Circular reasoning has become commonplace in this postmodern world. Since logic and rational thinking have been dismissed, one can now get away with the most obvious of blunders. An episode of Happy Days illustrates well the mechanics of circular reasoning. Fonzie tells the guys that he is dating a girl who is a virgin. At first they accept this claim, but then they wonder how it is that he knows that bit of information. Fonzie replies that she told him so. “She told you?” they query, a little incredulous, but Fonzie is prepared with evidence that cannot be refuted: “Hey! Virgins don’t lie.”
This kind of reasoning is also used in the academic world. All scientists believe in evolution. How do we know that? Evolutionists have told us so. But what about the man who believes in creation? He simply cannot be considered a “real” scientist. Since evolutionists are in the majority, they take upon themselves the prerogative of excluding creationists from serious consideration as scientists.
The same is true in the field of Biblical scholarship. In order to be considered a Biblical “scholar,” one must conform to certain criteria. The most important one of these is to deny that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. All of the others stem from this one. Below are listed a few presuppositions of modern, liberal scholars.
1. The Bible is not the inspired Word of God. It is instead a collection of documents that has been worked over several times. The Old Testament has had a number of editors, and the gospel accounts of Jesus’ life were based on the Q document.
a. Moses did not write the books attributed to him, nor did David write many of the psalms. Different men participated in the composition of this book.
b. The Bible is full of contradictions.
2. Jesus was a mere man–not the Son of God. He did not really do miracles; these were legends that developed after His death.
a. Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God.
b. There is no historical evidence that Jesus ever lived.
Each one of these main points and their corollaries has been refuted time and again. A number of historical, non-Christian sources demonstrate that Jesus lived. Numerous times Jesus claimed to be the Son of God (Mark 14:61-62; John 10:30-37, et al.); His claim of Deity is the reasons He was crucified (John 5:18). No one could read Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John and come to any other conclusion about Jesus. But evidence never gets in the way of liberal “scholars”; after all, since they are the “scholars,” they must be right. Who needs evidence? They are not unlike the Pharisees described in John 9:34: “You were completely born in sins, and are you teaching us?” Notice the absence of a well-reasoned reply. In effect, they told the blind man, “We are the educated spiritually elite. Who are you, you low-brow bozo? You haven’t gone to the schools we have; you donÕt possess the knowledge we have.” In other words, they could not answer the man’s argument. Modern “scholars” cannot deal with Truth, either.
Most important, however, is the fact that the Bible claims inspiration in both the Old and New Testaments (numerous passages such as Num. 23:12; Deut. 4:2; Jer. 1:5; John 14:25-26; 16:12-13; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21, et al.), but these are all ignored by modernists. Furthermore, the fact that their assumptions and theories have been met and refuted over a century ago scarcely slows them down. Like some politicians who spin webs of deceit to cover their misdeeds, liberal “scholars” also go unchallenged because the media adheres to the same presuppositions that they do.
“Forgiveness on Holy Week”
As a case in point, James Carroll wrote an article (whose title is quoted above), and it was published in the Boston Globe on April 18th. [Editor’s note: I do not subscribe to or read all of the publications that are quoted from these pages. Frequnetly, articles are sent in for comment.] As portions of this article are cited, one will see that the presuppositions of liberal “scholars” are reflected throughout. Notice the very first line of the article:
“His blood be on us and on our children?” The Gospel of Matthew puts those words into the mouth of a Jewish crowd calling for the death of Jesus (11A).
Notice that Matthew did not record the facts by inspiration; he “put those words into the mouths of a Jewish crowd.” Immediately, the reader should realize that this article is written by someone who has bought into modernistic thinking rather than someone who respects the integrity of the Scriptures. His third paragraph begins with a similar statement: “Yet the anti-Jewish diatribes of the Gospels continue to be proclaimed, with the Romans declaring Jesus innocent and Jews crying, ‘Crucify him!'” (all quotations are from page 11A). Apparently, it never enters the mind of Mr. Carroll that these events are recorded the way they are because they describe what actually happened. No, such a rationale would take the Bible as inspired and true; so there must be some other explanation.
Mr. Carroll would revise history. He has the uncanny ability to read between the lines–not the lines found in the pages of Holy Writ, to be sure; no, they are the lines that he composed out of his own imagination. He rather pompously asserts: “While we can be sure Jesus was crucified by the Romans, many, if not most, of the details around the Gospel rendition of that event are more likely fiction than ‘fact.'” Oh, really? Please tell all of your readers, Mr. Carroll, “Were you there? How do you know what is likely or unlikely to have happened?” Carroll also thinks it is unlikely that Jesus would have been formally tried before Pilate or that there was “a bloodthirsty crowd.” He may likewise think the moon is made of green cheese; we are not impressed.
Mr. Carroll is willing to dismiss the eyewitness testimony of both Matthew and John as to what occurred. Furthermore, Jesus promised Matthew and John that the Holy Spirit would bring to their remembrance “all things” that Jesus said to them. Perhaps Mr. Carroll could explain how it is that a journalist nearly 2,000 years removed from the events has a better grasp of what occurred than two eyewitnesses with fortified memories! All it takes is arrogance to come to such a conclusion. But here is his explanation.
The main reason to dismiss a reading of this story as conflict between Jesus and “the Jews” is the all too obvious–but for Christians, slippery–point that Jesus was himself a Jew. To set Jesus against Israel is to violate who he was.
The first thing the reader should observe is that Mr. Carroll reserves the right to “dismiss” portions of the Scriptures that do not make sense to him. No wonder there is such chaos in the religious world today. God has not revealed truth to which we must adhere; men have composed a religious document that they may play around with as much as they desire. Hence, religion is entirely subjective. It means only what each person thinks it means (which is nonsense). But this type of thinking enables someone to look at one of the most attested facts of history and say, “I don’t think it happened that way.”
So Jesus was a Jew and therefore he would not have been at conflict with the Jews. Has Mr. Carroll ever heard of Joseph being sold by his brothers into slavery? Should we conclude that such a conflict never really occurred because they were brethren? Maybe Joseph just wandered away on his own and made up that story years later. Has he never read of Jeremiah being lowered into the mire at the instigation of his fellow Jews (Jer. 38)? Carroll’s notion that the Jews would not kill one of their own is preposterous.
The last line of the above quotation, in order to be technically correct, should read: “To set Jesus against Israel is to violate who (Carroll erroneously thinks) he was.” In the gospel according to Carroll, Jesus would have never have offended anyone because Jesus did not come to reveal Truth. Undoubtedly, the Lord is perceived as a first-century Rodney King: “C-Can’t we all just get along?”
To take Truth away from Jesus’ mission is to rewrite God’s script. What of His promise that, if we continue in the Word, we shall know the Truth (John 8:31-32)? What of His claim, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6)? What of Jesus’ good confession before Pilate: “For this cause was I born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice” (John 18:37)?
The character of Jesus is revealed in the gospel accounts of His life. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John consistently portray Jesus in the same light. By what authority does someone suggest (without any more knowledge than is presented in these books) that having a conflict with the Jews is not characteristic of Jesus. From whence does this new standard originate, except out of the critic’s imagination? Carroll proceeds to explain further.
Therefore the Christian habit of contrasting the loving God of the New Testament with the wrathful God of the Old Testament, to take a blatant example, is to falsify the meaning of Jesus.
We cannot be sure to what Christian habit he refers, but the Bible does not portray the God of the Old Testament as wrathful and the God of the New as loving. God is love–under both covenants. The plan for redemption, which demonstrates God’s love (John 3:16), began in Genesis 3:15 with the first prophecy concerning “the seed of woman.” In Genesis 22:18 God told Abraham that in his seed would all the nations of the earth be blessed. The universal covenant for all mankind, which Jesus would die to bring into effect (Heb. 9:16-17), was already planned. That plan involves paying the price for man’s sins. Those who reject Jesus’ sacrifice will be punished throughout eternity, according to the Lord’s own teaching (Matt. 25:41, 46). God’s grace and love have always been in evidence, as has been His justice. He did not suddenly change His character. In Malachi 3:6 God says, “I am the Lord: I do not change.” In the New Testament we find the same teaching: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variation or shadow of turning” (James 1:17).
In fact, this false dichotomy concerning the nature of God is an idea born of Modernism. What gall–to accuse Christians of holding a doctrine invented by Modernists and then take us to task for believing it–when we have never accepted the notion in the first place! How could things become any more convoluted?
Even though Carroll was not there, he knows how this “false account of Jesus’ trial and crucifixion” got in the Bible: they were “imagined renditions of various prophecies.” The one question that the reader of a liberal writer should continually ask is, “Proof?” They never offer it. Carroll goes through a lengthy explanation of what occurred and when, though he offers not one shred of evidence for any of it. He assigns dates to the Gospel accounts after A.D. 70 though he could not prove such if his life depended on it. He quotes “the scholar Jon D. Levenson,” who undoubtedly shares Carroll’s presuppositions (otherwise he would not be a “scholar”), as saying that Paul never associated the Jews with the death of Jesus. Some time these “scholars” ought to read the Bible instead of each other’s gibberish. Consider what Paul about the Jews:
For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost (1 Thess. 2:14b-16).
Now what was it the “scholars” said again?
So what was the purpose of writing this article? All of this hypothetical claptrap was set forth in an effort to keep Christians from hating Jews. The reader probably was unaware that he or she was prejudiced against Jews or that there was still hatred of them for what they did to Jesus nearly 2000 years ago. But in this “politically correct” society, anyone who believes what the Scriptures teach concerning the death of Christ at the demand of His own people MUST be prejudiced, full of hatred, and very likely a neo-Nazi. If such conclusions appear to be absurd, remember that liberals do not think logically, and they assume no one else does, either.
The Bible plainly teaches that the Jews of Jesus’ generation insisted that He be crucified, but His apostles were Jewish, the church in Jerusalem consisted of Jews; why would anyone have any hostility for the Jews today? Those people are long gone, and the desire for Christ’s blood to be on them and their children was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. God’s people throughout the period of the Law of Moses were alternately good and bad, depending on the period of history under discussion. But even in those times, not all were bad, nor were all good. It is silly to suppose that, because we recognize the truths recorded in the Scriptures, we are somehow bigoted against Jews and desirous of their extinction.
