Dominus Iesus: The One Church

Dominus iesus: the one church Gary W. Summers

Although some newspapers paid little or no attention to the Vatican’s recent document, Dominus Iesus (literally, “Lord Jesus”), a substantial amount of material was presented in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram? (hereafter abbreviated FWST) and the Oklahoma City Daily News (hereafter abbreviated OCDN) on September 6th. Before examining the bold statements of this declaration, its purpose should be set forth.

Aimed mainly at Catholic theologians, the 36–page document was the latest parry by Vatican conservatives in a test of strength with liberals in John Paul’s deeply divided flock (FWST 12A).
…the document was issued to correct the “errors and ambiguities” of unnamed moderate Catholic theologians that have become “widespread” (FWST 12A).
Censuring what it called the spread of “religious relativism,” the Vatican instructed Roman Catholics on Tuesday to uphold the dogma that their church is the sole path to spiritual salvation for all humanity (FWST 1A).
If our understanding is correct, then, based on these few comments it would appear that the Catholic Church, like any other religious group, is having an internal struggle between liberals and conservatives. This battle is not a new one; we have occasionally heard comments from Catholics distressed over fairly liberal school curricula (their own private schools) and disgruntled about liberal professors at Catholic universities. Therefore, that some sort of papal document might come forth is scarcely astonishing; what is surprising that the focal point would be “the one church.”

Following are some statements from Dominus Iesus:

The idea that “one religion is as good as another” endangers the church’s missionary message, the declaration said (OCDN).
The way that news commentator Paul Harvey mentioned this point was to say that the pope had said that not all religions were equal. This statement is true, and the time to say it loudly is now. We are in the midst of an “I’m OK; you’re OK” society, which has applied this precept especially to religion. Every religion is supposed to be of equal value. Who made up such a rule? Such a philosophy assumes that not even one religion could be superior and that all of the differences and variations are of no importance.

Now if there are contradictions between religions, some teachings will be in harmony with the truth, and some must therefore be erroneous. To say that all are equal is to affirm that truth and error are the same. Jesus, for example, taught that “no man comes to the Father but by Me” (John 14:6). Yet other world religions disagree; they argue that man may come to God in several ways. Either Jesus is correct and all the others are wrong, or Jesus is wrong, and all the others are correct. Both cannot be right–unless truth equals error. Amongst those who claim to be Christians, the same principle holds true. Either baptism is necessary as part of God’s plan of salvation, or it is not. To teach that one can be saved by “faith only” cannot equal teaching that in addition to faith one must repent of sins, confess that Jesus is Lord, and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Truth and error are not equal.

The idea that one religion is as good as another is a false idea; therefore, the doctrine must originate with Satan–not God. This idea does indeed endanger the church’s missionary message. In fact, if all churches are equal, then what need is there to do any missionary work at all? Surely no one could challenge the religion that allows cannibalism. [Being voted off the island does not compare with being eaten off the island.] Those religious groups that practice voodoo or female circumcision must certainly be considered equal with those that do not. Those who genuinely believe this “equality of religions” rubbish should cease being evangelistic. It is inconsistency of the highest order to teach that all religions are of equal value and then go out and try to win over all the others. Evangelism can only rightly belong to those who think they have something superior to offer.

Dominus Iesus is correct in challenging the notion that one religion is as good as another and that this philosophy endangers the church’s missionary efforts. They are wrong in thinking that they are the superior religion, which brings us to the next point, which was not in this document, but it was affirmed just three months ago.

A similar fundamentalist position prevailed in June when the Vatican ordered bishops to avoid references to “sister churches” and instead remember that “the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church is not sister but ‘mother’ of all the particular [Christian] churches” (FWST 12A).

The Roman Catholic Church is not the “mother” of all churches; she is the “mother” of all apostate churches. The Roman Catholic Church was not established by Jesus or the apostles. It grew out of the true church which was bought by the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28). The New Testament states that Jesus built His church (Matt. 16:13-18). That church is a spiritual kingdom–not a physical one (John 6:15; Col. 1:13-14). Jesus is the Head of the church (Eph. 1:22-23) on earth as well as in heaven (Matt. 28:18).

The New Testament neither says nor remotely implies that the Lord’s church would have an earthly headquarters in Rome or anywhere else. If it did, we would certainly expect to find Paul wanting to come to Rome to visit the current or future headquarters of the church, but the apostle is silent on this subject.

When the church that Jesus established corrupted herself, she grew into the Roman Catholic Church. One of the earliest and most flagrant departures from the Truth was to establish a religious hierarchy for which there is no Biblical authority. In vain one searches the Scriptures to find such terms as pope, cardinal, archbishop, or diocese. The church government that the apostle Paul authorized is for a plurality of elders (and deacons) in each congregation (1 Tim. 3).

Nowhere do the apostles authorize a superstructure of any kind with men to govern over various congregations. This pattern was supplied by the Roman government rather than Heaven. Correct organization was not the only departure from the New Testament, but it was significant, and it precipitated many others. All other churches that have come into existence as a reaction to Roman Catholicism have retained her unscriptural organization to one degree or another (which is the reason that she is the mother of all apostate churches). Only those seeking to restore New Testament Christianity have returned to the Biblical concept of local autonomy under the leadership of the bishops (also called elders or pastors) and deacons. The next quote relates to this subject:

…other Christian churches have “defects,” partly because they do not recognize the authority of the pope (FWST 12A).
First of all, the phrase other Christian churches belies their own claim to be the true church. No one can consistently argue that there is but one church and then discuss other ones. The Bible teaches that there is but one body (church, Eph. 4:4). No church, except the one over which Christ is Head, has the right to exist. Those that were begun by men (or captured and controlled by men) lack authority for their existence.

Second, although there may be several defects in various man–made religious groups, failure to recognize the authority of the pope is not one of them. What authority? The office is not described anywhere in the pages of the Holy Scriptures. Jesus never selected one person to oversee the church; the apostles all possessed equal authority (Matt. 18:1, 18; John 14:25-26; 16:12-13). Jesus did not appoint anyone to head His church on the earth; He heads it (Matt. 28:18). The elders (shepherds) of each congregation are all subject to the Chief Shepherd, according to what Peter wrote (1 Peter 5:1-4).

Referring to other Christian denominations, the document said “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Roman Catholic Church” (OCDN).
First, does referring to “other Christian denominations” imply that the Catholic Church is itself a denomination? Second, neither grace nor truth was entrusted to the Roman Catholic Church. When they conducted the inquisition, they exercised ZERO amount of grace, and what they did had nothing to do with Truth. Third, God inspired men to record the Truth in writing. Truth is available to all who read and study the Word of God; the Roman Catholic Church has nothing to do with it. All of the New Testament was revealed before this organization ever came into existence. It is the gospel of Christ that is the power of God unto salvation–not the Roman Catholic Church (Rom. 1:16).

This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect that the [Catholic] Church has for the religions of the world. But it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism [that] leads to the belief that one religion is as good as another (FWST 1A).
Why does the Roman Catholic Church respect other world religions, when they are false and cannot save anyone? Some of those religions leave people in poverty, worshipping worthless and dumb idols, which can never save anyone, no matter how earnestly and fervently one may pray to them. False religion keeps many people in misery, ill health, and horrible living conditions. The governments of these countries may contribute to such folly, but it is false religion that strangles its practitioners, leaves them living in squalor and filth, and provides for them a false hope.

Buddhism is wrong, Hinduism is wrong, the Muslim religion is wrong. They cannot save anyone. Within their teachings there may be some good principles, but the religion itself will cause its adherents to be lost, and there is nothing admirable or worthy of respect in the results of believing these errors. These statements are not made out of arrogance, but rather out of love of the Truth and the love for men’s souls. The easiest thing to do would be to keep silent or assent to our culture’s prevailing philosophy that any religion will do, as well as none at all. Who would be benefited by such silence? Their souls would be lost, as well as ours for being indifferent.

If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that, objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the church, have the fullness of the means of salvation (OCDN).
What does this carefully worded politically correct gobble-de-gook mean? Apparently, the affirmation is made that those in other world religions can receive Divine grace. On what basis is this assertion made? What is there in the Bible that makes anyone think that those outside of Christ have the opportunity for salvation? In addition to John 14:6 Peter proclaimed: “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Muhammed cannot save; Buddha cannot save; the Dalai Lama cannot save; Shirley MacLaine cannot save; Louis Farakhan cannot save. While it is true that the grace of God is extended toward all, it is also true that it can only be appropriated (received) through Jesus.The claim is then made that those in the church “have the fullness of the means of salvation.” Does this claim imply that those in other religions have part or a fraction of the means of salvation? What does that mean–that they are “sort of” saved? Chances are that people who think they are somewhat saved will be content.

How can people be “gravely deficient” with respect to salvation? The New Testament teaches that those in this category are lost (Heb. 2:1-4). It is the Truth that makes one free; error makes one lost. One is either walking in the light (1 John 1:7) or walking in darkness. Every person on earth has either repented of his sins and been baptized for their forgiveness in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38), or he has not. The blood of Christ can only wash away a penitent person’s sins if He knows that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and confesses that fact (Rev. 1:5; Acts 22:16). Gravely deficient is not a Biblical concept; it is merely a concession to the current social ideology.

…the “principle of tolerance and respect for freedom” promoted by the reforms of the Second Vatican Council are today being manipulated” and “wrongfully surpassed” (OCDN).
Here is the crux of the problem for Roman Catholicism. The Second Vatican Council made several concessions that had never been made before. It was an ecumenical document, and much of what John Paul II has done has been along those lines. “In October, for example, the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation signed a landmark joint declaration saying they agreed on most major points of doctrine” (FWST 12A).

This statement backtracks from that agreement. Several expressed dismay with the Dominus Iesus because it seems to promote exclusivism. We are not bothered by the emphasis on the one church, which is what the Bible teaches; we object to the fact that the Roman Catholic Church insists that she is the one church when, in actuality, there is no resemblance between her and the church of the New Testament.

Paul said that Jesus is the Savior of the body (church, Eph. 5:23). Salvation can only be found in Christ and His church (1 Cor. 12:13). Other religions cannot save anyone from sin; various denominations lack the same authority for existence that the Roman Catholic Church does. None of them teaches the truth regarding salvation, acceptable worship, or church organization.

May the day come when more and more people will be willing to give up the traditions of men that they have been taught and be willing to abide by the teachings of the Scriptures. They are given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Authority resides in Them; the Word of God is Truth (John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13). It is not some supposed representative of Christ that is to be listened to, but the Word of God (2 Thess. 2:15). For this reason we are to continue in the Word (John 8:31-32). The Word that Jesus and His apostles taught is that by which we shall be judged (John 12:48: 16:13). May we trust the Word as “a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path” (Ps. 119:105). Let us not despise, but take advantage of, that which God has revealed and preserved for us to this very hour.

Cyrus, the Lord’s Anointed

Who says of Cyrus, ‘He is My shepherd, and he shall perform all My pleasure, even saying to Jerusalem, “You shall be built,” and to the temple, “Your foundation shall be laid.”‘ Thus says the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held–to subdue nations before him and loose the armor of kings, to open before him the double doors, so that the gates will not be shut: I will go before you and make the crooked places straight; I will break in pieces the gates of bronze and cut the bars of iron. I will give you the treasures of darkness and hidden riches of secret places, that you may know that I, the Lord, Who call you by your name, am the God of Israel. For Jacob My servant’s sake, and Israel My elect, I have called you even by your name; I have named you, though you have not known Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other; There is no God beside Me. I will gird you, though you have not known Me (Isaiah 44:28-45:1-5).

