The sixth and final category of those mentioned as being outside the gates of Heaven in Revelation 22:15 consists of
those who love and practice a lie. It’s interesting that we find this description at the end of the list just as we find
“and all liars” at the end of the list in Revelation 21:8. That list included eight descriptions, five of which are repeated
here. At first glance, the word liars seems easy enough to comprehend—someone who does not tell the truth.
In a survey done about twenty years ago, 90% of the population admitted to lying on a daily basis—if they were
being honest. If this statistic were true, it would mean that we could not trust hardly anything that anyone says. We
know we cannot trust the news media. Proven beyond dispute is that they have edited out the vital information needed
in a news story. Furthermore, they slant the facts to fit their political, social, or religious position. But now students
need to be careful about what they are taught because teachers and professors are no longer trustworthy. Some textbooks
have rewritten history.
Satan is the father of the lie, Jesus rightly claimed (John 8:44). He introduced lying to human beings (Gen. 3:4-
5). He continues to be influential through his myriad false teachers. Warnings in the New Testament abound (Matt.
16:12; Acts 20:28-31; 1 Tim. 4:16). How many religious groups are proclaiming lies each Sunday and daily on television?
Some know they are not telling the truth; others are honestly mistaken, but in either case, they are not speaking
the truth as taught in the Scriptures.
Maybe the worse thing is lying to ourselves. Years ago, a particular woman cheated on her husband, and he
divorced her. Ten years later she was telling everyone that he was the one who cheated, and she was innocent. “I’m a
preacher’s daughter. I would have never done anything wrong.” Well, who can say for sure? We may all find out on the
Day of Judgment. The point is this: If she was guilty, she had convinced herself she had not done anything wrong.
Self-deceit will prove deadly. Most people refuse to accept they are guilty of wrongdoing. “This is the way of an adulterous
woman: She eats and wipes her mouth, and says, ‘I have done no wickedness’” (Pr. 30:20). All Christians must
be careful that we do not lie to ourselves—or to God. The truth will come to light—eventually.
Okay, we all know what idolaters are, right? So, we don’t need to spend any time on this topic. After all, we do
not have representations of birds, calves, snakes, or fish made of gold and silver, to whom we bow down, do we? This
article could end right here, then—except for the fact that people choose to idolize various other allurements. For example,
what about wealth? Is not everything in our society geared toward the accumulation of money or its equivalent?
Remember the commercial a few years ago when the football player overcame all the obstacles in his way and made it
to the endzone, proclaiming, “I’ve got it! Financial security!”?
People trust in their Prosperity, their 401Ks, their investments, their pensions, and their sound financial planning—rather
than in the Lord. We have discovered, when door knocking, that the poorest response comes from the
wealthiest section of town. Why? They already have a god they worship. For this reason, the Bible is replete with
warnings against covetousness. We think our wealth can bail us out of every situation, but it cannot help us cheat
death, and it is certain that we can take nothing with us when we do go (1 Tim. 6:6-8). What God gives us materially is
only for the purpose of using wisely on His behalf—not just to enrich ourselves.
Another modern idol is Entertainment. How much time does the average person watch television—not counting
binge watching? How many movies does a person see a year? How about the radio, CDs, DVDs, and video games?
Now, how much time did people devote to Entertainment 100 years ago? Hmm! And we have not even gotten around
to Sports. How many of us who are Christians can name all the stars of a sitcom, including their movie careers but do
not know the order in which the Ten Commandments were given? How many know sports statistics going back ten to
thirty years, but cannot name over six of the apostles? Members of the churches of Christ are often accused of being
Bibliolaters; really? We have a long way to go before that would be a valid charge.
Are Addictions idols? We’re saturated with those who have been conquered by alcohol, various other drugs,
pornography, and sex. How did we let such things take control over our lives? For some, Education is an idol. Many
think if a person has a Ph.D., he must be an expert. Many other idols exist in our modern culture, but one of the most
dangerous that has always existed is that of Self (Judges 21:25). For some reason, people tend to regard themselves
as infallible—despite the evidence. Some make mistake after mistake with their lives—bad choices in choosing their
influence, their mates, their hobbies; nevertheless, they will choose their own opinion over the Word of God every time.