The fact is that sin is responsible for the death of Christ on the cross–“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Jesus died for our sins. Sin put Him on the cross. We have all sinned. We are all guilty of His death. The Jews are no more guilty than the Romans who actually crucified Him. The Romans are no more guilty than the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Russians, or the Americans. In Christ all nations of the world can find forgiveness and be blessed. We agree with Mr. Carroll that Jews (or any other people) should not be despised and persecuted today, but we are not willing to sacrifice the integrity of the Bible to make this point.
After all, why is prejudice wrong? Why ought we to love all people? The answer is that this is the doctrine of God. But if the Scriptures are full of inaccuracies, perhaps the message of love is one of them, and we should all join militia groups that preach hatred. Fortunately, we do not have to depend on the “scholars.”
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “‘SCHOLARLY’ EXPLANATIONS (4/30/00).”
Return To Article Index
The subtitle to this 1999 Lubbock lectureship book refers to Jesus as The Author and Finisher of Our Faith. This volume is edited by Tommy Hicks, who also edited the first book in this series of lectures in 1998: The Faith Once for All Delivered. Some of the chapters of that book included “Forsake Not the Assembly,” “God Does Answer Prayers,” “The Lord’s Supper,” “Hell and Eternal Punishment,” “How The Holy Spirit Works Today,” “Legalism and Liberalism,” “Faith and Works,” “Ye Shall Know the Truth,” “Women, Worship and Work,” “Law and Grace,” “The Love of God,” “Ascertaining Bible Authority,” “Satan and His Origin,” “The One Baptism,” “What Are Salvation Matters?” and many others.
The 1999 book, however, is even more comprehensive. It begins with a subject that needs frequent emphasis: “Bible Translations and Versions.” Although the chapter is fairly brief, it covers important information on manuscripts, text types, philosophies of translation, and some notes on various versions. As is typical of just about every chapter in the book, this one is well researched and set forth. Many elderships have been too loose in allowing versions to be used that contain serious errors. This kind of information needs to be available to Bible students.
The second chapter, “Looking Unto Jesus,” explores the manner in which we must look unto the Lord, as well as how to avoid various distractions that would hinder us. The writer considers the meaning of the descriptions of Jesus as the “author” and the “finisher” of our faith. Some of the precepts of Carroll Osburn’s The Peaceable Kingdom are refuted.
Particularly relevant in these times is the question considered next: “Is Christ’s Church Ecumenical?” Of course, the Lord’s church is concerned with unity, but not with man-made proposals to achieve it. Included is a portion of a speech given by Max Lucado (and others) at a Promise Keepers Rally in Washington, D. C., on October 4, 1997 (28-34).
An extensive and informative study on the word redeemed is followed by an equally fascinating study of “The New Name.” Included are quotes from Martin Luther, John Wesley, Albert Barnes, Henry Ward Beecher, and Charles Spurgeon, all of whom were willing for the name Christian to be exalted in place of denominational names (66-67).
Always worthy of study is “Jesus Christ: The Son of God.” Brother Curtis Cates writes a masterpiece on this subject. He explores arguments against the virgin birth of Christ (73-78) and then follows with a section on “The Necessity of the Virgin Birth,” which includes eight powerful facts that would have been impossible without the virgin birth (78-83). Next are included affirmations of the virgin birth from both the Old and New Testaments, followed by a study of the correct translation of “only begotten” for the Greek word monogenes. Receiving attention are Jerome and his so-called “Jumble.” There has been an obvious effort on the part of questionable modern translations to eradicate the word begotten from the text. Some brethren have, unfortunately, joined in the chorus of “scholars” who reject it, but its inclusion is ably defended by brother Cates.
For the historical value of it, the “Lunenberg Letter,” to which Alexander Campbell responded unfavorably, should be considered. The woman who wrote this letter was right on target (Biblically speaking), but Campbell waffled from a truth he should have defended. The sister from Lunenberg, Virginia asked him “how anyone becomes a Christian?” Campbell indicated a willingness to fellowship those who seem pious but were not immersed for the forgiveness of their sins (100-103). A battle raged on this point for a long time. It is precisely at this point that the difference can be seen between liberals today and those who adhere to the Scriptures. Those who speak about “our fellowship” and “our movement” have followed Campbell on this point of doctrine rather than adhering to the Scriptures. The remainder of us have stayed with the truth Campbell discovered–even when the man who once debated in favor of this position backed away from it. We take God, who cannot lie, at His word. If He teaches that man can only respond to His grace by believing, repenting of his sins, confessing the Deity of Christ, and being baptized into Christ for the remission of His sins, then those are the precisely the things a person must do to be saved. If God would accept some other means of salvation, His Word would not be dependable.
It is always good to include a chapter on “Figures of Speech Used in the Bible,” since so many problems have arisen when Bible students fail to discern that the inspired Scriptures were using them. A thorough examination of “The Good Confession” takes the reader through seven areas of study that relate to the topic, including its definition, its declaration, its denial, and the demand the Scriptures impose upon us to live it.
Frequently, liberal college professors and assorted atheists ask, “Did Jesus Really Live on Earth?” The chapter dealing with this question is thorough, informative, and comprehensive in demonstrating the fact of Jesus’ existence. The evidence is compelling and well documented (there are 50 footnotes).
The study of the word justification is likewise thorough. Several definitions are provided. There is a section that considers “misinterpretations concerning justification,” as well as a quotation from Campbell that mentions various things by which we are justified (according to the New Testament) (172). The next two chapters center on “The New Commandment” and “Jesus Christ: The King of Kings.”
Tom Wacaster gathered together the details of the pertinent history which led to Addison and Randolph Clark’s tragic decision to tell the organist, “Play On, Miss Bertha.” This event concerned the introduction of the instrument into worship, which caused great sadness and disruption in the body of Christ here in Texas in 1894. Brethren ought to have a knowledge of what happened at that time, along with the arguments both for and against the use of instruments in worship. We are not so far away from congregations (who have already given up crucial points of doctrine) adding the sin of instrumental music to their other heresies. Some have already made it clear that they will not use the instrument, but will not “judge or condemn those who do, because the Scriptures do not support such a judgment” (216). Max Lucado, whom so many brethren idolize to the point of blind allegiance, has “no problem with instruments in worship” (216, but read the full quotation). Ian Fair, an Almost Christian University (ACU) professor, said at one of their lectureships that he did not intend to use instruments of music, but he would not “judge those who do so” (216). Now how far is it from, “We can’t condemn others who use it” to “We can’t condemn ourselves if we use it”?
Next are “New Testament Applications of Old Testament Principles,” “Preaching Jesus and Him Crucified,” and “Why Does Evil Exist?” This topic has many facets: those discussed are: “The Origin of Evil,” “Who Is Responsible for Sin?” “The Argument From Evil,” “Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People?” and “Suggestions for Comforting Others in Their Affliction.” Since people continually must face the reality of suffering, this subject remains relevant.
The chapter devoted to the word sanctification also contains a list of things by which we are saved (293). “The New Heaven and the New Earth” has also been a focal point of controversy. This study of the phrase helps to make clear how it is used in both the Old and New Testaments. “Jesus Christ: The Savior of the World” is written by one who not only speaks of the great commission but has devoted his life to carrying it out.
“Digression and the Missionary Society Division” is material that is worth refreshing our memories about. Although it is often dwarfed by the problem of instrumental music, it was a bone of contention among those trying to restore New Testament Christianity. Several leading figures originally embraced the idea, but they later opposed it. The subject is well researched (there are 31 footnotes).
“Jesus’ Use of Hebraisms and Hebraic Constructs” is not the usual fare one comes across in lectureship books, but it is vastly more interesting than it may at first sound. Accompanying various historical facts are the texts of Matthew 5:18 and Matthew 11:12 (considered in connection with Micah 2:12-13).
“Jesus Loves Me” is followed by “Is Everything in Life Worship?” The writer looks carefully at the Greek words proskuneo and latreuo, as well as the meaning of Romans 12:1, which seem to be at the focal point of the current controversy. A thorough study of the word righteousness is next, followed by a look at “The New Birth/Creature/Man.”
“Jesus Christ: Our High Priest” is another valuable study, and it is followed by an analysis of another key problem that plagued our spiritual forefathers: “McGary Vs. Lipscomb: ‘What Is Valid Baptism?'” The question centered around the purpose for baptism. Lipscomb’s views regarding the purpose of baptism are set forth (436), and his arguments are reviewed (441-43). McGary demonstrated that a person must know that he or she is being baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Noticed also are what some of the current “change agents” in the church are saying–in contrast to the Scriptures. This remains a vital subject and an important chapter in the book.
The director of the lectures writes on “Types and Antitypes,” which includes a chart comparing Noah to Christ (458). “Jesus Provides the Answer” is followed by a necessary question in today’s religious climate: “What About Miracles, Signs, and Wonders?” Not only are the definitions of the pertinent words presented; some statistics, which consider the volume of food and drink that Israel needed in the wilderness, are listed (475). The writer put together a chart of 33 prophecies which pertain to the life of Christ–all of which are fulfilled within the last 24 hours of His earthly life (478). The reader may want to mark and tuck away the following words by Mac Deaver, which he wrote in 1993: “…the Holy Spirit convicts, leads, directs, and edifies only through the word of God…” (480).
One final Biblical word, reconciliation, is defined, which is followed by the chapter on “The New Covenant/Testament.” The words are defined and scrutinized based on their use under the old law and the new. The writer suggests that one of these terms is not appropriate when referring to the old covenant (511-13). He also answers effectively: “Is the Book of Mormon ‘Another Testament’?” (513-16). The study concludes with a comparison of the old and new covenants.
The final two chapters are “Jesus Christ: The Prophet of God” and “Changing Times and ‘The Woman Question,'” which takes a historical look at what brethren have thought on the subject during the last two hundred years. Arguments are considered that seek to justify women taking a leadership role in the church; the material closes by stressing the value of women and their legitimate roles in the church.
This volume is 545 pages and well worth the price of $17.00. It is a valuable resource book on a variety of subjects. The reader will find it helpful time and again in the course of preparing for Bible classes. It provides a number of insights into dealing with current issues being discussed among brethren. It (and the first Lubbock Lectureship Book) may be ordered from Hicks Publications, 5208 89th Street, Lubbock, Texas 79424, or from Valid Publications, Inc. (for the price of $15.00, plus postage and handling).
The state of Indiana has passed legislation which will permit schools to display the then commandments as a historical document (it takes effect later this year). We ought to be grateful that truth and absolutes are being allowed in our public schools-even if they are from the Old Testament. Who knows? Maybe the “sermon on the mount” can get in some day as a work of literature.