Consider some important facts that we learn from this text.

1. God calls Cyrus His anointed, which means that he had selected and appointed him for a particular task.

2. God is with Cyrus as he goes forth to conquer, thus making him successful.

3. God would do all of this for Cyrus even though Cyrus did not know Jehovah.

4. He has been with Cyrus for a purpose–to help Israel by allowing them to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple.

Before we get to the main thrust of this article, let us present some thoughts on the four points just listed. First, God can use anyone for a particular purpose if He so desires. Cyrus had no idea that he was performing the Lord’s will. Even God’s enemies can inadvertently do His will: when the Jews instigated the death of Jesus on the cross, they were actually carrying out God’s plan. They did it in ignorance (Acts 3:17)–even though it had been foretold by “the mouth of all His prophets” (Acts 3:18). Thus, here is a warning to the arrogant soul who boasts, “I don’t believe in God and will never do his will.” A proper response might be, “You never know. In your rejection of Christ and in your attacks upon Christianity, you just may be doing God’s bidding, as the Jews did unwittingly.” God instructed Moses to tell Pharaoh: “But indeed for this purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth” (Ex. 9:16). The beauty of it all is that even knowing what God was doing did not affect Pharaoh’s behavior–any more than it did Ahab’s when Micaiah prophesied of his death if he went out to battle (1 Kings 22). Arrogance runs deep; stubbornness can thoroughly permeate a person.

Second, God not only made Cyrus successful; He makes many people successful. Like Cyrus, many do not know that God has blessed them (point three); thus they give Him no credit. God “makes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and unjust” (Matt. 5:45). Those who excel in some ability have the responsibility to ask, “Why am I so blessed with talent, which others lack? Do I deserve all the credit? How am I to use my gift?”

Fourth, Perhaps God has a useful purpose for each individual–even if we are not in the kingdom at the current time. People often make the mistake of thinking, “God wouldn’t want me; I have nothing to offer” or “I’ve been too sinful to be of any use to God at this point in my life.” As for sins, they will be washed away by the powerful blood of Christ; there is nothing that His blood cannot remove. Concerning value, we should not underestimate God’s ability to make something of us spiritually. Even the very least person in the kingdom has something to offer. Andrew was never as prominent as his brother Peter, but he was responsible for bringing Peter to Christ. Small abilities can yield great results.

Jesus loves all of those who are part of His body, but He has room for more. He died for all; He shed His blood for all; He has a use for all in His kingdom. He may have arranged things in a people’s lives just to give them the opportunity to think and to respond. Even the reading of this article (or next week’s on the plan of salvation) may be an invitation to consider one’s spiritual state seriously.

Why Cyrus Listened

These statements of God to Cyrus are fairly demanding. Is there some reason that one of most powerful monarchs in the world would listen to and obey what God says to him in this passage? There is one excellent reason. God spoke these things to him over a century before he was born! Isaiah lived during the reign of Hezekiah when Israel was taken captive by Assyria (721 B.C.). Most date his prophecies from about 740 to 700 B. C. Cyrus conquered Babylon and, serving as God’s shepherd, gave the order to build for God a house in Jerusalem in 536 B.C.

Now imagine being a king so powerful that he has destroyed the mightiest nation on earth (at that time). He has to be feeling good about himself. Among the captives are some Hebrew people from a land far away. There is a wise man among them named Daniel who is eventually sent for. [Actually, we do not know the means by which Cyrus came to possess this knowledge, but it may have been in this way.]

Daniel: You sent for me, O great ruler of the earth.

Cyrus: Yes, I’ve heard about you–that you even prophesied the fall of Babylon.

Daniel: Yes, sir, I did. God revealed that fact to me.

Cyrus: Really? And what does your God say about me and my reign?

Daniel: He bids you to let the Israelites return to their land and rebuild the temple to Jehovah.

Cyrus: And when did he decide I should do that, since slaves are not usually in a position to bargain?

Daniel: It is written in the scroll of our prophet, Isaiah.

Cyrus: And how long ago did he write of me?

Daniel: He wrote of you around the time Assyria captured most of our brethren–about 175 years ago.

Cyrus: How am I referred to–as a great king, conqueror of the Babylonians?

Daniel: No sir, you are mentioned by name.

Cyrus: What? Impossible! Let me see this scroll.

Imagine how awestruck Cyrus must have been to have the scroll of Isaiah unrolled and to see his name mentioned in the ancient manuscript! No wonder he did God’s bidding and gave the order for God’s house to be rebuilt (Ezra 1:1-4).

Evidence

God pointed out that His prophecies comprised irrefutable proof of His power. No pagan god (or idolatrous system) was ever capable of predicting with precision the things Jehovah did because none of them were real or legitimate. Nobody is making specific prophecies today, either, despite the claim of many to have miraculous gifts. If there had been a real prophet of God today, he would have made as astounding a prophecy at some time in this century as what Isaiah did! We would all be marveling that he had predicted the downfall of Hitler or the end of the Iron Curtain.

God made it plain to Cyrus that He–and only He–is God (Isaiah 45:6-13). God made the same point to His own people:

Remember the former things of old, for I am God, and there is no other: I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure’ (Isaiah 46:9-10).

Is it not sad that God found it necessary to treat His own people in the same manner as a heathen monarch? They had continuously ignored Him, but He provided the same reason for them to believe as He did for Cyrus: “I have declared the former things from the beginning” (Isa. 48:3a). He declared events to them in advance lest they should attribute various occurrences to their idols (Isa. 48:5).

Fulfilled prophecy has always been one of the greatest proofs that God is and that His Word should be highly regarded no matter what subject He addresses.

Foreknowledge Versus Predestination

Everyone has probably heard the joke about the two men of questionable intelligence in the movie theater, watching a Western. The one leans over to the other and says, “I’ll bet that cowboy rides under a tree in just a minute, hits his head on a low branch, and is knocked off his horse.” “You’re on,” his friend whispers back. “Ten dollars?” “Okay.” Sure enough, the cowboy rides under the tree, hits his head on the branch, and is knocked off his horse. After the movie, the loser hands ten dollars to his friend. “I can’t take it,” he confesses, “I’ve seen this movie before. I knew that it was going to happen.” “I’ve seen it before, too,” admitted his friend. “I just didn’t think the guy would be stupid enough to make the same mistake twice.”

Once we have seen a movie, we know the plot and many of the details. If we see the movie again, we know ahead of time what will happen. We now possess foreknowledge. Such is not the only way to have knowledge ahead of time, however. Many times someone has told us of something that will occur. We may have been the only other person who knew. For example, a friend says, “Next month I am going to resign from my job.” That information might or might not be significant, depending on whether the friend works at a fast food restaurant or is the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. In either case, however, foreknowledge exists, but no one could accuse us of having caused our friend’s departure from his place of employment just because we had knowledge of it. In fact, we might have tried to talk the person out of resigning, but his mind was determined. He had already decided what he would do. His confidence in us simply provided us foreknowledge.

God, depending on the circumstance, can either predetermine events or simply have foreknowledge of what will occur. Calvinists think that God has planned out every detail of this planet’s history, and they point to passages that mention (in the King James) predestination, such as Romans 8:29-30 and Ephesians 1:5 and 11. Many revisions render the Greek word “foreordained.” The same Greek verb is also translated “determined before” in Acts 4:28 and “ordained” in 1 Corinthians 2:7. The use of this word does not prove the Calvinist’s case, however. It only proves that God foreordained some things, not everything.

What do these six verses teach that God predestined? God predetermined that: 1) Israel, along with the Gentiles, would put Jesus to death (Acts 4:26-28); 2) Christians would be conformed into the image of Jesus (Rom. 8:29-30); 3) man would be redeemed by means of the crucifixion (1 Cor. 2:6-8); 4) Christians would be holy and would be adopted as His children by Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:4-5); and 5) Christians would receive an inheritance (Eph. 1:11).

It is clear from these six passages that the Bible does not teach that God has mapped out everything that will occur to each individual–what car to drive, what person to marry, what job to acquire. All of the things foreordained above involve God’s plan of salvation. He did determine that He would send His Son and that He would be rejected by His own people and crucified in conjunction with the Gentiles. He also determined that Jesus would be raised from the dead and that believers would become like His Son (holy), and have eternal life.

Calvinists believe that God controls everything. According to them, He decided who would be saved or lost before He ever created the world. If that were the case, then: 1) Why bother to create the world and play this charade, whose outcome He had already determined? 2) How can God not be responsible for all the evil that happens? and 3) How can we be held accountable for anything we do, since we cannot possess free will and at the same time conform precisely to what God had already ordained?

Some who do not believe in God also think that everything is foreordained–either by some impersonal force (Fate), the laws of karma, or astrology. Perhaps the reader has noticed that Shakespeare refers to Romeo and Juliet as “star-cross’d lovers” (Prologue, line 6). These explanations are wrong, also, and the ideas are ludicrous on the face of it. How can stars be controlling what each of six billion people does? They are bodies of burning gases (all romance aside). What connection can there be to each person’s birth, marriage, and personal fortune? Who legislated the laws of karma? Something as impersonal as a rock or a tree does not care about human problems and predicaments.

What Does God Know?
God, then, from the foundation of the earth, has foreordained things pertaining to man’s redemption. Has He determined to do other things and brought them about also? Yes. He told Abram that his descendants would live in Egypt 400 years, after which He would judge the nation that afflicted them and bring them out from there with great possessions (Gen. 15:13-14). The question we all wonder about is, “What does God simply know, and what does He cause to happen?”

In the above instance, God knew that they would go to Egypt. Did He cause them to go there? Joseph believed that God sent him ahead to Egypt to save the lives of his family during the great famine (Gen. 45:7-8). God apparently arranged for that rescue to happen, but did He cause the Egyptians to afflict them? Nothing so indicates, but He had knowledge that they would. He also determined that He would intervene in this situation and deliver Israel from the Egyptians.

Therefore, God knows what will occur. If He did not, how would He know when to intervene? If He was unaware of the famine that would occur throughout that part of the world, how could He have sent Joseph ahead to preserve them? How else did He know to warn Pharaoh of the famine so that Joseph could interpret his dreams and be placed in charge of preserving Egypt (and eventually Israel)? How could Agabus prophesy of the famine that would come in the days of Claudius Caesar (Acts 11:28)? There are two choices. One is that God knew about both of these famines because of His foreknowledge; the other is He knew about them because He was bringing them about.

Certainly, God could bring about a famine as punishment for a nation’s sins. But He can also just know beforehand of natural events that will occur. How does He know? He knows because He is omniscient and because his perspective of time is different than ours. For the Creator of the universe, “one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” In other words, He is outside of time. As human beings, who are bound by time, we have difficulty comprehending the relationship that God has with time. He can declare the end from the beginning–especially if He personally brings something about (Isaiah 46:8-10).

Although the Scriptures credit God with intervening in the natural course of events in a number of ways and on a number of occasions, the fact is that He also frequently allows things to occur naturally. If He did not, then Calvinism would be true; but Calvinism is demonstrably false since the Scriptures teach that we possess a free will (see last week’s article).

The Bible teaches that God knows what we will choose to do. He knew how Pharaoh would react to the ten plagues. He did not cause Pharaoh to act the way He did, but He knew that the plagues would harden his heart. Pharaoh had the freedom to act in a more rational way, but his arrogance would not allow him to, and God played off his pride.

