Response to “Propagating Hate” by Gary W. Summers

On August 2nd Donna Fielder wrote an editorial in the Denton Record-Chronicle that probably a great percentage of the community agreed with: “Propagating Hate at Church.” The purpose of her column is to take issue with the protesters who show up each week in front of the First United Methodist Church building here in Denton. She calls it harassment. Public sentiment probably agrees with her; most of us would not appreciate being greeted by protesters on our way to worship each week.

Fielder points out that protesters wave pictures of aborted fetuses at worshippers as they enter the building. Nearly everyone would consider such behavior inappropriate and uncivilized. Nearly everyone.

Personally, I would never have thought of doing such a thing, I have not done it, I have no plans to do it. Furthermore, I don’t know anyone who has done it, nor am I encouraging anyone to do it. Certainly, I have no idea if the law defines this conduct as harassment.

But someone needs to ask, “What is the purpose of this demonstration?” Donna Fielder apparently assumes that these are the actions of a hate-filled people. Has she “judged” them (a favorite line usually wrongly thrown at conservatives)? These protesters could have motives other than hatred.

Although the columnist tries to disassociate the picketing from the abortion issue itself, such is not possible. Consider a portion of her column, which will then be followed by a reply to it.

I suppose a doctor who performs abortions can expect such treatment, though she shouldn’t have to.But the church she attends?

This column is not an arrow for either side of the pitched battle of pro-life/pro-choice. It is not about abortion. It is about harassment. And the well-planned campaign behind it (16A).

We have no doubts that the author is sincere in what she writes, but she errs in saying that her column is not about abortion. The issue cannot be divorced from the actions of the protesters. They are doing what they are doing because they know that abortion takes the life of an innocent child created in the image of God.

They know that the Scriptures teach that the life in the womb is just as human as the life out of the womb (Luke 1:41, 44; 2:12, 16). The Holy Spirit uses the exact same Greek word to refer to the “fetus” as he does to the newborn child. Pro-life people are not philosophers who speculate about the beginning of life.

We are not materialists or evolutionists who believe that everything can be explained by natural means. [Even if we were, the scientific evidence for life beginning at conception is compelling.] We glean wisdom from the Scriptures. The prophet was told: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew youÉ” (Jer. 1:5). Before WHO formed him in the womb? Zechariah records the words of the Lord who, among other things, “forms the spirit of man within him” (12:1). WHO forms the spirit of man within him? Consider Psalm 119:13-16:

For you have formed my inward parts; you have covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise you for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them.God not only had a hand in man’s original creation; there appears to be involvement still. An abortionist, however, terminates that life which God formed in the womb. This makes the abortionist uncivilized, a killer of human life; yes, a murderer. Isn’t it ironic that those who describe this “occupation” accurately are the ones who are accused of being barbaric? And the abortionist is supposed to be treated with respect, as we would honor a pediatrician or a cardiologist? It is a sick society that elevates cruel killers while disparaging and condemning the compassionate and merciful.

If one understands that abortion is an issue of life and death, then the actions of the protesters is understandable. But why picket the church that the abortionist attends and wave ugly posters at their people?

Certainly, this seems an impolite thing to do, but ideas and philosophies have consequences. Should the proponents of those ideas be shielded from their results? There is a logical connection between the members of First United Methodist and the behavior of those who picket outside their building.

1. Do the members of First United Methodist consider themselves Christians? [“Yes” is assumed.]

2. Then they have an obligation to abide by the Scriptures. “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15).

3. The Scriptures teach that the taking of innocent human life is sin (Matt. 5:21-22). Murderers will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 21:8).

4. Christians cannot fellowship those who commit sin publicly and refuse to repent of it (1 Cor. 5:11). Murder is not included in this particular list, but it is a like sin, and the principle is stated clearly. In Corinth a man was living with his father’s wife. Everybody knew it–including members of the church. They should have mourned the situation and withdrawn fellowship from the one practicing this sin. Likewise, no congregation of God’s people would allow an abortionist (murderer) to be a member in good standing. Fellowship should be withdrawn from such a person. Just as Corinth did not mind fellowshipping a sexually immoral person, some today apparently condone having an experienced, “practicing” killer of babies in their midst.

5. The purpose of the protesters is to set before the fellow worshippers the results of their ideology. The members of First United Methodist have tacitly approved of the behavior of an abortionist, just as those in Corinth approved of sexual immorality. Those outside their building every Sunday morning show them the results of their beliefs. If a person is doing nothing wrong, why should such placards bother them?

Someone might respond, “My doctor removed my appendix, but I don’t want to see a picture of it on the way to worship, either.” True, but the result of his operation is a healthy person. The result of an abortion is a dead child. To be fair, the end result of both operations would need to be shown.

Many of us have been present at pro-life rallies when a ten or twelve-year-old was introduced, whose mother had been talked out of an abortion, perhaps by an obnoxious sidewalk protester. The mother is grateful; the child is grateful. It is a powerful argument. What parallel display can the abortionist offer? His or her life is littered with the corpses of human beings, whose blood will cry out as witnesses in the day of judgment.

And as the people of Germany were silent about the holocaust, shall we remain silent? Shall no one speak on behalf of the defenseless? Thank God that somebody is saying something–even if it does offend the sensibilities of others. We cannot bring ourselves to be unhappy with those who protest each week, reminding others of the consequences of their beliefs. We shall not join with those who remonstrate against them periodically. It is not their fault that a perverted court made abortion legal in what can only be described as a legislative (rather than a judicial) act. Our Constitution nowhere stated or implied that abortion was a “right.” The protesters may be using extreme measures, but what other viable options are there?

Donna Fielder also complained that there is an anti-abortion industry selling postcards and posters. She did not say how much profit was being made on the sale of these items. Lady, you picked the wrong thing to criticize. Who do you think has been making money for the past 25-plus years on abortion? Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion agencies have been receiving millions of tax dollars to support what they do. [You’re a reporter; why don’t you investigate the facts of the matter?]

If there is a government handout to pro-life groups, we have yet to hear of it. Has anybody read Carol Everett’s book, Blood Money, to see what abortionists earn? She operated in and around Dallas; if she has not been truthful, why not dig into the facts for the rest of us? How ironic that, with all the money being made in the abortion industry, someone would complain that pro-lifers would sell 100 postcards for $6.50!

The Strange World of “Religion” by Gary W. Summers

The last few months have brought an assortment of curious articles about “religion” to the public’s attention. These are in no particular order and are not especially related, except for various levels of humor that characterize each one.

Now Lyons is in even worse trouble. According to The Dallas Morning News, he was accused “in a federal indictment of cheating corporations out of $5 million dollars to buy cars, jewelry and other luxuries” (7-3-98, 4A). He was charged with “56 counts of fraud, extortion, money laundering, conspiracy and tax evasion. He faces a maximum 815 years in prison and $25 million in fines.”

Sounds like his operating credo is, “There’s a sucker born every minute,” rather than any Scriptural principle, such as “through love serve one another” (Gal. 5:13).

The article continues: “Mr. Lyons is accused of using his leadership position to solicit contributions that he spent to support a lavish life-style, including country club memberships, trips, cars, jewelry and houses.”