Naturally, there are critics of anything religious being brought into public (apparently a synonym of godless for some) schools. One columnist, Donald Kaul (whatever position he takes is usually opposed to truth, virtue, and general welfare), recently wrote to take issue with God’s commandments; his article appears in the Denton Record-Chronicle on March 30th (all quotations are from page 10A).
He begins his actual analysis by asserting that “the first four have little to do with proper deportment.” Actually, they have everything to do with proper deportment; they are the basis of it. Take away these commandments and start with #5 (“Honor thy father and mother”) or #6 (“Thou shalt not kill”): the first question that anyone would ask is, “Why?” or “Why not?” In other words, what is the basis of these ethical pronouncements? The answer is, “God.” Without the existence of a Creator to Whom we are responsible and accountable, morality has no foundation. If the existence of God is denied or minimized, then each individual becomes a god to himself, which means he can develop his own system of morality and ethics (which he usually translates to mean immoral and unethical behavior). Gods presence implies a higher authority than Self.
Kaul then begins with the first commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” lamenting in true , liberal, multi-cultured, non-judgmental, anti-absolute tones that it “is the religious version of the closed shop. It tells the reader, in no uncertain terms, that he must join God’s club and no other.” Give Kaul credit; he figured out the correct meaning (even if he disapproves). But what can one expect God to tell His people after He: 1)brought ten plagues upon Egypt, thus showing His power over the gods of the Egyptians; 2) delivered them from Pharaoh by making a path through the sea for them; and 3) fed them with manna in the wilderness? Would it be realistic to tell them, “You can worship Me or Ra, or Baal, or anyone you choose? God and Truth are exclusive. No man-made Deity had any real existence, let alone the power to match Jehovah. If God is, then we should have an insatiable desire to know what He wants and expects from us; if He does not exist, we need only answer to ourselves.
Kaul makes a keen observation about the graven images that are forbidden in the second commandment: he wonders “why lifelike statues of Christ on the cross don’t qualify as graven images….” Actually, they do, and they, along with the religious jewelry, should be dispensed with once and for all. When Demetrius the silversmith protested that the sales of their shrines of Artemis were lagging, Paul should have encouraged him to start making Christian jewelry. Such a solution would have suited Demetrius well, since he was not concerned about the welfare of the gods so much as the wealth of his pocketbook. Obviously, statues and jewelry were not part of first-century Christianity.
Concerning the third commandment, Kaul wrote:
“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” Which is fine, I suppose, but it doesn’t get to the heart of cleaning up language spoken by students in schools. Many youngsters can use language that will peel the wallpaper off the dining room wall without coming within miles of using the name of the Lord.”
He is correct as far as he goes, but many juvenile vocabularies also make frequent use of the words God, Jesus, and Christ. Besides, if young people would first learn respect for God, then they might then learn respect for themselves and others.
Concerning the keeping of the Sabbath day, Kaul comments that it would be “tough to do if you’re a kid working on weekends to save money for college.” He also wonders, without explaining it further, “Which Sabbath?” This question brings up a point that many have not thought through very well. The Ten Commandments were given to the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai. They are part of a covenant that was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). Christians are not bound by their authority because they are part of the old covenant; we are subject to the New Testament of Jesus Christ. All of them are repeated in one form or another-except this one concerning the Sabbath day.
In the entire New Testament there is no command concerning the honoring of the Sabbath day (which is the seventh day of the week). Jesus observed that day because He lived and died under the Mosaic system. Paul went into synagogues ob the Sabbath day because it afforded him and opportunity to preach to the Jews. But the church met on the first day of the week from the day of Pentecost onward. This day is special, but it does not conform to the Sabbath day. The church meets on the first day of the week for worship, but none of the restrictions God gave to Israel (travel, etc.) apply. Furthermore, the first day of the week is never referred to as either the Sabbath day or the Christian Sabbath, which terminology was a later invention of men.
With the fifth commandment Kaul finds no fault, particularly since he is a father, but he thinks the sixth, “Thou shalt not kill,” “may be a little confusing to kids in the three dozen states with capital punishment, where killing is a civil virtue….” He need not worry; most children understand justice a whole lot better than liberal columnists do. They may not understand the difference in Hebrew between kill and murder (the latter term is the word used in the sixth commandment), but they can understand that when a person murders someone, it is just that such an individual be put to death for his crime. What they will probably not understand is the reluctance of liberals to put to death the guilty (convicted criminals) and the complete willingness to murder the lives of innocent children in the womb!
Of the seventh commandment’s prohibition of adultery, Kaul comments that it is “an admirable sentiment, but aren’t we opening a can of worms here? Do we really want to have to explain what adultery is so that we can tell them not to do it 20 years down the road?” Some of them probably come from broken homes due to this very sin. Is it really that difficult a concept to grasp? Perhaps it would be good to throw in a world or two about fornication, also.
Most of the remainder of his comments are intended to be humorous. He opines that “shoplifters will be prosecuted” packs more of a wallop than “Thou shalt not steal.” Does it? Have people quit stealing from stores recently? Most thieves think they can outwit the security systems. The threat of punishment will be a deterrent to some, but the realization that shoplifting is wrong works better. A person can fool others; no one scams God. Besides, shoplifting is not the only form of theft. Some students steal money or property from the lockers of their fellow students at school.
Kaul thinks that abstaining from “bearing false witness” is also good, “Although it can’t compare with its corollary, taught by experience, that you get in less trouble if you don’t bear any witness at all.” Undoubtedly, some have wound up exasperated and frustrated when trying to help clear up a matter, but that condition reflects problems with our justice system-not the principle set forth in the ninth commandment by God.
The columnist’s obrservation about the wording of the tenth commandment causing giggles is probably accurate; it can best be remedied by using the New King James, which uses the word donkey.
Will posting these in schools cure all of society’s ills? No one is that naive. But it might help if teachers and administrators were allowed to mention God occasionally. A few decades ago the existence of God was not questioned in high school. If some teachers were unbelievers, they did not say so. When school rules were broken, students were punished; authorities were not sued by parents more childish than their kids. There was a sense of right and wrong, a sense of morality.
Did students violate the rules back then? Is rain wet? The difference is that everyone knew what was right and wrong behavior. There were no excuses (acceptable ones, anyway). Punishment was received because of the unwise choice the student had made. How different is it today when young people are told that all behavior (no matter how aberrant) is normal and that we have no right to judge what another does. If the posting of the Ten Commandments as a historical document helps students to acknowledge once again the existence of absolutes in this world, then it will have been worth the efforts that legislators have put forth to get them there. Even liberal columnists might enjoy the results.
Fellowshipping Bill Banowsky
The following excerpt is from an article, “Liberal Elements Join Forces in Denton,” written by Dub McClish in The Edifier (September 10, 1987).
“Singing Oaks is about to begin a $1,000,000 building program, a major portion of which will be fun and games (a ‘large multipurpose area that will be suitable for recreational activities’–Singing Oak’s bulletin, 5/31/87). For the ground-breaking on September 13 their ‘keynote speaker’ will be ‘Dr. Bill Banowsky.’ This is the same man who gave his unqualified fellowship to the Methodists as he spoke on their TV program, January 5, 1986. He is the same one who made faithful brethren weep by his uncorrected escapades while serving as president of Pepperdine University several years ago. By embracing brethren Garrett and Banowsky, Singing Oaks has thereby embraced Billy Graham, Methodism, the Disciples of Christ, and others. Thus they are now accepting some as brethren who are not God’s children. To do so removes them from fellowship with God and His faithful children (1 John 1:6-7; 2 John 9-11).
Fellowshipping the Denominations
On March 30, 1988 there appeared in the Denton Record-Chronicle an advertisement for “Good Friday Services.” The Host Pastor was from the First Baptist Church here in Denton. Other participants were those from First United Methodist Church, Immaculate Conception Catholic Church, Southpoint Baptist Church, Morse Street Baptist Church, Christ the Servant Lutheran Church, Cumberland Presbyterian Church, and the Singing Oaks Church of Christ. In the middle of this newspaper ad are three crosses. Across the bottom of the ad, in large letter, are these words: AT THE FOOT OF THE CROSS, WE ARE ALL ON COMMON GROUND. What message does this convey, if not that all denominations are equal and that we are all Christians?
Dub McCLish responded to this event in The Edifier (April 17, 1988). “I attended a sad spectacle last Friday–the “Good Friday” service sponsored by the Denton Ministerial Association. It had been well publicized in the local paper…. It was a sad spectacle because of all the expected sectarian trademarks (irreverent religious titles for the preachers, special religious garb worn by some, organ accompaniment to all of the songs, a woman soloist, two or three organ solos, the ‘social gospel’ that pervaded each message, a contribution taken for an interdenominational hospital chaplaincy, etc.). Much sadder was the participation of one identified with the ‘church of Christ.’ He made a little talk that lasted perhaps five minutes and believe it or not was able to work no less than four sex-oriented illustrations unto that brief a period. Not only did he thus participate, but he sang with as much gusto as anyone on the platform all six of the hymns while the organ ground away. I did not see if he put any money in the plate when it came around. However, I was further saddened to see a couple of members from his congregation whom I recognized, who likewise sang without hesitation and took part in the contribution. There would be no way on earth for those brethren to try to teach someone what the Bible says about either Scriptural worship or fellowship….”
The Drive-Through “Easter” Program
The following article, “Church Presents Drive-Through Story of Jesus’ Life,” by Michelle Lester, appeared in the Denton Record-Chronicle in April or 1993.
The history of Jesus’ life in 10 minutes.
Is it possible?
Yes, it is, with some thought and preparation, according to Don Browning, pulpit minister at Singing Oaks Church of Christ, 101 Cardinal Lane.
After about three months of preparation, 150 church members presented a 10-station live drama Thursday night detailing the life of Jesus Christ.
But the program was not a run-of-the mill church function. Visitors to the program…will drive around the church building.
Stationed around the church, members will act out 10 scenes from the life of Jesus from the beginning of his ministry to his death, resurrection and ascension into heaven, to await the second coming.
As visitors pass through the stations in their cars, an audio tape will narrate the action in each scene, Mr. Browning said.
“It’s more like a play, except each scene is stationary and the audience is moving,” he said.
This presentation marks the first time the church has undertaken such a project, Mr. Browning said….
“It’s our gift to the city at Easter,” Mr. Browning said.
