Gary W. Summers, Author at South Seminole Church Of Christ

True Wisdom

Who is “the smartest man who ever lived”? If Jesus and Solomon are removed from the list, the remaining contestants stand a chance. Albert Einstein would be nominated, of course, and some would vote for John von Neumann, “the late mathematician and quantum mechanics theorist,” according to Dave Hunt and T. A. McMahon in The New Spirituality (19).

Regardless of who the most intelligent person in the world might turn out to be, does it really matter? There is no prize given out by God for being the smartest. As Paul asked, “For who makes you to differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you glory as if you had not received it?” (1 Cor. 4:7). IQs vary, but whether low or high, no one earned the amount of intelligence he or she has. True, one can improve upon one’s natural assets and through reason of use, training, or practice rise to a somewhat higher level, but the raw materials were still a gift.

However, everyone can be wise. There are those with an IQ of 80 who will forever be wiser than geniuses whose can score 100 points higher on an intelligence test. Wisdom is by far the greater property to possess. Some have a natural ability to apply what they know and have been taught; others must learn it.

Possessing earthly wisdom (or what sometimes is called “common sense”) will enable a person to get through the problems of everyday living and perhaps advise others, but there is a wisdom that is superior to this mundane kind–spiritual.

How does God define wisdom? What are its properties? Can anyone have access to it? This last question is the easiest to answer. Some will never gain wisdom. The fool, for example, despises it (Pr. 1:7). It seems unlikely that the one who is not searching for it should find it. Likewise the proud cannot possess it–only the humble (Pr. 11:2).

Spiritual wisdom comes from the Source of all knowledge and wisdom–God Himself. “For the Lord gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding” (Pr. 2:6). “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given him” (James 1:5). No wonder scoffers seek it but are denied access to it (Pr. 14:6).

Without question, God is the source of wisdom. He granted it to Solomon as a gift (1 Kings 4:29; 5:12). Wisdom is also one of the spiritual gifts that was given in the New Testament (1 Cor. 12:8). But one can attain wisdom without it being supernaturally or miraculously supplied. God can also bestow it through natural means–through the indirect and intermediate means of His Word.

Job asks the same question that many have struggled with: “From where then does wisdom come? And where is the place of understanding?” (Job 28:20). Job demonstrates that God knows all about wisdom, and therefore He declares to man: “Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to depart from evil is understanding” (Job 28:28).

That verse explains the reason that scorners do not attain wisdom: they practice evil, and they have no fear of God. They may have been blessed with great intelligence, but they will never be wise because they have rejected the very means of becoming such. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have all those who do His commandments. His praise endures forever” (Ps. 111:10).

Atheists, agnostics, and humanists can display absolute brilliance in many areas of academic endeavor, but they will never be wise because they fear not God. They will think they are wise. As Solomon wrote, “Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him” (Pr. 26:12). For this reason many college professors, the media elite, Hollywood luminaries, and ACLU lawyers frequently find themselves opposing goodness, righteousness, truth, and Biblical morality–they have no wisdom because they have no fear of God.

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding” (Pr. 9:10). Few today are being taught respect and honor for God. His name is primarily used for swearing by those who lack wisdom. They mock even the concept of fearing God, which they are free to do, but the irreverent will never be blessed with true wisdom. They may achieve wealth, fame, and power; they may ridicule, persecute, and put to death Christians, but they have put their hope in material things, which cannot prevail against the fires that will burn up this world (2 Peter 3:10-13). Stripped of all their props and standing naked before God in the judgment, how wise will they have been shown to be?

Wisdom Defined

Reverence for God is the beginning of wisdom, but then what? Consider what God, through Moses, told Israel:

“Surely I have taught you statutes and judgments, just as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should act according to them in the land which you go to possess. Therefore be careful to observe them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of all the people who will hear all these statutes, and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people'” (Deut. 4:5-6).

Some people climb mountains (allegedly) to talk with yogis to find out the secret of life; apparently the plain truth that spiritual wisdom involves fearing God and obeying His Word is too simple. Like Naaman, some are expecting that some great thing is required; they are offended by such a simplistic thing as fear God and keep His commandments. Many stand ready to pay huge sums of money or to go on a quest to prove their worth, but all that God requires is to trust and obey.

Wisdom, in the Scriptures, is associated with certain concepts and divorced from others. Wisdom is found among those who are righteous (Pr. 10:31), the just (Luke 1:17), those who listen to counsel (Pr. 12:15; 24:6), the humble (Pr. 11:2), and those who win souls (Pr. 11:30). Wisdom is absent from the perverse and the selfish (Pr. 10:31).

James contrasts earthly with heavenly wisdom. This world’s wisdom is associated with bitter envy, self-seeking, boasting, lying (even against the truth), confusion, and every evil thing (James 3:14-16). “But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy (James 3:17).

The first thing wisdom does is involve purity. Wisdom does not involve lying, self-seeking, or things that promote the flesh. “Wine is a mocker, intoxicating drink arouses brawling, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise” (Pr. 20:1). Certain religious doctrines being taught by false teachers in the first century permitted people to engage in licentious behavior, which in reality made them “slaves of corruption” (2 Peter 2:18-19). Spiritual wisdom does not tell people it is all right to sin and that they can be a Christian without giving up the lusts of the flesh. Those today who give their consent to those in unauthorized marriages are not dispensing any heavenly wisdom, since their advice violates purity.

Wisdom is next peaceable. Once purity is a priority, then peace can follow. It does not exist first because then we would be at peace with sin in its myriad expressions, which would be most unwise. On the other hand, once purity is established, then peace should follow (as opposed to pride, envy, and self-promotion which foster division). Certainly, wisdom can be corrupted by the love of self and the desire for self-exaltation (Ezek. 28:17). Despising others constitutes neither love nor wisdom. “He who is devoid of wisdom despises his neighbor” (Pr. 11:12). In fact, the best thing to do is to refrain from venting anger towards others: “Even a fool is counted wise when he holds his peace” (Pr. 17:28).

The Word of God is wisdom; the same reverence we hold toward God should be extended to His Word as well. Paul writes:

However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing, but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the ages for our glory (1 Cor. 2:6-7).

The word of God spoken through Jesus or His apostles would truly need to be classified as wisdom, but there is in particular a wise plan that God had determined from the beginning, which would result in our salvation.

In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself… (Eph. 1:7-9).

This mystery not only involved God’s plan for redeeming man (that is, the cleansing of His sins); it also involved putting the redeemed into the body (or church) of Christ. Both Jews and Gentiles, therefore, are part of the one body of redeemed souls, over which Christ is head (Eph. 2:11-3:7). “Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus” (Col. 1:28).

The Blessings of Wisdom

The Scriptures associate many wonderful blessings with the attainment and practice of wisdom. Below are a few of them.

1. Happiness is ascribed to “the man who finds wisdom” (Pr. 3:13). Most people are searching for happiness through various forms of fleshly satisfaction, but pursuing it in earthly domains will leave one disappointed.

2. Salvation comes to the individual with the correct priorities: “He who gets wisdom loves his own soul” (Pr. 19:8). This statement implies that those who do not seek wisdom are acting contrary to their own best interests.

3. “The wise shall inherit glory, but shame shall be the legacy of fools” (Pr. 3:35). The glory here may refer to an earthly reputation, but certainly the wise shall also share in the glory of Christ because they loved their souls.

Happiness, salvation, and glory: what more could anyone want in this life–or the next? A further benefit of wisdom is that it profits other people. “…but the tongue of the wise promotes health” (Pr. 12:18). “The law of the wise is a fountain of life, to turn one away from the snares of death” (Pr. 13:14).

Can Anyone Get Wisdom?

Not everyone is interested in being wise; some (as shown previously) would rather be scoffers. Some display too much pride; others are satisfied with cheap substitutes. They, unfortunately, are content to settle for folly in place of happiness: “Folly is a joy to him that is destitute of wisdom…” (Pr. 15:21, KJV).

But anyone else can be wise. If such were not the case, how could Solomon write: “Buy the truth, and do not sell it, also wisdom and instruction and understanding” (Pr. 23:23)? He encouraged seeking after wisdom in an earlier verse, also: “Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom. And in all your getting, get understanding” (Pr. 4:7). Jesus admonished His disciples: “Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (Matt. 10:16).

Not everyone is created equally with respect to intelligence, but everyone has an equal opportunity to be wise. Children will have a head start if their parents punish them appropriately: “The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother” (Pr. 29:15). Unfortunately, many have taken the advice of foolish modern-day “experts” over the wisdom of the Scriptures. The latest theories of men will never rival the Word of God. All of us have a need to be rebuked, chastened, and corrected so that we may become wise and learn not to always trust our own judgment.

In fact: “He who trusts in his own heart is a fool, but whoever walks wisely will be delivered” (Pr. 28:26). The “way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jer. 10:23). Only the proud think their own way is best; only they can feel comfortable doing what is right in their own eyes (Judges 21:25).

It is fearing God and walking in His ways that indicate genuine wisdom. Those who think they are lacking in their own wisdom should put themselves under the influence of those they consider wise. “He who walks with wise men will be wise, but the companion of fools will be destroyed” (Pr. 13:20). Those who want to learn medicine will try to put themselves in a position in which they are taught by the best. Those who would learn wisdom should put themselves under the influence of those who are spiritual (who fear God and walk according to His statutes and commandments).

Such individuals are ones who are genuine followers of Jesus–not those who make a profit off their spirituality or those who are hypocritically hiding their sins from public view or those who have risen to a position of ecclesiastical power and prominence. We should all subject ourselves to the influence of those who simply love the Truth and who use knowledge rightly (Pr. 15:2).