God knows what men will do. David had saved the city of Keilah from the Philistines (1 Sam. 23:1-4). Shortly thereafter, he learned that Saul was pursuing him once again. David needed to know whether or not the men of Keilah, if he remained there, would turn him over to Saul. He inquired of God because he knew that God would know the answer. God would not have caused the city to abandon their recent savior, but God’s omniscience allowed him to know what they would do. He therefore told David that they would deliver him into the hand of Saul; therefore, he fled (1 Sam. 23:9-13).

God’s omniscience may make us uncomfortable. We may struggle exceedingly with a difficult decision. After we have weighed all the pros and cons, considering all the possibilities and their ramifications, and we finally choose, perhaps it dawns on us that all along God knew what we would do. What annoys us is that Someone else knows before we do. Probably we have had a friend tell us on some matter, “I knew what your decision would be.” “How could you?” we retort, “I just now figured it out myself.” Sometimes a friend’s smugness can be infuriating! But God is not smug; He is God. He simply has access to the movie script, and He saw the scene in which we agonized over a situation before we determined how to resolve it. We were free to go either way; His knowledge of what we ultimately decided did not cause us to do it or influence our decision–He simply knows the outcome. This knowledge does not make God a puppeteer.

Can God Choose Not To Know?
Recently, the editor of the Firm Foundation took the position in his June editorial (2-5) that “God has power to foreknow or not to foreknow” (3). He is not the first person to hold this position. T. W. Brents made the case for this idea in his classic book, The Gospel Plan of Salvation (103-104), published in 1874. At first, the proposition seems appealing; probably we have all flirted with the notion. Dub McClish, who cites Brents in his chapter on “The Foreknowledge of God” in the 1998 Power lectures on The Godhead, edited by B. J. Clarke, admitted in footnote six:

This author at one time maintained that it was compatible with the Bible doctrine of omniscience to hold that, while God could know all things, that He has chosen to limit His knowledge so as not to know some things (e.g., that Adam would sin). Upon further study he has concluded that such a view cannot be harmonized with God’s omniscience, and that the view is contradictory to Scripture, to sound reasoning, and to the necessity of the case (178).
McClish quotes several others in regard to this point; included here are just a few. Stephen Charnock points out that, if God does not know all things, He is capable of learning something: “If there were a variation in the knowledge of God…He would grow wiser than He was; He was not then perfectly wise before” (163). Strong, who compiled the exhaustive concordance that so many of us use, wrote: “By this [omniscience, DM] we mean God’s perfect and eternal knowledge of all things which are objects of knowledge, whether they be actual or possible, past, present, or future” (165).

After the kingdom of Israel divided, the man of God went to Bethel and prophesied against Jeroboam and the altar he had set up there. Among other things, he said: “Behold a child, Josiah by name, shall be born to the house of David; and on you [the altar, GWS] he shall sacrifice the priests of the high places who burn incense on you, and men’s bones shall be burned on you” (1 Kings 13:2). 2 Kings 23:15-16 records the fulfillment of this prophecy. God foreknew this event– and the king’s name who would do it–over 200 years in advance. There is no evidence that God caused Josiah to be given that name (as He did, for example, the names of Isaac and Jesus). The same thing occurs with the name of Cyrus (and events associated with him). Roy Lanier writes:

If God can know a man by name one hundred and fifty years before he is born, and can know what he will do, is it impossible for Him to know a man by name a thousand or ten thousand years before he is born and know what that man will do? Is our God so small, so limited, that He can foresee one hundred fifty years and cannot foresee a person or event several thousand years in the future? (165).
In the same lectureship book Daniel Denham wrote a chapter on “The Omniscience of God.” He quotes an excellent argument made by Mac Deaver:

God must have every attribute to the infinite degree because if He does not have all attributes to that degree, He is only a finite being. If God had all attributes except one to the infinite degree, He would still be a finite being. A being cannot be an infinite being and be finite in a single attribute. This is impossible. But God cannot be God (the ultimate principle of the universe) and be a finite being (141).
Denham also cites Thomas N. Ralston from Elements of Divinity:

The infinite knowledge of God not only comprehends every thing, great and small, whether animate or inanimate, material or immaterial, throughout the immensity of space, but also throughout the infinite periods of duration. All things, past and future, are just as clearly seen, and as fully comprehended, by the omniscient God, as the plainest events of the present (143).
Denham points out that the idea that God chooses not to know something implies an absurd position–that God imposes amnesia upon Himself (144). Surely the reader has had someone tell him a secret and then add: “Now don’t tell this to anyone; in fact, just forget you heard it.” How easy is it to not know something that you already know? In court trials the judge will often say, “The jury will disregard what was just said.” But lawyers count on the fact that self-imposed amnesia cannot really be accomplished.

Furthermore, how can God work providentially in the lives of men when He chooses not to know certain things? Perhaps a key ingredient involving one of His children and certain events has been purposely forgotten, which alters God’s course of action. This kind of “forgetfulness” could be disastrous. Self-imposed ignorance would put God in the position of being fallible.

Objections

Brents argued that God must be able to choose not to know or else He was deceptive with Moses (Brents 103-104). The Firm Foundation editor echoes Brents, uses the same argument, and asks the question, “Did God lie to Moses?” (3). The event in question occurs in Exodus 32:10. After stating the truth that Israel was a stiff-necked people, God said to Moses, “Now therefore, let Me alone that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.” After Moses makes some outstanding arguments against taking this course of action, the text says, “And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people” (Ex. 32:14, KJV). Brents humorously concludes that if God foreknew Moses’ response and that He would relent, then “He knew He would not do that which He thought He would do” (104).

This absurdity depends, however, on the word thought. This Hebrew word is translated “thought” only here and in one other passage. Numerous times the word is translated as “speak” or “said.” The New King James typifies most recent translations when it renders Exodus 32:14: “So the Lord relented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.”

Most Bible students understand that God was testing Moses by stating His plan to destroy Israel. God neither lied nor deceived Moses: He simply stated the idea and let Moses react to it. God already knew how he would respond (since He is omniscient), but until He made the suggestion, Moses did not know what he would do in such a situation. He may have been feeling sorry for himself and wishing himself that God would destroy the people. But when voiced out loud, he found himself taking their part, which also bound him to them through all the upcoming trials they would be to him.

Most scholars have linked God’s behavior in this case with his accommodating Himself to man’s behavior and ways (an example of what is termed anthropomorphism). Matthew Henry, for example, wrote of the passage in Exodus 32:

But God would thus express the greatness of his just displeasure against them, after the manner of men, who would have none to intercede for those they resolve to be severe with. Thus also he would put an honor upon prayer, intimating that nothing but the intercession of Moses could save them from ruin, that he might be a type of Christ…[emp. DM] (176).
God is omniscient; how could He choose to be otherwise? He cannot not be Himself.

“Power for Living: A Review”

Most people have probably seen the advertisements on television for a free copy of Power For Living. The reason for publishing the book is to motivate people to seek God, which certainly is needed in today’s society. Unfortunately, the book stops short of teaching the truth regarding salvation. The 134-page book is published by the Arthur DeMoss Foundation; it was originally copyrighted in 1983. The copy examined in this article is the April, 1999 edition.

The book begins with a “Read This First” section, which comprises pages vii to ix. It informs the reader that, when some very successful people were asked how they became that way, they answered that it was due to their “personal relationship” with God or Jesus. This is an oft-used, over-worked, non-Biblical phrase. Neither the word personal nor relationship are found in the Scriptures. So what do people mean by it?

The book eventually provides an answer, but chapter one consists of 11 “testimonials”: presumably all of them have this “personal relationship” with Jesus. The list includes professional race-car driver, Jeff Gordon, NFL great, Reggie White, the 1995 Miss America, Heather Whitestone McCallum, classical guitarist, Christopher Parkening, Professional tennis player, Mary Joe Fernandez, professional golfer, Bernhard Langer, New York Yankee pitcher, Andy Pettite, track star Jackie Joyner-Kersee, the “father of aerobics,” Kenneth H. Cooper, U. S. Senator, Don Nickles, and Arthur S. DeMoss, founder and CEO of National Liberty Corporation. This impressive array of talent might convince some they need to have a personal relationship with God in order to be successful.

Others might ask, “Did that ‘relationship’ cause them to be successful, even if they think it did?” If so, how does one explain the enormous popularity of the Beatles? John Lennon once boasted that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus Christ. The Rolling Stones, who after nearly 40 years, are planning another tour, have never attributed their success to God. Mic Jagger is a noted womanizer, and one of their songs is “Sympathy For the Devil.” Obviously, people have gained success without the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Tiger Woods may be the best golfer ever–such is his goal, but he has not credited God with his success (thus far). He has accomplished what he has done by hard work and determination. If the Holy Spirit is credited for these other athletes’ success, how then do we explain someone on his own efforts beating those whom the Holy Spirit is helping? Does it not stand to reason that if God is helping someone, he should be the best?

A number of professional athletes credit Allah for their success. Muslims could easily publish a book with 11 outstanding individuals, listing their accomplishments and crediting Allah for their talents. Should we all, then, become followers of Muhammed?

The former Miss America has concluded that people need to “feel” Jesus and hear him in their hearts (11). When the Muslims write their book and distribute, will it have a prominent Muslim saying that people must “feel” Allah and hear him in their hearts? These comments are nothing more than subjective feelings; they do not constitute proof of anything.

Chapter two, “You Are Special to God,” introduces the subject of sin; it also introduces the subject of paraphrases, which appears to be an inconsistency in this book. On the one hand there is chapter six, “Making the Bible a Part of Your Life,” which includes some excellent suggestions for studying the Bible, such as asking who, what, where, when, and why. But then the author recommends modern translations, which are mostly paraphrases (he uses a paraphrase throughout). He even recommends that the new Bible student paraphrase the Scriptures himself (119). It would be difficult to imagine anything more dangerous than a novice Bible student writing down what he thought a passage meant when he does not have as yet the skill to mentally compare one verse with many others that deal with the same subject. Writing it down will only reinforce his own “interpretation,” thus perhaps eventually blocking out the truth.

The New Living Translation
On page 134 the reader is informed that all “Scriptures” are taken from the New Living Translation (NLT), which this book lists as being published in 1996. Three quotations from this new paraphrase indicate that it may be one of the most dangerous works that ever masqueraded as the Holy Scriptures. Psalm 51:5 (in this perversion, reads: “For I was born a sinner–yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.” The NIV has received enough public criticism concerning their mistranslation that those anonymous souls who worked on this one surely knew better. They are obviously Calvinists, who have no scruples whatever in putting their theology into GodÕs Word. If the Bible does not say what they think it should, they just twist the Scriptures until they achieve agreement. These men have the same character concerning which apostle wrote in 2 Peter 3:15-16.

The NLT also butchers Romans 10:10: “For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved” (40). The New King James has the correct translation: “For with the heart one believes to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation.” As most paraphrases do, the NLT translators have changed the parts of speech to whatever suited their purposes. The Greek word eis is translated “to” twice: one believes to righteousness and confesses to salvation. They have been replaced by affirmations that by believing you are made right and by confessing you are saved. Even a beginner should be able to see that there is a difference between having something and only moving in the direction of having it.

Eis is the same word used in Acts 2:38: people were to be baptized “unto” the remission of sins. Believing and confessing and baptism are all unto the remission of sins–in that order. They all lead into salvation. They all move in the direction of obtaining salvation. Faith moves us in the right direction; so does confession. Baptism not only moves us in the right direction; it is the final step leading to salvation. At that point the blood of Christ cleanses us from our sins (Acts 22:16; Rev. 1:5). The NLT has salvation occurring at the moment of confession, which may be excellent Baptist theology, but it is not New Testament truth.