“It’s intended for those who are of all denominations to try to give them an idea of why Jesus is the center of our faith,” he said….
There is much, much more that could be presented: these are just a few representative activities that Singing Oaks has been engaged in over the past two decades. It should be obvious to anyone that they regard the church as a denomination–not the body of believers who have obeyed the gospel. They do not hesitate to fellowship denominations, and this ideology is reflected in her very leadership. By their very admission, the elders at Singing Oaks have lost several of their members to Denton Bible Church. With no New Testament doctrine remaining that is distinctive, they should not be surprised. As brother McClish has stated, it is sad indeed. No faithful congregation of the Lord’s church could fellowship a church that has given up the very essence of what it should be.
Fellowship is one of the great blessings of being a Christian. When one is baptized into Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), that person is added to the body of Christ (Acts 2:47), which is the church of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23). God intended for brethren within the local body to be united; He also told us the means by which unity is achieved:
Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (1 Cor. 1:10).
Unity within the local congregation may require certain ingredients, such as love and mutual respect, but the thing Paul emphasized in this verse is being of the same mind and the same judgment. What do these words mean?
The Greek word nous is translated a number of ways in the New Testament. In each of the following verses the word in italics is the word translated “mind” in 1 Corinthians 1:10.
Luke 24:45: And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.
Romans 1:28: And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting.
Romans 11:34: “For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become His counselor?”
Romans 12:2: And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 14:5: One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind.
1 Corinthians 2:16: For “Who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
1 Corinthians 14:14-15: For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. What is the result then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.
Titus 1:15: To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled.
There are other passages, but these reflect the way nous [Strong”s number 3563) is translated. It refers to the way we think and understand certain matters. Paul said Christians are to be united in their thinking and understanding. Does that include every opinion on every subject? No, but it does refer to New Testament teaching. The Pulpit Commentary interprets this phrase very simply: “that is, in what they think and believe (noi), and in what they assert and do (graphee)” (volume 19, section 1, page 4).
The word translated “judgment” [Strong’s #1106] is found 9 times in the New Testament, of which a few are listed below.
1 Corinthians 7:25: Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord: yet I give my judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy. (See also 1 Corinthians 7:40).
2 Corinthians 8:10: And in this I give my advice: It is to your advantage not only to be doing what you began and were desiring to do a year ago.
Philemon 14: Without your consent I wanted to do nothing, that your good deed might not be by compulsion, as it were, but voluntary.
By now the reader should have a fair idea about what Paul meant when he wrote 1 Corinthians 1:10. A local congregation needs members who have the same thinking and judgment concerning the Scriptures. But what is true within the local congregation must also be true toward other congregations that we are invited to meet with and encourage. While we try to exercise as much latitude as our consciences can grant, there are some congregations we cannot fellowship because we do not share the same mind and the same judgment toward the Word of God and the application of it.
The group that calls itself the Singing Oaks Church of Christ is such a group. We do not share the same ideology toward the Scriptures at all. Our differences are not of a personal nature. We know some of the members there, and there is no personal ill will toward them at all. The man who is currently preaching there I used to know in Pennsylvania. He has always been easy to like: I visited with him in his office on two occasions, and we talked for several minutes. We have never been anything but cordial to one another. On a few occasions members from Singing Oaks have worshipped with us, and we have welcomed them.
But we cannot fellowship Singing Oaks because of numerous differences between our perception of worship and theirs, some of which we now consider.
Recently, during the funeral of one of their elders, they served the Lord’s Supper. This action lacks Biblical authority. Christians meet on the first day of the week “to break bread.” There is no authority either to incorporate the observance of the Lord’s death as part of a funeral or to observe the Lord’s Supper on a day other than the first day of the week. When we assemble together on the first day of the week, it is to honor Jesus by remembering His sacrifice for our sins. When we meet for a funeral service, it is to honor the memory of the one who has passed on. These comprise two distinct purposes; the Lord’s death should not be made subordinate to a custom devised by men.
We do not believe the New Testament authorizes choirs or applauding after the singing is finished. Jesus taught that worship must be in spirit and in truth. In order for it to be in truth, it must be done according to the specifications provided in the New Testament. Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 say that we are to sing, speak, teach, and admonish one another. If a choir performs, then a great many members are listening to one another, not teaching one another. Singing was designed as a mutual activity, in which we strive to please God, not ourselves. The multitudes did not applaud Jesus after the Sermon on the Mount, although it was undoubtedly a masterpiece. Paul was not applauded either on Mars Hill or when he and Silas sang in prison. This cultural custom secularizes worship.
There are other things we have had people tell us about Singing Oaks, from sponsoring dances for the young people to observing Christmas and Easter to having fellowship with various denominations. We do not know if half of what we hear is true, but even if only a few of these actually occurred, they reflect an attitude which disregards the authority of the Scriptures.
Some of their members travel to Tulsa for their annual “Soul-Winning Workshop,” but they cannot commute across town to hear men such as Curtis Cates, director of the Memphis School of Preaching, or Joe Meador, director of the Southwest School of Biblical Studies. These men have dedicated themselves to training the preachers of tomorrow. Members of Singing Oaks, however, can drive hours to hear Jeff Walling and others of his ilk, who belittle the Lord’s church rather than contend for the faith.
Some members also fellowship ACU–despite their departure from the Truth. Remember when one professor called Mary “another sexually questionable woman” and portrayed Joseph as a poor boob who convinced himself Mary was pure? Resner’s article was published in Rubel Shelly’s Wineskins in November of 1992. Carroll Osburn, the distinguished Carmichael professor at ACU, wrote in 1993 The Peaceable Kingdomin which he made this statement:
There should be room in the Christian fellowship for those who differ on…whether instrumental music is used in worship. There should be room in the Christian fellowship for those who believe that Christ is the Son of God, but who differ on eschatological theories such as premillennialism, ecclesiological matters such as congregational organization, or soteriological matters such as whether baptism is “for” or “because of” the remission of sin (91-92).
What is Osburn saying? He approves the use of instruments of music in worship, does not care if someone believes the false doctrine of premillennialism, does not care if a religious group has a “pastor” system, and he is willing to fellowship someone regardless of the reason for baptism (Baptists, for example).
Singing Oaks also fellowships Leroy Garrett who, along with W. Carl Ketcherside (now deceased), for years preached fellowshipping denominations. Once again, there is no personal ill will against this man. He has heard me speak a few times here at our lectures. We have spoken via the telephone on more than one occasion. Although we are poles apart religiously, we have always been courteous to each other.
And we know what he believes because he has written so much on practically every subject imaginable. Space permits only a few examples. From his book, The Stone-Campbell Movement (1981) Garrett wrote:
Despite signs of coming of age, the Churches of Christ have yet to demonstrate fidelity to their heritage in the Stone-Campbell Movement. The question they must face is whether they are truly part of a unity movement. One of their veteran ministers expresses his hope this way: “I think the time may well come when the whole Church of Christ tradition may grow out of its sect mentality and come to perceive itself not as God’s only children, but as a group of God’s true children in the midst of all his other children” (689).
First, our responsibility is to demonstrate fidelity to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ–not to Stone or Campbell. There are debts we owe to several men–including Martin Luther–but we do not follow men, or we violate the very principle Paul was teaching in 1 Corinthians 1:10-13. Obviously, Garrett views the Churches of Christ as a denomination instead of the body of believers for which Jesus died (Acts 20:28). Second, we are part of a unity movement–one that calls people to unity on the basis of New Testament teaching (1 Cor. 1:10), however–not one that seeks unity despite doctrinal differences in salvation, eschatology, church structure, and acceptable worship. Both Garrett and David H. Bobo, whose quotation was cited above, believe that adhering to the Scriptures on all matters involves a “sect mentality,” which is an insult to the Holy Spirit who inspired those teachings to be recorded.
Back in 1996 I reviewed one of Garrett’s articles that he gave me to read after hearing me review Monroe Hawley’s book, Is Christ Divided? at the 1995 Annual Denton Lectures. Afterward I sent him a copy of the two-part review (Feb. 4th and 11th); he wrote me a brief than-you note. Here is one sentence we dealt with at that time from his October, 1995 issue.
As for this “in error” mentality, it is a judgment that one will find only in Churches of Christ. I am not sure how or why it got started. It is a dubious construct, reflective of our inability to see ourselves as others see us. Even when we refer to others in the Movement who have been baptized, we refer to them as “brothers in error.” If there are Christians in other churches, which we often question, they too are “brothers in error.” I have never in all these years heard anyone among us refer to ourselves as “in error.” It is always others who are “in error,” not ourselves.
It should be obvious why others are always the ones “in error.” Whenever we have been in error, we have repented of it and crossed over to the side of Truth. Unlike some, we do not continue doing that which is wrong by shrugging our shoulders and concluding, “Well, we’re all probably wrong on something, anyway.” Isaiah wrote: “For the leaders of this people cause them to err, and those who are led by them are destroyed” (9:16). James talks about turning a sinner from “the error of his way” (James 5:20); if God can do so, we ought to be able to use the same terminology. Leroy employs the “I’m Not OK: You’re Not OK” mentality, which is to say, “We’re all wrong; so let’s have unity.” How far from 1 Corinthians 1:10 is that philosophy!!
Ray Penna quotes from Garrett in the 1999 Memphis School of Preaching lectureship book. In the April 1990 Restoration Review Leroy laments that only “a Seventh Day Adventist Church here in Denton” had a footwashing service (603-605). He also wrote:
But this interpretation does not preclude an occasional service of literal washing of feet for its symbolic value, such as at a Maundy Thursday service, which a few denominations around the world practice. It was the practice of the ancient church for the rich to wash the feet of the poor on Maundy Thursday before Easter… (emph. mine, gws).
I was impressed that the oldest “Campbellite” church in the world…had such a service this past Maundy Thursday (289-90).
It should be clear that Leroy Garrett has discarded Scriptural terminology for that of the religious world, and further, that he thinks the Church of Christ is a denomination that grew out of the Stone-Campbell Movement (as he calls it). It appears that the leadership of Singing Oaks believes the same thing. The Pearl Street church does not share this “mind,” and we cannot fellowship this kind of thinking. We still believe that the Lord adds those who are baptized for the remission of sins to the church, for whom Christ died. We are committed to teaching the Truth concerning salvation, acceptable worship, and New Testament doctrine.