It turns out that the house his wife set on fire (a modest $700,000 abode) was co-owned by Bernice Edwards. She too has been indicted, and we now know that she was a former convicted embezzler. At the time these events came to light she was the director of public relations for the denomination’s annual convention.

Of course, nothing has been proven yet; the indictment came only after a grand jury investigated these matters for an entire year. No doubt there is a perfectly rational explanation for the lavish life-style, the jewelry, and an extra house here or there. These things happen all the time. Or maybe he was framed. These kinds of accusations could be made against nearly anyone. Personally, we will withhold judgment until a jury renders a verdict.

And we are confident that the Baptists will remain loyal to this man. They probably know him better than total strangers who just read a few superfluous, sensational details in the newspaper.

Since the Baptists seem to have so much trouble with their national conventions, maybe they would like to reconsider the Scripturalness of being a denomination in the first place, let alone having national conventions. How grateful we ought to be for church autonomy!

In a decision designed to resolve an issue that split the Western Christian world nearly 500 years ago, the Vatican said Thursday that it will sign a joint declaration with the world’s Lutherans affirming that Catholics and Lutherans share a basic understanding of how human beings receive God’s forgiveness and salvation (15A).

Wow! Does this mean that Catholics will no longer light candles and pay for their relatives to get out of purgatory, or will Lutheran ministers begin giving “last rites” to the dying? No, they have come to agree that “forgiveness and salvation come only through God’s grace but that good works flow from that.”

It sounds as though Luther has won. Of course, neither position is correct. The Scriptures have never taught that man is saved by faith only (Luther’s position), nor have they taught that man can through doing good works merit salvation (Catholic doctrine). While it is true that salvation and forgiveness are available to us through the grace of God and that works flow from that, it is not true that grace alone saves us.

“Together we confess,” the declaration states at one point, “by grace alone” humans beings are “accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit,” which renews their hearts and calls them to good works (15A).

The reader will notice an absence of Scripture on all the points made. One verse that comes to mind is Acts 2:38. Peter did not tell those present on the day of Pentecost that they would be acceptable to God by grace alone. He commanded, “Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Notice first that effort must be expended on the part of man; he must repent. Then he must allow himself to be baptized for the remission of his sins. This passage is not a description of grace only; it demonstrates clearly that man must respond to God’s grace–not to earn salvation, but to accept God’s offer.

Notice second the sequence of events: First there is man’s obedience; then, there is the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic-Lutheran declaration omits any obedience on the part of man. God accepts man and gives him the Holy Spirit. But how can that be? Why would anyone be excluded from salvation and forgiveness, not to mention the gift of the Holy Spirit, if everything rests upon God’s grace? The only answer is that both religious groups also subscribe to Calvin’s theology that God chose before the creation those who would be saved, thus making both salvation and God arbitrary.

A study of American Catholics discovered that 65% believed that the decision to have premarital sex should be left up to the individual. When those who claim to be religious refuse to abide by Biblical teaching, one wonders how those who are not religious would reply. Of course, not every issue under consideration is a Biblical one, but apparently the pope is tired of liberals within the ranks and intends to do something about it.

Will this tough stance help or hinder? Frequently, when people are told that they cannot participate in their favorite sins with approval of their religious hierarchy, they depart from that religious group and seek out another more “enlightened” group. It will be interesting to see whether Catholics will rebel against or cooperate with the authority figure in their church.

The idea of God winning money is ludicrous, since He owns “the cattle upon a thousand hills,” and He is the giver of all good and perfect gifts. But this episode does illustrate something: computers do not think; they only do what they are programmed to do.

Similarly amusing a number of years ago was that a church received notification that it was eligible for life insurance. It was another one of those cases where the computer did not recognize the significance of the name. How funny, it seemed, taking out a life insurance policy on a church.

Turned out, however, that it might have been a good idea after all. Within three years that congregation no longer existed. A “preacher” destroyed it. Everything was sold, and members attended other congregations in the area. The church died and no longer exists in that community. Maybe the computer wasn’t as dumb as it seemed.

Lucado and Baptism (Again) by Gary W. Summers

Most of us thought that the denial of the necessity of baptism for salvation on Lucado’s radio program in December of 1996 was sufficient to mark him as a false teacher. After all, when someone says that a person should be baptized because he is saved and not in order to become saved, most people with any experience in the English language can comprehend the meaning.

But some could not; so they wrote or called the congregation in San Antonio, with which Max is associated. We can only imagine that the conversation went something like this: “Say, this isn’t true about what Max said on his radio show, is it?”

“No, of course not. You know Max believes in baptism, and so do we here at Oak Hills. We’ll send you some material in the mail.”

“Okay. I didn’t think there was any truth to those rumors. I’ll just never understand why people want to vilify such a great Christian leader.”

No one is vilifying Max as a person, but he is a false teacher. Sure, he and Oak Hills may say they teach baptism for the remission of sins; so do a lot of people. All of Max’s devotees ought to be asking some very simple questions. These three questions were posed to a member of Max’s congregation. He never commented on them though they were asked repeatedly.

1. Is a person saved before baptism?

2. Is a person who has been baptized, but not for the forgiveness of sins, nevertheless saved?

3. Can a Christian have spiritual fellowship with the unsaved?

Answering these three questions will reveal how much a person understands the phrase for the forgiveness of sins. Anyone who answers that a person is saved before baptism does not understand that the blood of Jesus washes away sins during baptism. Answering number two (above) in the affirmative indicates that a person does not need to know WHY he is being baptized (and therefore he is not being set free by the Truth–John 8:31-32). One can only have spiritual fellowship (number 3) with one who is a member of the body of Christ. To fellowship spiritually those not baptized for the forgiveness of their sins is to say that they must be considered Christians anyway. It is to repudiate Acts 2:38.

Besides the radio broadcast, Max’s book And the Angels Were Silent also teaches salvation apart from baptism. While it is true that he mentions that “public confession and baptism came” naturally for him (191), he does not describe them as requirements to salvation.

In fact, other comments in the book make it clear that he believes baptism is not needed. Consider the questions that are submitted as a study guide for this book. Whether or not Max wrote them is beside the point; they are in his book. Consider them carefully.

Question 4b: “Read John 1:12. How does John say Jesus becomes our personal Savior?” (225).

Question 4c: “Read John 20:31. Why did John write his gospel? How do we receive eternal life, according to this verse?” (233).

Question 3b: “Read Romans 10:9. How do you give your life to God, according to this verse?” (251).

Brethren, what more evidence could an honest person need? According to the implied answers of these questions, Jesus becomes our personal Savior, we can receive eternal life, and we give our lives to God–all without even a hint of baptism (Acts 8:35-39).

Max’s devotees ought to face the truth–he does not believe that baptism is essential for salvation. He thinks that a person can be saved before and without baptism for the remission of sins. He is preaching a false, albeit popular “gospel,” for which he will be accursed.

Max Lucado: Putting Darkness for Light by Gary W. Summers

“Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter” (Isa. 5:20).

Perhaps the reader has heard about the salesman who, it was thought, was so smooth that he could sell refrigerators to Eskimos. Max Lucado is that smooth; he must be, for who else could take a passage of Scripture and convince his readers that it means the exact opposite of what it says?

In And the Angels Were Silent, published in 1992, Max surveys the final week of Jesus’ earthly existence. When he comes to a passage of Scripture that stresses Truth and correct interpretation, what does he do with it? He turns the point on its ear, telling the reader that Truth is not important and that insisting upon correct “interpretation” is divisive.