The third mutilated verse is John 3:16. For centuries (literally) John 3:16 has been translated “should not perish but have everlasting life.” There is an excellent reason why the verse has been translated thus: such is its meaning. The verbs translated “perish” and “have” are both subjunctives. The NLT inappropriately renders the verb “will not perish” (48), which is future, not subjunctive. Will guarantees the result and makes the Bible reader think that if he just believes, he will not perish, which is incorrect (although it bolsters the Calvinistic doctrine of “once saved, always saved”). A believer should not perish, but he may–if his faith does not lead him to repent and be baptized unto the forgiveness of sins or if he later renounces his faith in one manner or another.

Any book that encourages people to study God’s Word ought to use a reliable translation rather than one that is slanted toward Calvinistic theology. New Bible students should be encouraged to have an accurate translation rather than one that reads easily. All who come to the Bible should be interested in truth. They can read the opinions of men later in the form of a commentary. It is dangerous when a commentary passes itself off as Holy Spirit-inspired Scripture.

Salvation
Chapter Three, “How To Get Right With God,” conveys four spiritual laws. The fourth law says that we must “individually receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord,” which is correct, but we vigorously oppose the means this book provides for “receiving” Him. They quote John 1:12, Ephesians 2:8-9, and John 3:3, which are all great Scriptures. Notice, however, that not one of them is in the context of an actual account of a person becoming a Christian. John 1:12 is from the introduction of John’s gospel account of Jesus’ life. Ephesians 2:8-9 is from a theological argument of Paul’s. Only John 3:3 involves Jesus talking about the new birth, and then they omitted the part about being born of water and the Spirit (John 3:5), which might actually cause one to think of baptism. The final Scripture mentioned is Revelation 3:20: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me” (NKJ; they used the NLT). Not only is this not spoken to someone on the verge of becoming a Christian (52-53); in this verse Jesus is addressing those who are already Christians!!!

Talk about using a Scripture out of context! This instance should serve as the dictionary definition. This verse is the one used most frequently through Power For Living as the way one comes to Jesus. The author talks about a conversation with Susan Atkins, one of the Manson gang convicted of murder. According to her, she read all through the Bible and did not find out how to be a Christian until the last book of the Bible when she got to Revelation 3:19-20 (107). What? Did she sleep through the book of Acts? Is it possible to miss, “Men and brethren, what should we do?” (Acts 2:37). Throughout the book of Acts there is account after account of people being converted; how could anyone miss that? In order to think that Revelation 3:19-20 refers to salvation one would have to miss the entire context of Revelation 2-3. These are letters written to the seven churches–not to those outside of Christ wondering how to become Christians.

After giving the four laws, the author states that people must turn away from their sins but then argues that we do not have the power to do so. Why tell someone to do what he cannot do, then? Notice that Peter did not say in Acts 2:38 to those who asked him what they must do: “Repent. Whoops! I forgot. You don’t have the power to do that.” How silly! Of course we have the ability to turn away from sin. The author says not only here (53) but repeatedly throughout the book that we should ask Jesus to take control of our lives. Really? What happens when we sin, then? Did He ignore our prayer and relinquish His control? God does not control us. If He did, then who would get the blame for sin? No Scripture teaches that God has any desire to control us. The correct way of stating the matter is to say that we must submit to His will.

Needless to say, baptism unto the remission of sins is not mentioned at all. How odd that in a book designed how to tell a person to become a Christian the following examples are never mentioned: those on Pentecost (Acts 2:36-41), the Samaritans (Acts 8:1-25), the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40), the household of Cornelius (Acts 10), Saul of Tarsus (Acts 9:1-18; 22:1-16), or the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:25-40). In place of the Scriptures the author substituted his own version of “the sinner’s prayer,” which of course is not found anywhere in the Bible (55).

The “Personal Relationship”
Finally, the book gives an indication of what is meant by having a “personal relationship” with God. On page 56 we read that, after asking Jesus into one’s life, He comes and brings “His power with Him.” The discerning reader might ask, “What kind of power does Jesus bring? Do I feel it? What does this power enable me to do?” The answers are not described at this point. The reader discovers what all God does for him in chapter four, “How to Keep on Growing.”

The Christian is urged to pray, which is not surprising, but in the midst of listing reasons that we should pray, such as intercession for another and offering praise to God, we also find a “period of listening as God talks” (70). Say what? Is this, at long last, what is meant by having a “personal relationship” with Jesus: when we pray, God talks back to us? Once again, this is nothing but pure subjectivism. God does not really speak to us when we pray; He speaks to us through the word; that is the only manner in which God speaks to us. The only thing we hear when we pray is our own thoughts.

Apparently, many people think that they and God are best of friends. The author, Jamie Buckingham, cites a person balancing his checkbook as an example of the closeness of the relationship between God and the Christian. He advises him to pray that God show him where the mistake is. One can just imagine this fellow going to work the next day and saying, “God loves me so much and we are so close that He showed me where the error in my checkbook was last night.” These people do not have a close, personal relationship with God; they just have a vivid imagination and a heightened sense of their own importance.

The author further alleges that the Holy Spirit interprets the Bible for the Christian (76). That would be helpful if true; it would save a great deal of money on commentaries. We wonder what would happen if we asked ten people who believe this doctrine to explain to us what the Holy Spirit told them about 1 Corinthians 15:29 (baptism for the dead). Does anyone think they would all recite the same answer?

If the Holy Spirit were going to “interpret” each passage of Scripture for us, why do we need the Bible? Why do we need to study the Bible? Why does He not just reveal the truth to us as we need it? If the author’s “interpretation” of Revelation 3:20 is any indication of the way this process works, the Holy Spirit is not a very reliable interpreter.

Buckingham says we sometimes refer to the Holy Spirit as our “conscience” (77-78). We call it “conscience” because that is precisely what it is. Perhaps the author never heard that small voice of caution or of guilt before he became a “Christian,” but everyone else has. Was that the voice of the Holy Spirit, while we were yet sinners? The conscience is trained to speak up when we violate what we have been taught–Christian or not.

The author goes so far as to say that the single most important truth for the believer is to know that he has been filled with the Holy Spirit (83). Following is a list of things that the Holy Spirit allegedly does.

1. He fills people with Jesus (86) and “makes the presence of Jesus real in us” (84). Whatever this means would be a guess; it sounds intensely subjective.

2. Since the Holy Spirit literally lives inside the Christian, He can control their lives (84). Again, whose fault is it, then, if we mess up? He says specifically that being controlled by the Spirit means “relying on the power of God” to change one’s life instead of trying to do it oneself (86). This theology makes us passive and God active. The only one who gets credit or blame is the one who has the active role.

3. He leads us into all truth (John 14:16-17), which would account for the small voice (84-85). These words were spoken to the apostles, not to all Christians. They were led into all truth (2 Peter 1:3).

4. He provides “supernatural power” (85). The author does not indicate what all this supernatural power entails–whether it is the ability to work miracles, heal the sick, speak in tongues, or raise the dead. The only thing he cites definitely is the ability “to be witnesses of Jesus” (85). To be a witness of Jesus (to see and hear Him firsthand) would require supernatural power. But probably he means that the Holy Spirit helps in evangelism. If it really was the Holy Spirit helping, He would have told them they had the wrong gospel.

5. He produces in us “the life of Jesus” (85). The author cites Galatians 5:22-23 as a demonstration of what he means by this point. This point is true; the Spirit does produce these characteristics–but not directly; He does so as we understand and apply the Word of God to our lives.

Power For Living probably has enjoyed a wide circulation. How sad that many people will end up being deceived by the doctrines that it teaches.

“Her World” by Howard Deaton

[Editor’s Note: The following was sent to us in the mail; it is well worth reading and thinking about, at any age.]

She lives in a two-story house with basement near the railroad tracks. All she sees every day is the living room, dining room, kitchen, and the front and back porches. There is a bathroom, but she can’t use it. About every two months, she goes to the beauty shop for a hair cut; about every six months she visits the doctor. You see, her world is this small–her choice is to lie in bed or sit in a wheelchair.

She has a husband around and a cat. She is paralyzed, unable to do for herself. Sometimes she has a phone call and she tries to be funny. Some ladies from church sit her on Sunday nights, and sometimes the preacher or one of the elders come by. Her daughter visited recently for a few days. Her son does call.

Her eyesight is getting worse. She recently became a great grandmother, but she cannot hold the child and may never see him. She can no longer read her Bible, but she has tapes of a man reading the Bible. Sometimes she sits on the front or back porch while her husband does yard work. She also has some musical tapes and listens to religious singing.

She is content with what God has given her in life here. She hopes for her place in heaven. She talks of yesterdays and dreams of what life will be like when she gets to heaven. Wouldn’t it be great if we all could accepts whatever life holds for us, keep the faith, and cheerfully wait until God calls us home. She says this is God’s world; we are His people, and He can do what He wants.

At fifteen she was baptized, at twenty-eight she was married, at twenty-nine she had a daughter, and at thirty-two she had a son. On her eighty-first birthday, she fell down a flight of stairs and became paralyzed, but she still says, “God has a purpose for me here, but sometime I’ll be with Him [God] in heaven.” She hopes her husband and children will all join her there.

May we all be able to live our lives like this, not in body, but in God’s love.

[The following poem was also sent to us by Howard Deaton]

Seek and Find
Today we are here. Tomorrow, where? Where do we go? Do we really care? The Bible tells us where and how If only we read, believe, obey now.

Does it matter how we live our lives? Though it has pitfalls and much strife, Jesus came to earth, did many good deeds, He died a cruel death, for us He bleeds.

We strive to live as He wills. Failure to do, the heart chills. His reward is great, our flesh is weak. Hope of heaven makes us Him seek.

AND NOW, THEY ARE OLD

JOYCE BAKER

They are the ones who used to sit way down toward the front. They were always involved in whatever programs the elders had thought appropriate for this church. Some even bought bonds to build this place of worship.

They came to your children’s weddings, and brought fine gifts; and when the babies started to come, they bought useful items to lessen the financial strain a bit.

They sat with your sick for hours at the hospital, while you went home to refresh yourselves. Then, when your loved one came home, they took large casseroles and pots of food so that you could give your attention to the patient and finally grab a little rest for yourself.

They called regularly to check with your needy families to see how they could lighten their load. They bought clothing, baby formula, furniture, or simply gave them money to buy what they needed.

They went to your family funerals–even when they were out of town, sometimes.

They sent cards and notes…oh, lots and lots of notes! Notes of sympathy, notes to wish you well, notes to encourage visitors to make this church their church home, and of course, cheerful birthday greetings.

They cleaned your house when you “threw your back out” or had a long recuperative period after surgery. They washed or cut your hair, when your illness prevented you from getting out. They brought you to their house and cared for you when you had no one at home to help.

They groggily answered the phone at 3 a.m. but were more than willing to jump out of bed and scurry over to your house in the cold winter night to stay with your children. Daddy had to get Mommy to the hospital with those fast-occurring labor pains!

They took your children for an evening occasionally, and sometimes overnight, to give you a chance to concentrate on each other for a change and because they enjoyed getting to know the youth of the church.

They sacrificed their Saturdays, many times, doing repairs…or painting…or cleaning and organizing at the church building. No one but God knew they were there. They bought toys for the nursery, items for the kitchen; flowers, a tablecloth, whatever was needed. They left them when no one was looking.

They called when they did not see you at worship; they asked what was wrong or if they could help in some way.

They sent your children (away at college) little checks from time to time, so that they could eat a nice meal out, instead of cold pizza (or yet another can of Campbell’s soup).