Wisdom is the principle thing; therefore, we should devote ourselves to it. We can grow in wisdom by reading and studying the Word of God and by living according to it. The more we live it, the more we will understand true wisdom, and the wiser we will become. We will be better prepared to “walk in wisdom toward those who are outside, redeeming the time” (Col. 4:6). Our measure of wisdom will be further enhanced by walking with those who are wise. There will be many smart, intelligent, and clever people who will be lost when the day of judgment arrives. The wise, however, will have lived happily here, will be saved there, and be allowed to enter into glory. We are all wise–or otherwise.

Hollywood’s Assault on Christianity

Is Hollywood stepping up the pace against Christianity? Since the outrageous and unbiblical treatment of the One Who shall judge all mankind (John 5:22, 27) over a dozen years ago (Martin Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ), more and more films seem to be attacking Christianity and the Bible. Recently, John Travolta portrayed an angel who proved to be nothing more than a carnally-minded mortal (the movie Michael).

Now there comes a movie entitled Dogma (which made over a million dollars again last weekend). Its preposterous plot constitutes an overt attack on Christianity. A Roman Catholic cardinal inadvertently opens a celestial loophole (how does one do that?!) which allows two fallen angels an opportunity to return to heaven. Success for them would prove God to be fallible, and everything would cease to exist (why?). Apparently, it never dawned on the writers that, if a loophole existed and God did not know it, He would already be fallible (due to a lack of omniscience or a lack of omnipotence)–but then there would be no more movie.

According to www.screenit.com, the Lord’s name is taken in vain in a variety of different ways over a dozen times. The amount of profanity is described as extreme. God is played by a woman (Alanis Morissette), and there is a forgotten, thirteenth apostle, who (according to an editorial letter in The Dallas Morning News by Charles R. Helms and Jeff S. Turner) “leers at strippers and watches from heaven as women shower” (11-30-99, 18A). We know from the New Testament that the apostles displayed a few faults on earth, but such actions imply that heaven is a place of perpetual corruption and imperfection. Is heaven so dull that the flesh yet attracts?

According to the newspaper article:

Director Kevin Smith spitefully ridicules Christianity in general and depicts Catholicism in particular as cynical and hypocritical. The Virgin Mary is the target of ribald remarks, especially regarding her virginity (18A).

Of course, Catholics disagree with the Scriptures about the so-called “perpetual virginity” of Mary. Jesus’ brothers and sisters are mentioned in Matthew 13:55-56. The fact that we do not exalt Mary as the Catholics do does not mean we do not respect her as an honorable, pure, and righteous woman. Anyone who mocks or assaults Mary, or any other Biblical personage of good character, offends all who call themselves Christian.

Helms and Turner write further about the messages of this movie:

Organized religion “destroys who we are,” the Bible is bigoted and “gender-biased.” Despite recent shooting deaths at schools and churches, the movie shows two banished angels on killing sprees at a Catholic Church and in a corporate board room (18A).

“Organized religion” is a non-Biblical phrase referring to whatever the person using the term means by it. Hollywood’s objection is not to organized religion; it is to the morality taught in the Scriptures. Their objection is to holiness, righteousness, and godliness. For that reason many of their films are filled with profanity, blasphemy, and an obsession with nudity, sexual talk, and lascivious conduct. They are also given to violence–that which led to the first destruction of the world.

Following the teachings of the Bible does not destroy who we are; it brings out the best in people. It causes people to be kind instead of rude and obnoxious; thoughtful instead of obtuse; generous instead of stingy and selfish; loving instead of spiteful; forgiving instead of vengeful. The movie has it backwards: It is SIN that destroys who we are, that makes people full of anger, difficult to get along with, profane, covetous, and dominated by various lusts. Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins and make us better than we are (Matt. 1:21; Col. 3).

The Bible can scarcely be accused of being bigoted when the gospel is for all nations and every race. No one is excluded from the invitation to be a Christian. This universality was made known as long ago as 700 years before Christ (Isaiah 2:2-4). The whole point of Ephesians 2:11-16 is that all (Jew and Gentile) are now one in Christ. Bigotry and prejudice do not flow from Christianity.

The charge of “gender-bias” is becoming worn and outdated. Hollywood is simply mindlessly mouthing this baseless charge, which has already been answered sufficiently. And what hope is offered as a replacement for the Bible which Hollywood finds so offensive? None. According to them, as typified by this movie, we should all speak with profanity, think continually about sex, and rate all religion as hypocritical. Is this kind of behavior to be our salvation? Do these things inspire us? Will we become more noble, more intelligent, or more compassionate as a result of movies such as Dogma?

Criticism of an idea, a way of life, or a religion is valid. Some legitimate problems may exist with the ideology of certain religions. The lives of some who profess Christianity may be flawed. A few hypocrites may be found among genuine adherents. If a person found a counterfeit 20-dollar bill in his wallet, would he refuse to spend the rest of them? Why permit a few religious counterfeits to keep one away from the Truth?

But beyond that; if someone takes it upon himself to berate the Bible, which is perennially a best-seller and used by a sizable portion of the population, that someone ought to have something equally good or superior to offer in its place as a philosophy of life.

So, Hollywood, we’re waiting. Your nudity, your lustful scenes, your defiling gutter language, your unrealistic violence, and your special effects cannot hide what you are at heart–phony. You are not the one to point a finger at any ideology and question its genuineness, for you have none of your own. Furthermore, you only succeed when the audience is willing to “buy into” scripts that are frequently incredulous or impossible. How about a compromise? If you won’t try to dictate theology to God, Christians won’t try to run the entertainment business.

Seven Questions on Salvation

Article by Gary W. Summers

A few months ago someone (whose e-mail name shall remain anonymous) wrote, asking how to become a Christian. It was a privilege to answer this–the most important of all questions. Surprisingly, however, the next communication contained a rebuke against several of the aspects of salvation that had been set forth from the Scriptures. It was a typically Calvinistic response–one which denied that there was anything that man could do in connection with salvation. The writer was especially emphatic that repentance and baptism have nothing to do with man’s redemption.
The seven questions recorded below were sent to him to challenge his thinking. He admitted that they were good questions, that he would answer them, and that he would not ask anyone’s help in so doing. I told him to seek anyone’s help he wanted–that I was not interested in winning a contest against him but that Truth might be clearly seen. After two months had passed by with no response, I sent an e-mail asking him if he had lost interest in this matter. In the week that has passed since then, no reply to this message has been received. Any person who thinks that mankind is saved by “grace only” and “faith only” owes it to himself to answer these questions.

1. In Acts 2:37, the people asked Peter, “What shall we do?” Why did not Peter say, “Why, there is nothing you can DO. Salvation comes from grace through ‘faith only'”?

2. Acts 2:38. Why did Peter tell them to DO 2 things (repent and be baptized) in order to be saved?

3. Acts 8:35-36. Why, when Philip preached Jesus to the eunuch, did he ask to be baptized immediately? [If you, or the person who preaches where you attend, “preached Jesus” to the eunuch, he would not have asked that question, would he?]

4. When was Saul of Tarsus saved?

5. When a person is saved, what happens to his sins?

6. Which of the two following statements, if either, is true?

a. Baptism doth also NOW save us.

b. Baptism doth also NOT save us.

7. Baptism is a work of (men, God).

None of these questions is difficult to answer if a person’s overall theology is correct. Those who are Calvinists, however, cannot easily answer them because their theology is erroneous. The remainder of this article will deal with the seven questions, explaining what the actual answer is and the reason that Calvinists have difficulty answering them (or give up answering them).

1. In Acts 2:37, the people asked Peter, “What shall we do?” Why did not Peter say, “Why, there is nothing you can DO. Salvation comes from grace through ‘faith only'”? The answer is that salvation is not the result of God’s atoning work alone. There is something we must DO in order to be saved.

Calvinists have been taught to think wrongly about salvation in “either-or” terms. EITHER salvation is entirely the work of God OR else man earns his salvation. They never seem to be able to see that salvation results from a combination of what God has done plus each person’s response to what God has done. Some things in life are “either-or,” but some are both. Some of our lectureship speakers, for example, travel by air to be with us; others drive. A few, however, do both. Because of the high cost of flying out of Memphis, many drive to Little Rock, Arkansas, and then fly to Dallas. A Calvinist, as per his theology, would tell them they can’t do both–it must be one or the other.

The Father originated the plan for our redemption. Jesus effected it by offering Himself up as the perfect Lamb of God. The Holy Spirit inspired the Scriptures which communicate to us what God has done. Do these facts mean that man is therefore universally saved? No. They mean that salvation is universally available.

Most Calvinists are willing to admit that faith is necessary in order for salvation to be appropriated. But if there is even ONE thing that man must DO to have salvation (such as believe), then: 1) salvation is not obtained exclusively by what God has done, and 2) there might be a second or third requirement on the part of man (such as repentance and baptism).

Because God has appointed for man conditions of receiving the salvation He offers, Peter told those who believed on Pentecost two more things to DO: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…” (Acts 2:38).

2. Acts 2:38. Why did Peter tell them to DO 2 things (repent and be baptized) in order to be saved? The answer is that they are necessary for one to be saved. What is often overlooked is that this is the very first occasion in which salvation is preached publicly after the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus into heaven. The events recorded in Acts 2 are not part of a theological treatise stressing the importance of faith (as opposed to the erroneous idea of meriting salvation). This is an historical event! Thousands of Jews are gathered together for Pentecost. The great noise of a rushing mighty wind gains people’s attention; the cloven tongues like as of fire further intrigued those present. The speaking in tongues astounded them. They listened to the proofs of Jesus being the Son of God–raised up from the dead! Those who believed wanted to know what they should DO. Peter did not answer, “Just believe and say ‘the sinner’s prayer.'” He gave them two crucial elements of salvation: repentance and baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

3. Acts 8:35-36. Why, when Philip preached to the eunuch Jesus, did he asked to be baptized immediately? [If you, or the person who preaches where you attend, “preached Jesus” to him, he would not ask that question, would he?]