If you want the long version of their question read Matthew 22:24-28. If you want the short version and my interpretation, here it is. “Teacher, Moses said if a married man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. Once there were seven brothers among us, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. . . .” (94).

Apparently, Max did not consider the problem brought to Jesus even important enough to delineate.

Most people commenting on this passage point out that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection and that they were trying to trap Jesus with a scenario that had undoubtedly dumbfounded the Pharisees. Their question to Jesus, after explaining that she had been married to all seven (rather luckless) brothers, is: “Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her” (Matt. 22:28).

The Sadducees thought they had developed an unanswerable question. Some might contend that she is the wife of the first husband and that all the others were just stand-ins to try to produce children. Some might affirm that she belongs to the last husband, since they were together at the time of his death. But Jesus pulls the rug out from under his questioners by answering that she will not be any man’s wife in the resurrection! They had assumed (as do the Mormons) that if life continues after death, so must marriage.

Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken [Ye do err, KJV], not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels of God in heaven” (Matt. 22:29-30).

In other words, the theology of the Sadducees was wrong because they did not understand the Scriptures properly. They failed to comprehend correctly the Truth taught in the Old Testament. They were, in other words, doctrinally wrong. Now how does Max treat this crucial point? Will he point out the importance of Truth and doctrine and the correct understanding of the Scriptures?

Jesus’ response is worth underlining. “You are way off.” Now, your translation doesn’t use those words and neither does mine. But it could. A fair translation of the Greek would be: “You are off-base. You are missing the point. You are chasing a rabbit down a dead-end trail” (94).

Although it is doubtful that the Greek connotes chasing rabbits (isn’t that Alice in Wonderland?), this answer is adequate as far as it goes, but this is as far as it goes. Max next quotes a song which stresses the absurdity of futile fighting. The poem trivializes Truth and then concludes with this comment by Max: “As long as Christians split hairs [or is it hares? gws], Christians will split churches” (95).

Could some rational person explain what splitting hairs has to do with Matthew 22:23-33? Does Max think that denying the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead (the problem of the Sadducees) is equivalent to disputing a frivolous opinion as to whether or not Adam and Eve had navels (the subject of the song he quoted)?

Not only does Max not record the full question of the Sadducees, he purposely omits Jesus’ complete answer, giving only His initial response and lopping off Jesus’ use of Old Testament Scriptures that expose the Sadducean fallacy. All that Max derives from this entire episode is that people are wrong for holding on to doctrines that are not worth fighting over.

Although these comments were sufficient to answer their question, Jesus went deeper–into the heart of their problem.

“But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Matt. 22:31-32).

Their theology had been wrong for decades, perhaps even centuries. Their doctrine which denied the resurrection constituted religious error. Paul dealt with it in 1 Corinthians 15 and pointed out that if the dead are not raised, neither is Christ raised (16). Is this what Max Lucado regards as “splitting hairs”?

To Jesus, it was important to teach the Truth with respect to the resurrection. But He felt it was necessary to do more than merely tell the Sadducees that they were “off-base”; He chided them for not knowing the Scriptures because the answer to their error was there in the Word of God all the time. God did not say, “I WAS Abraham’s God”; He said, “I AM the God of Abraham.” The use of the present tense means He currently is Abraham’s God. Therefore, Abraham still exists and has a relationship with Him. He has not passed into unconsciousness (psychopannychy) nor become extinct. Abraham still exists, and (by implication) he is married to neither Sarah nor Keturah.

Did Max mention the importance of Truth (he didn’t)? Can he bring himself to discuss doctrine, as Jesus did (he can’t)? Will he emphasize the need to interpret accurately the Scriptures (he won’t)? No, all he can do is provide his readers with a song that includes the words: “I’m splittin’ hairs for Jesus,” which has no relevance to Jesus’ confrontation with the Sadducees.

Max does not even take the trouble to state the question asked by the Sadducees, nor why they asked it. He gives only part of Jesus’ answer and overlooks the key points being made. Then he quotes from a song to make a point EXACTLY OPPOSITE from the one that Jesus makes.

Remember that Jesus teaches the importance of reading and studying the Scriptures so that we can learn Truth. Jesus would have all people know that there is a correct way to interpret the Scriptures and that correct doctrine is crucial to our salvation.

Max, on the other hand, considers those lofty principles as nothing more than “hairsplitting.” Hear his mockery about these things.

The way to be made right with God? Doctrine. Dead-center interpretation of the truth. Air-tight theology which explains every mystery. The Millennium simplified. Inspiration clarified. The role of women defined once and for all. God has to save us–we know more than he does (105).

He then affirms that this approach (of God through correct doctrine) is not from God. In other words, “Doctrine doesn’t matter.” Since he holds this view, it is no wonder that he hesitates not to take a plain passage of Scripture, which upholds correct doctrine, and twist it into saying its antithesis. Light into Darkness.

Bible Bashing by Gary W. Summers

Columnist Steve Blow of The Dallas Morning News is guilty of blasphemy in this June 26th column. No doubt, he only thought he was being funny, but in this instance God’s reaction must certainly be, as the English monarch’s once was, “We are not amused.”

This charge is not made frivolously. Blasphemy, as defined by The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, is “1.a. Any contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing concerning God. b. Any irreverent or impious act or utterance. 2. Theology. The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God. 3. Judaism. a. Any word or deed meant to dishonor or revile the being or work of God, as a curse or profanity. b. The mention of the sacred, ineffable name of God” (139). This last definition may refer to a tradition of the Jews that God’s name was too holy to even speak, but the other definitions are accurate.

Steve Blow says he is a Baptist, but he disagrees with the leadership of the Baptist denomination in their teaching about women and suggests next year they recommend child sacrifices.

Now that we have put homosexuals and women in their place, it is only natural that we turn our attention to our children (27A).As everyone knows, children are out of control these days. But how different things would be if they understood their precious Biblical role as burnt offerings.

Of course, we all know the famous story of Genesis 22 of how Abraham stood ready to sacrifice Isaac. . .

Admittedly, Blow is attempting to write satire, in the style of Jonathan Swift, still known, after nearly 300 years, for A Modest Proposal, in which he advocated eating the flesh of children as a solution to the problem of begging mothers with a number of children. But Swift’s point was that a real solution to the problem needed to be found.

What is Blow’s point? His humor is wasted because the object of his ridicule is not Southern Baptists, but the Bible itself. Attacking the Bible is attacking its author, God; it therefore constitutes blasphemy.

Attacks Upon the Old Testament

Concerning Abraham’s offering of Isaac, Blow thinks “we have dwelled too much on the happy ending.”

When we read this story to children, we need to focus on how Abraham stacked up a good pile of firewood, how he tied up his boy and placed him on top of the waiting bonfire, how he pulled out his knife and prepared to plunge it into his son. . . (26A).

Blow chides Baptists for their failure to think, but his lack of thought is itself horrendous. For example, he apparently has not asked himself the most obvious question: “Why would God, who forbade human sacrifices repeatedly, have required one on this occasion?” It was a test of Abraham’s faith. How was it a test? It was a test because the requirement went against everything Abraham knew about the nature of God. It also went against common sense and the promises that God had made about Isaac, his only begotten son (of promise).