They gave separate checks from their regular offerings for the missionaries, orphan homes, and other charitable endeavors the church supported–to lighten the dip into the church funds. They took in foster children until they could be adopted–sometimes even adopting one themselves.

Oh, yes, they were happy to do these things, but it was their duty to do so. Our Lord commanded it! (Read the Scriptures listed at the end of this article.)

And now, THEY ARE OLD! They are as bound and confined to their home, almost as if they were shackled to it. It takes all the effort they can summon, and help from others, just to get to their doctor appointments.

They watch their mailbox as intensely as a hawk watching for prey. It doesn’t have to be a long letter– just a little card with a note, such as, “We miss you, and you are always in our prayers. You are not forgotten by the church you love so much!” would be the highlight of their day. (They will read it time and time again.) And, oh! If you could just go and sit with them now and then! They wait for a visit–anyone…a couple…several together; just a few minutes on your way home from work or church would be so welcome. You do not have to bring anything, although if you do–like a home-cooked meal once in a while, or home-made cards your children have fashioned all by themselves, or church bulletins or a joke book that you are willing to read to them (their eyesight is failing so!)–you have no idea how much they appreciate it!!

They will think about and talk about your visit for days. For this is their high point until someone else comes, and that might be days, or even weeks.

They understand that it may not be too pleasant for you, for it reminds you that you too may one day be old , and your health may not be what you always envisioned for yourself in your twilight years. They understand that you do not know what to say or do when they cry, or tell you they love you, or get their tears all over you. And they know that they do not always smell too fresh and are embarrassed by it. (They are dependent on others to bathe them, which is usually only once, or; if they’re fortunate, twice a week.)

You do not have to make conversation if you do not want to; just be a good listener. They’re so happy just to have a genuine, live person right there in the room with them who cared enough to actually come!! But, how they do love it if you will describe everything that is going on in the church now: the programs, who’s come and who’s gone, who’s now married and having a baby, and how their old friends are faring…dear old friends their age! Are they still able to attend the services? Or are they, too, homebound? Do they have more grandchildren, or even great-grandchildren now? They yearn for news of them. They miss, most of all, the fellowship with their brothers and sisters in Christ and the special communion that one has with the Lord when they assemble together with those of this common bond and love. No LordÕs Day is ever the same when they are unable to attend this union of worship.

For them, the next best thing is to have you drop by Sunday afternoon to let them know you still consider them part of the family, even though they’re unable to join you. If you only have time to spare a few moments…well, you know where you will find them, and you have made their day! They will love you for it, and the Lord will bless you for it!

It was a promise for Him, long ago!!

Please read these scriptures: Matthew 5:7; 7:12; 25:40; Romans 12:10, 13, 15; James 1:27; 2:16; Acts 2:44-45; 4:32; I John 3:17-18, 23; I Thessalonians 4:9-10; 1 Peter 3:8; 2 Peter 1:7-8; John 15:12-14; Psalm 133:1; Deuteronomy 15:7-11; 24:14.

from The Better Way (May 21, 2000)

FRUITFULNESS IN RETIREMENT YEARS

TRAVIS IRWIN

Solomon said, “The glory of young men is their strength; and the beauty of old men is the hoary head” (Proverbs 20:29). He also said, “The hoary head is a crown of glory; it shall be found in the sway of righteousness” (Proverbs 16:31). Does the Bible speak of old age as a curse? I think not! It is a blessing in so many ways.

From a practical standpoint, an older member of the Lord’s church should have much more to offer in time, talent, and spiritual maturity. Consider the fact, if a man or woman has been godly in their younger years, he has more experience, more wisdom, more knowledge, and (because of retirement from secular work) more time. Someone has described the older members of the church as the “untapped resource” of potential energy in the church. It is so good to see older members guided in areas of service today. Let’s honor the hoary head (cf. Leviticus 19:32).

This dignity and beauty are only seen in the child of God who faithfully serves the Lord as he or she grows older. Let us all say with the Psalmist, “A man’s goings are established of Jehovah; and he delighteth in his way. Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down; for Jehovah upholdeth him with his hand. I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread. All the day long he dealeth graciously, and lendeth; and his seed is blessed…for Jehovah loveth justice, and forsaketh not his saints” (Psalms 37:23-26, 28a, ASV).

There Is To Be Service In Old Age
I have found in talking with some older members of the church over the years, who had retired from secular work, the attitude of, “Well, I’m now retired–I can’t do much of anything for the Lord anymore–it’s up to the younger people now.” Isn’t this sad? Some people who say such things never were very much involved in the Lord’s work in the first place, but then again this mentality may even be seen in the lives of older members who once faithfully served the Lord.

The Bible does not tell us that one stops bearing fruit in old age (cf. John 15:1ff); rather it points out we all are to work and serve and grow continually (cf. 2 Peter 3:18; Matthew 20:28; 2 Timothy 4:6-8). The Psalmist says, “The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon. They are planted in the house of Jehovah; they shall flourish in the courts of our God. They shall still bring forth fruit in old age; they shall be full of sap and green: to show that Jehovah is upright; he is my rock and there is no unrighteousness in him” (Psalms 92:12-15). Do you get the idea here that God expects much from us in old age? By inspiration the Psalmist says that the older person shall be “full of sap and green,” indicating productivity. I think it is sad that we picture the older person much the same way we think of trees during the fall or winter–the sign of dying and barrenness. Such is not the case with the righteous man or worman.

From what Paul said, older women are to be a great asset to the kingdom (Titus 2:3-5). Older brethren can counsel the younger, they can be hospitable, they can simply listen to others’ problems. With a spirit of service, the older member can be a minister of concern and helpfulness and the kingdom can grow as a result. Consider some areas of meaningful labor.

1. Visit homes, hospitals, nursing homes, etc.

2. Mail-out and grade Bible Correspondence Courses.

3. Babysit for young mother–they can go visiting more often.

4. Teach classes.

5. Head up such works or be involved in a senior group.

6. They can be used in such works as Telecon or Bible-call.

7. They can write letters to missionaries and knock doors.

8. They can call delinquents and absentees on a regular basis.

9. They can check up on the sick.

10. They can teach Home Bible Studies, hand out brochures, etc.

11. They can do almost anything a younger person can do (within reason of course).

In a rare moment with my father, we were discussing some matters pertaining to the Lords’ church. We concluded, “There are more people willing to be served than are ready to serve.” Just think if teenagers did not want to be served, but served, how the church would grow. Just think if the middle age members were busy working and serving, how fast the church would grow. And consider if all our older members were busy serving and growing, there would be little if any time for older members to complain about aches and pains; there would be little self-pity and, as a result, the church of our Lord would be stronger, it would have great examples of service, and it could do nothing but move forward. Let every reader who reads this article today be challenged to live righteously, to grow gracefully, serve the Lord, and bring Him glory until He calls him or her home. Thank God for our older brethren!

[This article comes from Personal Evangelism (April, May, June 1982) by way of the Handley Herald (September 30, 1998).]

Man’s “Sinful Nature”

The idea that man possesses a sinful nature does not come from the Bible, but from Augustine’s and then Calvin’s misinterpretation of the Scriptures. Of course, the obvious question to ask is, “If man has a sinful nature, how did he get it?” God created the universe, the natural world, and mankind. When He completed His work, He determined that “indeed it was very good” (Gen. 1:31). It would appear, then, that, if we have a sinful nature, God must have created us with it.

“Oh, no,” cries the Calvinist. “We obtained our sinful nature in the fall. Once we sinned, our natures became perverted and forever altered so that we can not do one good thing or think one good thought unless God has arbitrarily chosen us to be one of the elect and the Holy Spirit cleanses us.” The Calvinist has not helped his case with this explanation; he has only attempted to obfuscate the truth. This theology fails at every point.

Did God know that the first pair would sin? Yes. He had planned redemption from the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:3-5), which demonstrates that He knew mankind would sin. But what would be the point of creating people with a free will that would last only so long as it took Adam and Eve to sin? From that point on, every individual would come into the world tainted. Imagine! No child has ever been born on this earth who was not born depraved (according to this doctrine). Babies may look cute, but inside is a depraved individual. Who can believe it?

Adam and Eve had a choice with respect to sin–whether to obey or disobey. But because of their disobedience all children enter the world as depraved creatures, which means they are lost. Surely, no one would argue that depraved souls can enter into heaven. So, when a child dies, it must be eternally lost. What an evil, comfortless doctrine to suffering parents! Gratefully, it is not true. We know that it is not true because no verse of Scripture teaches that children are born depraved. [There is a mistranslated verse that Calvinists have put into the Scriptures; we will examine that travesty later.] Furthermore, there is no means of salvation prescribed for children in the Old or New Testaments. If they were lost, they would need salvation, but salvation is a decision freely made, and babies do not have the capacity to make such decisions.

God is the one to blame for the eternal destruction of babies because He knew they would be born depraved and He is the only one who can save them. In fact, He is the only one who can save adults, too. No one can be saved; no one has the power to respond to God positively–unless God enables him to do so through the Holy Spirit. Who, then, is responsible for man’s damnation? God. A person comes into the world depraved, incapable of coming to God, which is not his fault. He could not help inheriting that sinful nature from Adam. Since he has no power to respond favorably to God, he must remain lost. According to Calvinism, then, a person enters the world as depraved and damned, and he will remain that way unless God has already chosen him as one of the elect. How then can the grace of God be said to have ever shown on this individual?

The Scriptures say that God’s grace, which brings salvation, has appeared to all men (Titus 2:12). Calvinism says that it has not. Babies are born blind–and remain that way. They never see the light of His grace–unless He wills it. On the day of judgment this individual will appear before God to give account of himself (2 Cor. 5:10), but how can he? He was spiritually blind at birth and was never granted an opportunity to leave the darkness. God never allowed it. It is not difficult to understand why this doctrine creates atheists. Anyone with even a moderate sense of justice knows that such a system is unfair.

Instead of this sorry doctrine, the Scriptures teach that God gives all people the right to choose salvation or damnation. No one can blame God for being lost; it is an individual decision. God’s grace was extended to that soul; he preferred the darkness (John 3:19-20).

Calvinist theology is not based on the book of Genesis. Not one word is said about a sinful nature. There were consequences of the the decision to sin that affect all mankind, but inheriting a sinful nature is not one of them. God pronounces penalties on all of the parties involved in the first sin, which are listed below.

1. The serpent henceforth was made to go on his belly (Gen. 3:14).

2. Satan received the promise of ultimate defeat at some time in the future by the seed of woman (Gen. 3:15).

3. The woman would bring forth children with pain (Gen. 3:16).

4. The woman’s desire would be to her husband, and he would rule over her (Gen. 3:16).

5. The ground became cursed for man’s sake (Gen. 3:17).

6. Man’s labor would now involve sweat, as the result of hard work (Gen. 3:18).

7. The physical body would return to dust, signifying the introduction of physical death (Gen. 3:19).

God also forced them out of their home in the garden of Eden (Gen. 3:24). All of these punishments remain in effect. But what was said about a sinful nature? Not one word! In Genesis 4, children are born. Where is God’s pronouncement that, because of the first couple’s sin, their children would be born depraved? There is none! Would not this be the logical time to explain it (if it were the case)? Hereditary total depravity is not taught here because it is a false doctrine.