To ask the question is to answer it. The eunuch made the request because when Jesus is preached, it includes man’s response to God’s grace by believing that Jesus is the Son of God, by repenting of His sins, and by being baptized in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins.

The reason that those who hear Calvinists preach do not ask the question the eunuch did is that they may not mention repentance and certainly will not preach baptism for the remission of sins. One would think that they might re-examine their theology to see why there is such a difference between the responses in the Bible when Jesus was really, truly, properly preached and the responses to their preaching (“faith only”). Two cooks do not use the same ingredients, the same materials, and the same instructions with one producing a German chocolate cake and the other lemon meringue pie. Calvinists do not get the same results from their preaching because they have removed some ingredients and rewritten the instructions!

4. When was Saul of Tarsus saved? Calvinists will invariably answer that Saul was saved on the road to Damascus. Do the Scriptures declare that idea? No. They mention that Paul realized that the Jesus whom he had been persecuting was, in fact, the Lord. They mention that he prayed and fasted for three days (Acts 9:9-11). But they do not mention that such acts saved him. In fact, he was told to arise and go into the city, and he would be told what he must do (Acts 9:6). When Ananias came to him in the city, he told him: “And now, why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). His faith and repentance are obvious; there was only one thing that remained–for Saul’s sins to be removed in baptism.

5. When a person is saved, what happens to his sins? This is a companion question to the last one. It brings to light a difficulty for those who insist that Paul was saved as a result of his faith. Salvation means that a person’s sins have been cleansed and removed. Yet here is Saul with his sins still upon him–and being told that baptism will wash them away. A feeble explanation is sometimes offered that Saul’s sins were actually already washed away and that he needed to symbolically show that by being baptized. Except that nothing in the text corroborates such a fanciful theory, it seems plausible. If baptism merely symbolizes that sins were already washed away, the action is fraudulent and irrelevant rather than necessary.

6. Which of the two following statements, if either, is true?

a. Baptism doth also NOW save us.

b. Baptism doth also NOT save us.

This question is based on 1 Peter 3:21 and has been used in debate with Calvinists. Their theology would answer b, but the Scriptures answer a: “baptism doth also now save us.” The reason for the question is to once again try to get them to see that their view of salvation contradicts the Scriptures.

Does Peter mean to say that baptism is all that is essential to salvation (apart from faith and repentance) or that baptism alone is sufficient to save people from their sins (whether or not they are old enough to even understand)? No. Peter does not say “baptism only” any more than any New Testament writer says “faith only” or “repentance only.” Baptism has no power apart from faith (on the part of the one being baptized) and repentance. Accepting the salvation which God offers through the atoning work of Christ involves a series of responses on the part of man: faith, repentance, and baptism. Without faith, repentance would not occur, and baptism would be meaningless. Without repentance, the individual has not died to himself and therefore is not suitable for burial (Rom. 6:3-7). Without baptism, the blood of Christ cannot wash away the sins of the penitent (Acts 22:16; Rev. 1:5). Baptism now saves us because it is part of the salvation process.

7. Baptism is a work of (men, God). Calvinists seem to think that in baptism man somehow earns his salvation. How strange that one of the most passive acts imaginable would be thus misrepresented. Baptism was not man’s idea; Colossians 2:12 says: “Buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.”

Baptism is the means God chose to take the blood of Christ and wash away all our sins. No matter how much we believe and how great our repentance is, we (like Saul) must still arise and be baptized in order for our sins to be washed away. We do not EARN anything in complying with the teaching of the Scriptures on this matter. It is God’s working that removes our sins WHEN we obey Him from the heart (Rom. 6:17-18).

The reader might keep these seven questions to ask of those who teach salvation by “faith only.” They may just challenge some to reevaluate what they have always been taught concerning salvation and lead to a serious study of the Word of God, which will profit them.

Why Isn’t Truth Popular?

In December’s Reader’s Digest there is an article by Paul Johnson entitled “The Real Message of the Millennium.” It is a positive, upbeat assessment about the state of Christianity: the way it has survived until now and will continue to do so. The author mentions the inaccuracy of Nietzsche’s pronouncement in 1882 that “God is dead” (62) along with the failure of Julian Huxley’s 1957 prophecy: “Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat” (63).

Upon what is the author’s optimism based? He cites “Christianity’s” spread in West Africa (63), Russia, and China (64). “The Catholic Church, for the first time, has more than a billion members, and other Christian churches collectively have almost as many followers” (64). Obviously, Johnson is counting as Christians a great many people who would not be so classified by the Scriptures.

Imagining what Jesus would find if He visited churches today, the author expresses this view:

Familiar to Jesus would be the remarkably accurate echoes of his own words. If he were to listen to an ordinary sermon preached during Sunday service at, say, a Catholic church in an Italian village, or a Southern Baptist chapel in Texas, he would hear the same injunctions he addressed to the common people nearly 2000 years ago (64-65).

Oh, that it were so! It could be–if both groups would present, say, Matthew 5:3-12 as the text and go no further. But what happens when they teach salvation?

One group is going to teach obedience and loyalty to the Roman Catholic Church and all of its traditions. Another group is going to tell people they can be saved by “faith only” and that once they are saved, they will always be saved.

Although His precepts (Matt. 5:3-12) may be taught by both groups, Jesus did not teach loyalty to the pope or to the Roman Catholic Church–neither of which existed in the first century. Neither did Jesus nor any of His apostles ever teach salvation by “faith only.” Likewise, Jesus would observe today something else that was never part of the worship of the church in the first century–instrumental music. In other words, if one discounts the truth concerning salvation and what constitutes acceptable worship, Christianity is in good shape!

The sad reality is that truth is no longer popular with most people. We live in a society in which the majority of people reserve the right to believe and worship the way that makes them feel the most comfortable. An internal opinion of right and wrong, truth and error, has replaced any external, objective standard that might come from the Scriptures. There is little use for the Bible any more–except as people look at it for some sort of substantiation for what they already believe.

As in the secular world, so it is in the religious world–the only doctrine that remains unacceptable is the one that says that any particular teaching is right and all of those that contradict it are wrong. Everyone is right; every doctrine is correct. Although there may be different hues of right, there is no wrong–except for those who insist upon exclusiveness (John 14:6).

Recently, one Southern Baptist said that the prayers of Jews were not heard by God. One would have thought the person had advocated killing abortion doctors. The general public was outraged, and Southern Baptists were quick to disassociate themselves from the statement. But wait a minute! If the Bible teaches that salvation can only come through Christ (John 14:6), and Jews reject Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, then they cannot be saved from their sins because they have rejected the Redeemer God appointed, along with His plan of redemption. If they remain lost in their sins, then God does not hear their prayers, for “God heareth not sinners” (John 9:31 and other passages).

The problem is that no one is willing to admit that anyone else is lost. Baptists got into the same problem two years ago by saying that they were going to try to convert Mormons while they were at their convention in Salt Lake City. People took umbrage over that notion, also. Why, the very idea that Mormons are not Christians! Never mind that they follow the teachings of a false prophet who spoke lies. In our society all error has been sanctified, and every religious adherent must be accepted as being at least as “Christian” as every other religious adherent.

Not only are all denominations acceptable; so is every religion. Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, and anything else with a remotely religious flavor must be fellowshipped as equal partners. In practical terms, this philosophy means we have no cause to be evangelistic. The inevitable result of “I’m OK; you’re OK” is that there is no one left to convert. If all religions are correct, eventually we must also come to respect the religions of atheism and secular humanism.

The Results–Credible Crackpots

The results of this kind of thinking are twofold. The first result is that anything religious is accepted as valid–no matter how outlandish or inane. Just last month the November 11th The Dallas Morning News featured a story (not on the religion page) about a man visiting this area who “reported visions of the mother of Jesus in the Yugoslav village of Medjugorie 18 years ago” (29A). The paper published a picture of this man staring at a statue of the Virgin Mary before 3,000 people at Loos Athletic Field House in Addison.

Theoretically, this man reports messages from Mary. Reportedly her message calls for “prayer, peace, and repentance” (29A). That night she allegedly said that people “were to put God first and family second” (29A). Well, these things are certainly Biblical. Someone could have opened a Bible and read Luke 18:1-5 on prayer, Matthew 5:9 on peace, Acts 17:30-31 for repentance, and Luke 14:26-27 for putting God before family. Of course, reading the Scriptures is not as exciting as getting a message directly from the mother of the Lord.

However, the speaker departed from the Scriptures when he said that Mary also “urged people to attend Mass, to pray the rosary and to have a relationship with Jesus” (29A). If Mary had really spoken to the man, she would have told him to quit making of her an idol and that people were to pray not to her, but to God through Jesus Christ (Matt. 6:9; Rom. 1:8). The real Mary could scarcely have encouraged someone to attend Mass (a practice that is not even in the Bible) or say the rosary, which also is an invention of man.

One interesting sentence in this article is the one that states: “The Catholic Church neither endorses or condemns the visions’ authenticity” (30A). Thousands of people are willing to hear what this man says even though their own church has not declared him as authentic!