Abraham had to wonder. Nothing about this command made any sense. But Abraham knew something that Steve Blow may never learn: God is to be obeyed–whether or not we UNDERSTAND the reason for the command–whether or not we AGREE with the command. Modern man reasons thus: If God’s commands suit me, then I will keep them; if they don’t suit me, I’ll just ignore them, blaspheme God, and insult earnest souls for believing and following the Bible.

Abraham, however, believed that God knew what He was doing. The rationale for the entire test is explained in the New Testament in Hebrews 11:17-19:

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called,” accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.

Blow cannot pass such a test even knowing how it comes out (pity the man’s faith). No, he feels it his duty to chide God for requiring it in the first place. He is claiming the “rights of God for himself,” which constitutes blasphemy. And then to suggest that parents refer to this event to make their children keep their bedrooms clean and take out the trash is to lose sight of God’s purpose in this test. Isaac was not being chastised to make him behave better; there was nothing amiss in his behavior. Furthermore, he did not write a foolish letter of protest.

But not content to attack God’s integrity in the case of Abraham, Blow feels it necessary to target Jephthah, also. After telling of Jephthah’s foolish vow, he concludes: “Sad, isn’t it? But there it is, straight from the Holy Bible, so I see no room for anyone to disagree.”

Disagree with what? The events of Judges 11 occurred exactly as recorded. What do you want us to do about it, Steve? Jephthah was a man of faith (Heb. 11:33), but even men of faith occasionally do wrong things (David, for example). Jephthah did a foolish thing; no one can figure out what he expected to come forth from his house (Judges 11:31).

But there are some points about this event that should be noted. First, In the main text the New American Standard (a legitimate translation, not a mere paraphrase) renders the verse: “Then it shall be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in peace from the sons of Ammon, it shall be the Lord’s, or I will offer it up as a burnt offering.” A marginal note suggests and in place of or.

There are those scholars who opt for or, who believe Jephthah’s daughter lived a life of celibacy, dedicated to the Lord. Such would be an appropriate reason to bewail her virginity. After all, if she were going to die, would there not be something more intense to mourn?

But, for the sake of argument, say that Jephthah offered her as a burnt sacrifice. Did he do so at the command of God? No. Did he petition God for a substitute offering? No. Does the text say God approved of what he did? No. Was Jephthah commended for his actions? No. Is there any suggestion that others ought to do what he did? No.

Blow thinks that Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac and Jephthah’s sacrifice of his daughter are stories that are best forgotten; their only value to him is in demonstrating that the Bible should not be taken literally. Perhaps he has forgotten that God is wiser than he is and that even the Old Testament is Scripture.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation (origin), for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21).

As a follow-up on that issue, we ought to stress that women are responsible for all the sin in the world (1 Timothy 2:12). And they really need to keep quiet in church, saving questions for their husbands at home (1 Corinthians 14:34).

One wonders exactly on what, if anything, Blow does agree with God. His blasphemies seem to know no end. They are only exceeded by his inability to understand what a text is saying. 1 Timothy 2:12 does not charge Eve with being responsible for the sins of the whole world. In fact it does not even mention the word sin.

Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence (1 Tim. 2:11-12).

The reason for this commandment follows:

For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into the transgression (1 Tim. 2:13-14).

Does anyone, besides theologian Blow, see that this passage blames Eve for all the sin in the world? Both Adam and Eve sinned (so have we all). Paul did not blame either one for all the sin in the world.

Paul was merely stating two reasons why women do not have the leadership role in the church. The first reason involves the order of creation; the second involves the woman’s being deceived. Both Adam and Eve were guilty of sin. The difference in their transgressions lies in the way each sinned. Eve was deceived; Adam was not. He sinned with full awareness of what he was doing. He followed his wife’s lead. For these two reasons, men have the leadership role in the church. In a sense, one could say that women do not have the leadership role by design and by default.

However, these two facts do not make women responsible for all the sin in the world. Nor does it make them “inferior.” The Baptists actually stated the truth on this subject. They made clear the equality of men and women in the home:

The husband and wife are of equal worth before God. Both bear God’s image but each in differing ways. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to His people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect and to lead his family. A wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God, as her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his “helper” in managing their household and nurturing the next generation.

These sentiments merely affirm what the Scriptures teach, but they mention equality twice. If Mr. Blow saw the entire text, he gave no indication of it.

We must not nap and allow the “modern interpretation” folks to put their dangerous spin on our Scriptures.Well, once again, bless you in your efforts to reduce our Bible to a plain and simple rule book.

These statements imply that he is in the camp of modern “interpreters” such as, say, John Shelby Spong. This postmodern approach allows us to ignore what we do not like to hear and say that a verse means whatever we want it to mean. Does the Bible say adultery is a sin? “No, no, that’s too simplistic; it’s an out-of-date interpretation. Actually, adultery can be the best choice and a beautiful thing, given the right circumstances. After all, the Bible isn’t a book of rules.” Most people can see such notions as clumsy attempts at rationalization. Blow, Spong, and others of their ilk only fool those who desire to be fooled.

Most follow-up letters to Blow’s column seemed to recognize his denigration of the Scriptures. An Episcopalian laments Blow’s “mocking the Scriptures.”

By ripping two Old Testament stories out of context to show (I guess) that the Good Book ain’t so reliable after all, Mr. Blow displays an unfortunate ignorance of the simple difference between description and prescription. Sometimes the Bible describes customs, activities and ideas that are not in any way prescribed (7-2-98, 2A).

This last comment referred to Jephthah and agrees with what we already discussed. Another reader lamented Blow’s “blasphemous argument” and his “deliberately perverting the truth” (July 5, 1998, 4J). But equally telling are the comments of those who agree with him. Consider Darren K. Price’s remarks:

If you believe in the Bible you MUST follow it to the letter, including passages that contradict other passages (good luck with that) (July 5, 1998, 4J).

The Bible does not contradict itself; it only contradicts what wicked men and lustful hearts want to do; therefore, they attack the Scriptures rather than repent. Woody Wood thinks Steve has done away with “selective inerrancy” and is willing to finance bumper stickers which say: “Steve Blow said it. I believe it. That’s it.” In the first place, Christians are not the ones who believe in selective inerrancy: Steve and Woody do. They refuse to accept any Biblical teaching that does not meet with their standards. We do not deny any of the Scriptures Mr. Blow brought up; rather we have already affirmed our acceptance of them. Second, the bumper sticker is also blasphemous. Some of us will be watching on the day of judgment to see if God thinks these two are nearly as cute as they think they are.

Steve Tinsley of Garland jumps on Blow’s bandwagon:

I hope all of the thinking people who read this column will see Mr. Blow’s point that fundamentalism degrades religion by favoring details over the message. The hate-mongers hiding behind the rules and regulations of religion were called Pharisees in Jesus’ day (7-2-98, 22A).

Our obviously love-filled writer is mistaken. Jesus never condemned anyone for keeping the law. The Pharisees were condemned for keeping man-made traditions and for keeping small details while overlooking serious concepts. The role of men and women in the home is hardly an insignificant detail; it is Christian doctrine.