With hereditary total depravity man has no choices. If the Holy Spirit has not brought him to life, he is incapable of choosing righteousness. The fact is, however, that, while certain earthly conditions changed as a result of sin, man retained his ability to choose. Abel chose to obey God and bring Him the type of offering He commanded (one that involved the shedding of innocent blood). Cain brought a bloodless sacrifice (one that suited him). God rejected it. Cain became angry, and God spoke to him. According to Calvinist theology, God should have spoken thus:

“Why are you angry? Being angry will not change a thing. You and your brother were both born depraved. I have sent the Holy Spirit to enable him to react properly to my commands. You, on the other hand, I have left in your depraved state. You cannot do any better; you cannot think any better than you currently do. You cannot offer any better worship than you have, and you will never serve me acceptably. You’re a loser, and no matter what you do, you will be lost. Why don’t you just accept these things and live with the fate I have decreed for you?

Instead, God told Cain: “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it” (Gen. 4:7-8).

First of all, Cain had the ability to do well, which proves he did not enter the world totally depraved and incapable of doing even one good thing. God told him that he could do well.

Second, he had the choice either to do well or not to do well. This demonstrates that, when sin entered the world, it did not so affect mankind as to take away his free will. This plea that God makes with Cain would be in vain, if Calvinism were true, and God would simply be toying with him, mocking him. It would be like asking a five-year-old to leap ten feet in the air or to run a mile in one minute and then upbraiding him for failure to comply. Nothing in the context indicates that this conversation is anything other than what appears to be–a straightforward plea for Cain to choose to do good.

It is axiomatic to nearly anyone (but a Calvinist) that one can only be held accountable for doing or not doing what he has the ability to do. For that reason we retain our free will. For that reason God invites us to obey. “Come” (Matt. 11:28) can be responded to in either a positive or negative way. Why invite those who have no ability to respond? “And let him who thirsts come” (Rev. 22:17). The choice is ours. We do not have a sinful nature that is keeping us from obeying the gospel. If we are lost, we can only blame ourselves. God has given us all the opportunity for salvation.

Most reliable versions translate the Greek word sarx as “flesh.” The King James, for example, renders sarx as “flesh” 148 out of 151 times; the other three times they use “carnal” or “carnally” (Rom. 8:6-7; Heb. 9:10). The New International Version, by way of contrast, uses “flesh” only 33 times. They use “body” 25 times and “sinful nature” 25 times, along with a host of other choices (see “A Review of the NIV” on our web site as well as in A Handbook on Translation).

Sinful nature appears because the bulk of the NIV translators are Calvinists. The obvious question to ask (as mentioned earlier) is: “If we have a sinful nature, from whom did we get it?” The NIV translators have put the doctrine of Calvinism into the Bible by mistranslating the word sarx.

Notice that they did not want to characterize Jesus Christ as having a “sinful nature.” In Ephesians 2:3 all of us are portrayed as having gratified “the cravings of our sinful nature,” but in Ephesians 2:15 Jesus “abolished in his flesh the law.” In the former verse they contented themselves by translating sarx as “sinful nature,” but just a few verses later, it suddenly became “flesh.” Well, of course context can allow for a difference in meaning, but Jesus Christ came in the sarx. If we have a sinful nature, He had a sinful nature! If it be argued that the Holy Spirit was His Father, it is also true that Mary, a human being, was His mother. He is both the Son of God and the son of man–fully Divine and fully human. And if He was fully human, and possessed all the characteristics that we do, then, if the rest of us have one, He too was born with a sinful nature. Either the Bible or Calvinism is wrong.

The NIV translators made a disastrous revision of Psalm 51:5. Compare each of the following lines.

Beginning:

KJV: Behold, I was shapen in iniquity,

NKJ: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,

ASV: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,

NAS: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,

NIV: Surely, I have been a sinner from birth,

NLT: For I was born a sinner–

End:

KJV: and in sin did my mother conceive me.

NKJ: and in sin my mother conceived me.

ASV: and in sin did my mother conceive me.

NAS: and in sin my mother conceived me.

NIV: sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

NLT: yes, from the moment my mother conceived me.

Is it not interesting that the NIV agrees more with a paraphrase than a standard translation (NLT stands for the New Living Translation)? Whatever I was brought forth in iniquity means (an ellipsis for “brought forth into a world of iniquity,” for example), it is not the equivalent of I was born a sinner. Such is an interpretation, which just “happens” to fit Calvinistic theology. Notice that the phrase, in iniquity, has been changed to a predicate nominative, sinner. It is not at all unusual for the NIV to change one part of speech into another.

The second part of the verse is even more deceitfully handled, shifting the focus of attention away from the mother to David himself. She is the one who conceived him in sin, but in sin has been replaced by an adjective sinful and applied to David rather than to the mother. No longer has she conceived in sin; he has been sinful from the moment of conception. We can only speculate on what sins the unborn child is contemplating. [At least this theology confirms that an unborn child is a living being since he is already capable of sin, but if he is then aborted, would not his soul be lost?]

All that Calvinists need is to take a mistranslated verse out of its context to say, “See the Bible says that we are sinners at birth.” Thanks to the NIV, the NLT, and a few other paraphrases, they have put their theology right into the Scriptures. What is disturbing is that some brethren still insist on using the NIV, which means that it is entirely possible that a Calvinist would attend services and think that the Lord’s church endorses the NIV and its Calvinistic doctrine. No one who uses the NIV points out its errors every time he speaks. Such a visitor will feel justified in using his corrupt “translation.”

If we do not sin because we are “born that way,” why do we? The answer is a simple one: we make bad choices, just as Adam and Eve did. Calvinists cannot blame their sins on a sinful nature. They were made in the image of God, yet they sinned. If a sinful nature was not a prerequisite for them to sin, why is it required to explain our sins? The fact is that both they and we sin because God gave us a free will. Many times we choose to be obedient; sometimes we rebel. We need redemption because of the times we have chosen to disobey.

Even those who choose sin as a way of life can repent and change; no one is a helpless puppet with the strings being manipulated by Satan. Cain could have done better; he chose evil instead. Thinking that we possess a sinful nature removes the burden of decision-making from us and makes God responsible. Any improvement will have to be His doing, also, since we are so “helpless.” Man is not helpless–just a little lame in his thinking. God wants us to succeed, but He will not make the decision for us. Just as he left it up to Cain, so he leaves it up to each of us. We sin because it is alluring. The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life are powerful motivations, but we can overcome them. We can choose to do well.

“Once Saved, Always Saved”

God saved Israel, but they perished in the wilderness. Christians can be saved from sin but lost eternally. These two statements are not only parallel; they are true. Ahithophel was David’s trusted advisor–until he turned against him. Would anyone argue that he fell out of favor with David when he decided to counsel Absalom? Judas was numbered among the twelve apostles of the Lord, but Jesus said it would have been better for him never to have been born (Matt. 26:24). Why? The greater punishment presumes that he was an actual apostle of the Lord’s–one who fell; otherwise, he would be no worse off than anyone else that rejected Jesus.

Yet despite the obvious and oft-repeated fact that saved people can be lost, a few Calvinists still try to maintain their old doctrine: “once saved, always saved.” There is scarcely any false doctrine easier to refute, yet they cling to it. Most people recognize the error of it just because it violates common sense. We know from our own experience that one positive action is never sufficient to maintain a relationship. Do a man and woman say “I love you” only one time? When they say, “I do,” is no further effort required to maintain that relationship?

Yet Calvinists think that a one-time acknowledgment that “Jesus is Lord” is sufficient for anyone to be saved eternally. Even if saying, “I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,” were sufficient to obtain salvation (which it is not, because repentance and baptism are missing), it would certainly not be sufficient to keep a relationship going. Theoretically, a person cannot ever be lost once he utters those words.

Those who hold to this false doctrine actually appeal to the Scriptures to establish their case. What verses do they use?

He who believes in the Son has everlasting life… (John 3:36).

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life (John 5:22-24).

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life (John 6:47).

All of these verses say that believers in Jesus have everlasting life. But none of these verses says anything to substantiate the “once saved, always saved” theory. They do not say: 1) that faith only is sufficient; 2) that no conditions are needed to maintain this relationship, or 3) that everlasting life cannot be lost. Permanent salvation is an assumption; Jesus did not say, “He who believes in Me has eternal life, and he cannot possibly lose it.”

1 John 3:15, by implication, says that true brethren have eternal life abiding in them (since a murderer could not have). The argument is made that if a person has eternal life abiding in him, he could not possibly lose it. Such is an erroneous conclusion, however, not Biblical teaching. If a person has love for God abiding in him, yet can lose it, why can he not possess the result of that love (eternal life) and lose it as well? Causes have effects. Love of God and obedience to His will causes one to have eternal life abiding in Him. When that love diminishes, so will one’s obedience, and God will withdraw the eternal life that had been granted him. We will demonstrate the correctness of this view after examining one more passage that is used to justify the Calvinistic position.

“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand” (John 10:27-29).

This is an outstanding passage describing the security of the believer. It is designed to comfort all of those who are Christians and who desire protection from the evil one. The good shepherd (John 10:11) is able to lead us successfully. But notice that eternal life is contingent upon something–the sheep hearing and following the shepherd. There is no promise here that Jesus will save us in spite of ourselves. If the shepherd says, “Follow Me through this narrow passageway,” but the sheep says, “I want to wander around this hill where there is more room,” whose fault will it be if the sheep falls to its death? The sheep must follow the shepherd. Security for the believer exists, but it is tied to obedience.

The first danger of the “once saved, always saved” doctrine is that it is false. The second danger is that it may lead to a life of disobedience in which an individual begins to ignore the Scriptures and to live immorally because he is convinced that he will be saved regardless. Notice that we do not charge any Calvinist with teaching that the Word of God should be ignored. We have never known anyone to convince people to become Christians, and when they do (or think they do), tell them, “Now go on your way and sin all you want. You cannot possibly jeopardize your salvation.”

But Calvinists defend such an absurd position! Of course, they will teach “converts” to study the Word of God. They will encourage them to attend worship. They will exhort them to draw closer to God and to live holy lives. The bottom line is, however, that they will tell them they are saved if they do none of those things. The “once saved, always saved” doctrine for some is the “You can have your cake and eat it too” teaching. Simply put (as a Calvinist thinks), once one has confessed that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, he is saved and granted at that moment eternal life which he cannot ever lose. Therefore, he can wallow in sin to his heart’s content and still be saved on the day of judgment. What a deal! Talk about having the best of both worlds! If something is too good to be true, it probably isn’t. In this case, it definitely isn’t. The Bible soundly refutes this lie of Satan (John 8:44).

Although we are not under the old covenant that God made with Israel, we can notice that their physical salvation was not unconditional. The book of Judges shows repeatedly that their departure from the faith brought punishment upon them. Eventually God allowed His people to be taken captive because of their disobedience. But prior to these punishments, the book of Numbers contains numerous occasions in which those who left Egypt died in various rebellions in the wilderness. Somewhere along the line we ought to get the message that God punishes sin–even when (or especially when) it involves His own people.

God clearly articulates His view in Ezekiel 33:12-16:

“Therefore you, O son of man, say to the children of your people: ‘The righteousness of the righteous man shall not deliver him in the day of transgression; as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall because of it in the day he turns from his wickedness; nor shall the righteous be able to live because of his righteousness in the day that he sins.’ When I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, but he trusts in his own righteousness and commits iniquity, none of his righteous works shall be remembered; but because of the iniquity that he has committed, he shall die” (Ezek. 33:12-13).

“Again, when I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ if he turns from his sin and does what is lawful and right, if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has stolen, and walks in the statutes of life without committing iniquity, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of his sins which he has committed shall be remembered against him; he has done what is lawful and right; he shall surely live” (Ezek. 33:14-16).