It was recently announced at Singing Oaks that they were trying to work out their differences with Pearl Street. This was an overstatement. One of our elders had a cup of coffee and some conversation with one of their elders. Nothing official could have or did transpire. For us to have fellowship, they would need to repent of all the things we have mentioned. We would be delighted if they would, but we do not anticipate it. We cannot fellowship, under the current conditions, Leroy Garrett, Singing Oaks, or the several congregations in this area who do fellowship Singing Oaks.
Mark Tooley explains a great deal in the opening paragraph of his article, “And Malice to All: Episcopal Bishop’s Parting Shots,” which appeared in Insight (March 13, 2000):
He is America’s most media-savvy bishop, and he finally retired. John Shelby Spong of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark, N.J., became a fixture on the Phil Donahue and Oprah Winfrey shows during the 1980s and, more recently, gravitated toward Larry King Live and Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher (45).
Whether he possesses media-savvy or not might be debatable; the media just loves his message. When they find a representative of Christianity (erroneously so-called) who hates fundamentalists, says that Christianity is outdated, and thinks people are foolish for believing in God, naturally they will fawn all over him like groupies to their favorite rock star.
At any rate, Spong has become quite well-known. The article says he has speculated on Mary’s virginity (45). Big deal. An ACU professor did the same thing a few years ago (“Christmas at Matthew’s House”). It just shows that if a fool receives an education, he only becomes an educated fool. Anyone who would denigrate one of the most revered (and godly) women of all time has said much more about himself than he has about her. Her reputation has stood the test of time. One must flatly reject the inspiration of the Scriptures in order to question Mary’s purity because there is no hint of a sexual scandal in the Scriptures. An angel spoke to Mary, telling her that she was highly favored before God (Luke 1:28). Spong, on the other hand, apparently listens to demons.
“The God of the biblical story has become inoperative. Theism became all but irrelevant with laws of cause and effect that governed the natural universe” (45). One wonders if God has a hearty laugh over such statements or if He weeps instead. Pharaoh was fairly confident God had become inoperative in his kingdom, also. Spong is not unlike those described by Peter who, in their vanity, said: “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation” (2 Peter 3:4). Furthermore, theism did not become irrelevant with laws of cause and effect. Such laws are found all the way through the Bible.
There is, for example, the law of sin and death (Rom. 8:2). It works like this: “If you sin, you die.” Is that statement plain enough? God ordained cause and effect laws in the spiritual realm just as He did in His physical universe. Who does Spong think set in motion those laws? He who established them can also set them aside.
Spong “thinks the discoveries of Galileo, Newton, Darwin and Freud have made belief in a personal God absurd” (45). Exactly which discovery of the facts in God’s universe by Galileo and Newton made Him absurd? The orderliness of everything only makes the demand for a designer even more compelling. Darwin didn’t “discover” anything; he theorized. Worse than that, he theorized incorrectly. Evolution remains unproven and unprovable after a century-and-a-half. What did Freud discover–that everyone’s problems are caused by sexual hang-ups? The amount of actual truth Freud discovered is infinitesimal; his theories are disputed.
The reader might wonder if the things Spong teaches are the result of some new information that has surfaced in the past 50 years as a result of our ever-expanding technology. Mark Tooley, who wrote this article, assesses Spong correctly when he describes his theology as merely “boilerplate seminary liberalism that dates back at least a century” (45). Following are a few more of Spong’s beliefs.
He thinks traditional religious people are neurotic, stupid and “immature….” “The whole Christian enterprise is tottering….” The fundamentalists will “finally go down in flames…” (46).
Apparently, Spong hangs out with Ted Turner and Jesse Ventura, although he might have picked up the “neurotic” comment from Freud. He thinks traditional religious people are stupid because they lack his spiritual insights. Probably, only really intelligent and mature people agree with him. This is a good political trick–just demonize the opposition, which is even more effective if the news media joins in.
Spong’s assessment of Christianity, present and future, reveals a colossal ignorance on his part. His own spiritual vacancy (and that of his colleagues) does not in any way imply that the rest of the country shares his views. Not everyone thinks that prayers are “adult letters to Santa Claus,” that Christ’s death for our sins is “strange, bizarre and, finally, repelling,” or that the “bloody hymns we sing in worship” reflect “threadbare concepts” that “have become grotesque” (46).
Most people who believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God do so on the basis of the evidence for it. Discerning people can recognize words of truth compared to obvious man-made religions: they know that whatever promises the Bible makes it keeps. What it teaches about abundant life is accurate (John 10:10). Millions live according to the Scriptures; they depend on God and offer Him the worship and adoration that He deserves. They are fully trusting in Jesus to save them on the day of judgment through His blood. Like Paul, we can say, “I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day” (2 Tim. 1:12).
So what should men live by–in the event that they take Spong’s advice and give up the Bible? Why, everyone should listen to him, naturally. He offers a “radical reformation” (46). All one must do is give up the belief that the Bible is the Word of God, that God exists, that Jesus atoned for our sins, that there will be a day of judgment, and in their place substitute this credo: fornication and homosexuality are all right. In the Newark diocese, from which Spong just retired, 15% of the priests “now are openly homosexual” (46). What an impact this man has had with his basic approach of: “Forget the Bible; just trust me.” Tooley comments about Spong’s success:
In 24 years the diocese has lost 42 percent of its membership, surpassing even the nearly 20 percent loss suffered by the Episcopal Church nationally during that time (46).
Spong’s approach to life in modern times is “to stop telling people they are sinners” (46). Somehow, that makes perfect sense. After all, if God is not there and “the stories of Christ’s sacrifice are ‘nonsensical,'” then it only stands to reason that we have no sin from which to be redeemed. Sexual sins are all right, and we are all probably just governed by our genetic makeup anyway, right? Obviously, Spong has drunk deeply of Freud and Darwin while sipping sparingly from the Scriptures.
Another recent article about Spong appeared in The Washington Times on March 6, 2000. This one was written by Larry Witham; he reports on three speakers at a February 24th “Church in the Third Millennium Forum” to discuss the future of Christianity (26). If Spong had his way, he would simply wish to bury it.
“You and I have inherited what I call a basic Christian myth,” Spong told several hundred people at this Forum (all references are from page 26). Spong is not satisfied to call Genesis 1 and 2 “creation hymn myths,” as one professor from ACU did; no, he has moved on to the New Testament and is referring to Christianity itself as a myth. Does he think that Christians hid in the catacombs of Rome and were put to death in the Coliseum on behalf of a myth? The arrogance of liberals knows no bounds. Without any specific facts, except their scholarly “hunches,” they deny or ignore the plain facts of history. They can assert anything without the need for such trivial things as evidence.
We have not inherited a “Christian myth”; we have inherited the Word of God, which is able to build us up and give us an inheritance among all them that are sanctified (Acts 20:32). Jesus said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). We do not deal in myths; we deal in truth (John 8:31-32; 17:17).
Spong thinks Christians should admit that “the Bible and Christian doctrine are first-century inventions now refuted by science. Most of us suspect there never was an age of miracles.” Precisely when did science prove that miracles could not exist? Did they learn that from Darwin? How would science prove that Jesus did not walk on water? All that we can prove is that we cannot do so. When did science prove that Jesus was not raised from the dead, when it was prophesied beforehand and observed by over 500 eyewitnesses? The tangible, empirical evidence is what convinced Thomas! John wrote down the evidence that we might all believe (John 20:30-31). Jesus’ doctrine, the Gospel, was revealed in the first century, but it was in the mind of God from the foundation of the earth (Eph. 1:3-6). Mortal men have never concocted anything so great!
Other bits of “wisdom” from Spong echo ideas mentioned in the other article: “Perhaps the whole idea of redemption needs to be rethought if Christianity is to survive in the 21st century.” Did he say survive? In what sense could Christianity be said to survive if the miracles are removed (the evidence for faith), the New Testament is termed a myth, and we become convinced that “the doctrine of the crucifixion portrays God as ‘rather barbaric'”? Take all of these things out of the New Testament, and its size will be diminished considerably. Spong does not seek the survival of Christianity; he seeks its destruction. His restructuring of the New Testament would be comparable to presenting Shakespeare’s MacBeth without witches, without any deaths, and without the theme of ambition. The removal of such elements would leave only unintelligible gibberish, which is exactly what would be left of the New Testament with everything removed from it that irritates Spong and a few of his Ivy League cronies.
This latest addition to Harvard’s faculty (pity the students) thinks that “Christianity is doomed if it continues affirming a supernatural God.” Is there some other kind of Deity? If God is not above the physical creation (supernatural), then he must be a product of the blind forces of evolution. In other words, God would be nothing more than a fanciful invention of man, in which case He is false. Why would anyone want the story of a fictitious God, with a fictitious Son, to survive? It would possess no value whatsoever. If Spong really believes what he teaches, he should be advocating the eradication of God, the Bible, and Jesus–except as a quaint curiosity.
Spong is not only opposed to the supernatural elements in the Scriptures; he is also opposed to their moral purity. He affirmed that the “breakup of modern Protestantism is in the cards” and that “the tripwire is sex.” What these statements mean is that people want to be free to be sexually promiscuous and, as long as Protestant “churches” continue to teach chastity, monogamy, and marital purity, they will continue to lose members. Actually, Protestant “churches” are losing members because they frequently do not stand for Biblical doctrine. Once people figure out that they can be worldly with the “church’s” blessing, they eventually see that they have little need for God since He ostensibly approves of their corrupt behavior anyway.
Few liberals would go so far as to say that “Paul was a self-hating homosexual.” Spong has as much evidence for this conclusion as anyone would for asserting that Paul died of an overdose of Hostess Twinkies. Paul condemned all sins of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21)–not just one. To accuse one who was noble enough to forego the pleasures of marriage for the sake of the kingdom of being a homosexual (contrary to his own teaching) is character assassination most foul. Spong ought to be ashamed, but his conscience is seared.
On the issue of sin, Spong avers that people are not sinful, but “incomplete and evolving.” What, pray tell, is the basis for this assessment–Darwin? Perhaps Spong could cite evidence for man’s change of character over the past 6,000 years. Although technology and knowledge have advanced, nothing indicates that human character has kept pace. Is mankind suddenly above fighting? What about the Hutus and the Tutsis in Rwanda? What about Bosnia? What about the ghetto gangs in our own country? Television shows center around jealousy, lasciviousness, and violence; certainly, there is no spirituality there. This year’s Academy Award winner, American Beauty, marks the third year in a row that the Best Picture featured some actress’s bare bosom; the movie displays not only nudity and extreme vulgar language, but the main topic of it is sex. Apparently no one in Hollywood these days has the John Wayne philosophy, who once proclaimed at the Oscars: “I’m an actor, and I work with my clothes on.”