If one were to publicly bash Jews, there would be a public outcry. One cannot even call homosexuality a sin without incurring the wrath of the “politically correct.” But take heart; hatemongers still have someone to unload all their hostility upon–Christians. And they can bash the Bible as loudly as they want. God’s Word and His followers can be insulted with impunity–at least in The Dallas Morning News.

Sex and the Church by Gary W. Summers

Rumor has it that some members of the church do not like reading articles in the church bulletin relating to sex. Not only does our current society seem fascinated by the subject (to the point of preoccupation with it, at times), but God Himself felt it was appropriate to comment on matters relating to sexuality. Therefore, because God presents commandments concerning right and wrong sexual conduct, and because our current society seems to be partial to those things which God has legislated against, we occasionally spend time on the topic. Necessity takes precedence over preference.And who knows how long we will be allowed to voice the Biblical perspective? Winford Claiborne, former director of Freed-Hardeman’s annual lectureship and current speaker for the International Gospel Hour said these words just a year ago:

The state of New Jersey has recently passed a law which forbids anyone from speaking disparagingly of homosexuality. That is the law. How do they get around the first amendment? A Presbyterian Church in the state of New Jersey took the state to court to challenge the law. The court upheld the state law in New Jersey (Meeting the Challenging Tests of Life, Jackie Stearsman, editor, 1998, p. 534).

Think of It! We discussed the subject of homosexuality in last week’s bulletin, which also appears on the Internet. Will that be illegal, too? Pornography dominates the Internet; will we be prohibited from calling a sin a sin? Who would have ever imagined that anyone would have passed such a state law? And that it would be upheld? Is politics interfering with religion?

Brother Claiborne continues:

If you listen to our radio program. . .over a period of time, you will hear sermons on abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, homosexuality, adultery, fornication, and similar sins, but the day may come when radio stations will have to cut us off. In fact, some have already done so (534).

The example he cites is a radio station in Dalton, Georgia. The religious program had aired on that station for 39 years, but it was terminated because the manager is a homosexual. He removed all religious programming because of what was being said about the homosexual agenda (534-35).

Biblical teaching on sexual matters must be set forth, as brother Claiborne has advocated. The entertainment media and the news media seldom, if ever, champion moral values. If Christians do not publicly uphold the truth regarding these things, how will anyone ever hear the other side?

Some may think that the public’s flair for immorality has had no effect upon the church, but such a view indicates naivete. At this very moment, three situations can be cited in which members of the church are living together outside of marriage AND are in fellowship with the church. One involves the daughter of a preacher who on weekends “entertains” a man to whom she is not married. Another involves a woman raising children who has invited a man into her home to live with them. The third involves an older couple in Illinois who uses economics to justify their cohabitation.

The victims are, unfortunately, brothers, sisters, cousins, or friends of the family, and they may not be even a year old (1A). What is the explanation for this tragic situation?

“In today’s world, children are exposed to so much sexual stimuli,” said Gail Ryan of the National Adolescent Perpetration Network at the University of Colorado. “At the same time, the level of explicitness has increased. I think the risk of children learning and then beginning to practice behavior is increasing” (26A).

It is too bad that the members of the Supreme Court who failed to define pornography back in the ’50s are not still around to see the results of their cowardice. In the past 40 years, the pornography business has grown into a multi-billion dollar industry. In fact, according to a book published in 1987 (Pornography: A Human Tragedy, edited by Tom Minnery), the figure was then 8 billion dollars a year (31). First, there were magazines, and no one stopped their proliferation. Next videos came along. And now there is the Internet.

But what do all those things have to do with juveniles? Some experts on this subject have said that 70% of all pornography ends up in the hands of juveniles. This percentage may be inflated, but even if it were cut in half, the possibility that 35% of everything published and taped would be seen by adolescents is frightening. We are told in the same book that there “are more stores selling pornographic videos than there are MacDonald hamburger restaurants” (43).

But how do such materials find their way into the hands of young people? Children are naturally curious. If there is something they know is hidden away, they will find an opportunity to look for it. Or they may find the latest Playboy video by accident. That same inquisitive nature that causes them to examine these “forbidden” materials will lead some into trying out such things–not with a consenting adult or fellow teenager (which would be bad enough), but with someone younger and defenseless.

In 1957 the Supreme Court ruled that obscenity had never been a Constitutional right (88), but then left the definition so vague as to open the floodgates to the current situation. Now we are reaping the results of the Court’s indecisive foolishness.

Sex, lovemaking and eros usually aren’t church topics. But people packed the pews at St. John’s Presbyterian Church last week to hear best-selling author Thomas Moore talk about everything from erotic fantasy to sexual ecstasy.”So we’re gathered in a church to talk about sex,” he says, triggering a wave of laughter. “It’s a good place” (1g).

One cannot help wondering if the same people would have “packed the pews” to hear Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost or Jesus’ sermon on the mount.

Although Mr. Moore occasionally points out some truths that need to be mentioned, such as “our philosophy is basically narcissistic” (6G), he makes some comments that are “wacko” and fanatical (sorry, but these will not be repeated here; suffice it to say that he equates sexuality with spirituality).

Then there is this troubling sentence: “Religion usually tries to restrain sex, almost sees it as the primary evil” (6G). Realizing that Mr. Moore came from a Catholic background (and never heard the word sex until he was 26) may provide a clearer context for the above statement, but it remains dangerous nevertheless. His book (and presumably his seminar) covers a wide range of issues, and one wonders how his “religion usually tries to restrain sex” remark will be applied to fornication, adultery, and homosexuality.

All of these the Bible deals with. Although some, in the name of religion, have tried to repress sexual expression even in marriage, they contradict the Scriptures when they do so. There was no cause for guilt over sex in the garden of Eden (Gen. 2:18-24), and there is none now: “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). God only “represses” intimacy between those He has not authorized to have it.

There is a need to teach what the will of God is concerning sexuality–especially in today’s society–even more so when members of the church are openly committing fornication and adultery, in many instances, with the approval of the church members (not unlike the Corinthians who were puffed up about the man living with his father’s wife). However, discussions of these topics should remain in the realm of matter-of-factness and not enter into what is lurid and suggestive, lest we find ourselves thinking along the same lines as those in the world–only in the name of religion.

Homosexuality and Dietary Laws by Gary W. Summers

[Editor’s note: In recent newspaper articles published in the Denton Record-Chronicle I dealt with various issues of immorality, such as divorce, fornication, adultery, and homosexuality. After the second article appeared, someone wrote in to take issue with what was said. Even though the articles did not rely upon the Old Testament as the sole proof against this sin, the letter writer acted as though they did. To clarify the point I wrote the following response (which varies only slightly from the original–for comprehension purposes). The editor decided enough had been said on the subject; so it was never published. It answers “the pork argument.”]

Does the Bible teach that it is acceptable under the New Testament system to partake of “pork dishes”? Although some would try to bind the dietary laws given by Moses upon others, the fact is that these laws were part of a covenant that was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). That first covenant, given to the Jews, has been replaced by the new testament of Jesus Christ, which God has given to all men (Heb. 8:6-7).By commanding him to eat of them, God made known to Peter that the animals which had once been forbidden were now acceptable. He was horrified and answered: “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean” (Acts 10:14). In the next verse God rebuked him: “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” This conversation was repeated three times.

Did God change His mind? “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness or shadow of turning” (James 1:17). God’s nature does not change. His character is today exactly what it was yesterday and what it will be tomorrow.

