no alleged right to one’s own body can justify a decision to terminate that life….”
Complaints
Catholics for Choice did not like Amoris Laetitia. They thought that this latest papal document displayed the “immense chasm” between the church’s official policy and the practice of everyday Catholics. Apparently, then, everyday Catholics pay for and receive abortions, although their religion teaches against it. This faction of the Catholic Church argues: “The law says one thing but Catholics the world over behave according to their conscience.”
So what does that mean? Okay, the pope and Catholic doctrine may describe certain behavior as wrong, but if it doesn’t violate a person’s conscience, is it actually all right? Well, then, is there any sin that man has invented that could not be justified on that basis? We know that even murderers have killed innocent people without it violating their consciences. The conscience is not an infallible guide (Acts 23:1).
Another group that was not in agreement with the pope is called DignityUSA, which consists of Catholics who advocate for “rights” for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Catholics and their families. They claim that the pope “failed to fully embrace an entire community.” Horrors! He may have excluded the entire community of child molesters, too; is anyone speaking out for them? The words of the Executive Director of an organization that demands rights for homosexuals and transgenders conclude this piece, showing where the sympathies of the writers lie. Those words are:
Pope Francis has continued the characterization of LGBT people as unable to fully reflect the fullness of God’s plan for humanity. This document continues to demonstrate a tragic ignorance.
Seriously? Exactly which of God’s plans is that? God’s plan for humanity has never included those who practice homosexuality. He destroyed those in Sodom and Gomorrah who practiced the sin (Gen. 18:20; 19:1ff). Under the Law of Moses they were to be put to death (Lev. 20:13). Under Christianity, homosexuality is defined as a sin that ought to be repented of. Where is God’s plan for them to be accepted into society while continuing in their sin? The “tragic ignorance” exists on the part of those who continually reject what the Bible teaches on the subject.
There must be an entire community comprised of porn stars. How many thousands of such “movies” are made every year? Is someone standing up for them, claiming that rejecting them means that the church is not reflecting the fullness of God’s plan for humanity? In other words, is no classification of deviancy, as defined by the Scriptures, legitimate? Is the upshot of these protests that mankind eventually legitimizes all sins—no matter what they are?
The Main Difference
What the reader does not find in this article is one reference to Holy Scriptures. This is the main difference between Roman Catholicism and Christianity. Their teaching depends on what a pope thinks at any given time; ours is determined by what the Bible teaches. This statement is not intended to demean Catholics; it is simply a statement of fact, and the article proves it. The emphasis throughout the article is that Francis is changing some positions on divorce so that the Church will be more merciful. It also makes the case for the pope to be more merciful on other moral matters, but nowhere does anyone ask, “What do the Scriptures teach?”
Christians, for example, do not ask, “How can we be more inclusive?” but rather, “How did God address this issue?” On abortion, the Bible makes it clear that what is in the womb is alive. Jacob and Esau were struggling within Rebekah prior to their births (Gen. 25:22-24). John the Baptizer leaped in the womb of his mother, Elizabeth, when Mary came to visit her and offered a greeting (Luke 1:41-44). Other passages discuss how we are fearfully and wonderfully made while yet existing in the womb (Ps. 139:13-16). God knew Jeremiah before he was born (Jer. 1:5).
God has not appointed a spokesman to tell the world what His doctrine is in every culture in every generation. He has imparted to us the Word, which has taught the same truth since the first century. It does not change, and it is always profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17). No man nor committee is going to tell us one of these days that divorce is now acceptable where God had before prohibited it. If even one principle can be changed, then all teachings could be altered and (in some cases) discarded. What that means is that in 2030 there could be a new pope, and he might decide that Roman Catholicism should be a more merciful church. He could write a 260-page paper that allows members to have abortions. The reason this could occur is that he is the authority—not Christ or the Bible.
In the article under consideration, not one passage of Scripture is cited concerning divorce. Jesus has not changed His teaching on the subject since the first century. Divorce and remarriage is still unacceptable unless the divorce was for fornication. It remains true that, from the beginning, God designed marriage to be permanent (Matt. 19:3-9). What mere human beings think about the matter is irrelevant. Some think no one should ever get a divorce under any circumstance; some think divorces should be dispensed like paper towels. The only question of any consequence is, “What does God think?” When many were practicing contrary to His will in the days of Ezra, and Nehemiah, they all needed to repent. Many had to put away their “wives” because they were not entitled to have them (Ezra 10:11-12, 18-19, 44). Truth must always take precedence over our feelings on any subject.
All of the arguments expressed in the article presuppose that God has not made a determination on every moral issue, but the Bible teaches that He has. They further express the hope that what God has said in the past can be changed. God, however, does not reconsider His will every so often and change the Scriptures. This is a characteristic of men—not Deity.