The Best Actress of the year went to a woman who played a woman living as a male because she was having a “sexual identity” crisis. It seems as though there is only one topic that interests society today: sex. How is that any different from Greece or Rome? How is it any different from Sodom? How is it any different from the world before the flood when every imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart were “only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5)? Violence was dominant in the earth in those days, also (Gen. 6:11). Man has not changed one iota in thousands of years. God called these things SIN then, and they are sin now, Spong notwithstanding.
So what is the bishop’s concept of God? He thinks people ought to think of God as one who “is mystery and wonder beyond my ability to comprehend.” How convenient! Since he cannot comprehend Him, He can be anything Spong wants Him to be. Obviously he wants Him to approve of lust and lasciviousness: so holiness is out. Whoever God is, He cannot have the power to work miracles; so the supernatural is out. Darwin proved evolution; so creation is out. Freud disproved the concept of sin: so personal accountability and the day of judgment (not to mention justice) are out. Spong may not be bright enough to figure out that he has redefined God out of existence, that there is nothing left to believe in, and that mankind really has no need of whatever is left of Deity after he has strained out all of His infinite attributes, but those who listen to Spong are.
His mission is to destroy God, Jesus, the Bible, and Truth in the third millennium, but he will fail. In the process he will undoubtedly destroy the faith of some, which (in the judgment) he will regret having done; but he will ultimately fail, just as Satan always has. God will win in the end; His followers will be vindicated. Spong will die, just as Ingersoll did and all other infidels have; the Bible will continue to inform, inspire, and save those who have ears to hear.
Three days after the column on abortion appeared, a poem was re-published, which calls for the right to die. We can agree with the part of the column that allows a person to sign a form saying that he or she does not desire for “heroic measures” to be used upon them. If one’s health has deteriorated, there is no point in medical personnel trying to get a heart started that will give out again in a few more hours. If there really is an unmistakable call from Him, then perhaps we could all reach agreement on this sensitive subject.
But both the poem and Abby’s advice which follows seem to be covering a great deal more territory than imminent death. The poem, called “LET ME GO,” argues that, since one’s spouse is gone, friends are gone, and one’s work is done, the person should be allowed to “slip away.” Such a plea sounds more like self-pity than the result of a medical problem. If one has no hope for medical survival, that is one thing, but this description is more akin to depression. It could fit a number of elderly people–and just about any person who is lonely. The rationale of this poem is similar to the thinking of this individual: “I’m divorced; I don’t have any real friends; my family members are busy living their own lives: I don’t enjoy my job; Why don’t I just slip away?” The solution is to make new friends and do something meaningful, not quit or give up.
As the poem does, so does Abby. She covers the medical aspects, but also says: “If people (of any age) are enjoying their lives and want to live, fine–keep them comfortable and happy as possible, but those who can no longer find any joy in life should not be forced to go on living.” This philosophy is WORSE than Jack Kevorkian’s. “Say, things aren’t going my way today; I think I’ll make my final exit.”
Maybe someone who works a suicide hotline can talk some sense into this woman. She exhibits the same problem here that she does with abortion–a lack of respect for life. God is the giver of life. Where in the Scriptures does it say that we have the right to destroy the gift God gave us? Job was not getting a whole lot out of life. He was in no way comfortable; he certainly does not sound happy. Joy is not the quality that characterizes this suffering man. He had no desire to live; he begged for God to take his life.
But even if Abby had been around to give him permission, he would have refused; decisions of life and death must be left in God’s hands. Too many people assume that when this life ends, all will be well. There is another world to face after this one. We should not be too eager to get there if we have not made adequate preparation, for we shall then face the judgment. The power of life and death belongs to God.
On March 9, Abby, the advice columnist, published a letter from a reader who claimed to be a 70-year-old Republican woman, who styled herself “Pro-Choice.” She offers a couple of “testimonials” about the horrors of life when abortion was not available and then chirps about how things are so much improved now that abortion is legal. Of course, Abby chimes right in, echoing the drivel already presented. The disturbing thing is that, in this age of slogans and pragmatism, this brand of nonsense just might sell some people.
Therefore, this column should be examined–concerning both what was said and what was not said. “Pro-Choice Grandma” writes that in the ’40s she attended a high school whose students numbered fewer than 300. She claims that two young women died of botched abortions. Apparently this fact is to be regarded as society’s fault (since abortion was illegal). Yes, abortion was illegal for the first seven decades of this century, and there were reasons for it; but these circumstances are never discussed by the proponents of abortion.
This type of thinking is analogous to blaming the lack of a stoplight at a busy intersection for a traffic accident when in fact it occurred because of careless driving. No one forced the two women in question to break the law in an effort to avoid the consequences of their own actions. Their own immoral behavior (in which they chose to participate) resulted in their predicament (unless they were raped, which “Grandma” did not claim). Why, therefore, did the two young women die? The first factor was their choice to sin–to commit fornication, which is a violation of the law of God (1 Cor. 6:18-20). This error was compounded by another one–seeking out someone who would take the life of the child that had been created through lust. There is nothing noble in seeking through violent means a solution to the problem of one’s sins. Unfortunately for these two women, their sinfulness brought about their deaths. Pro-Choicers like Grandma do not seek to raise anyone’s standards of morality; they just want young girls and boys (would-be “men”) to be able to sin and not have to pay the penalty for it. [Regardless of any nation’s permissive abortion laws, neither the male who shares in the initial sin nor the female who successfully “covers it up” actually “gets away with it” (Pr. 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:10).]
From this unpleasant scenario “Grandma” describes another one, which occurred thirty years later–after the Roe v. Wade decision. This high school couple “terminated the pregnancy early on at a reputable clinic.” Reputable with whom? God certainly does not approve of a place where innocent human lives are snuffed out as nonchalantly as an appendix would be removed. How ironic that, if someone changes the name of murder to abortion and calls a facility “a reputable clinic” instead of “a death chamber,” it becomes socially acceptable!
But “Grandma” and Abby know that abortion is a good thing because of its results (pragmatism). This couple parted ways, graduated from college, and now have stable families of their own with two children in one and three in the other. What a heartwarming story! And there was only one casualty that made it all possible–the baby ripped from its mother’s womb. Has someone questioned the aborted child as to how he feels to have been chosen as the human sacrifice for the future happiness of his progenitors? No, the only ones who can be interviewed are still alive! But consider the arrogance of “Grandma’s” last paragraph.
The key word is “choice.” Only the girl/woman should make the decision to have an abortion or carry the pregnancy to term and keep the child or place the baby for adoption. The decisions should not be up to self-righteous, ambitious politicians.
Talk about self-righteousness?! And her last statement is laughable. What does she think politicians gain by being pro-life? They receive the scorn of the news media, condemnations from Abby and her famous sister (as well as those of “entertainers”), and continual attacks by feminists. If “Grandma” thinks that politicians enhance themselves greatly by advocating a pro-life position, she has not yet left the ’40s. Even those who call themselves Christians will not support the pro-life candidate if his party is running a pro-choice person (for some party loyalty ranks higher than principles of morality). Consider Massachusetts, which is largely Catholic. Consider that the Catholic Church teaches that abortion is a sin. How does pro-choice Ted Kennedy keep getting elected? Obviously, politics is more important than religion. If a politician is pro-life, chances are it is a matter of conviction–not ambition.
The key word is choice, we are advised. Really? Who thought to ask the baby if he wanted to live or die? What choice was he or she given in the matter?
Columns such as this one are a dime a dozen. There is nothing profound in it. The refrain has been so often repeated that it is just the 173rd verse of a worn-out refrain, and the words are the same as its 172 predecessors. The chant consists of one word: choice. The tired slogan is: Every woman should have the right to make decisions about her own body.
So in the interest of hearing an actual argument on the part of pro-choice people, the following questions are asked. Since “Grandma” has enough time to write to Abby to promote “choice,” perhaps she can find time to do a little research (Abby is way too busy solving society’s important matters).
1. Do you know why abortions were illegal in the ’40s?
2. Do you know that abortion became legal nationwide without Congress passing a single law to bring it about?
3. How do you explain that seven men found “a woman’s right to choose” in a Constitution that never mentioned it?
4. Do you know how much money “reputable clinics” make on abortion each year?
5. You left God out of your article altogether. Have you ever asked what the Creator of all life thinks about the lives human beings create?
6. Have you read Psalm 139:13-16, which describes the formation of life in the womb by God?
7. Have you considered Zechariah 12:1, in which God says He forms the spirit of man within him?
8. Do you know that John, the one who prepared the way for Jesus, is referred to as a brephos in the womb (Luke 1:41, 44) and that Jesus is referred to as a brephos after He exited the womb (Luke 2:12, 16)? How do you account for the fact that God calls the “fetus” by the same term as a newborn infant?
9. What do you think God’s view is of one who would murder an innocent child?
10. How do you think God views any individual who would support someone else’s “right” to murder an innocent child?
11. You mention that you have a grandson who came by means of adoption. How grateful do you think he will be for your love when he finds out that you supported his mother’s right to kill him before he was born?
12. Why should the woman alone make the decision to terminate the life that is within her: was no one else responsible for its being there?
13. Why should God, the giver of life, not be considered at all in a decision concerning life and death?
14. Do you know what features a child at thirteen weeks has? Do you know what systems are in place in his body?
It is tremendously sad that the evil of abortion exists. It is worse that those who support the woman’s right to “choose” are so shallow in their logic that they have never (in 27 years) answered these questions. They have soothed their consciences with slogans rather than taken a strong, hard look at all the aspects involved in abortion. Who is willing to affirm, “The baby is not a human life”? Who? If it is a human life (one that is obviously innocent), then how can one conscientiously kill the child?
Saddest of all is that we have a society that does not care. In 27 years, we have not been able to pass a Human Life Amendment or get a Supreme Court who will overturn the horrendous Roe v. Wade decision. How long can God allow the innocent blood of this nation to be shed without rendering judgment against us?
David Hester, who wrote the excellent 1994 book, Among The Scholars, recently wrote an article entitled “This is Unity?” which appeared in the March 5th Seibles Road bulletin (Montgomery, Alabama). The article concerns a newspaper story about the Twickenham Church of Christ in Huntsville, Alabama (the same congregation that made national news headlines by conducting a Bible class based on the Andy Griffith Show). Below is a shortened version of the newspaper column written by the religion editor of The Hunstville Times.