Does this fact mean He cannot change dietary laws, worship procedures, or even covenants? No. He had a purpose in mind for the law of Moses; it was never intended to be the final law. Even as Moses revealed it, he spoke of a lawgiver to come (Deut. 18:15-19). The New Testament, however, not only fails to promise another covenant; it presents itself as the final, complete revelation of God to man (see 2 Peter 1:3 and Jude 3-4). God has not changed His attitude about homosexuality, which transgresses His holy character.

We sometimes cite Genesis 19 (which occurred during the Patriarchal Age) and Leviticus 20:13 (part of the Law of Moses) to show historical precedent. But the New Testament (under which we live and to which we are responsible) reveals that God has the same attitude toward homosexuality now as He did then (Jude 7).

What objections were offered (by the reader defending homosexuality) against these Scriptures? He noted that homosexuals are artistic (this is an answer?). Did anyone deny that they could be? John Gacy (the serial killer) was thought by some to be a pretty fair artist, too. Is there a point here somewhere? Jesus said that the Father “makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:45). Surely we do not think that only righteous people are blessed with talent and wealth. It may be that there were a number of gifted musicians in Sodom and that they had a fabulous community playhouse; but that did not cause God to hold back judgment against their sins.

The only other argument introduced was one based upon genetics, which as yet has offered no conclusive evidence. It is doubtful that it ever will, since some have demonstrated that it is possible to change from homosexuality to heterosexuality (1 Cor. 6:9-11).

ndex

Gay Bashing by Gary W. Summers

Due to the flurry of denunciations against Trent Lott, Senate Majority Leader, and Dick Armey, House Majority Leader, some may have lost sight of what was originally said. Trent Lott was being interviewed for The Armstrong Williams Show. The host asked the Mississippi senator if he believed homosexuality is a sin, and he affirmed that it is (does anyone know why that particular question was asked?). Lott then added:

“You should still love that person. You should not try to mistreat them or treat them as outcasts. You should try to show them a way to deal with that problem, just like alcohol. . .or sex addiction. . .or kleptomaniacs. There are all kinds of problems, addictions, difficulties, experiences of things that are wrong, but you should try to work with that person to learn to control that problem” (The Dallas Morning News 4A, June 16, 1998).

On June 17th, the same newspaper reported that Dick Armey also said that homosexuality is a sin.

“The Bible is very clear on this,” said Mr. Armey, citing passages in 1 Corinthians and elsewhere. “It is not for me to judge what is or what is not, but I do abide by the Bible” (6A).

Now the reader might think that these are levelheaded statements and that they were phrased very well with no intent to slander anyone. Furthermore, both men spoke the truth. The Bible does define homosexuality as a sin, but that does not mean Christians should act with hostility toward homosexuals any more than they would toward a thief, fornicator, or adulterer. Yes, these were thoughtful answers.

But liberal columnists and the news media in general went ballistic. Michael Piazza (“senior pastor” of the Cathedral of Hope in Dallas) responded with a column in The Dallas Morning News on June 23rd, which was titled “Politics Prod Lott, Armey, to Bash Gays.” Now see there? While most Christians were happy to hear what Lott and Armey had to say and the way they said it, it appears that we really goofed. While we thought these men were being honest and forthright (not to mention kind in the way they approached the subject), but we were wrong; they were actually bashing gays.

You and I would never have thought such a thing had occurred, brethren. That’s the reason we need The Dallas Morning News headline writer to straighten us out. See, newspapers can spot things the average person would overlook. So in their headline, they assure us that Lott and Armey are guilty of gay bashing. Guess what? If we were to be so foolish as to agree with the Scriptures that homosexuality is a sin, they would accuse us of bashing gays, too. Which just goes to show you that you don’t know your own heart as well as The Dallas Morning News does. You can’t make reckless statements, such as calling a sin a sin when they are around. They will straighten you out FAST. Before you can say “Sodom and Gomorrah,” they will have you pegged as a bigoted homophobe.

And Mr. Piazza agrees with them. He accuses Armey and Lott of “beating up on gays” (11A). But he knows much more than that. He knows that Armey and Lott got their message from the radical right. Notice, not just the right–the radical right. Whew! This is scary.

Of course, one wonders if anyone who believes the Bible might not be lumped into that category. Piazza thinks that these two political leaders might be following the dictates of Dr. James Dobson. Oh, now there’s a name that should strike terror into everyone. Dobson has written several excellent books on marriage and family relationships. He has a radio program called Focus on the Family. Most of us didn’t realize, however, until we read this article, what a dangerous fanatic Dobson is. All that emphasis on the family must be some kind of subterfuge. He’s really a leader of the radical right. Of course, Mr. Piazza didn’t cite any examples of his radicalness, but evidence is rarely the long suit of moral liberals.

Mr. Piazza writes: “It is clear to me from their comments, however, that neither man knows much about God or gays–at least the God I worship or the gay and lesbian community I know” (11A).

Well, Mr. Piazza, not only do Lott and Armey not know about the God you worship, neither do the rest of us. The only one we know about is the One who reveals Himself in the Holy Scriptures. We are so limited. You evidently have some other source of information–or some other god.

We’re at a disadvantage about knowing those in the homosexual community, too. The only one we have read about was Sodom, and they were not too appealing a group. In fact, God thought so little of them that He destroyed them (Gen. 19). I’ll bet YOUR god wouldn’t have done that.

These gentlemen from Washington could have quoted the Bible in an attack on the pork industry. After all, there are more biblical prohibitions against pork than against homosexual acts. Or they could have begun quoting what the Bible says about divorce because it has much more to say on that subject than it does about homosexuality (11A).

The first reference to pork is the latest argument being used by homosexuals to justify their sin (see the next article). The dietary laws were only given to the Jews, not the Gentiles, and they were done away with at the cross (Col. 2:14). God explained to Peter that those prohibitions were no longer in effect (Acts 10). For anyone to use this argument, he must be 1) ignorant of the fact that there are two distinct covenants (Heb. 8:6-7), and 2) ignorant of the fact that homosexuality is condemned under both (while pork was only condemned under the old). Could Piazza have missed the fact that Armey quoted 1 Corinthians, a New Testament letter? Has he never read Romans 1 or Jude 7?

The second argument falls into the “You’re just as bad as I am” category. This particular dodge is not at all unusual. Basically, it goes like this: “Okay, I’m a homosexual, but you’re divorced.” It may or may not be followed by sticking one’s tongue out and grunting, “Nyeah.” It serves, however, as no real defense. To point out a sin in another does not in any sense justify oneself. The best it can do is prove both parties are guilty; neither sin is justified by this method.

From this point, Piazza waxes arrogant.

I don’t need Mr. Lott or Mr. Armey to provide me with religious education. Neither man went to seminary, and neither man has met the 2,200 worshippers who fill the pews of my church every Sunday, most of them lesbian and gay (11A).

Mr. Piazza, you may be correct that these two politicians cannot provide you with any religious education, but somebody certainly needs to. You not only approve of homosexuality, which the Bible calls a sin throughout; you don’t even know the difference between a covenant given to Jews and the one Jesus gave to all mankind. Furthermore, if you are the product of a seminary, they are not doing what could even be called an adequate job in teaching the Scriptures.