Their mirrors should become shrines. This attitude will keep us out of the kingdom of Heaven (Matt. 5:3). These idols
will keep us outside the gates of Heaven (Rev. 22:15).
The fourth category of those outside the gates of the eternal city is murderers, which seems like an obvious
group to exclude (Rev. 22:15). But is it really that clear who is a murderer? Three Greek words are relevant. The word
pertaining to those who murder [5406], as in this text and Revelation 21:8, is found 7 times in the New Testament. The
term, besides the general references, refers to those who murdered the king’s servants (Matt. 22:7), those who murdered
the Lord (Acts 3:14; 7:52), and to Paul (Acts 28:4). Peter admonishes Christians not to suffer as a murderer.
The verb form [5407] is found 12 times and consists basically of admonitions not to kill. Three verses name
those specifically murdered: the prophets (Matt 23:31), Zachariah, the son of Berechiah (Matt. 23:35); and the just
(James 5:6). The third Greek word [5408], appearing 10 times in the New Testament, is translated murder (s). Many of
these are general usages, also, but three refer specifically to Barabbas, who committed murder in the insurrection
(Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19, 25). At one point, Saul of Tarsus was breathing out murder (slaughter, KJV) against the church
(Acts 9:1). The faithful had been slain (murdered) with the sword (Heb. 11:37). The last reference describes those in
Revelation who refused to repent after the plagues. They continued to worship demons and idols and likewise would
not repent of their murders, sorceries, sexual immorality, or thefts (Rev. 9:20-21).
Most people recognize murder as depriving someone of his life without due process of law—one of the most
flagrant cases of which occurred in Minnesota just last month (May, 2020). (Many think that First Degree Murder is the
appropriate charge—rather than Second.) For some reason, however, the Canaanites (and later Israel) never seemed
to conclude that offering children as a sacrifice would be murder, but it is. They are defenseless and unworthy of death,
having committed no crime. Abortion is murder by this same logic. No one can successfully debate that a child is not
alive in the womb.
Character assassination is metaphorical murder. One of the haunting replies that Clarence Thomas uttered in
the Senate hearing after being confronted by and repudiating totally Anita Hill’s testimony was: “The person you knew,
whether you voted for me or against me, died.” These words were in response to how the confirmation process had
affected him. The intent was not to murder him physically, but the goal was to deprive an innocent person of his most
valuable commodity—his reputation, thus destroying his livelihood. This kind of action is motivated by hatred, which
Jesus cautioned against (Matt. 5:21-22)—because this intense kind of anger may push someone over the line to commit
a literal murder. We can all find things to be enraged about; we need self-control and a conciliatory attitude.
The term dogs includes the immoral, but also it includes those who pervert doctrine (the Judaizing teachers)
and those who have no spiritual inclinations whatsoever. The third group of those who will be outside the gates of
Heaven in Revelation 22:15 consists of the predominantly immoral. There are four related words in the Greek language.
The first [4202] is the noun porneia, from which the English word pornography comes, and in all of its 26 appearances in
the New Testament it is translated “fornication.” Modern translations usually render it “sexual immorality.”
According to Thayer, it is used of “illicit sexual intercourse in general” (532). Jude 7 makes it clear that those giving
themselves over to fornication includes homosexuality (the verb form is with a preposition, ekporneuo) [1608].
Speaking of verbs, porneuo [4203] was used eight times in the Greek text and translated “commit fornication.”