God’s final view of an individual (the one that will prevail in the day of judgment) depends not upon any one-time act or even years of righteous living. Fifty years of righteousness cannot deliver the one who departs into the realm of iniquity during the latter portion of his life. No one should think that the first fifty years will offset even so much as six months of practicing evil. These two verses fairly shout: THE RIGHTEOUS CAN BE LOST!

Likewise, a lifetime of evil can be repented of. One can have practiced evil for fifty years but have a change of heart and be saved. This writer knew a man who had successfully resisted goodness for many years. He eventually obeyed the gospel but had difficulty overcoming alcohol. He came forward and repented. Within days of this decision he was struck from behind and killed while driving (sober) just a few blocks from his house. Ironically, his wife who led him to the Lord died as an unfaithful member. Our willingness to obey is the basis for God’s judgment. The wicked can be saved; the righteous can be lost.

Jesus Himself refutes this “once saved, always saved” doctrine. The Lord does not list percentages, but He contrasts the number of saved (few) with the number lost (many) (Matt. 7:13-14). But if everyone who confessed at some time in his life that Jesus is the Son of God were saved, the figures would be reversed. Furthermore, He states plainly, “Not everyone who SAYS to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who DOES THE WILL of My Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). How could Jesus make it any plainer that salvation does not depend on what one says–but upon what one does? A one-time confession is no substitute for a lifetime of loving obedience. This corresponds to Ezekiel 33.

Luke reports Jesus as saying: “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not the things which I say?” How would Jesus have answered someone who said, “Lord, I have confessed You, and I have eternal life abiding in me now, and I cannot lose it; so why should I do what You say?” If “once saved, always saved” is the truth, Jesus would have had to say, “I stand corrected.” But virtually everyone knows that He would have replied, “I am your Lord only so long as you keep My commandments. When you depart from them, you depart from Me, also.”

Peter told Simon that his heart was not right and that he needed to repent (Acts 8:22). He did not tell him that he was never converted and that he needed to be baptized again. Nor did Simon retort, “I have eternal life abiding in me. Therefore, I can be poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity and still be saved” (Acts 8:23). Instead he asked Peter to pray for him.

Paul writes: “Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts” (Rom. 6:12). But if one is eternally saved, what difference does it make? Why does Peter say of Christians who are overcome by lusts that “the latter end is worse for them than the beginning” (2 Peter 2:20)?

Why does Jesus warn His disciples against the doctrine (leaven) of the Sadducees and the Pharisees (Matt. 16:11-12)? Why does Paul say to mark those who teach things contrary to the doctrine they had learned (Rom. 16:17-18)? If Christians are saved to the degree that they cannot possibly be lost no matter what, then it makes no difference what a person believes any more than it matters what he does. He may believe any false teaching and engage in any immorality he desires.

“Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12). This verse can have no meaning, if it is impossible for a “Christian” to fall. And how can a Christian be a stumbling block? Yet Paul affirms that a weak brother might perish (8:11).

Paul admonishes brethren in 2 Corinthians 13:5 to examine themselves to see whether they are in the faith. Can Christians depart from the faith and still be saved? Paul said even of himself that he disciplined his body to bring it unto subjection, lest after preaching to others, he himself might become disqualified (1 Cor. 9:27).

The book of Galatians is addressed to Christians in the churches of that region. They had been troubled by the Judaizing teachers who insisted that Christians keep the law of Moses. Paul writes: “You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4). Can someone fall from grace? Not only is it possible; Paul said it had already occurred. One cannot fall from a height to which he had never attained in the first place. One cannot lose salvation unless he once possessed it. They were Christians, but they were now giving heed to another gospel (Gal. 1:6-9), which resulted in their falling from grace–losing what they had.

Paul wrote to Timothy that Hymenaeus and Philetus were overthrowing the faith of some (2 Tim. 2:18). The book of Hebrews contains a multitude of warnings for the Christian. “How shall we escape [punishment, gws] if we neglect so great salvation… ?” (Heb. 2:1-4). The writer of the letter is asking a rhetorical question. We shall not escape punishment if we are guilty of neglecting our great salvation. We shall be punished, but cannot lose the eternal life abiding in us? Such an idea is preposterous. Christians can also fall short of entering the rest God has awaiting them (Heb. 4:1). God says: “If anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him.” Oh, but He will be saved anyway. How absurd! Those who adhere to the “once saved, always saved” doctrine have God actually saving a person whom His soul abhors. Who can believe it?

James states that a brother can wander away from the truth; the one who brings him back “will save a soul from death” (James 5:19-20). His soul would have been eternally lost–even though he at one time had eternal life abiding in him. Many other Scriptures could be examined which establish this point. The New Testament consistently refutes the error of “once saved, always saved.” We have an ongoing relationship with the Father. No one-time confession or series of good works forever ensures salvation. Spiritual development is essential (2 Peter 1:5-11). Through continuous efforts and obedience we make our calling and election sure.

When we obey the gospel, our names are written in the book of life. We have eternal life, but we can lose it. How do we know? The Bible tells us that our names can be blotted out of the book of life (Rev. 3:5). They were there; we were saved, but salvation can be lost. To keep our names in the book we must overcome and keep the faith. Let us not pay heed to some enticing but false doctrine of eternal security; let us abide by the teaching of the Scriptures.

The Extreme Court

On Wednesday, June 28th, just days after banning student-led prayer at high school football games, the Supreme Court further disgraced itself by opening the door to infanticide in its 5-4 decision, which struck down a Nebraska law banning partial birth abortions–laws which 28 other states also have. It was bad enough that our inglorious president had vetoed similar legislation passed by Congress, but the Court wields much greater power than he does.

Some say that this latest ruling supports the original Roe v. Wade decision of 1973, which is an understatement: it establishes it with a vengeance! Roe was a legal blunder which read into the Constitution an intent that simply was not there. To even suggest that women have a Constitutional right to abortion is absurd. It was based on the rising sentiment of moral looseness and a few loudmouthed feminists who allegedly represented all American women (a now-debunked myth).

Citizens might pardon the Court for one really bad “interpretation” (although God will not, considering the resulting carnage), but this Stenberg v. Carhart decision is inexcusable. During the past 27 years everyone has had plenty of time to explore the subject of abortion thoroughly. Spiritually and medically (in other words, factually), the baby is a living entity in the womb, and abortion kills that innocent human life. Legally, the land’s highest court has had more than sufficient time to have discerned upon what a flimsy basis Roe rests. An honorable review would have opened the door to greater restrictions on abortion instead of slamming the door shut. There can be no justification for this decision.

One wonders how many Americans (including justices) even know what partial-birth abortion is. Even the thought of the barbarous practice evokes strong emotions. For years pro-life people argued that Roe caused abortion to be available up to the point of birth; enemies said that was not the case. But just as the woman dubbed “Roe” lied about being pregnant due to rape, “pro-choice” advocates lied about the fact that Roe allowed abortions through the third trimester. Partial-birth abortion makes that discussion irrelevant.

Now five members of the Extreme Court have no problem with “sucking out the brains of a nearly delivered baby” (Cal Thomas’ words in an article from the Denton Record-Chronicle, published on July 3rd, page 10A). For those who do not find such an action grotesque, first, think about it, and, second, find a technical description; the details are even more gruesome.

In Justice Stephen Breyer stated: “The question before us is whether Nebraska’s statute, making criminal performance of a ‘partial-birth abortion,’ violates the federal Constitution. We conclude that it does.” One wonders how many years of law school one must have in order to conclude such nonsense. How can it not be a criminal offense to do to a child what is done in a partial-birth abortion? Undoubtedly, Breyer would object vociferously if a convicted murderer were put to death by removing his brains from him while he was still alive. How can anyone be so blind? What kind of law allows an innocent child to be brutalized and killed but insists that hardened felons be treated civilly? It would be difficult to imagine a more cruel or unusual punishment than that rendered by partial-birth abortion.

Once again, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas were in the minority. Surprisingly they were joined by the usually pro-choice Anthony Kennedy (he was appointed in place of the brilliant Robert Bork, who was vilified by many just because he is conservative). Kennedy argued: “The political processes of the State are not to be foreclosed from enacting laws to promote the life of the unborn and to ensure respect for all human life and its potential” (10A). He would probably not be in favor of reversing Roe, but at least he is willing for states to pass appropriate legislation in this instance.

Ironically, Sandra Day O’Connor proved to be the deciding vote (joining liberals Stevens and Ginsburg). When she was appointed by Reagan, pro-life people opposed her. Reagan genuinely thought that she would “not disappoint” them, but she has proved to be a disappointment on a number of matters–particularly on abortion. Her opponents were correct; she has demonstrated her hostility toward unborn children and apparently lacks the natural affection a mother should have for her children (Rom. 1:31, KJV).

She is also out of touch with current conditions. She said the Nebraska law was unconstitutional because it did not provide a “health-of-the-mother” exception. Thomas asks: “Besides, how can a woman be a mother unless the child she has chosen to kill is a baby before it is born?” (10A). The irony is that “the officially pro-choice American Medical Association” has said that partial-birth abortion “is never medically necessary” (10A). O’Connor is using the antiquated washboard in an age of electric washing machines.

Justice Scalia was in favor of letting the people in each state decide this issue, and Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out that the court applies “a totally different set of standards to abortion than it applies to all other questions that come before it” (10A).

Cal Thomas may be correct when he avers that this court will be “regarded by future generations on the level of Chief Justice Roger Taney’s court, which ruled in Dred Scott that black people were not fully human, and therefore, their lives did not warrant the full protection of the law” (10A). Unborn children–even at the very moment of birth–now have no protection.

Sandra Day O’Connor, Harry Blackmun, and the others who have assented to these abysmal decisions will one day face the Judge of all mankind. There will be no appeals; His decision will be just and once-for-all. They will appear before him with bloodstains on their hands–not the bloodstains of the enemy received as a result of fighting for freedom–nor the blood of the guilty as they are put to death for their crimes. Their hands will be blood-soaked from the deaths of multiplied millions of innocent children, which they had the power to prevent. Attempting to wash them would prove as futile a gesture as that of Pilate. The Lord will exercise as much compassion on them as they gave to infants. Blackmun is already reaping what he has sown; the others would be truly wise to repent of having such a callous view of human life while they have the opportunity. Obtaining forgiveness is only possible in this life.

As for the segment of the Court and society that still retains its sanity, we can only look to the future and hope for a better Court composition and a society that will can look upon an innocent child with compassion. As William Murchison wrote in The Dallas Morning News on July 5th:

The justices leave a riven and angry society no possibility of reconciliation via democratic processes. In essence, the court says to pro-life Americans: Get over it!

Get over what? The conviction that life–a wonderful, not to say a heavenly gift–is a negotiable commodity, maybe good, maybe bad; that the mother’s choice trumps competing considerations?

…pro-life Americans never are going to get over it. They’ll suit up again and again, as often as it requires, and hit that line. A decision like Stenberg invites just such a result (13A).

AMEN!

The confusion that people seem to have regarding abortion defies description. C. S. Hunter responds to those who (correctly) call abortion murder by writing the following in The Dallas Morning News of July 9th: “Maybe so, but we live in a democracy, and the vast majority disagree” (4J). What kind of logic this?

In the first place, research indicates that the majority of people think that partial-birth abortion is wrong. One president vetoed a majority of Congressional representatives. The Court was split and might have gone the other direction.

But even if the issue were one-sided, should that settle any matter? Did not the majority of people in the South think slavery was acceptable (which sometimes resulted in the deaths of black people)? Should Rosa Parks have continued to sit in the back of the bus because the “majority” felt more comfortable with that system? Was Martin Luther King wrong to protest the injustices of his day? Truth is still Truth regardless of how many people agree or disagree.