As for your 2,200 worshippers, Baal had more than that in Israel. Numbers do not prove much–especially when they have a vested interest in your approval and endorsement of their sin.

You wonder why homosexuality is selected as a target instead of the pork industry. Eating pork is not a sin. You wonder why divorce is not rather singled out? When was the last time you saw naked divorcees parading with numerous floats through the streets of major cities, perhaps even enlisting the endorsement of the mayor? When was the last time a controversy was created in kindergarten because somebody forced the children to read Heather Has a Stepmother? Divorce and remarriage on any other ground than fornication is a sin (Matt. 19:3-9), but where is the divorced persons’ lobby trying to get laws passed in their favor?

Homosexuality is a moral issue, but when homosexuals lobby lawmakers to pass legislation that would allow them to marry and have rights equal to those of a husband and wife, THEY have made it a political issue.

Recently, Rep. Barney Frank from Massachusetts (home of the nation’s least responsible voters) and his homosexual lover of more than a decade split up. Frank’s male lover “was the first partner of an openly gay member of Congress to receive spousal access privileges through the Capitol, although the decision was controversial” (The Dallas Morning News, 2A, July 5, 1998). Mr. Piazza, the agenda of homosexuals is known to all; you are not fooling anyone.

Recommended Reading: PREMILLENNIALISM, LESSONS IN LYRICS, CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP, CALVINISM by Gary W. Summers

Four new books have been published in recent months that preachers, members, and churches can spiritually profit from reading and studying. These will be dealt with in order of publication.

This monumental work is the product of the Memphis School of Preaching, whose director (and editor of the book) is Curtis A. Cates. Some of the songs that are analyzed are: “This Is My Father’s World,” “Give Me the Bible,” “How Shall the Young Secure Their Hearts?” “Ten Thousand Angels,” “Amazing Grace,” “I Love Thy Kingdom, Lord,” “Only in Thee,” “Have You Counted the Cost?” “Master, The Tempest Is Raging,” “The Kingdoms of Earth Pass Away,” “All Hail the Power of Jesus’ Name,” “Holy, Holy, Holy,” “Fairest Lord Jesus,” “Soldiers of Christ, Arise,” “Seeking the Lost,” “The Ninety and Nine,” “Yield Not to Temptation,” “Blest Be the Tie,” “God Is Calling the Prodigal,” “We Are Going Down the Valley,” “Whispering Hope,” “Were You There?” “When All of God’s Singers Get Home,” “Count Your Blessings,” “God’s Family,” and “Does Jesus Care?”

Fellowship is defined in several chapters in the book. Its value is emphasized, along with the bases and limits of it and our obligations toward it. Misconceptions concerning fellowship are discussed, and right attitudes are suggested.

Fellowship is studied in connection with several other subjects, such as the sermon on the mount, “judging” others, Mark 9:38-41, Ephesians 4:1-6, Ephesians 5:11, 1 John 1, the Corinthian church, mission work, and each of the acts of worship. The material on withdrawing of fellowship (from both individuals and congregations) is worthy of consideration by all, as is the chapter entitled “Guilt by Association.”

There are four book reviews: Rubel Shelly’s I Just Want To Be a Christian, Max Lucado’s In the Grip of Grace, the ideology of “the core gospel,” and F. LaGard Smith’sWho Is My Brother? The review of Smith’s book is 94 pages. This lengthy analysis is necessary because of the influence Smith has with so many brethren. Those who have read Smith’s book ought to read this review.

The book, simply titled Premillennialism, covers a wide range of errors inherent in this popular religious topic. The book begins appropriately with a look at “What Does the Bible Teach Concerning Christ’s Mission?” If we understand the purpose and nature of His work, we will better understand the fact that the entire structure of premillennialism rests upon a faulty foundation.

Next is a consideration of what the Scriptures mean by the expression, the last days. Other Biblical phrases focused upon are “When the Books Are Opened,” “The Man of Sin,” “The Day of the Lord,” “The First Resurrection,” “The Thousand-Year Reign,” “The Binding of Satan,” and the battle which takes place at “Armageddon.” A few unscriptural phrases also receive attention: “The Tribulation,” “The Rapture,” and “The Antichrist” (in the unscriptural sense of a world ruler).

The book of Revelation, although not studied completely, commands considerable attention. There is also an analysis of Matthew 24, a look at some passages from 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and a study of the significance of 2 Peter 3.

There are also chapters covering certain groups who have taught and continue to teach premillennial ideas: Anglo-Israelism, Armstrongism (as in Herbert W. and Garner Ted, who just adapted and modified Anglo-Israelism), and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The chapter entitled “Review of a Date Setter” begins with William Miller who convinced himself and a few others that Jesus would return on May 21, 1843 (395). After mentioning a few others, such as Joseph Smith (founder of the Mormons) and Charles Taze Russell (founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses), the writer moves to the most popular datesetter of our age–Hal Lindsey, a man who is well-reversed in the Scriptures and well-revised in his date-setting (as they invariably are). All would do well to recall Matthew 24:36.

This book concludes with “A Study of the Prophecies of the Kingdom/Church of God.” Because so many who call themselves “Christians” believe in the popular doctrine of premillennialism, this book is needed to inform us of the errors of this false system and to fortify us in the truth of God’s word. (This book contains 443 pages.)

The editor exercised great wisdom in including portions of two debates. In 1843 Alexander Campbell debated the Presbyterian N. L. Rice. Campbell’s first affirmative speech from that 912-page debate book is reprinted as the lead chapter. Campbell had thought this matter through extremely well and is quite masterful and concise in defining the issue for the reader. He demonstrated that the Holy Spirit does not operate directly on a person’s heart in conversion but rather convicts the heart through the word that is preached. This material alone is well worth studying (1-29).

The second reprint is the first affirmative speech of Guy N. Woods from the Woods-Nunnery Debate in 1946. The proposition brother Woods affirmed was: “The Bible teaches that a child of God can so act as to be lost in hell” (226-35).

These two chapters serve to introduce the ideas of Calvin’s theology, which has five tenets, all linked closely to one another. Man is, according to Calvin, born totally depraved; he cannot even respond to the gospel by his own power (the Holy Spirit must enable him to do so). Man is saved by faith only (and the Holy Spirit gives him that!). He received that faith because God chose to save him before the world was created (election). Since God already made the decision concerning salvation, there is nothing the person can do to be lost (once saved, always saved); no sin can separate him from God. Jesus did not die for all mankind–only those whom He elected.

All of these doctrines deny the plain teachings of the Scriptures. Literally thousands of Scriptures must be denied to uphold Calvinist doctrine. It is one of the most deadly and dangerous philosophies that a person could believe. The upshot of it is essentially this: It does not matter what an individual says or does; nothing will affect his salvation. God already decided for him whether he will be saved or lost; it is not his choice. And since God made the decision, no amount of humility, love, or good behavior will save him; conversely, no amount of evil conduct will condemn him.

Calvinism provides a complete refutation of this theology in every aspect of its teaching. The chapter on “The Sovereignty of God” reviews some of the statements made by Arthur W. Pink, a rather prolific writer. He absolutely condemns the very idea that mankind is given a choice with respect to his salvation (62-86). This chapter also contains an analysis of Romans 9 and Acts 13:48, two of the passages most relied upon by Calvinists.