Two more nouns are used. The first, pornee [4204], is rendered as “harlots” or “whores” twelve times. The second,
pornos [4206], is the male counterpart to “harlot”; ten times it is translated “fornicators” or “whoremongers.” This is the
word used of the man living with his father’s wife (1 Cor. 5:9-11), as well as describing those who had formerly practiced
that sin before becoming Christians (1 Cor. 6:9-11). God will judge those who refuse to repent (Heb. 13:4). All such
shall be kept out of Heaven (Rev. 21:8; 22:15).
Why deny them Heaven, since the lust of the flesh won’t exist there anyway? By that logic, those who loved
alcohol should be admitted, also, and while we are at it, why not allow the covetous to enter in as well, seeing that all
material things, including money, will no longer exist—it all having been burned up when the earth was destroyed (2
Peter 3:10-13)? Besides, of what value is it that a person ceases from sin because the material universe no longer exists?
(Theoretically, one might covet spiritual rewards that others received which the ungodly did not deserve.)
Two reasons explain why adulterers (and the others listed) shall remain outside. One is that they deserve to
be punished rather than rewarded. All their lives they exalted the fleshly above the spiritual. Knowing that a human
being’s lifespan cannot compare to never-ending eternity, they chose that which was temporary and inferior anyway.
The other reason for their exclusion is that their rebellious behavior toward God would carry over into the heavenly
realm. If they disobeyed continually during their lifetime on earth, how would they make the transition to loving obedience
in heaven? All of us choose our future by the way we respond to God now. What has your emphasis been?
Outside the gates of heaven, in addition to “dogs,” are “sorcerers.” Probably no one takes this as a serious
threat today because we don’t believe in them, or else we associate them with something magical. In the cultures of
Egypt in Moses’ time, up to Babylon (when Judah was held captive), and into the New Testament, sorcerers intended
for the general public to think they had special powers. Pharaoh had sorcerers and magicians (Ex. 7:11), as did King
Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 2:2). He also had astrologers—none of which did him any good in interpreting his dream (their
“powers” failed them). Jeremiah told several kings, including Judah’s, that they should not listen to their diviners,
dreamers, soothsayers, or sorcerers who advised them they would not serve Babylon; but they did (Jer. 27:9). God
would also be against the sorcerers in Jerusalem in Malachi’s day (3:5).
In the New Testament sorcerers are mentioned generally four times—in Revelation 9:21, 18:23, 21:8, and
22:15. The Greek words, from which we get “sorceries” are pharmakeia, pharmakeus, and pharmakos. Our English
word pharmacy is transliterated from them, and it refers to one who uses or administers drugs. He may also have been
familiar with poisons. The use of such drugs may have had something to do with how they succeeded in deceiving
people, although most of us are susceptible to the power of suggestion. In Galatians 5:20, the word is translated
“witchcraft” (KJV) or “sorcery” (NKJ).
Two men of note are mentioned in the book of Acts. Simon is usually called “the sorcerer,” but he and Elymas
are a magos, from which we derive the English word magician. Simon bewitched the Samaritans with his magia (Acts
8:9), and he used magic (maguo) (Acts 8:11) on them. Elymas was also a magos (Acts 13:6, 8). In the plural, the word
is magi, and we find it used of the wise men (Matt. 2:1, 7, 16). Simon and Elymas used illusions and tricks to convince
people they were someone great. As a practitioner of the magical arts, Simon knew real miracles when he saw them;
so, he obeyed the gospel because he knew he was observing the power of God (Acts 8:12-13).
Why do sorcerers merit their own listing among those who are outside the gates of heaven? The answer is
they did not just create illusions to entertain people; they acted as though they possessed genuine powers—when they
did not. They deceived people in order to enrich themselves—just as today’s trance channelers do. They have messages that
contradict the Word of God. They pretend to be an alternate source of information with secret or hidden
wisdom. They lead people’s souls astray; what they do is not authorized by God. Christians will not be fellowshipping
them when eternity begins; we should avoid them and their ilk now, also.