For example, in the Book of Mormon monogamy is clearly taught. The reader notes that David and Solomon having many wives was “an abomination before me, saith the Lord” (Jacob 2:24). Every man was to have but one wife (v. 27). However, in a later book, Joseph Smith wrote that polygamy was acceptable; a section of the book specifically address his wife Emma, exhorting her to accept the teaching (Doctrines and Covenants 132:51-56). Years later, the Mormons wanted Utah to be a state, which would never happen if polygamy were to continue to be practiced. The Mormon leadership got a “new” revelation that all Mormons should go back to monogamous relationships. Now, with homosexual marriage being allowed (marriage being redefined), one wonders how long it will be until they have another revelation that again authorizes polygamy.
The strange thing is that adherents in these religions never seem to notice or, at least, be bothered that their teachings change. The Bible describes an eternal God. Can He really not decide whether polygamy is acceptable or whether monogamy is better? Must He vacillate constantly? Do we really hope that our favorite sin will be allowed next year—even though this year it is wrong? People have often laughingly pointed out that under the Old Covenant, God did not issue The Ten Suggestions. Yet that seems to be precisely what some people want.
Sure, homosexuality used to be wrong, but some famous rock singers are homo- or bi-sexual; so we ought to change our outlook. Sure, divorce is wrong, but a family member has obtained one; so the Bible really needs to be re-interpreted. One of my unmarried friends has been committing fornication for years, and he’s a great guy; can’t we get a special exemption for him? Uncle George is the salt of the earth—when he’s sober. Why can’t some sins be exempt from condemnation? By the time this line of thinking comes to an end, not one sinner will be left on earth who merits condemnation. We will find a way to save even the atheists.
God gave us the Bible as our moral standard. It is the perfect law of liberty (James 1:5). When a person obeys the gospel, his sins are washed away. He is washed, sanctified (made holy), and justified—made free from sin (John 8:31-32). He can no longer walk in sin (Rom. 6:3-11; Eph. 5:1-11; 1 Thess. 4:1-7). This arrangement changes when a man such as a modern-day prophet, a pope, or someone making new declarations by the alleged power of the Holy Spirit is put in charge of Christianity. All doctrines relating to holiness are then up for grabs, and the sinful desires of human beings demand to be sanctified. Jesus, however, has not relinquished His power to anyone. He still possesses all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18).
This 2016 lectureship book, edited by David Brown, contains the material presented at the Contending for the Faith lectures, hosted by the Spring Church of Christ. It serves two valuable purposes: 1) It provides fundamental Bible teaching on such important matters as baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, and the nature of and cessation of miracles; and 2) It updates brethren on the present-day thinking of some leaders of the current digression in the church.
The first chapter (appropriately) deals with, “What Constitutes Fatal Error?” This is the definition provided that is then elaborated on with examples to illustrate the point.
I am affirming that any doctrine causing one to omit or violate a God-authorized obligation pertaining to becoming a Christian, or that is necessary to living the Christian life, is a false doctrine that constitutes “fatal error” (3).
This definition should be examined closely. God is the only One Who may authorize what we do and what we teach (Col. 3:17). Therefore, Christians cannot do what God has not authorized with respect to becoming a Christian, offering acceptable worship, or living the Christian life, nor can they omit what He requires to be done. We know that it has been Satan’s goal from the very beginning to separate man from God, and he does that by encouraging us to ignore what God said—His authority.
The devil can have no greater delight than to pervert the way in which one is saved in the Scriptures—so that people think they are Christians when they are not. Having failed in preventing believers from obeying the true gospel, Satan next delights in seeing that our worship becomes perverted, as with Cain not giving God what He required (Gen. 4:1-7) or as Nadab and Abihu did when they offered to God that which was not authorized (Lev. 10:1-2). The third area of emphasis that Satan then goes after is to keep Christians from living properly (for example, violating the principles clearly set forth in Galatians 5:19-23).
Errors regarding the Holy Spirit may affect all three of these areas. Calvinism teaches that a person can only respond to the gospel if the Holy Spirit allows him to; those sitting around waiting to feel drawn may be forever disappointed because they have never had a personal subjective “experience,” thus confirming they are one of the “chosen.” Second, errors pertaining to the Holy Spirit will cause some to think they ought to be speaking in tongues or prophesying, thus perverting today’s worship. The third area that affects Christian living is thinking that the Holy Spirit will somehow provide extra strength in resisting temptation, granting wisdom directly to the individual, or directly communicating with him in various situations.
The remainder of this essay delves into examples of what are matters of obligation and matters of option. Also enumerated are six errors regarding the Holy Spirit that would be fatal to the Christian if he believed them (12). The second chapter discusses the claim by some that we need the direct help of the Holy Spirit to keep us from sin. (If this is the case, then whose fault is it when we sin?). A special emphasis is given to the fact that such teachings (whether intended or not) attack the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures (26-30).