Benny Hinn, an egotistical Pentecostal, has recently moved his ministry to the Dallas area. Columnist Steve Blow (whom we have taken to task in time past for his religious views) has performed a valuable service with respect to Hinn. He challenged the reading public in this area to report any bona fide healings at Hinn’s hands. Only two wrote in, and what they claimed could not be verified. Undoubtedly, however, gullible people will flock to his place to be healed. Regardless of the miracles he fails to perform, numbers of people will no doubt subject themselves to his stage antics. Today, even crackpots have achieved credibility–without any evidence to support their claims.

The Results–A Vacant Society

It is only a step from saying that everyone’s religion must be accepted to saying that everyone’s values must be tolerated. Christian values can no longer dominate society because someone might be offended by them. Therefore Christian morality must be expunged from the public view. Oh, Christians still have freedom of expression–as long as they confine it within the walls of their church buildings.

The result of this philosophy has been disastrous. When Christianity, the basis for moral values, is denied access to everyday living, and our culture replaces them with heroes who have no moral compass and a theology that chants, “There are no absolutes,” the result is a nation of people who, morally speaking, do not know their right hand from their left. We have become a vacant society. We are, as poet T.S. Eliot phrased it, “the hollow men.” The lives of many people are as Jonathan King described it in his song, “It’s Good News Week.” Commenting on the vacuous emphasis of society, he wrote: “Have you heard the news? What did it say? Who won the race? What’s the weather like today?” As if in answer to the question, Paul Simon wrote, “And the dangling conversation, and the superficial sighs, are the borders of our lives.”

All of these are proclaiming the same message. Modern man lacks substance. Our educational system has dumbed down our youth’s intellects, and the entertainment media have dumbed down our consciences and sense of value. Today’s television sitcoms appear to have been written by third-year high school freshmen with hormonal problems. Most television programming by the four major networks are nothing more than expeditions into vanity. Some thrive on sexual innuendoes (or worse) and vulgarities. Not much is presented that would cause a person to think, “I want to be moral” or “I must come to know God better than I do.”

A. L. Head, a resident of Sanger (just a few miles from Denton), recently wrote an outstanding guest editorial, which was published in the November 22nd Denton Record-Chronicle under the title, “Why All the Mass Killings?” He observes: “The secular, evil forces in America have all but drowned out religious education” (the entire article appears on page 10A).

He too cites television as a contributing factor in America’s current void of values–along with the news media, the acceptance of abortion including the “most violent of these procedures” (referring to partial birth abortion), and the increasing hostility of the government which hampers “religious expression.” He laments “the lost souls searching for meaning in their lives.”

He also rebukes churches for failing in their task to preach the “simple message of Jesus Christ” and adds that a “social gospel does not have the power to convert or change behavior.” The social gospel merely reflects the decision of churches to ignore doctrine and treat it as an irrelevancy. The substance has been removed from what churches teach just as it has been eliminated from society.

Mr. Head assesses accurately both the problem and the solution:

So what is the answer to the “why” question? It is obvious that the morality of the nation needs to be increased. This means to encourage religious beliefs. Only in religion is one taught of a Supreme Being that cares about us mortals. Only in religion is doing good to one’s neighbor taught.

But how can such a change occur? No one expects the news media, the entertainment media, or the public school system to change. Churches will continue to ape secular practices so long as they are popular with people. And even more enemies exist than were specified in this article.

Just two days after Mr. Head’s article appeared, an AP story related that the “Val Verde Board of Education in Riverside County, east of Santa Ana, voted unanimously” to overturn its decision to display the Ten Commandments in district offices (6A).

Apparently, the ACLU thinks God is dead and they were appointed in His place. They bully and threaten groups, organizations, and school boards to obey their will or else face a lawsuit against their highly efficient lawyers. One hint of their arrogance is seen in this paragraph: “Before dropping its lawsuit, the ACLU is seeking assurances that the board will not resurrect [a Freudian choice of words, since the ACLU opposes the resurrection, gws] the idea at the next meeting, said attorney Michael Small” (6A). That is to say, “Now, school board, don’t try to put any tricks over on the ACLU. Promise us that you won’t change your minds. We demand that everybody walk in lockstep with us.”

Back on October 8th, the Denton Record-Chronicle reported that, when the “town of Gilbert just outside of Phoenix” wanted to celebrate “Bible Week,” the ACLU charged that such an idea was unconstitutional. For once, a U.S. District judge ruled that their suit was invalid (3C), but minor inconveniences such as these do not even slow the ACLU down.

In Boise, Idaho atheists “are threatening to file suit to remove a 60-foot cross from a cliff that overlooks this city,” according to the Denton Record-Chronicle (11-29-99). The ACLU already succeeded in getting a cross removed from public land; now atheists want them removed from private property (3A).

In just this small sampling we see the open hostility of the ACLU and atheists toward Christianity in that they cannot tolerate any public mention or even a symbol of Christianity. Examples could be multiplied many times over. So how are we to gain a more moral society and make a positive impression on today’s young people? It is not enough that they are bombarded with a crude and vulgar culture, which has become oriented toward sex and violence; decent people cannot consider having a Bible week or posting the ten commandments in a public place without the ACLU scorching a path to the court house to prevent it.

Opposition to Truth

Why are people so opposed to Truth? Many of the Jews in the first century were just as stubborn and resistant to the Truth as the ACLU is today. Both possess an unreasoning, irrational, rabid hostility towards Christianity which promotes goodness, decency, ethical integrity, and lofty moral values. Churches cannot correct society’s problems when our current culture is doing everything it can to stifle their influence. Churches have no means to force people to attend their services and live righteous lives, and even if we did, it would not profit anything, so far as God is concerned, because He wants people’s hearts. Either people must come to us with submissive hearts or be receptive when we come to them. Society can change only when individuals change.

The Credibility of the News Media

How much should the public believe from what they read in newspapers or hear on television? Someone ought to keep track. What was the “expose” that was done a few years ago on a certain vehicle that was supposed to demonstrate how unsafe it was? And then we found out that the vehicles were all right; the evidence had been tampered with. And then there were those shocking revelations about the grocery chain, Food Lion, in which the reporter again rigged the evidence.

Earlier this month we heard about the Ponder 7th-grader, who was arrested and kept in the Denton County Jail for 5 days because of an essay he wrote. The essay was read over the airwaves on various talk shows, and many lamented that the lad received the grade of 100 for concocting such a rambling story, replete with numerous misspelled words and run-on sentences. It is true that the facts of the matter have been made public, but clarifications seldom receive the attention that the original story commands.

The facts are these: The teacher began the story; the assignment, then, was for each student to envision and write a conclusion. The project was worth 300 points. 100 points was given for reading the story to the class. Another possible 100 points could be earned for listening attentively to other students read their stories (of which the boy in question received 50 points). The final 100 points was for content and grammatical skills, but this grade was to be given only after the teacher’s recommendations for revision. At the time of the arrest, that grade had not been determined. Obviously, whoever reported that the boy received 100 for his work missed a few facts.

Why was the youngster jailed? The story mentioned shooting fellow students; according to the law, the shooting of fellow students must be reported to the police, which was done. To make matters worse, the author of the “story” had been in a fight with one of the students who was shot (fictionally). His parents brought pressure to bear on the police, and they came to the school and arrested the youth.

Although the assignment is a good one, the students should not be allowed to read their stories without the teacher having first seen what they wrote. This constitutes questionable judgment on the part of the teacher–even if she had done so in her classes for a number of years without any previous incidents. It should be fundamental that anything that is presented to students has adult approval first.

For several days, however, the news media had created a false impression that the teacher thought this was a great literary effort on behalf of the beleaguered boy when such was not the case at all. Who investigated the facts here and sent a garbled version of them all over the country, thus making all of us victims of misinformation? Was it done intentionally, or was it just sloppy reporting? If the former option occurred, what was the goal; if the latter, how could anyone do such a poor job? Actually, it is not uncommon to find inaccuracies in newspapers. Periodically, one finds a letter to the editor correcting something that was falsely reported. Or the reader may find a brief apology to someone tucked away somewhere on page 37. Does the necessity of meeting deadlines explain the occasional problems?

We could chalk up erroneous data to the daily time constraints that editors face, but perhaps there is another force at work: The media no longer cares about the facts! In common parlance, the saying is: “Perception is reality.” This tenet is the underlying principle of SPIN. If the facts cannot be denied outright, at least we can manipulate how people react to the facts.

Take, for example, the new millennium. It does not start in the year 2000. Factually, it begins January 1, 2001. The reason is that when the calendar was devised, it began with the year 1. Therefore a decade does not pass until the conclusion of the year 10. A century has not elapsed until the year 100 comes to a close. A millennium is not completed until 1000 years have come and gone.

Are facts important? The perception is that the next thousand years begins with 2000; who cares if the reality declares it to be 2001? Marilyn Vos Savant acknowledged in Parade that the date of the new millennium is 2001, but then she asked her readers if they wanted to quibble about technicalities or celebrate. This is precisely the point: Truth is irrelevant. The way we perceive something to be is the way it really is.

Not only have facts become irrelevant to the news media; they are also biased. Virtually hundreds of examples could be cited, but consider a current issue. What perception has been presented lately concerning Pat Buchanan (this is not an effort for or against him as a candidate for president)? What has descended from talk shows and newspaper columnists is that he has a Nazi mentality, is anti-Semitic, and a Hitler-lover. These charges are more than preposterous, but the perception is slowing becoming the reality. He made some comments in his newest book that praised Hitler as a strategist. Buchanan divorced Hitler’s abilities from his character and from the evil that he did, not unlike Jesus’ commendation of the unjust steward (Luke 16: 8). What was not reported was that when Buchanan did describe his moral character, he called him “a monster.” Has anyone heard that fact reported?