Two Greek words (related to each other) are translated “dogs” eight times in the New Testament. Five of those
times it refers to literal dogs (Matt, 15:26-27; Mark 7:27-28; Luke 16:21), although the “dogs” in the first four verses
symbolize Gentiles. The first time and the last two times, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are referring to two-legged dog
breeds—in other words, men. Strong defines the Hebrew word as a dog (the animal) in his first definition; for the second one,
he says that metaphorically it stands for a “man of impure mind, an impudent man.”
These are not obscure passages; the first involves Jesus giving this advice in Matthew 7:6: “Do not give what is
holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine….” This is a parallelism, in which both parts are making the same
point—one very similar to what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 2:14: “But the natural man does not receive the things of the
Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them because they are spiritually discerned.” These
dogs and swine have a very small spiritual appetite; they make no effort to understand anything that is not of a material
nature. They understand motivations such as money, power, and sex, but probably have no use for sacrificial love.
What is the point of sharing spiritual gems with those incapable of comprehending their value
Paul likewise sounds a conspicuous warning in Philippians 3:2: “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation!”
The apostle refers to the Judaizing teachers that have a one-track mind—making certain that all
Gentiles have been circumcised in the flesh. Never mind their spiritual development in Jesus or their evangelistic zeal
to convert others—have they been circumcised? Weeping about the matter, Paul declares these men “enemies of the
cross of Christ” (Phil. 3:18). Of all the spiritual riches to discover in Jesus, they can only “set their minds on earthly
things” (v. 19). Their obsession with the flesh meant a wrongful interest on their own account, which stifled their own
growth and led to them spreading a false doctrine.
The last reference to human “dogs” appears in Revelation 22:15. God prohibits these, along with other morally
deficient individuals, from entering into the gates of the heavenly city. Homer Hailey wrote that these dogs “describe
the immoral, the prostitutes, and sodomites (homosexuals, Deut. 23:17f), the vicious (Ps. 22:16; Phil. 3:2)…and those
who wallow in filth (II Peter 2:22)” (Revelation: An Introduction and Commentary 430, ellipsis GWS). If no other incentive
encouraged us to want to be safely inside the heavenly city (reasons, however, abound), the dogs waiting to devour
victims on the outside would be motivation enough.
In the not too distant past a news story had gained prominence—back in January B.C. (before Coronavirus). The story centered on Jeffrey Epstein, a financier who was convicted of sex crimes against minors in Palm Beach once and was released after thirteen months in prison. Afterward, he operated what has come to be called the Lolita Express—his own airplane that flew him, his friends, and underaged girls (under 18) to his own island. (For those who don’t recall, Lolita, published in 1956, was the name of a novel by Russian-American novelist, Vladimir Nabokov, that described the affair of a middle-aged man with a 12-year-old girl.) But this article has nothing to do with either the novel or what took place on the island.
Epstein died in prison just a few months ago. He was arrested again last year on several sex trafficking charges. His death was ruled a suicide even though the circumstances strongly suggest murder. Several abnormalities just
“happened” to occur at the time of his death, such as his having no roommate present, the camera outside his cell being out of commission, and the guards not checking his cell at the times they should have. These were reported in a
television special on the subject. The situation was being investigated, but to date the results of the investigation have not been made public—not public enough for any of us to hear about it, at least. But this article is not about whether he committed suicide or was murdered.
Prior to his first arrest and conviction in 2008, several girls were brought to his estate, and ABC News aired a podcast on the subject on February 27, 2020. They title it, Truth and Lies: Jeffrey Epstein. Your congenial editor watched the entire program, which was incredible since it often involved the rationale of the girls who visited Epstein at his estate. Only a few, who were now more than a decade older volunteered to speak to the viewing audience. Most of the girls who visited Epstein were recommended by their friends from school who had already been to his place. Of course, a few were frightened by the experience, but others viewed it as an opportunity to make money. These are the words of one woman who described the experience, beginning with a friend who coaxed her into going:
She was saying, he’s gonna ask you to take your shirt and pants off, but don’t worry. You can keep
your underwear and your bra on. And I just remember thinking, like, “OK, well, you know I go to the
beach in a bathing suit and that shouldn’t be that big of a deal.”