Some are now claiming that the promise of Holy Spirit baptism in Matthew 3:11 is something that all Christians receive, which is something that Mac Deaver has begun to teach in recent years. He has made this position known both in books and articles that he has written, as well as in public debates that he has held on Holy Spirit-related issues. Ironically it is his father, Roy Deaver, who is cited to refute Mac’s teaching. In fact, two quotes by his father utterly refute Mac’s interpretation of Matthew 3:11 and are well worth noting (38, 40).
The following words begin the next topic:
The doctrine that men today are “Spirit-filled” or “filled with the Holy Spirit” is one of those doctrines that was once peculiar to Pentecostals. But, like many other false Pentecostal doctrines, it has become transdenominational and even churches of Christ—who ought to know better—now describe themselves as “Spirit-filled” (41).
Some might wonder what is wrong with being “Spirit-filled”? After all, if we follow the teachings of the Holy Spirit as He inspired the New Testament, can we not be said to be “Spirit-filled”? Yes, but as the above quote indicated, that is not the way the phrase is being defined. Those “brethren” using this description refer to a direct, personal leading of the Spirit—separate from what the Word teaches. Cited are quotes from a congregation in Altus, Oklahoma, one in Highland Oaks in Dallas, one in Wichita, Kansas, and one called “The Branch” (formerly the church in Farmers Branch, Texas) (41-43).
It has become the mantra of those who introduce error to say, “Well, we studied the subject and prayed about it.” Especially have such statements been used to allow women to preach or teach publicly and to introduce instrumental music. It is always the same line. Studying the subject is good, but praying about it is not going to elicit any more information from God than we already have. Yet when The Branch began using instrumental music, they stated how they arrived at such a decision: “This conclusion is the result of much prayer and considerable study of the Scriptures on this matter.” Whose wisdom did they study—Max Lucado’s? The Scriptures do not support their actions.
One question that many brethren have considered is, “In the New Testament, who received the baptism of the Holy Spirit?” One of the passages to consider is Acts 2. Although most brethren have taught for decades that only the apostles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, Mac Deaver has departed from that position and now claims that all 120 were. Several reasons are cited to explain why that is not the case (61-62). The design and purpose of Holy Spirit baptism is also delineated (62-64). Several writers point out the fact that by the time Paul wrote Ephesians 4:4-6, there was only one baptism and that was the one for the forgiveness of sins (64-66).
In the section on John 3:5, the following teaching by Mac Deaver is refuted:
But before a man can be given the indwelling of the Spirit, he must be regenerated by the Spirit so that his nature is changed. And this is clearly when a man is baptized in water. As a man’s body is lowered in the water, when it is submerged in the water, the Holy Spirit submerges that man’s human spirit within himself to change his nature. And at the very precise moment when God considers that man no longer sinner but now saint, at that precise instant, the regenerating submerging Spirit moves from the outside to the inside of that heart (Tit. 3:5; Gal. 4:6) (76).
The verses cited do not confirm the heretical view espoused above. No verse talks about immersing the human spirit into the Divine Spirit, as a careful Bible student would immediately recognize. Again, if it were the case, then whose fault is it when man sins? We know that Peter, for example, was actually baptized in the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4). No one (in his right mind) would even think about denying that fact. So how do we explain that Peter later sinned and was to be blamed, thus necessitating that Paul rebuke him (Gal. 2:11-14)? Since his human spirit had unquestionably been immersed into the Holy Spirit, how was Peter able to sin?
The purpose of Holy Spirit baptism was not to change the nature of the human being. Jesus told the apostles that they would receive power when the Holy Spirit came upon them. They were emboldened to preach the Word of God (Luke 24:49, Acts 1:8). They were able to speak in tongues as a sign to unbelievers and to glorify God. Neither baptism in water nor the Holy Spirit changed anyone’s nature. It changed their state from one of condemnation to one of salvation. And this occurs—not by what the Holy Spirit does—but by what the blood of Christ does in washing away our sins (Rev. 1:5). By His blood we are washed, sanctified, and justified (1 Cor. 6:11). The role of the Spirit was to reveal truth so that people could obey the truth. He also bore witness to the truth with miracles, signs, and wonders. He tells us how to become mature Christians (2 Peter 1:5-11; Gal. 5:22-23). Deaver has assigned to the Spirit what He Himself does not claim.
Much more is presented on various aspects of this topic (see particularly pages 81-94). Another fatal error is the concept of “special illumination” by the Holy Spirit—the idea that the Spirit not only inspired the Bible to be written, but He has to make clear to us what those words mean. In other words, the Spirit must “directly” enable the Christian to UNDERSTAND Scripture. One problem with this claim is that, among all who claim to be directly helped by the Spirit, they cannot agree on the meaning of various passages (95-118). More than a page full of endnotes is included.