The section on “Irresistible Grace” deals with material by Edwin H. Palmer, Calvin himself, and others. “The Last State” describes with the very real possibility of falling from grace (a Biblical fact which Calvinists deny). There are specific chapters on “Unconditional Election,” “Total Hereditary Depravity,” “Limited Atonement,” “The Perseverance of the Saints,” and “Salvation by Faith Only.”

Besides denying the Calvinist positions, several chapters are devoted to the truths that the Bible teaches concerning “Love and Law,” “Redemption,” “Sonship,” “Regeneration,” “Reconciliation,” and “Are Grace and Works Mutually Exclusive?”

There are several chapters devoted to the third member of the Godhead and the work He does: “The Holy Spirit Converts One to Christ by the Word of God,” “The Holy Spirit Sanctifies the Christian by the Word of God,” “The Holy Spirit Convicts One of Sin by the Word of God,” “Calvinism and the Holy Spirit.” Two chapters are also devoted to the subjects of prayer and providence.

There is much, much more, but these few chapter titles convey the gist of the material available. Although most people are unaware of the fanatical positions set forth in Calvinism, it nevertheless remains the predominant philosophy undergirding most Protestant denominations. Many members of these religious groups likely have no idea what their own theology is. It is doubtful that they hear many sermons about how sinful babies are at birth, but such is their belief and the reason that they “sprinkle” infants. Calvinists tell us not to be deceived by that baby’s sweet smile; the kid is totally depraved and incapable of even one decent thought. What an ugly (not to mention erroneous) belief! Calvinism will prepare the Christian to meet and answer this false system of religion.

Below is the cost of each of these books:

Lessons in Lyrics–$18.95 ($17.00)
Christian Fellowship–$12.00 ($11.00)
Premillennialism–$14.00 ($13.00)
Calvinism–$14.00 ($13.00)

The first figure given above is the retail price; the figure in parenthesis is the cost of the book if purchased through Valid Publications, Inc.

Other NOTEworthy Examples by Gary W. Summers

Sometimes, after we have read or studied about one of the heroes or heroines of the faith, we may ask ourselves, “Would I have the courage to say and do the right thing in a difficult situation?” Women may wonder, “If my life were on the line, as Esther’s was, would I do the equivalent of approaching the king as she did, thus risking death if he did not extend his scepter?” Men may ask, “Would I really choose to spend an evening with lions on their home turf, or would I give up praying?”

We all have an idea of what we think we would do; we all know how we would want to behave in extreme circumstances, but all that is speculation until our faith is actually put to the test. However, it is proper to note those who conduct themselves as they ought, as Paul encourages us to do (Phil. 3:17).

Not all of the great examples are to be found in the Bible. We have some in our own age that are worthy of emulation for a number of reasons. Without using names (to avoid embarrassment), following are a few remarkable brethren that this author has taken note of over the years.

Of course, there was a board of directors who were also checking into various matters and a diligent secretary who was working closely with the teacher, but this woman was the one who handled complications, made decisions daily, and assured parents that the school would be a professionally-operated enterprise.

The first year had some rough spots, but most were satisfied, and enrollment increased the next year. By the third year there were 66 students, more than double the first year’s attendance. For the second year a principal was hired, but he stayed only one year, and the third year yet another person became principal. Things had gone so well that even parents who were not members of the church were sending their children.

Just before the semester ended two teachers went to the principal and told him they had concerns about the teacher who had initiated the program. The chief accuser was from the same congregation. The principal investigated the charges and determined that the two women simply used different teaching styles. He reported to the board what had occurred and thought that would be the end of it.

A few months later, however, two sets of parents informed the board that if this woman was not dismissed, they would not enroll their children next year. [There is a great need for more maturity in the church.] The board decided that the current school year would be this lady’s last. Some board members reminded their peers of the debt they owed this teacher and commented briefly upon loyalty, but it was obvious that the decision had already been made.

Then things turned ugly. Vicious comments were made about this teacher and her competency. Gossip made the rounds in the congregation of which she was a member. Ironically, the other congregation involved in the school defended her while those she knew best continued to assault her.

When the school’s only secretary for the three years was fired and not even allowed to finish the school year with only seven weeks left, she and her family left and went to another congregation (and nobody blamed her).

Many people assumed the teacher would leave, also. She did not. Despite all of the hateful comments made against her and despite all of the unjust criticisms, she finished the school year with grace and dignity. She and her family did not at that time leave the congregation. It is one thing to read in the Scriptures that we must not return evil for evil; it is quite another to resist the temptation. This lady should be noted as one who was strong in the face of adversity, one who did not attempt to retaliate against her enemies.

This church hired a man that seemed sound in the faith. For nearly four years things went along well, but then he began taking courses at a theology seminary, and in a very short time switched from conservative to liberal. This situation deteriorated even further when an elderly man, who was also a liberal (“I used to be like you conservatives”), moved there. The Bible classes became nothing more than an opportunity to make fun of and ridicule “legalists.” They would talk about great gospel preachers, whose names would have commanded respect among people of sense, and lambasted them and their Biblical preaching.

Things became so bad that faithful families quit coming to Bible study–not because they were angry and showing their contempt, but because they could not stand hearing the incessant reproaches week after week. They were compelled to study at home. They also prayed that this man would leave, and he did. As soon as another preacher came, they were happy to return to their Bible classes and a measure of spiritual sanity. They continued to be among the congregation’s faithful and were always an inspiration and an encouragement. Although they were nearly 40 years older than we were, we shared a special kinship.

Today, with so many people blindly and blithely following wolves in sheep’s clothing no matter what they teach or practice, this situation of 25 years ago seems extraordinary. Faithful brethren knew the difference between the Word of God and the doctrine of men. Actually, however, it was no marvel. They just reasoned, evaluated, and acted accordingly. One wonders today how it is that so many seem to have lost that ability. We ought to note those faithful, dependable families today and thank God for their faithfulness.

For the moment we shall leave the realm of anonymity and specify our own Agnes Shockey. Most congregations have a program of visiting, but sometimes, despite our best efforts, visitors do not return. When Claude Parker was giving an invitation one Wednesday evening, he mentioned what it was that stood out and prompted him to want to return: sister Shockey’s smile. Undoubtedly, the Bible class was good that evening, but genuine warmth makes a positive impression.

Most of our members know that Agnes has had some serious health problems these past several years, but her love of God and the church of Christ has not waned. She frequently listens to tapes of sermons, and recently came several Sunday evenings in a row. At least one person commented on the irony of the fact that so many who are healthy do not bother to come to worship while sister Shockey (with all her hindrances) loves to meet with the saints. Who says that women can’t preach sermons? Agnes is eloquent.

Many other women have likewise preached on love and dedication through their examples. How often do young mothers dress and bring their children to Bible study and worship each week without any help at all from their husbands? The unspiritual husbands often have no gratitude toward the God who made them or the wives with whom He has blessed them. If the boys grow up to be Timothies, it will be no credit to the Greek fathers, but rather the faithfulness of the mothers. NOTE these women.

Many others could be cited for their inspiration; the reader probably has a few faithful souls of his/her own that have been brought to mind. We need more examples of faithfulness, purity, and dedication to consider. We need more examples of maturity–especially as it pertains to resolving conflicts between brethren. And when we find them, they really ought to be noted.