Isn’t it sad that a young girl could reason in such a way? Doesn’t this say a lot about our society? Apparently, modesty is dead! In the history of the world, has there ever been a time when a girl would have taken off most of her clothes in front of a strange man, who apparently was just wanting to ogle her? For $200? One such youth reasoned that she came from a large family and, since it was near Christmas, making this money allowed her to buy presents for her family. (Isn’t there something ironic in this kind of thinking?)
Why is society this way? Is it the advertisements that stores send out with teen youths and younger in scantily-clad swimsuits, shorts, and various outfits? Is it catalogues replete with women wearing negligees? Is it Abercrombie and Fitch? Is it Victoria’s Secret with pornographic displays of youthful women outside their stores wearing what used to be called “unmentionables”? Or is it what John Chowning refers to in some of his blogs? He wrote on May 1, 2020:
A few years ago, fashion designers around the world introduced a clothing style they accurately
deemed, “The Slut Look.” With a host of characteristics like Eve’s original fig leaf, this degrading
fashion line remains alive and well in our world.
With this noxious fashion and others of its ilk, how in the world can purity of heart be maintained?
The answer is found in Matthew 5:27-32. The first two principles—you must understand what is required (vv. 27-28)
and you must deal quickly, decisively, and drastically with the poisonous toxin
called lust (vv. 29-30)—have already been considered (see the last two blogs).
He also mentions that people must be aware of causing others to sin—in other words, being a stumbling block. If a man looks upon a woman to lust after her, did she dress in such a manner as to provoke that precise response. She must bear her guilt, also. Chowning points out that wearing immodest clothing advertises “her lack of virtue,” as well as an impure heart (1 Tim. 2:9-10).
The world frequently turns its back on God’s precepts, and nowhere has that been more obvious than with modesty. We have moved so far the other direction that an underaged girl thinks it is all right to appear in her underwear before a strange man because she is dressed similarly at the beach.
One thing is certain: Wherever she obtained her values, she did not get them from the Bible. Can you picture Mary, the mother of Jesus, sitting around the Sea of Galilee in a “modest” one-piece swimsuit, let alone a bikini? If you can, you are perverted. If you can’t, then on what basis is it right to do so today? God gave Adam and Eve clothes that went from their shoulders to their knees (Gen. 3:21). No one is wearing swimsuits that match that description.
Don’t be alarmed by the word hubris (hew’ bris). If pride is a two-bit word, and arrogance is a four-bit word, then hubris is a six-bit word for the same concept. The word has to be used, however, since we are talking about intellectuals; two-bit and four-bit words will not suffice. And we know we’re dealing with intellectuals here because the words under examination were spoken at Pepperdine. They would never consent to inviting a mere gospel preacher to speak as he would probably lack the proper academic credentials.
While reading church bulletins written by Preaching Brother (from another state), abbreviated PB, a certain paragraph veritably leaped off the page. Its contents relate to the previous discussion of progressive often meaning “digressive,” as well as the other article in this week’s Spiritual Perspectives, “Instrumental Music: Manmade Rules.” How do we know anything? How do we come to a knowledge of the truth? God has revealed it to us (Pr. 23:23; John 8:31-32). Yet many today are departing from the Scriptures (digressing) and trying to do so under the guise of being “progressive.” With respect to instrumental music, they come up with such old approaches as: “The Bible doesn’t say not to do it.” Of course, the question ought to be, “Do the Scriptures authorize it?”
But if you’re a speaker at Pepperdine, you can drop the pretense of actually believing what the Bible says. Here are the quotes from a speaker there in 1992: “Paul was wrong…”; “…he didn’t understand”; “…he didn’t know what he was doing…”; “…he could have made inroads to more people….”