An excellent analysis of the Jonathan Jones’ speech at Freed-Hardeman in 2014 is given (119-39). Several quotations from that presentation at the lectures reveal the direction that many (including some at FHU?) are leaning toward at the current time, and the refutation of these errors is superb. Chapters such as these are worth the price of the book. More outstanding material, (including the distinction between Calvinism and Arminianism) immediately follows with a careful look at “John Wesley’s Second Work of Grace” (140-41). Wesley is the forerunner of much that some are claiming today.
Do people come to Christ because of the teaching in the Word, or must the Holy Spirit specifically draw them (152-62)? What does John 14-16 actually teach about the Holy Spirit (163-75)? One passage that has been especially butchered is Acts 2:38-39. What is set forth on this passage (and others) is crucial. One quote from John T. Lewis on Mark 16:16 is especially pertinent; he asked: “Did you ever hear a Baptist, Methodist, or Presbyterian preacher tell sinners to do what Christ said to tell them?” (181). Likewise, they will not preach what Peter did on the Day of Pentecost, either. Mark 16:15-20 is also covered (186-91).
Many have heard of the “oneness” doctrine—that Jesus is the only person in the Godhead; this error is set forth and soundly refuted (192-205). Other chapters deal with “The Nature and Purpose of Miracles,” “The Laying on of Hands,” “Speaking in Tongues,” along with what the New Testament says about when such spiritual gifts would cease. Specific Scriptures include John 7:37-39, 1 Corinthians 12:13 and 13:8-13, and Joel 2:28-32. Other doctrinal sections include an analysis of Calvin’s teaching on “Irresistible Grace” and the idea that the Holy Spirit is not a Person. The book closes with two chapters on “The Single Woman” and “The Married Woman.”
Faithful brethren should not underestimate the impact that some “Christian” preachers are having with these errors. Many churches and elderships no longer know the Book as they once did. Neither have they kept themselves familiar with what is occurring in the church. Most of us want to believe the best of our brethren and have forgotten that Satan can present himself as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:13-15). This book provides the opportunity for everyone to see what is happening NOW, as well as where it all originated. It may be ordered from Contending for the Faith, (281) 350-5516. We also have some copies here at South Seminole ($18.00).
Over the years “Christianity” has taken some hits from the likes of James and Tammy Faye Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart, whose sexual scandals led to their downfalls. Now the spotlight in this area is on Orlando Baptist Church, in the wake of their now-resigned “pastor’s” difficulties. He was accused of having a mistress and resigned in February. The leaders of the church claimed that his resignation had nothing to do with the alleged “affair”; they claim that they had agreed to pay her for her silence. In fact, in this follow-up article of March 26, 2016, the church disputes the majority of the allegations the woman made. “…they weren’t attempting to silence her but were actually trying to provide confidential support and counseling” (A10). Hmm. As the saying goes, “We report; you decide.”
Just weeks following that “event,” came another scandal. It seems that the same “pastor” who practiced sexual immorality with one of his members is filing personal bankruptcy for, um, $16,000,000. Yes, that is correct. He owes $17 million dollars but only has assets of $1 million. As the attorney for the female paramour said, “How can a pastor of a church have that much debt?” That is certainly a good question, and a second is like unto it: “And also, where did it all go?” (A1). The “pastor’s” attorney said that “the debts are related to failed investments during the Great Recession” (A10). Really? So, he borrowed money to invest? Does that make any sense? But then he also said that the timing of the filing and the scandal were just “coincidence.”
The story gets even more bizarre. The man in question appears to have been involved in “land development for national builders during a time when he was not pastoring a church” (A10). Having a part-time job that leaves one $17 million in debt does not sound like a way to boost one’s salary. How does that happen? Some people think the outlay for AMWAY is expensive! This same guy was running a charity for chicken farms to feed people in Kenya, and one man sued him in 2013, claiming that he was appropriating the funds for his own personal use. Oh, but he explained that the money had to be put into his personal accounts because of a bookkeeping error. The lawsuit was dropped, and the man’s money was returned. One more piece of information is that $3.6 million was loaned to the “pastor” by FirstCity Bank in Atlanta that failed in 2012. The president of that institution is “serving a 12-year prison term for a multi-million-dollar conspiracy to defraud the bank,” according to the FBI (A10).
Could all of these things just “happen” to one man? Only if he were the most unlucky individual alive! The “pastor” might consider some Scriptures: “Can a man take fire to his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?” (Pr. 6:27).
“But those who desire to be rich fall into a temptation and a snare…” (1 Tim. 6:9).