So what’s the point? Is the purpose of this article to call for reforms in the media? No, the media will remain biased. The point is that we should not rely on the news media for factual information. As already shown, they report the “news” with their own slant. So much happens in the world everyday that they can choose what they want to use and ignore what they please. Furthermore, they can play fast and loose with the facts, as it suits their own purposes. If they can create a controversy that captures the public’s fancy, it does not matter whether the basis for it is perception or reality.

A firsthand experience will demonstrate that not only is the above-described philosophy true on the national level, it is practiced on the local as well.

Over a decade ago there was a push in the Peoria (Illinois) area for school-based clinics. A city councilman, who shared the same name as our 11th President, James K. Polk, claimed that the infant mortality rate in Peoria was 22.9%, one of the highest in the nation, because young girls were not getting the right kind of care while they were pregnant. He made a very passionate and emotional plea for the school-based clinics, which he asserted would alleviate this problem.

The concept of school-based clinics was billed as a health service, but their real function was to distribute condoms and various birth control devices. Parents, of course, would probably not have any idea that their children would be influenced toward having sex by authority figures. A number of us gathered together to fight the proposal for the clinics.

Having been intrigued by the infant mortality claim, I decided to check out the figures of the councilman. After all, if nearly one child in four were dying in the Peoria area, one would have thought such a story would have been newsworthy. Also, it did not square with reality. I checked with the County Health Department. The deaths in the Peoria area were not 22.9 per hundred. The statistics are given in terms of thousands. The correct figure was 22.9 per thousand, which amounted to 2.29%. The councilman simply failed to read the statistics accurately.

At the next school board meeting, when the same claim was made again, I was able to be recognized and gave the factual information. A lot of eyebrows were raised, but the conversation turned to other subjects. The next day the newspaper gave a summary of this meeting. Part of the story was “Polk said…”; the other part was “Summers said….” “What’s going on?” I wondered. I had no intention of setting myself up as an authority; they were not my statistics. Anyone had access to them. I had naively assumed that a reporter would check the information and publish the truth. Instead they checked with Polk, who said he would stand by his original statement.

So I invited the reporter to accompany me on a field trip to the County Health Department, showed him the statistics, and asked if they would print the correct information for the public. He said they would probably not. And they did not. What other conclusion can be drawn but that: the newspaper, the Journal Star in this instance, did not care about getting the factual information to the concerned citizenry of Peoria; they were more interested in keeping the controversy in the realm of opinion.

Proverbs 18:17 wisely states: “The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him.” The news media frequently presents only one side of an issue with little regard for the facts; the public should be skeptical and demand verification.

The Shepherd’s Chapel

[Editor’s note: One of our former members asked me to watch the television program, The Shepherd’s Chapel, which comes on every day of the week–usually at some strange hour, such as 5:00 A.M. I told him I would oblige him and proceeded to tape the show for the next five days–and watch it. Although I have had notes from these broadcasts for over two months, he has yet to stop at the office and discuss the content with me, as he indicated that he would. I have no idea why he became interested in Pastor Arnold Murray, who presents the material–or why he continued watching it, but following is my analysis of the messages I heard.]

The format of The Shepherd’s Chapel is for “Pastor” Murray to exegete the Scriptures for about 40 minutes, after which he answers letters that viewers have sent in. He occasionally makes statements with which we all should agree, such as:

“Think for yourself.”

“Do you listen to this man or some other man without checking him out in God’s word?”

“Have you read it [the Bible, gws], or do you listen to some pompous, would-be, so-called teacher of God’s Word?”

These are certainly good admonitions. The Bible does instruct us to evaluate all things and in particular what someone teaches us from the Scriptures (Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:1). Nowhere is this advice more relevant than with respect to the teachings of Arnold Murray.

Eschatology (the doctrine of end things) dominates all of his teaching and just about dwarfs everything else. He is not, however, the typical premillennialist. He does not believe in the “rapture,” which he claims is a doctrine of false religion–one that supports the theology of “the Antichrist.” But he does teach that the New World Order is coming: “that’s the one-world-ism prophesied from long ago, that it would come to pass in the generation of the fig tree. That’s to say, after the good and bad fig would return to Jerusalem, which happened in the year of our Lord 1948.”

Later, in that same program, Murray affirmed: “In Zechariah 9:10 He comes with a white steed, as King of kings and Lord of lords.” We have no idea what he is talking about. That verse does mention a horse: “I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the horse from Jerusalem….” The verse preceding it prophesies of Jesus as King coming to Jerusalem, but He is “riding on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey” (Zech. 9:9). Both passages combined, however, do not have Jesus traveling on a white steed, unless Murray has a new translation that is excessively loose. At times Murray can become abusive with those who might disagree with him:

You would think that anyone was intelligent enough to know that the subject and object of Matthew 24 and Mark 13 is the appearance of the false Christ before the true Christ returns.

That fact is presented, but it is in the text which speaks of events occurring before the destruction of Jerusalem (observe Matthew 24:1-3).

Alluding to the fulfillment of Matthew 24 in Rome’s conquering of Jerusalem, he chides: “They let some tinhorn Roman general named Titus pull it off for them? You talk about ignorance!” Perhaps Mr. Murray ought to read (or reread) Josephus’ account of the destruction before concluding that the first part of Matthew 24 was not fulfilled. He might also consider the context.

In response to the question: “What does living in the last days mean?” Murray replies: “Living in the generation of the fig tree, which began in 1948.” What does he mean by “the generation of the fig tree”? Those who believe in a literal 1000-year reign of Christ upon the earth must find some way to get around the fact that Jesus told His disciples in Matthew 24:34: “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things are fulfilled.” In other words, all that was foretold about the destruction of Jerusalem was not something that would occur a number of years in the future. It would happen within a generation’s time. Just as the fig tree reveals that summer is near when it puts forth leaves, so when the signs Jesus gave came about, the destruction of Jerusalem would be near (Matt. 24:32-33).

But if all of those things refer to A.D. 70 (the year Titus destroyed Jerusalem), there goes a great portion of millennial doctrine. So they say that Jesus was not speaking about the first century but the century in which all of these things are fulfilled by “the Anti-Christ.” Since Israel was established as a state in 1948, they term our era “the fig tree generation.” Not once in all of Murray’s allusions to this theology did he ever quote or explain John 6:15 and 18:36. Jesus refused to be a king and said His kingdom was not of this world. Such facts never deter millennialists from their doctrine, however, because the truth is not nearly as exciting as speculation.

The Holy Spirit

Murray evidently believes that he and the Holy Spirit are very close. He makes several statements that imply that the Holy Spirit deals directly with everyone. He tells viewers: “If the Spirit moves and you have a question, won’t you share it?” Is this Calvinism, that the Spirit would put a thought into someone’s head to ask a question?

Murray is teaching along certain lines, and he is suddenly reminded of a related passage of Scripture which he quotes and expounds. Afterward, he comments: “It’s just something that the Spirit moved me to bring up at this time.” Those in the Lord’s church who are insisting on this same, direct, Spirit-on-spirit theology might consider trying to explain how it is that denominationalists experience the same phenomena that they do. Thoughts come into their minds, also–even while they are speaking, and they attribute it to the Holy Spirit.

Salvation

Although we were assured that Murray taught the truth on salvation, he gave no indication of it on the five programs we scrutinized. In a comment on John 3:5, he claimed that the water portion of the new birth (being born of water and the Spirit) referred to the water sac of physical birth. No one who knows the part that baptism plays in salvation could possibly hold such an interpretation. Even denominational commentators acknowledge that John 3:5 refers to baptism. Barnes, the Presbyterian scholar, observes: “By water, here, is evidently signified baptism. Thus the word is used in Eph. v. 26; Tit. 3:5″ (9:2:202). The noted Methodist commentator, Adam Clarke, wrote:

To the baptism of water a man was admitted when he became a Jewish proselyte to the Jewish religion; and, in this baptism, he promised in the most solemn manner to renounce idolatry, to take the God of Israel for his God, and to have his life conformed to the precepts of Divine law. But the water which was used on the occasion was only an emblem of the Holy Spirit (5:531).

He goes on to encourage the reader to be baptized with the Holy Spirit, with which we would disagree, but the point is that he knew that, when John used the word water, he was referring to baptism. The Pulpit Commentary spends an entire page refuting the notion that water baptism is essential to salvation (despite the fact that John said it was), but it is clear that they know that Jesus was referring to water baptism in John 3:5. Now commentaries are not infallible, but they are more scholarly than Murray. It would have been foolish for the Lord to have said, “Unless a man be born the first time (of water) and the second time (of the Spirit), he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” If he was not born the first time (of the flesh), what is the need of talking about the second time?!

“Being born of the water and the Spirit,” however, is describing what it means to be born again (John 3:3). Both elements (water and spirit) are part of the new birth. To attempt to make either one of them refer to one’s fleshly entry into the world is absurd. At any rate, it is clear that Murray does not think baptism is involved in the salvation of man.

In Murray’s exposition of 2 Peter 1:22, which mentions “obeying the truth,” he said nothing about the blood of Christ or baptism for the remission of sins. Since he was willing to spend a long time on every verse and phrase that was important to him, this omission is significant. Furthermore, he used the phrase, being born again, a number of times but never once connected it to baptism or Acts 2:38. Furthermore, he talked about being “born from above” and implied that such a birth was a mystical experience: “When you were begotten from above, you felt that touch. You knew it was true.” This is nothing but subjectivism.

To make it even clearer that Murray does not believe that baptism is necessary to salvation, one needs only to consider his answer to a viewer’s question: “Will ‘faith only’ get you to heaven?” Murray said: “Yes, but you’ll have an empty bag.” Our response to the latter part of the comment is, “So what? Making it to heaven sure beats any other alternative.” But the part of his answer that relates to salvation is the word yes. “Faith only” saves. Whatever else he might say about the positive benefits of repentance, baptism, and living a faithful life is superfluous. According to him (and so many others), a person is saved regardless of those considerations.