As has been asked before: “is it prudent to kill living beings if one is unsure whether or not it is murder?” Hunter says maybe it is murder. What kind of heartless individual advises, “Abort first, and ask questions later”? It is not that people do not have access to adequate information to decide; they relish ignorance.

Why People Have So Little Regard for the News Media

Most of us have known it for a long time, but some are still finding it out. Despite the pretense of objectivity, the news media are undeniably and demonstrably biased. Consider ABC’s shameful presentation, Search for Jesus, that aired June 26th. Peter Jennings would undoubtedly affirm that it was eminently fair–even a Dallas area talk show host (that some of us once thought was conservative) defended the program as impartial, which seriously reflects on his judgment.

Dr. William R. Farmer, a research scholar at the University of Dallas in Irving, began his article in The Dallas Morning News by writing:

The world of New Testament scholarship consists of a number of healthy disagreements and divergent points of view. But the scholars whom Peter Jennings interviewed…came largely from one group.

To be sure, Mr. Jennings drew substantially upon comments from the evangelical scholar N. T. Wright. But the voices of Robert Funk, John Domin Crossan, and Marcus Borg–the three most publicly articulate members of the Jesus Seminar–dominated the show (July 1st, page 4G).

These three men worked with former Episcopalian bishop John Shelby Spong, who attacks the Bible as frequently as most people breathe. These “Jesus Seminar” scholars took it upon themselves to tell the rest of us what Jesus actually said in the New Testament, along with what He most certainly could not have said. No one should think that these men have access to documents that the rest of us lack: these are just their opinions. Such are the unbiased sources Jennings used.

These are men who do not believe in the miracles recorded in the Scriptures, nor do they believe the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God. Some Pentecostals who believe in both were on this program, but they served as a contrast, and they did not have the opportunity to contradict what the “scholars” said with any kind of intelligent refutation.

The program presented John as a sort of raving maniac. One wonders why anyone would go out to be baptized by a man of such obvious unstable qualities. Jesus is presented as someone who got caught up in John’s movement (rather than being the One for Whom John prepared the way). It was strongly implied that both of them were involved in a political movement rather than a spiritual one. As also portrayed in the recent CBS miniseries, Pilate wanted to get rid of Jesus. There were a number of inaccuracies that went unchallenged, not the least of which concern the Lord Himself. Mr. Farmer was not entirely critical of the production as reflected in the following comments:

Mr. Jennings has helped bring some sanity into the chaos of skepticism endemic to much biblical scholarship. Of course, his work will not satisfy Orthodox or Catholic intellectuals or evangelical theologians because it threw doubt on one of the central doctrines of the Church–that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures (4G).

Bit tacky, that. Sorry. Once one adopts the dispassionate manner of “scholars,” it becomes difficult to make the transition back to that of being a real person. Mr. Farmer does not seem overly excited about the show’s attempt to take the heart and soul out of Christianity, but this writer does! We cannot speak for the Orthodox, Catholic, or Evangelical scholars, but Christians ought to be incensed!

Everything that Jesus did and taught was tied to His mission. Have any of these “scholars” read, “For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10)–or did they just decide that Jesus never uttered those words? Why anyone would take such “intellectuals” seriously is a marvel. They have no respect for the Word of God, and they are tremendously dull besides. They come across as neurotic men inside a cardboard facade.

Who are they to challenge the indestructible Word of God? Long after they are dead, people will still be repenting of their sins and being buried with Jesus in baptism in order to get forgiveness of their sins–until He returns (Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3-5). What message of hope do they have for mankind? Take away the death of Christ on the cross for our sins (1 Cor. 15:1-4), and there is no hope of salvation or eternal life.

If Jesus is reduced to a mere historical curiosity and the Bible to a flawed concoction of man, riddled with error, then modern man knows absolutely nothing. Certainty cannot exist. Many would deduce that they are the cruel joke of nature in a godless world. Violence, the “might-makes-right” philosophy and “the-exploitation-of-others-for-my-own-gratification” attitude make sense , for there is no basis for precepts such as purity, nobility, honor, or kindness.

Undoubtedly, the “scholars” would be horrified at the above conclusions; they might even disagree that the absence of a Divine Book and a Divine Savior could lead to such thinking, but they would be wrong again. They offer no solutions to man’s sinfulness; they have nothing better than the Scriptures to offer as a means to live by. By attacking the integrity of the Word and the teachings of Jesus they plan to make all men as hopeless and miserable as they are. Their “scholarship” and their vainglorious reputations are their gods. Verily, they have their reward.

Thank God for What?

It is increasingly apparent that many people have made up their own concepts of God. They have heard His name and perhaps have had a brief encounter with the Scriptures at some point in their lives, but they really have no comprehension of God’s holiness or His sense of justice. They have depended upon the popular culture for their ideas of God rather than the Bible.

Many are like children connecting the dots–only in religion the dots are not numbered; so they develop a grotesque and warped view of Deity. They have heard of His wondrous love; probably they have read 1 Corinthians 13. They know that God forgives people, but they have seldom, if ever, been taught that repentance is a prerequisite; so the dots have been connected in such a way that God is viewed as one gigantic CHUMP. Undoubtedly, they have heard about the woman taken in adultery and about Jesus’ pronouncement: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” Overlooked is the follow-up admonition to the woman: “Go, and sin no more.”

People’s perspective of God is that He is just like us (Ps. 50:21). We don’t take sin all that seriously; so why should He? Sure, Jesus died on the cross, but that was just to show God’s love (John 3:16). Many do not connect it to our penalty for sin (1 Cor. 15:1-4). So, in the popular view, God is love, willing to forgive, and not unduly concerned about sin. The church is not a big issue with God, either, in their minds. After all, there are many problems (including division) that pertain to this subject. Why do we need the church anyway? Surely, we can pray for ourselves and have our own relationship with Jesus without involving some church.

With this kind of thinking, the next step is for each individual to develop his own morals. People think as follows: Everything is relative, right? We certainly can’t be expected to depend on some outdated code put together 2,000 years ago. Our society tells us that homosexuality is all right; so the Bible must be obsolete. Abortion is convenient; it solves so many problems. A young woman can remain independent and free, the father can relax concerning the child support he would have had to pay for the next 20 years, and the “would-be” grandparents are rescued from social embarrassment. Just think! All of this happiness only cost the child’s life. Is that such a great price to pay? And the best thing is that God probably approves it. Why, many respected and long-standing religious denominations accept the practice of abortion; sometimes, they proudly fellowship abortionists.

Yes, above all else God wants people to be happy. That’s the reason He is willing to give them eternal life and the reason that salvation is by grace only. He doesn’t require anything of us. Oh, we have to believe that He is there and that Jesus wants to be our Savior, but that’s about it. Why, here’s a little tract that says that I’m a sinner but Jesus wants to be my Savior. All it says I must do is confess that Jesus died for my sins and that I must confess Him as my personal Savior. See how easy that is? God made it so simple for me to be saved. He wants me to have fun now, and He will grant me eternal life later on. So anything that gets in my way, like an unwanted child, we must be allowed to “dispense” with. We probably should avoid sin, but when we mess up, God takes care of everything for us.

If this kind of thinking does not result in letters like the following one to the editor, then how else can a person’s thinking become so jumbled? Vanessa C. Bilanceri of Austin writes:

For each woman and her partner to be able to choose what is best for them at that time in their lives is truly a gift from God. I think abortion is a blessing. Living is all about choice and God gives us freedom of choice everyday. The government should also (The Dallas Morning News, June 27th, 10A).

Since this person is thanking God, we can assume that she is not an atheist. It is also apparent that she does not know the Scriptures, or she could not display such ignorance. God NEVER gave abortion as a “gift.” What book of the Bible does that come from? The New Testament declares the life in the womb to be a baby, equal in status to the child out of the womb (Luke 1:41, 44; 2:12, 16). No one in this or any other society ever had permission from God to kill the life that was in a woman’s womb. Women got that right from the Supreme Court in 1973, not God.

It is true that we make choices every day; God gives us the freedom to commit sin. We are free to have abortions just as we are free to kill relatives or total strangers. We are free to commit fornication or adultery. We are free to lie, cheat, and swindle others. We may gossip about someone we despise and slander that person’s good reputation. We are free to accuse innocent persons of child molestation or rape, thus ruining their lives. We are free to be as selfish, as evil, or as nasty as we want to be. But there comes a day when we will have no choices. We will have no choice but to stand before the judgment seat of Christ and give an account of the deeds done in the body (2 Cor. 5:10). We will have no choice but to abide throughout eternity in hell because of our sinful choices.

There is a way to receive forgiveness, but it involves first of all recognizing what sin is and, second, admitting that it is sin. If we refuse to acknowledge that abortion is sin (if we instead defend it), then we cannot get forgiveness for it. The same holds true of adultery or fornication (which may prompt the consideration of abortion)–or any other sin.

Before someone blithely thanks God for abortion, she ought to be sure that God delights in it. She should be able to prove that God approves of abortion. Proof cannot consist of saying, “God wants me to be happy, and abortion solves my problem and makes me happy; therefore, God approves of it. We can only practice something if God authorizes it either specifically or in principle. The Bible does not recommend abortion, and Christians have regarded it as sin since the beginning of Christianity. Our current culture has influenced the letter writer more than the Bible has. Abortion remains murder (the killing of an innocent life).

A similar letter appeared in the Denton Record-Chronicle on June 19. This letter had to do with abortion via the yet-to-be-approved pill, RU-486. It begins by addressing those who are opposed to birth control of any kind and recommends Paul Ehrlich’s book of 1968, The Population Bomb. This book is full of inaccuracies. In fact, according to Ehrlich, Earth could not last past 1990. The letter writer, Joy Lane, also thinks the world is starving because of a lack of food, which is not true. We have enough food, but corrupt governments in various regions do not care about their people.

The solution presented in the editorial is found in the last sentence. After four paragraphs arguing the case for overpopulation, the letter concludes with these words: “Surely, it is a merciful Heaven that has provided RU-486 for the whole world!” (10A). Here is a perfect example of the non-sequitur. There is no discernable connection between the problem of over-population (if it is a problem) and RU-486, which is also called the “morning after” pill.

A writer might have praised the birth control pill for its ability to prevent pregnancies from occurring, which would mean fewer children. But what connection to the writer’s thesis does RU-486 have, since it destroys a child already conceived? Abortion is already legal; so children in the womb can already be killed. All that RU-486 does is kill them sooner. There will be no appreciable difference in the carnage.

Whose conclusion is it that Heaven provided RU-486? Did Heaven also provide Agent Orange? It is rather the ingenuity of man that creates such substances, whether they be used for good or for evil purposes. God has given us a mind and the ability to use it. We are now able to map 90% of the human genome. The question is, “What will be done with the knowledge?”

Perhaps RU-486 has some positive medical use, but destroying lives that have already been created does not qualify. This is an evil purpose, and Heaven had nothing to do with it. Nor can Heaven approve the destruction of innocent human lives via this means. No one can thank Heaven for it– except those who have created God in their own image and fancy that He agrees with them concerning their own chosen morality.

Christians must impress upon others the fact that mankind does not have the right to concoct its own moral system and then imagine that God approves. The Scriptures reveal God to us so that we have an objective account of Him, His holy ways, and His requirements for us. We confuse good with evil; in fact, we frequently get it backwards (Isa. 5:20). We do not have the right to approach God on a subjective basis (how we think He should be), but we must understand Him as He has objectively revealed Himself to us through the Scriptures.