Scott Bogardus was raised in an Episcopal church. His wife, Eileen, came from a Church of Christ background.
Sunday night they worshiped together with hundreds of others at the Festival of Christian Unity for the Great Jubilee in a packed First Baptist Church auditorium that seats about 1,800 people.
“It was very powerful, I loved it,” said Eileen, a member of the Twickenham Church of Christ. “Christians should come together as one, and I hope we do this again.”
The Twickenham Praise Team was one of the featured groups at the service, believed by organizers to be one of the largest ecumenical gatherings ever in Huntsville….
Sunday night’s service not only included the organ and piano, but also featured the First Baptist Church symphony. But that was not an issue for the Bogarduses or others from the church. “…the music isn’t a problem for us,” said Eileen….
The Rev. Dr. Dennis Wiles, pastor of First Baptist Church, welcomed the crowd by telling them, “We’re going to have to do this in heaven, so why not start here on Earth?” which brought applause.
The Rev. Phil O’Kennedy, pastor of the Good Shepherd Catholic Church and the keynote speaker, told the group of Catholics and Protestants that “it is good for us to be here.”
“The past 450 years we have spent hating each other for the love of God,” he said. “Let’s spend this next century loving each other for the love of God.” That also received hearty applause (January 24, 2000).
There needs to be a serious response given to this event, but to show the absurdity of what occurred, let us put the event in a different setting and read the newspaper account of it in The Samaritan Times.
Blott Nebaticus is from the tribe of Ephraim. His wife, Flex, comes from Judah. Last Sabbath they worshiped with hundreds of others at the historic gathering of the Descendants of Abraham (DOA).
“It was very powerful; I loved it,” said Flex. “The descendants of Abraham should come together as one, and I hope we do this again.”
The Judah Taylor singers and dancers performed at the service, one of the largest religious gatherings ever held in Samaria. Several idols were displayed on the stage. There were replicas of the golden calves Jeroboam had made, as well as the idols of Chemosh and Milcom. Technically, the Moabites and Ammonites were not descended from Abraham, but they did come from Abraham’s brother’s son, Lot. Flex commented, “The idols aren’t a problem for us.”
The pastor of the First Golden Calf Church of Samaria welcomed the crowd by telling them. “We all have to live in this land for the next several hundred years; we might as well get used to being neighbors,” which brought applause. “What difference does it make if we worship in Dan or Bethel or Jerusalem or Samaria?” he said to even greater applause. “You have a feast in the seventh month; we have one in the eighth month; what difference does it make? We’re still all brethren. Your priests are Levites; ours are not Levites: so who cares? The fact is we all go to God through priests. Our brethren, the Moabites and the Ammonites, have priests. Good people, God didn’t bring us into this land just to worry about who can be a priest and who can’t.”
The Rev. Dr. Pagan Deluxe, who presides over the human sacrifices to Chemosh in Moab, was the keynote speaker. He told the gathering, “We have hated and fought against each other for the past thousand years; isn’t it time we put our petty differences aside and started loving one another?” This question drew hearty applause. “Unity is the key thing, no matter which side of the Jordan we live on. Believe it or not, we will even be willing to apologize for all past atrocities against you Israelites.” This brought Dr. Deluxe a standing ovation.
The Fallacy of Unity Meetings
Back in December-January of 1976-77 Englebert Humperdinck had a top ten tune called “After the Lovin’.” The key thought seems to have been that, after their physical expression of love for each other, he was still in love with her. In other words, their relationship was not based on physical attractiveness and desire alone (of course, it was not necessarily a moral relationship, either). There was a deeper and more abiding appeal to each other that transcended the physical (according to the song).
As pertains to these unity “lovefests,” what happens “after the lovin'”? The answer is that nothing happens- unless it would be that a future unity meeting is scheduled. Do the various denominations ever merge? Will the Presbyterians, the Methodists, and the Baptists sell all their properties, disassociate themselves from their denominations and creeds, and worship as one? The fact is that “after the lovin’, nothing has changed. These meetings are little more than a tryst with a mistress. “After the lovin’,” all the participants return to the denomination they will continue to be faithful to and continue to support.
These meetings are less than useless. Do they really think that they are answering Jesus’ prayer for unity by gathering together once or twice a year to slobber all over each other? People in the world may be profane, but they are not stupid. They can see that “after the lovin’,” there is no deep, abiding relationship. What Rush Limbaugh says of political liberals applies to religious liberals: They prefer “symbolism over substance.”
They like to express “feel good” sentiments that are basically worthless. Like the movie star that spends all night on the street with the homeless to call attention to their plight, many engage in unity meetings to call attention to the need for unity.
But what was accomplished? What was done that will actually cause people to be united? NOTHING!! “After the lovin’,” Baptists will still be Baptists, Methodists will still be Methodists, Episcopalians will still be Episcopalians, and the Twickenham Church of Christ will still have betrayed Jesus. If betrayal sounds harsh, it is nevertheless accurate.
None of the religious groups that the Twickenham Church met with teaches or practices what the Bible teaches about the way to become a Christian. How can one who has been baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38) have spiritual fellowship with one who has not? One is a Christian; one is not. One walks in the light; the other walks in darkness. One is committed to truth; the other is (whether unwittingly or intentionally) a product of, and an upholder of, error. Where is the basis for fellowship? Perhaps the Twickenham Church can tell us that, when they finish watching all the reruns of Andy Griffith.
What about the practice of false worship? It is just as acceptable before God to use an unauthorized golden calf in worship as it is to use unauthorized instruments of music. [Martin Luther called the organ an “ensign of Baal.”] Does anyone remember the verse that says that true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24)? Not one verse in the Bible from Genesis 4 onward that says human beings may worship God in the way that best pleases them. God rejects will worship (self-imposed religion) (Col. 2:23).
Brother Hester writes:
How can Christians justify vain worship (Mt. 15:9)? My grandfather, the late S. F. Hester, left denominationalism 60 years ago. According to the practice of some, he should have never left!
Betrayal?
“But isn’t the word betrayal a bit reactionary and unjustified to use of the Twickenham Church?” The dictionary provides an answer: Betray is defined as: “to give aid or information to an enemy of”; “to be disloyal or faithless to.” Are those in denominations our enemies? They are not personally our enemies; in fact, many of them are our personal friends and family members. We have no hostile feelings toward them whatsoever-as it pertains to them as individuals. But the doctrines they hold, as members of denominations, are incompatible with the Truth. Their man-made plans of salvation contradict the Scriptures. They will be lost themselves for believing a lie, and those they teach shall likewise be lost (consider 1 Timothy 4:16).
There is only one means of, and one plan for, sins to be forgiven-not two, not three, not a dozen. That plan involves faith in response to God’s grace, which prompts repentance, confessing the name of Jesus as the Son of God, and baptism for the forgiveness of one’s sins (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; et al).
Now how can someone who obeyed the gospel in precisely the way just delineated fellowship those who have never done so? The Episcopalians do not baptize anyone for the remission of their sins. Acts 2:41 tells us that those who were baptized were added. Added to what? Acts 2:47 says that the Lord “added to the church” daily those who were being saved. It is true that some ancient texts do not include the phrase to the church, but it is obviously a correct idea-whether or not the phrase belongs. Those who became Christians on the day of Pentecost certainly were not added to the Episcopalian Church!
Yet in fellowshipping the Episcopal Church, along with the Catholic Church and the Baptist Church, the Twickenham Church validated the existence of the concept of denominationalism in general and these various groups in paricular. Furthermore, fellowshipping them certifies that all of them are equal, thus putting the Lord’s church on a par with a denomination. Jesus is the head of the body, the church (Eph. 2:22); He is the Savior of that body, which contains no Catholics, Episcopalians, or Baptists. Therefore, the Twickenham Church has been disloyal to their head, Christ. They have been parleying with the enemy without authority from their head to do so. THE TWICKENHAM CHURCH IS GUILTY OF BETRAYING CHRIST!!
Judas Iscariot will fare better in the day of judgment than will these “brethren.” This may seem like a bold statement, but consider the two situations. Judas betrayed Christ for money. These brethren betrayed Christ for the sake of popularity and “acceptance” in the religious community. Judas took the money back. Will the Twickenham Church repent before God for their betrayal of Christ, apologize to the brotherhood, and try to “take back” their actions? Judas looks good compared to them.
Judas also experienced remorse when he realized that he had betrayed innocent blood; have these brethren even the remotest clue that they have done anything wrong? Do their consciences bother them at all? Or will they just blithely continue down the broad path to destruction, incapable of feeling any shame whatsoever for their betrayal?
Brethren, if these comments seem drastic, they are in response to drastic actions displayed by “so-called” members of the church of Christ. They have brought shame and disgrace upon the Lord as they have betrayed him publicly. In light of the fact that truth cannot fellowship error, we can only conclude that the Twickenham Church is in error also, thus putting themselves on equal footing with the denominations. We can only pray that faithful congregations in their area will withhold fellowship from them unless and until they are willing to repent.
How sad when those entrusted with the Truth abandon it. They might have converted some of their denominational friends instead of endorsing their errors. Some of them might have become Christians instead of remaining Baptist, Episcopalian, or Catholic. Besides their betrayal of the Lord who bought them, they are contributing to the eternal destruction of those who might have been saved by hearing the true Gospel of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:8-9). Many are still coming out of religious denominations, but as more congregations desert Christ and the Truth, fewer people will have an opportunity to find life.
“Through your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way. Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (Psalm 119:104-105).
Roman Catholicism may be one of the most important lectureship books published by brethren in recent years. Not only is the subject matter of vital interest in today’s world, but it drew a great deal of attention in Spring, Texas the last few days of February. A letter was received from the Anti-Defamation League; a telephone interview was received from a national news agency, and a debate has been tentatively scheduled with a Catholic professor from the University of St. Thomas.
The reason that this book is so valuable is that it is the first major work to examine the teachings of Roman Catholicism in almost four decades, and there have been a number of changes in the Catholic Church since then. The writers of the chapters of these books look at some of the old teachings, many of which were established by the Council of Trent (1545-63), as well as some of their new policies, as set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1994.