Are you shocked that anyone would make comments like these? I heard a denominational preacher say Paul was wrong with respect to what he wrote on the role of women back in the late ’70s. Isn’t it wonderful to know that some brethren are catching up with those folks in their attitudes toward the Bible? The speaker at Pepperdine claimed Paul could have been more effective in reaching the Jews—if only he had circumcised Titus. How conceited is this guy—to think that he knows more about evangelism than Paul? Hubris. Don’t you wonder if the speaker spent a day and a night in the deep? And if he was beaten with 39 stripes five times? Nevertheless, he deserves credit for being honest. He challenged the Scriptures head on, even though he errs in doing so. So many others maintain the pretense of believing them while teaching the exact opposite (such as having female leadership roles). Why don’t they just admit they don’t believe the New Testament, either?
Truth. Unity. Both are essential to the Christian (John 8:31-32; 17:20-21). But truth cannot be laid aside in a vain effort to attain unity, for then it becomes union, which is not the same concept. Unity can be defined as “the combination or arrangement of parts into a whole; unification,” whereas union is “an alliance or confederation of persons, parties….”
When King Ahab of Israel, for example, asked King Jehoshaphat of Judah if he would join him in his fight to take Ramoth Gilead, he answered, “I am as you are, and my people as your people; we will be with you in war” (2 Chron. 18:3). Apparently, he meant that Israel and Judah had enough elements in common that they could be united in this endeavor. However, upon his return home from the battle in which he was almost killed and Ahab did die, a prophet of God spoke to him, saying, “Should you help the wicked and those who
hate the Lord?” (19:2).
What was Jehoshaphat thinking? It was true that Israel and Judah had a common heritage: Both were descended from Abraham; all of them together had been delivered from Egypt. They had once been part of a United Kingdom with Saul, David, and Solomon as their monarchs. But when the kingdom split, both kings sinned. However, Jeroboam introduced false worship in the northern kingdom, as described in 1 Kings 12:25-33, which remained until they were taken
captive by the Assyrians. In fact, Jeroboam is said to have driven “Israel from following the Lord, and made them commit a great sin” (2 Kings 17:21).
Rehoboam’s son, Abijah, explained to Jeroboam why he would win the battle in which they were about to engage: Jeroboam’s kingdom had fake priests. They had caused the Levites to return to Judah and made priests of men from just any tribe. They also worshipped the golden calves Jeroboam had set up (2 Chron. 13:8-10). These sins separated the northern kingdom from the southern one, and this division explains why Judah and Israel were spiritually divided.
The two countries could form an alliance, a union, but they could not have unity—because one was wicked and one was righteous.
“We Can and Should Remain Together”
In part one of this series we noted that Wayne Newland had the above-titled article published in The Christian Chronicle in September, 2018. In it, he says we should be united because of “our noble heritage” (31). But Israel and Judah had an even nobler heritage than we’ve ever had, and God did not want fellowship between the two nations. Nevertheless, despite differences, Newland thinks we should have “unity,” which would only be a union, if he succeeded in his quest. Following are a list of things he thinks we can disagree over and still remain “united.”
At the top of his list we find these words: “We can agree that Churches of Christ, even with this broad spectrum among us, are worth preserving as a great brotherhood.” Sorry, but we cannot agree with such a statement. Why not? Because some “Churches of Christ” have added the use of instrumental music to their worship.
One preacher, while visiting Midway, Kentucky, where the first melodeon had been introduced into the worship—thus causing division—made a comment full of insight. When the tour guide said of the melodeon, “Isn’t that a small thing to cause a division over?” he answered, “It’s bigger than the golden calf.” The point is that God authorized neither the golden calves which Jeroboam set up nor the melodeon, organ, or piano. Are we supposed to maintain fellowship and “unity” anyway?
We also cannot agree because some churches now have female preachers and elders. The Scriptures clearly teach male spiritual leadership, and thus those churches have forsaken the Word of God every bit as much as Jeroboam did when he made priests of any tribe instead of the one tribe God authorized. Other examples could be given, but these are sufficient to establish valid reasons for not wanting to be united with just any group who calls itself a church of Christ.