Second Chances and Annihilation

Murray affirmed that the meaning of 1 Peter 3:19 is that Jesus “went to those prisoners and preached to them while He was even in the tomb, after the crucifixion, and preached to them and gave them that opportunity of that salvation.” This is the doctrine of the second chance (something the rich man of Luke 16 never got). If God is no respecter of persons (concerning salvation), then why do some get a second chance while others are denied it? Who, having been made aware of the realities of God and life after death, would possibly say to a second chance, “Well, I don’t know; let me get back to you on that”? Those who had been blessed, as Lazarus was, would not dream of giving it up, and those who were suffering torment would be foolish beyond measure to desire to remain there if given a chance to depart.

What about during the so-called “millennial age”? Will some be able to have a second chance? Murray answered both yes and no. “During the millennium we will be able to help our relatives that are in trouble, which means they probably didn’t quite make it. That doesn’t give them a second chance….” What kind of gobbledegook is this? How does someone not quite make it? A person has either had his sins cleansed by the blood of Jesus, or he has not. He has either lived faithfully afterward, or he has not. How, exactly, can someone help his relatives without giving them a second chance? Jesus said that relieving their suffering was not possible (Luke 16:24-26).

Murray, apparently, is an annihilationist (one who believes that the punishment for evil people is that they cease to exist). “Do you think a spiritual body can feel the torment of flames? Of course not.” He symbolizes it to mean the flame of embarrassment. “There is a lake of fire…. It is the place that dissolves souls.” No wonder this guy has a following. “Faith only” saves, people get a second chance, and failing that, the worst that can happen is that you cease to exist. What a deal! Accountability has been done away with entirely. One can get to heaven more easily than he can buy a new car, and he can live as wickedly as he knows how and be punished less than a 7th grader for writing a Halloween story.

Jesus and Morality

Murray held some peculiar views concerning Jesus, also. He mentioned Jesus saying, “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me?” which is a quote from Psalm 22:1. He then added: “Not that God had forsaken His Son.” What? If God did not forsake Jesus, then Jesus lied or misrepresented the facts. Murray also alleges: “The cup He asked to have removed was the cup of wrath He would have to pour out in vengeance–not avoiding the cross.” Really? How does that apply to James and John, of whom Jesus said, “You will indeed drink of the cup…”?

Murray has the answer for some of our brethren who agonize so diligently trying to explain away Matthew 19:3-9 and 1 Corinthians 7:15. Of the latter, Murray says of the woman married to an unbeliever: “She can boot him out.” The former passage is dismissed with: “God erases a marriage when you’re saved.” One wonders if that means that all people must remarry as soon as they are saved, or does God only erase unhappy and inconvenient marriages? Are children no longer children and parents no longer parents, either? We would also like to know: “If a person robs a bank the day before he is saved, does God erase that debt?”

The “Reconstructed Earth” Theory

Murray is trying to revive a false doctrine that was popular over 50 years ago. It was discredited then and shown to be false. The idea, briefly, is that God created a world before this one, which ended in a huge battle, and most of the earth was destroyed and laid waste. This doctrine is important to Murray. He says: “You’re not going to understand the full plan of salvation if you don’t understand the three world ages.” Probably he means the “pre-Adamic” world, the current world, and the millennial world, but he did not spell it out.

Murray says some peculiar things about Satan: “He was foreordained as Savior before God destroyed the earth age that was and brought this one into being.” If Satan was foreordained as Savior during the first earth age (that never was), then how is it that the Lamb was “slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8)? Did God foreordain two Saviors before He made the earth?

This theory holds that dinosaurs roamed the earth during the first world age, which is a concession to the theory of evolution. It also holds that fallen angels intermarried with human beings (Gen. 6). All of these are fanciful, speculative theories with nothing to substantiate them (except erroneous definitions of Hebrew words). Paul says clearly that Adam was the first man; there was no pre-Adamic race (1 Cor. 15:45-47). Murray sets forth the best description concerning himself: a “pompous, would-be, so-called teacher of God’s Word.”

“Jesse” Creates His Own “Ventura Highway”

“Jesse, I won’t cut fresh flowers for you,” Carly Simon promises to the title character in the chorus of her 1980 Top Ten song, “Jesse.” She portrays a woman who knows she’s being used by a man who charms her into doing his bidding whenever he wills. She seems very determined to put a stop to his domination over her, but in the end he wins out; even her friends realize, “She’s gone again.”

Jesse, the governor of Minnesota, likewise has a certain charm. How could voters not like someone who “secured a permanent income-tax cut and made good on his promise of a sales-tax rebate to taxpayers” (56)? But he recently outraged the public in general and some Minnesotans in particular with his now oft-quoted insult against “organized” religion, which appeared in the November issue of Playboy. He later said that the statement was taken out of context, but the reader can judge for himself about that.

Before continuing, two qualifying remarks are needed. First, I neither bought a copy of Playboy nor solicited anyone else to do so; the article was photocopied and given to me (with all pictures removed). The second is that this is not a political article or a political attack. In fact, Jesse holds quite a few views with which I agree, but his politics is not the concern of this article. Since he brought up the subject of religion, we do not hesitate to analyze what he said. He thinks that voters are attracted to him because they “are searching for the truth” (58). Certainly that has always been the outlook of this publication. We have from the beginning always believed: “Buy the truth and sell it not” (Pr. 23:23).

The Context

Therefore, we will be very careful with the truth of his statement recorded in Playboy. Although the governor was elected under the banner of the Reform Party, his views on moral issues are clearly libertarian, or as he describes it “socially liberal” (58). For example, he thinks homosexuality is nobody’s business (although he opposes homosexual “marriages”) (60); he believes that drugs and prostitution “should not be imprisoning crimes” (60). He does make an interesting comment about abortion, of which he is in favor: “If you prohibit it, it won’t stop. It will just go to the back alleys, and then two lives will be in danger” (60, 64).

Two? Obviously, he means the mother’s life would be in danger. What other life is in danger? Does he mean the abortionist? Or does he refer to the baby? The baby’s life is not in danger; the baby’s life is taken–which is the whole purpose of an abortion. If Jesse refers to the child, that is quite an admission on his part. It would also be a callous view since he knows a life is being destroyed but seems totally indifferent about it. He might consider that if abortion were illegal, the number of babies’ lives lost would diminish by hundreds of thousands.

It is in the context of discussing these immoral acts that the governor makes his oft-quoted statement. In the midst of his argument for legalizing prostitution, the reporter comments that such a position is not a very popular one in America. At that moment, the governor unleashes his infamous diatribe:

No, and it’s because of religion. Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people’s business. I live by the golden rule: Treat others as you’d want them to treat you. The religious right wants to tell people how to live (60).

The reporter followed this outburst by asking what the solution is to the war on drugs; there is no further clarification concerning these remarks. Thus, the context is allowing people their freedom–to do drugs, practice prostitution, and to annihilate children through abortion. Legalizing the former two meets resistance because of religion.

Analysis

Jesse credits the illegality of drugs and prostitution to religion. He may be right, but if he is, then these practices will soon become legal because the influence of religion seems to be waning. America is a far more vulgar and immoral nation than it was just 40 years ago. The moral values promoted by religion are what exalts and preserves a nation; sin brings upon it reproach and destruction (Pr. 14:34).

“Organized religion is a sham….” To a large extent this statement is true–but not for the reason the governor mentions. Organized religions are a sham because they do not exist by the authority of Jesus Christ. What Protestant denomination did Jesus establish? He promised to build His church (Matt. 16:18) and is head over it (Eph. 1:22-23). The Lord has but one body (Eph. 4:4) and will be the Savior of it (Eph. 5:23). All other religious bodies came into existence by the will of men, not God.

Many organized religions are a sham because they do not stand for the morality taught in the Holy Scriptures. Many of them would agree with Jesse’s Libertarian views. How many object to the consumption of alcoholic beverages, gambling, homosexuality, or abortion? Any religious group that will not stand where the Bible stands on these issues is just a corporate dog returning to its own vomit (2 Peter 2:20-22).

Most organized religions are a sham because they do not preach the Gospel which will save people from their sins. They present a watered-down, “just accept Jesus into your life,” “pray the sinner’s prayer” kind of message, which cannot save anyone. Isn’t it about time that Billy Graham and other well-known religious leaders explained to those who listen to them why they cannot bring themselves to say what Peter did on the day of Pentecost to those who asked what they should do? Why cannot these men echo the apostle’s answer: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins” (Acts 2:38)? Do the words get stuck in their throats?

Probably, however, none of these points crossed Jesse’s mind, in light of the remaining part of the sentence: “Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers.” Really? One wonders if “The Body” would care to wrestle with Samson (before his hair was cut). Actually, however, Samson could correctly be termed weak-minded; he was only strong physically.

Unfortunately, the governor has reversed the truth of the matter. Many of those who possess faith do so because they have reasoned through the evidence and come to the conclusion that God is and the Bible is His Word. They understand that the world did not come into existence by accident and that order did not result from chaos. Weak-minded souls do not generally waste their time thinking; they are more likely to act on the basis of, “If it feels good, do it.” They come up with such shallow thoughts as, “It can’t be wrong when it feels so right” and “Nobody has a right to tell me what to do with my own body.”