The book begins with three historical sections that are worth the price of the book all by themselves. “Apostasy in the Church” discusses what happened in the first few centuries after the establishment of the church; it discusses the influence that Constantine had on the church, as well as the Council of Nicaea (325). Included are sections on Gnosticism, Montanism, and Ebionitism. The origins of “holy water,” infant baptism, and the use of mechanical instruments of music are explained. The second historical chapter traces the now-apostate church from A.D. 700 to 1500. This “Dark Age” period outlines some of the problems and conflicts within the papacy and between the papacy and civil government. The Crusades are noticed, and the chapter closes with the beginnings of the Reformation. The third historical summary looks at the Catholic Church from 1500 to the present day. Martin Luther played an important role in the changes that soon took place, which prompted the Catholic Counter Reformation during the close of the 16th century. Various councils and popes are highlighted with respect to their accomplishments and significance.
Chapter 4 deals with Mariolatry, the worship of Mary. Catholics do not like this term; they prefer Mariology (93). But the fact is that they do venerate and worship Mary. If Mary can hear and answer prayers, what does such imply? This material will provoke one to think (101-102). The chapter following it deals with some of the worship and liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church. The use of relics and the rosary are described and analyzed (125-29). An even fuller treatment of these two subjects is found in the next chapter, along with a look at Catholic holidays and feasts.
It has been claimed in debates that the New Testament does not predict any apostasy of the church; so there is a chapter devoted to that subject. It is then followed by one which emphasizes some of the differences between the first century church and the Roman Catholic Church. There is a vast difference between the two in organization, since the Bible does not mention cardinals or popes. Numerous discrepancies in doctrine can also be cited; in fact, similarities might be more difficult to find. Nearly every New Testament teaching has been changed or altered in some way.
One question that many have wondered about concerns “The Apocrypha: Is It Part of the Bible?” What are these books which the Catholic Church has in their Bible? Do they belong there? Why or why not? This thorough chapter leaves no doubt concerning these books; Christians should have knowledge of their contents.
Scarcely could a subject be more pertinent than a comparison of the “Standard of Authority for the Catholic Church and for the Lord’s Church.” Probably, it is no surprise that all authority in the Catholic Church does not reside in the Word of God-but rather in the pope: “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered” (219). This statement is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1994. The author includes 23 points about the Catholic Church which contrast their practices with the Scriptures (239-42). Following this chapter is one which examines a number of Roman Catholic teachings: “The Dogmatism of the Roman Catholic Church.”
The material on “Bishops, Priests, Nuns, Monks, Synods, and Councils” is well-researched (as, in fact, every chapter is). No one had any desire to misrepresent Roman Catholicism; each writer took great care to make certain of his accuracy. The difference between a nun and a sister is noticed (275). The author summarizes briefly 21 Roman Catholic councils, citing the reasons for their fame. The aforementioned Council of Trent had as its purpose to refute the “errors” of Luther. “It produced the largest number of dogmatic and reformatory decrees and reformed the discipline of the church” (280). Another chapter is devoted exclusively to “The Organization of the Catholic Church.”
“False Miracles of the Catholic Church” is something that the reader probably has some familiarity with already, since they have claimed for a number of years these types of things. The material delves into apparitions, some of which were in evidence in Mary, the Mother of Jesus, which was reviewed here recently. The superstitious nature of Catholicism is called attention to by newspaper accounts of an alleged “image of Mary” in a bank window in Clearwater, Florida (309-10). One always wonders how someone knows that a rather vague image is that of Mary, rather than, say, Lucretia Borgia or Joan of Arc. Then there is the account of a statue of Mary, which has been weeping tears, but after the initial flurry of attention, no one has been allowed to investigate the “phenomenon” (310-11). The author provides, from a Catholic Website, a list of “saints’ bodies” that have not deteriorated since they died (312-14). It is odd however that St. Bernadette’s incorruptible body was covered in wax and that St. Vincent DePaul’s bones are encased in a wax figure!
This rather unusual material is followed by “A Review of the Stevens-Beevers Debate (323-38). This event took place May 13-16, 1952 in Stillwater, Oklahoma, between Eldred Stevens, who then was working with the Stillwater Church of Christ, and Dr. Eric Beevers, pastor of the St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church in the same town. The first proposition was: “The New Testament Is the Supreme Authority in the Christian Religion.” The second proposition was : “The Roman Catholic Church Is the Original, Apostolic, Church of Christ.” Included are four charts that were used in this debate (330, 332, 333, 337).
“The Celebration of Mass and the Doctrine of Transubstantiation” receives sufficient treatment, which it should, since this is a cardinal teaching of Roman Catholicism. It is also covered more briefly in the chapter on “The Seven Sacraments.” Non-Catholics should be familiar with these facets of Roman Catholic worship so they can better understand this religion.
Another chapter of great interest is “The Intolerance of Catholicism.” The purpose is not to vilify or misrepresent the Catholic Church, but the truth has a right to be heard regarding their history and current philosophy. Pope Boniface VIII, for example, would flunk today’s “politically correct” philosophy; he made this claim: “We declare it to be altogether necessary that every human creature should be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (361). This policy led to far more than “social” ostracism:
Francis sent an army, under Catholic leadership, which massacred hundreds and destroyed twenty-two towns completely. The persecuting spirit reached its height in the massacre on St. Bartholomew’s Day and for weeks afterward, in 1572, when by different estimates from twenty thousand to one hundred thousand people perished (364).
Obviously, this tragic situation had escalated into far more than a discussion of different ideas. Who knows how many people lost their lives in various countries because they did not accept Roman Catholicism as their religion of choice? This chapter contains other events and teachings of significance that reveal the historic Catholic doctrine of intolerance.
The reader has undoubtedly heard of the Knights of Columbus. The chapter that deals with them covers their origin, the choice of their name, their purpose for existence, and their history.
Another Catholic idea frequently referred to is the doctrine of purgatory. The Council of Trent ruled that this alleged place is “where one continues to pay for his sins after baptism” (388). Say what? The New Testament teaches that baptism is for the remission of sins and that Jesus’ blood fully atones for sins, but such is not a money-making proposition; purgatory is.
What is the Catholic hierarchy’s disposition toward the ten commandments? They teach that they are all binding upon men today-with the exception of those they have changed or excluded. They claim that they had the right to change the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday. In actuality, they did no such thing. The Old Testament that God gave to the Israelites through Moses was done away (including the ten commandments); in the New Testament era we worship on the Lord’s day. The Catholic Church had nothing to do with this “change.” But even more disturbing is their omission of the second commandment! For some reason they have an aversion to the commandment that says not to make idols and bow down before them. Many of the catechisms skip the second commandment and stretch the tenth one into two separate commandments: You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife” and “You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods” (409).
The chapter that deals with the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures contains a list of 20 items that the Word of God accomplishes (419). It also introduces, from the Catholic Manual of Christian Doctrine and the Manual of Moral Theology, the doctrine of “mental reservation,” which in effect permits lying (425).
The chapter on the Roman Catholic use of the “confessional” is likewise thought-provoking. The question asked by the scribes keeps coming to mind: “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:7). The reader will not want to overlook the quotation from the Cardinals who advised Pope Jules the III to keep the Bible out of the hands of the people (432-33). Augustine and “The Roman Catholic Doctrine of Original Sin” is the reason behind infant baptism; this subject merits its own chapter.
Darrell Conley was privileged to review his own debate (August, 1995) with the two men from Catholic Response (Mike Luther and Dr. Robert Narvaez). He reported that there have been 14 people converted out of Catholicism to the Truth as a result of that debate. Sadly, men like Max Lucado, who lives in San Antonio where the debate occurred, would have told these 14 people that they were all right just the way they were; when the Scriptures are handled by him, people remain lost in their sins.
A number of points in this summary are of great interest, such as the statement by John Francis Knoll in Catholic Facts: “If it is not identical in belief, government, and etc. with the primitive church, then it is not the Church of Christ” (459). This affirmation makes the work of the debater a little easier since the Roman Catholic Church bears no resemblance to the church described in the New Testament. Brother Conley gives a summary of the key issues that were discussed each of the four nights of the debate. That debate is still in print and well worth studying.
Conley’s review of his own debate is followed by Tyler Young’s “Review of the Campbell-Purcell Debate,” which took place in 1837. These two men debated from 9:30 to 12:30 in the morning and from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. each day (except Sunday) from January 13th to the 21st (485). Purcell would only agree to debate if he could be in the negative on each proposition. That this was a debate of some substance can be seen by the first of the seven propositions:
1. The Roman Catholic Institution, sometimes called the “Holy, Apostolic, Catholic, Church,” is not now, nor was she ever, catholic, apostolic, or holy; but is a sect in the fair import of that word, older than any other sect now existing, not the “Mother and Mistress of all Churches,” but an apostasy of the only true, holy, apostolic, and catholic church of Christ. (487).
Some of the topics discussed in the debate (and this review of it) are: the papacy, the corruption of the popes, the so-called succession of the popes, the infallibility of the pope, the contradictory doctrines taught by popes and councils, the immorality of Romanism, the teachings of the Council of Trent, and the Inquisition. Since this landmark debate is no longer generally available, this review of it is immensely helpful. Of great interest was Purcell’s denial of the infallibility of the pope: “I have repeatedly told him [Campbell, gws], that the Catholic church has never taught that the pope’s infallibility was an article of faith” (465). Yet 33 years later (1870) that doctrine became an article of faith, and then Archbishop Purcell had to defend it.
In “Scandals of Catholic History” there are pictures of cruel and inhuman devices that were used during the Spanish Inquisition (530-34). The tortures were monstrous. Is it any wonder that we have so few records of the true church during this time?
Most of us may not be familiar with “The Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX,” but it was a significant document. He is referred to as the “creator of the modern papacy” (556); during his reign (1846-70) the “Immaculate Conception” of Mary was established (1854), as well as the doctrine of papal infallibility (1870). Several points in the Syllabus of Errors are discussed.
“Catholic Forgeries and Propaganda” is another fascinating chapter. Equally disturbing with the fact that many frauds have been perpetrated upon Catholics is the Catholic Church attitude that these fraudulent artifacts are a matter of indifference! The chapter on “Was Peter the First Pope?” includes a chart of all the popes, beginning with Peter (who never claimed to be head of the church and also traveled about with a wife, 1 Corinthians 9:5). This book is a necessary addition to every thinking person’s library. The wealth of information contained in it far exceeds the paltry price of $16.00, if ordered from Spring Bible Institute ($1500 from Valid Publications, Inc.).