“We can stand strong for the principle of autonomy” is the second recommendation, and brethren ought to agree wholeheartedly with what this statement says explicitly. No one should be trying to tell other churches how to make their decisions; how many divisions in the church have occurred because some brethren overstepped their bounds? But implicitly (taken together with other statements), is not the author saying that if another church adds instrumental music or female elders, we should mind our own business? Such congregations invite us to have fellowship with them, and we must refuse. We are not trying to run them, but we cannot conscientiously endorse them.
One of the most useless tenets of Newland is: “We can examine the principles of our Restoration heritage.” How about this one instead: “We can examine the principles taught in the New Testament”?
What Does This Mean?
“We can avoid being harsh with our brethren who have held to the old paths or who have reached new understandings. We need not tarnish each other with hurtful language.” So, we’re to treat each other like “snowflakes”? Should we avoid saying things, such as that some are trying “to pervert the gospel of Christ” (Gal. 1:7)? Today, some continue to pervert the gospel, the nature of the church, worship, and organization. Ought we to call a spade a daffodil?
If this next principle is not a fundamental step in compromise, pray tell, what is it? Newland advocates: “We can study the long-held positions that others have reexamined so that we may better understand those who have reached different conclusions.” Really? One envisions, by means of this description, some doddering old professors who have not examined anything in years versus certain youthful leaders who are really “with it,” like those who gave Rehoboam such great advice (2 Chron. 10).
In the first place, all gospel preachers continually reexamine what they teach because we take seriously the admonition in James 3:1. So, whether it is for a sermon, a class, a manuscript, a video, or a tape, we always want to be certain that the position we set forth comes from the Scriptures. Furthermore, most of us have read books on the subject at hand, not to mention a debate or two. Now what have those “who have reached different understandings of the Word” done? Generally, all that one hears is, “We prayed about it and studied.”
To whom, may we ask, did they pray? The God of the Bible has not changed His Word in 2,000 years. When did instrumental music become acceptable? We know it was not in the first one thousand years after the church was established because worshippers continued to sing a cappella during this time. Did God give a new revelation to authorize it? If so, where is that Scripture? Jesus has all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18); it is never once found in His New Testament churches. On what basis does anyone conclude it is now all right to use it?
1 Timothy 2:8-14 and 3:1-13 still forbid women leadership roles in the church, such as preachers, elders, or deacons. How does one reach a different conclusion? Not much is plainer than these passages. The only ones to conclude otherwise are those who desired to reach a different conclusion when they opened the Bible to “study.”
Newland suggests that we refocus on evangelism, which implies that we have quit. South Seminole is currently helping two missionaries in the United States and eight overseas. Also, 19 of our members have had special preparation in evangelism. But we will not work with congregations who do not stand for the truth. No unity can exist with those who deny the Scriptures. We ceased supporting one man whom we greatly liked when he began working with Bear Valley. We tried to show him where they erred, but he refused to even discuss the matter, which was greatly disappointing; we thought we knew him better. So, no, we will not be involved in an evangelistic work with those who have set aside the Scriptures.
In Newland’s article, he cites brethren coming together to help in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Presumably, they met for worship during that time. What if someone presented a message advocating the use of instrumental music or female leadership?
Should everyone let it go because of the good being accomplished, or wouldn’t a brother need to publicly rebuke such a person and explain the truth of the matter? There will always be a latent problem. Suppose some workers came from a congregation that claps hands when singing and the others asked them not do so, but they refused. Then what? Should they continue to work together and worship falsely? Apparently, this scenario did not occur.