Weak-minded people do think there is safety in numbers; for that reason most sinful people like to think everyone else does what they do. The interviewer asked the governor about the time he spent in the Philippines; did he indulge in the decadent nightlife? Jesse answered: “Plenty. Just as any 19-year-old would” (66). No, governor, not all 19-year-olds would immerse themselves in fornication and drinking. Those who had been trained to think for themselves instead of going along with the crowd would resist. Some would refuse because moral values were taught to them; others might resist on practical grounds (disease and sickness). But in either case, how much mental toughness does it take to give in to temptation?

Religion is a crutch? Hardly. The rejection of true religion is a crutch. It is the means by which a person enables himself to do whatever he wants. “I can smoke, drink, gamble, be unfaithful to my wife, and treat other people as fools to manipulate because there is no God to make me accountable.” Christianity deals with reality: it demonstrates how to get rid of the sins we have committed, which are an offense to a holy God, and which will separate us from Him forever. That’s not a crutch; it’s a necessity.

Does religion tell “people to go out and stick their noses in other people’s business”? This is an irrelevant and loaded statement. Do atheists try to stick their noses in other people’s business? If not, what was Mad. Murray O’Hair doing when she sought to get prayer out of the public school system? Did she not stick her nose into a practice that was commonly done by God-fearing folks and tell them, “You can’t do that because it offends me.” There are usually two opposing sides to any issue. It can be charged equally that each side is trying to stick its nose into somebody else’s business.

Christians are commanded to be evangelistic (Matt. 28:18-20). To carry out this command Christians must in a sense invade someone else’s “space,” but no infringements occur because persuasion is our only means of converting others. The decision is theirs.

But he explains further: “The religious right wants to tell people how to live.” This charge is not true. We do not want to supervise people’s lives. We will admit that we would like for all to repent of their sins, be baptized for the forgiveness of them, and live righteously because such actions are in their own best interests. But none of these things would do any good if they were forced upon someone. God gave us the freedom to decide what to do, and we would not infringe on anyone’s liberty.

But there are certain things that are harmful to society, that have been proven to be harmful influences, such as beverage alcohol, homosexuality, and abortion. How many people have been killed or maimed by drunk drivers? If innocent people were not continually made to suffer as a result of this product, there would be no objection. Likewise, homosexuality can not be contained, either. It may begin in a consensual way, but sooner or later participation becomes mandatory, as many who reside in prisons will testify, as well as do the Scriptures (Gen. 19). Abortion destroys an innocent human being, and over 99% of the time because of the guilt of the mother. When we oppose pornography and other social ills, it is not a matter of wanting to run somebody’s life; it us usually of matter of keeping them from running–even ruining–ours.

The governor says he lives by the golden rule. Really? If a bridge were washed out, would he interfere in the lives of motorists enough to warn them? Sin has washed out the bridge to heaven. Wouldn’t it be irresponsible not to warn people of the problem and show them the solution?

If a neighbor is gambling his house payment away and his wife and children stand to suffer as a result of his compulsion, would it not be “golden” to get him to try to come to his senses? Or should we just shrug our shoulders and not stick our noses into somebody else’s business for fear they will think we are telling them how to live?

At one point in the interview, the governor said, “God works in mysterious ways…” (185). Does this allusion to Deity mean that he believes in God, or is he just using a common expression? We cannot say, but one thing shines through this interview: Jesse has his own ideas about politics, religion, and society. Although he claims to follow the golden rule, it is evident that he makes up his own rules. Some of them are good; some are questionable (to say the least). Christians will want to travel the narrow road and leave Jesse to travel “Ventura Highway” (a song by America, 1972).

Eve’s Reply by Gary W. Summers

Recently, one of our members was in New York City for a three week training seminar. He visited with a group of “brethren” in that area, which had available a March-April newsletter called City Life. This congregation states that it has elders and deacons. Editors of this publication are Julie Short (whose name is listed first in bold letters) and Tom Robinson, the minister, whose name is below hers (but not in bold letters).

Julie imagines “A Conversation with Hannah,” in which Hannah pours out her heart to Julie about how she wanted to have children but could not. “Why had God placed this desire within me and then denied me?” (1). Julie then draws a parallel between Hannah’s condition and her own–being a woman who is denied the public forum of teaching and preaching (but apparently not editing the church bulletin). Julie laments (to the imaginary Hannah):

“All my life I have been part of a church, a community of faith, that I love and in which I receive love. But I also feel pain and frustration as a woman because of long traditions that say that my voice cannot be heard. I too have been angry at times, tearful, lamenting my position in the community.

I have felt that no one could understand that frustration. I have felt shackled by tradition and have questioned both God and the church. ‘Why, God, did you create these gifts within me then set me down in the midst of a people where my gifts could not have full expression?'” (3)

A few paragraphs later Julie is lamenting again about the “traditions” of the church and its “biological or cultural limitations.” Following is a reply:

Julie, your complaint is not against the church; your complaint is against God. As intelligent as you obviously are, you can read and understand 1 Timothy 2:8-14 just as well as the rest of us. The role of leadership in the church for men has as its precedent God creating man first, then woman. A second precedent is that woman was deceived in the transgression. These things occurred before Jesus died on the cross and the Gospel was first preached on the day of Pentecost. The church simply recognizes what Paul wrote. You obviously do not, but you have given no Scriptural rationale for rejecting Bible teaching on this matter.

Oh, you lament about not being able to use your abilities for God. Did He only give you one talent? Is teaching over half of the world’s population not sufficient for you (the female half, upon which you have no restrictions)? Your opportunities are practically limitless, yet you desire the one fruit that has been forbidden you. Your conversation should have been with Eve, not Hannah. See if you can relate to this dream.

Eve: Julie, I have a story with a great warning in it for you. As you know, I was in the garden of Eden with my husband Adam, and it was literally Paradise. We were so happy; it was a perfect world. We were so kind to one another, and we were both learning together about the wonderful world that God had created for us. We had no thoughts of evil; it was outside of our experience. Worries there were none; we simply relied upon God to bless us each day, and He did. We wanted for nothing; He provided abundantly all that we needed. If only everything would have remained that way!

Then one day the serpent began planting doubts in my head about the wisdom and kindness of God. He began subtly enough by asking if we were forbidden to eat of every tree in the garden. I repeated to him immediately the command God had given concerning the tree which was in the midst of the garden: “You shall not eat of it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.” I had no intentions of disobeying God; He had blessed us so richly, and we were grateful.

But then Satan assured me that we would not surely die, as God had said. I had trouble with that notion. After all, why would God not speak the truth with us? But then, why would not the serpent, either? I was confused at this point but still fairly well decided that I would do what God said. The serpent, however, would not give up. He said that God was withholding knowledge from us. He spoke with confidence when he told me that “God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

“Really?” I wondered. “I don’t know about good and evil now. Why didn’t God tell us? Maybe the serpent is right. God has given us great things, but why does He so adamantly refuse to let us know more?” As I looked at the fruit, it was very attractive. It looked absolutely sumptuous, as though it would be good food for both the mouth and the mind to chew on.

Then I thought, “Well, of course I should eat it. After all, God created it to be eaten, didn’t He? Why would He create something and not let it be used for its intended purpose?” My taste buds were desiring, no, craving the fruit; it was made for consumption. I ate it, and that’s how sin came into the world. Oh, Julie, why didn’t I just trust in God, that He knows what He’s doing when He gives a command? I talked myself into sinning because it all made sense to me at the time.

Do you see the application to your own situation, Julie? You want to do something that God has forbidden you to do. Satan has told you that God is not being fair in this matter: he’s convinced you that you have the ability to teach and preach, and that you should do precisely that. After all, if you have the ability….

But learn a lesson from me. It’s not a question of whether or not you have the ability. You do. It’s a question of permission and authority. Of course, I couldn’t blame the denial of my access to the fruit on church traditions. I had to blame God for it. If you were honest, Julie, you would see that at heart you are blaming God, too. The same One who forbade the fruit forbade you the leadership role in the church, but your craving for it has altered your ability to think logically about it. Has not God blessed you richly? Why are you so determined to do the one thing He denies you when there is so much else you could do by way of service?

You are not alone, Julie. Both men and women who are talented musicians are not authorized to use their talents and abilities to glorify God by playing their instruments in worship to Him. There are some who have a knack for picking people’s pockets, but they are denied even earning a living that way, let alone trying to glorify God with their “gifts.”

Julie, nobody feels “threatened by your voice”; they do feel sad that you want to use it improperly. Of course, we women have much “distinct wisdom and experience to share,” but we must do it within the parameters God gave us. Do you consider Eunice’s and Lois’s time wasted? Was Phoebe no less a servant of God because she could not preach publicly? Why must you continue to desire the forbidden fruit of 1 Timothy 2? You are hurting yourself by entertaining this obsession, and you will eventually hurt the church, for which Christ died. If you succeed in dominating spineless men who are too lazy to perform their leadership roles, what will you have gained? You will only have succeeded in sinning and incurring God’s wrath. Please, Julie, when you wake up, won’t you reconsider?

Oh, while you’re still unconscious, my friend Hannah wants to speak to you.

Julie, you represented me well except in one point. I did not feel “the power of God’s Spirit fill me” as you declared, nor was “God’s Spirit praying within me.” Wherever did you get such a faulty notion? Have you been watching Benny Hinn or some other televangelist? Do yourself a favor. Read the Scriptures which were inspired by the real Holy Spirit and quit “ad libbing,” or you will end up like Max Lucado, putting your own fanciful thoughts into the heads of Bible personalities.

By the way, I have it straight from Philip’s four daughters that being filled with His Spirit does not make someone “appear out of order, mad in the light of current convention.” They were always very circumspect and exercised their gifts in the proper way. The Holy Spirit does not inspire anyone to do something that is contrary to the Word He revealed to all. It is not God’s Spirit that is being squelched–unless you continue to ignore the Scriptures–it is your own!

There are too many people eager to give credit to the Holy Spirit for what they think, say, and do. Some believe the Holy Spirit is telling them what to think, and others imagine the Spirit is empowering or strengthening them directly. But none of these people are full of the Holy Spirit. THEY ARE FULL OF THEMSELVES! The words they think are whispered by the Holy Spirit are their own thoughts. The associations that come to mind as they speak are nothing more than the brain functioning normally. The strength that they fancy they have is their own adrenaline pumping. The Holy Spirit revealed the Word for a reason. Be content with it and, for everyone’s sake, wake up soon.

The Time to Seek is Now

The Scriptures teach that God “is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him” (Heb. 11:6). Yet how many Americans could be classified as such? Some may be casually seeking Him although there is no sense of urgency. Like the Laodiceans our material prosperity seems sufficient for the moment. We are rich and think we have need of nothing. We are comfortable and secure. Perhaps some day, if we have time, we will try to improve our relationship with God.

Improve? One must first have one before it can be improved. Polls indicate that most people think they are saved. How many people could, however, go to the Bible to show what God requires as it pertains to salvation? Some undoubtedly think that they are “saved” because they are fairly decent people and have not committed any of the “big” sins. They do not realize that: 1) they stand guilty of sin (Rom. 3:23); 2) sin brings forth death (Rom. 6:23); and 3) man’s own righteousness cannot save him. If it could, Jesus died a needless, excruciating death on the cross for nothing. But all men (from the worst to the best) obtain redemption through His sacrifice (Rom. 3:24-26).

Others may think they have been saved because Billy Graham or someone else told them to say “the sinner’s prayer.” So they confessed they were sinners and asked Jesus to come into their lives–not realizing that neither “the sinner’s prayer” nor asking Jesus to come into one’s life is Biblical. Since that brief moment occurred years ago, they have not studied the Bible to find out differently, nor have they even thought of God very often. After all, they were assured of salvation.

For whatever reason, the fact is that many have neglected reading and studying the Word of God. And while there is yet time to do so, what would it be like if that privilege were denied? How could such an unrealistic phenomenon occur? It really does seem unlikely, but what if Christians were demonized by Humanists and portrayed as the source of problems in the United States? Actually, some are already suggesting this idea. Paul was accused of being a radical troublemaker in the first century:

But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some brethren to the rulers of the city, crying out, “Those who have turned the world upside down have come here too” (Acts 17:6).

Following the demonization phase could come the confiscation phase, where all Bible and religious materials are removed from society, a la Fahrenheit 451 (a futuristic novel in which firemen burn books). Only government approved materials would be for sale. Laws could ban religious reading materials, computer programs, etc.

The reader may be thinking, “No way.” Too many Americans would protest. Man does not possess enough power to pull something like this off in this day and age. That hypothesis would be a debatable point, considering that a union of government and education (which mostly denies God’s existence already) might be quite devastating. But for the sake of exploring the idea, suppose we grant the point that man is not intelligent enough or powerful enough to eradicate the Bible from this nation. There remains One who is powerful enough to bring it about–God. What?! Why would He do it?

We can deal with the why later; the fact is that He has done it already. Consider what God promised His own people:

“Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord God, “That I will send a famine on the land, Not a famine of bread, Nor a thirst for water, But of hearing the words of the Lord. They shall wander from sea to sea, And from the north to the east; They shall run to and fro, Seeking the word of the Lord, But shall not find it” (Amos 8:11-12).

These verses are truly shocking. It is difficult to imagine that God would ever deny access to His Word. His Word provides light in a world of darkness, life to those could nourish themselves by it (Matt. 4:4), hope for those facing life’s various sufferings. Why would God bring about a famine of His Word?

Why?

Probably God took such a drastic action for the same reason He shut the door of the ark. He was keeping out everyone who had rejected Noah’s preaching. There comes a time when God pronounces judgment. When He makes that decision, it is too late for repentance.

But we should also consider that God possesses a tremendous sense of irony, as seen in the way he dealt with a nation of murmurers. When they refused to fight against the inhabitants of the land in order to take their inheritance, they whined: “Why has the Lord brought us to this land to fall by the sword, that our wives and children should become victims? Would it not be better for us to return to Egypt?” (Num. 13:3).

In response to this eloquent expression of a lack of faith, God denied them the land that would have been theirs. Instead He appointed them to wander in the wilderness for 40 years. What about their children? “But your little ones, whom you said would be victims, I will bring in, and they shall know the land which you have despised” (Num. 14:31).

Did Israel say they feared their children would die in the wilderness? Yes, but the parents died there, and God brought their children safely into the land, which had been forfeited by complaint and unbelief.

Similarly, today the Word of God exists in abundance. Bibles continue to sell well. Possibly, many are given as gifts, which may account for their being unopened, unread, and unused. If bookshelves and coffee tables possessed intelligence and could absorb the contents of the Scriptures by osmosis, they would be vastly superior in Biblical knowledge to their owners who use them as footstools or to set refreshments upon.

The irony of creating a modern-day spiritual famine would simply be this: that all the time the Scriptures have been plentiful few have cared. Only in the time of crisis, hardship, and cruelty do some individuals decide that they need to seek God. If the opportunity to know God were suddenly gone, and if the Scriptures (so often taken for granted during tranquil times) were suddenly banned, then many would lament and seek them, but this intense, newfound interest comes too late. Consider a passage from Proverbs that expresses a similar viewpoint:

Wisdom calls aloud outside; she raises her voice in the open squares. She cries out in the chief concourses, at the openings of the gates of the city she speaks her words: “How long, you simple ones, will you love simplicity? For scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge. Turn at my reproof; surely I will pour out my spirit on you; I will make my words known to you.

Because I have called and you refused, I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded, because you disdained all my counsel, and you would have none of my reproof, I will also laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your terror comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you. Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently, but they will not find me.

Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the Lord, they would have none of my counsel; and despised all my reproof, therefore they shall eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled to the full with their own fancies. For the turning away of the simple will slay them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them; but whoever listens to me will dwell safely, and will be secure, without fear of evil” (Pr. 1:20-33).

When we refuse to know God (though we can come to a correct knowledge of Him through the Scriptures), and when we reject the wisdom of His Word, we should not be surprised that we are lost in the day of spiritual famine (or on the day of judgment).

Now Is the Time

There may never again come a day of spiritual famine in the land, but there is always the risk of a spiritual famine in each individual’s life–if the Scriptures are ignored. Now is the time to know God–not later. “Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor. 6:2). Following is a brief list of some things concerning which the Bible speaks (and where to find them). The Bible teaches that:

1. You are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27).

2. You have sinned (Rom. 3:23).

3. Your sins have separated you from God (Isa. 59:1-2).

4. Your sins condemn you to eternal death (Rom. 6:23).

5. God loves you, regardless (John 3:16).

6. God has extended grace to you through Jesus (Eph. 2:5-9).

7. Christ died for you—even though you have loved and practiced sin (Rom. 5:6-9).

8. You may have salvation from your sins through the blood of Christ (Rev. 1:5).

9. In order to access that blood, you must:

a. Believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (John 8:24; Mark 16:16; Acts 8:37).

b. Repent of your sins, which means you must give up the love of them and quit doing them (Luke 13:3; Acts 2:38).

c. Confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (Acts 8:37; 1 Tim. 6:12).

d. Be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:38). At this point the blood of Christ will wash away your sins (Rev. 1:5; Acts 22:16). [Note: In none of these Scriptures (or in any others) did an inspired apostle say, “Pray ‘the sinner’s prayer'” or “Just have faith.” Those unfamiliar with the Bible should read first an account of Jesus’ life (Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John), followed by the book of Acts, which shows what people were taught to do to be saved.]

10. At the time you are baptized, you are washed, sanctified, and justified “in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11).

11. When you are baptized for the forgiveness of sins, you are added to the church (Acts 2:47; 1 Cor. 12:13), which is the body of believers for whom Christ died (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23).

12. When you are buried with Christ in baptism, you arise to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3-5), having become a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17).

13. You must grow with respect to salvation (1 Peter 2:2; Heb. 5:12).

14. This growth also comes from studying (and applying) the Word of God (Ps. 119:105; Acts 20:32).

15. There is a way in which Christians are to behave and conduct themselves. We should avoid worldliness (James 1:27) and perfect “holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 7:1; Col. 3:1-15).

16. Death will not be the end of your existence (John 5:28-29); you (as well as every other person who has ever lived) will stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give an account of yourself (Acts 17:30-31; Rom. 14:11-12; 2 Cor. 5:10).

17. You will be assigned one of two places to live throughout eternity, depending on whether or not you are saved or lost (Luke 16:19-31). Those who have obeyed the gospel and lived faithfully before God will be saved (John 5:24; 1 Cor. 15:50-58; Heb 5:9; 1 John 5:13).

18. You have entered into the great commission and must bear fruit until that time (Matt. 18:18-20; Matt. 13:23).

19. Jesus will be with us until that day (Matt. 28:20; Heb. 13:5-6).

20. You have an incorruptible and undefiled inheritance awaiting you at that time (Acts 20:32; 1 Peter 1:3-9).

The Bible provides all that we need to know on these (and all other) matters. God has provided a veritable feast of spiritual blessings for us–if we will just take advantage of them (Eph. 1:3). But the time is now (2 Cor. 6:2). It will be too late if God should appoint a spiritual famine in the land. Come and partake of the spiritual food He offers while the opportunity still exists.

« Older Entries

Next Entries »

Recommended Reading: The Lord’s Church: Past, Present, Future