Winding Up
To conclude this article, Newland chose three trite suggestions that have never worked but are supposed to involve deep thinking. The first is: “We can agree on fundamentals of the Gospel and not allow perfect agreement on all issues to be the enemy of unity and fellowship.” First, who decides what is fundamental? Is instrumental music one of those? How about leadership in the church? Or does he just mean something in the realm of opinion, such as when worship begins and the order in which things are done? Second, every time someone says, we don’t need perfect agreement, everyone should immediately think of 1 Corinthians 1:10, where Paul said the brethren should “be perfectly joined
together in the same mind and the same judgment.”
Next, Newland reminds us that not one of us deserved salvation—something every Christian probably already knows. We all do need grace, but that fact does not translate into, “Anything goes.” He adds, “Wherever God has children, we have brothers and sisters.” Yes, but some of those brothers and sisters may have wandered from the truth, thus making them sinners on their way to spiritual death (James 5:19-20). We help these souls by correcting them—not granting approval to their actions.
The concluding argument is that brethren who disagree with us are erring brethren; then he asks, “Is there any other kind?” The point Newland makes is that we are all erring brethren. Is this the philosophy of the New Testament? If so, what verse teaches it? This is nothing more than the sophistry of man. Why did Paul write so many letters to correct brethren? Why didn’t he just say we are all erring brethren and that we should love one another? Why did he tell the Corinthians, for example, that fellowshipping a man living with his father’s wife was “not even named among the Gentiles” (1 Cor. 5:1)? Was he just trying to embarrass and humiliate the poor fellow? And then Paul told the church there to withdraw fellowship from him and others guilty of moral sins. Paul didn’t subscribe to the “we’re all erring brethren” notion.
He did, however, think that brethren should be taught the truth in order that they might repent, which the man in 1 Corinthians 5 apparently did (2 Cor. 7). Now if the disagreements we have are over favorite desserts or sports teams, those things are opinions and irrelevant, but when it comes to New Testament doctrine (clearly taught), then we ought to have unity—not union. This principle was even taught in the Old Testament: “Can two walk together unless they are agreed?” (Amos 3:3).
In Physics there is a concept known as inertia. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, inertia refers to “the tendency of a body to remain at rest or of a body in motion to stay in motion.” What is true in the physical world has its counterpart in the spiritual realm as well. Christians at rest tend to stay at rest. When your congenial editor, for example, moved from Denton to Winter Park, a period of ten weeks elapsed during which I neither wrote nor published any articles (between May 25th to August 3rd). After nearly eight solid years of published Spiritual Perspectives, one would think I would miss the challenge of writing an article every week. And I did—for about
two weeks. After a few more weeks went by, I didn’t miss it as much. That circumstance morphed into, “Say, just think how much time I’m saving every week” (several hours, in fact). Then it almost reached the point of, “Maybe I won’t ever undertake such a mammoth task again” (just a fleeting thought).
The same is true with most of us. Consider how faithful Christians become unfaithful. Sometimes it occurs overnight, but most of the time it is gradual. Usually, they become sporadic in their attendance on Sunday and Wednesday nights before ceasing to worship at all on those evenings. Then their Sunday morning attendance likewise becomes spotty. Excuses are always forthcoming: someone was sick; the car wouldn’t start; a neighbor had an emergency, the dog got loose on the golf course (that one actually happened), etc. Before long attendance dwindles to once a month or once every two months before they cease to come altogether.
Therefore, cancelling services for a lengthy period of time is not a good idea—even though, for health reasons, some must not be out. What if we were attacked by a virus and everyone were ordered to stay in for four months? When it finally became “safe” to resume most social activities, how many would eagerly return to the assembly God instructs us not to forsake (Heb. 10:25), and how many would say, “I really must get back one of these days”? Habit works against us. Maybe it’s just easier to watch a service on television than to get out in the heat, the rain, or the snow. Many will have learned by this time how to make their own communion bread and have their own grape juice ready to participate on line at the appropriate time. Probably they have a songbook handy, also. Maybe they have arranged to give electronically, or they have stacked up their checks awaiting an opportunity to give them. Hopefully, we will never face such a long period of isolation, but short or long, we ought to be aware of the dangers of spiritual inertia.
