Marking Men by Gary W. Summers

This article is not about marking false teachers, although Paul did instruct brethren to do so (Rom. 16:17-18). Instead, it is about marking another kind of person–the kind we do not notice nearly enough. These people do not hide what they do; they are usually quite open in their actions. It is just that the unsavory and ungodly seem to command people’s attention.

One of the most inspiring passages in the book of Philippians (but not the only one) is found in chapter 3. No doubt, many Christians have committed to memory part or all of verses 8-14, which are reprinted below.

But indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has laid hold of me. Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call in Christ Jesus.

The value of Christ, the power of His resurrection, and the striving for spiritual perfection are all great and lofty ideas, which merit frequent repeating.

Just a few verses later Paul insists that Christians mark a certain kind of person: “Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern” (Phil. 3:17, emp. GWS). What a great idea! As we consider it, a brief word study is in order on the word translated “note.”

This verb (skopeo [4648], as it appears in Strong’s]) is used five other times in the New Testament. Each verse is listed below; the translated portion is in italics.

Luke 11:35: “Therefore take heed that the light which is in you is not darkness.”

Romans 16:17: “Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.”

2 Corinthians 4:18: “While we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.”

Galatians 6:1: “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.”

Philippians 2:4: “Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.”

According to Kittel, skopeo means: “to consider something critically and then to hold something before one as a model on the basis of the inspection” (7:415).

The noun form of the Greek word (skopos [4649]) is used only once–just three verses earlier as the “goal” or “mark” Paul says he is pressing toward. Used with the Greek preposition kata the noun and the verb are translated as “spies” [2685] in Hebrews 11:31 and “to spy out” [2684] in Galatians 2:4. These are the only instances in which these words appear.

There is a certain kind of person after whom we want to pattern ourselves–the kind who counts the things of this world as rubbish, the kind who has spiritual goals, the kind who has reached a certain level of maturity, the kind who sincerely desires eternal life. Note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern.

The ironic thing is that we all know some good examples, but perhaps we too often see the people who are flawed and corrupt, weak, or sinful rather than those who possess strength of character. Consider Paul’s many qualities worthy of imitation.

1. The first thing Paul did was to give up error for truth. Although it would have been difficult to disobey the Lord’s instructions given to him on the road to Damascus, it was nevertheless possible. It would have been no greater marvel than when the Israelites lost their faith after seeing the ten plagues God brought upon Egypt and then passing through the Red Sea (Heb. 4:2). It would have been no harder to understand than Ahab’s allowing Jezebel to issue the order for Elijah’s death after he had just witnessed the power of God at Mount Carmel. Truth was more important to Paul than his pride. Imagine having to admit before all his Jewish friends, as well as the Christians he had persecuted, that he was wrong! Would that all were as willing to change and admit their error in the face of evidence; Paul set the example.

2. Paul not only wrote that brethren should be steadfast and unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord (1 Cor. 15:58); he is a model of such behavior. He did not give up when persecuted, imprisoned, shipwrecked, or deserted before Caesar. He finished his course and kept the faith despite facing more adversity than most of us will ever face.

3. Although the apostle was clearly a realist, he nevertheless maintained an optimistic outlook. He found something to commend about brethren in every letter (and for the Corinthians, it was difficult). Paul knew all too well the problems that churches were facing, but it did not keep him from noticing the good things that were occurring. He commended the Macedonians for their gracious giving (2 Cor. 8:1-5). He praised the brethren in Thessalonica for their “having received the word in much affliction,” for being examples to brethren in other regions, for being known for their faith and evangelism, and for receiving the Word of God for what it truly is–the Word of God (1 Thess. 1:6-8; 2:13).

4. Paul stood for the truth when it meant marking false teachers (1 Tim. 1:18-20; 2 Tim. 2:16-18). Many people are too skittish to deal with such problems. They would rather just focus on positive things and avoid controversy. There may be some, on the other hand, who just enjoy stirring things up or manufacturing problems where none exist, but the apostle was not one of those. [Real problems often exist in abundance; why would anyone need to invent something?] Paul did not turn his back on the Judaizing teachers in hopes that they would just go away; he dealt with them.

5. Paul proclaimed the need to be holy and avoid the corruptions of the world (Rom. 6: 2 Cor. 7:1). He exhorted brethren to be transformed into the image of Christ rather than being conformed to the world (Rom. 12:1-2).

6. Paul exercised self-control–even though it was a constant struggle (1 Cor. 9:24-27). It is one thing to tell others what they must do (Acts 24:25); it is another to personally set the example. When we know that others have faced the same temptations that we have, and overcome them, it provides great encouragement to us.

7. Paul wrote frequently on the subject of evangelism. He pointed out that he was a debtor to others; he owed them the opportunity to hear and obey the gospel (Rom. 1:14). He sincerely lamented the fact that his Jewish brethren had rejected the gospel (Rom. 9:2-3; 10:1-2). But he did not just speak evangelism; his life was evangelism. He wanted by all legitimate means to save some (1 Cor. 9:22).

8. As already suggested, Paul practiced what he preached. Did he write, “Rejoice in the Lord, always. Again I will say, rejoice!” (Phil. 4:4)? These are noble sentiments to be sure, but what if he were beaten and thrown in prison? James writes, “Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing psalms” (5:13). So what was Paul doing in prison in Philippi? At midnight he and Silas “were praying and singing hymns to God” (Acts 16:25). It would be a few years before Paul wrote Philippians; he practiced his own advice before he preached it.

Paul is an example of a man of faith. We may be more familiar in our age with high-profile hypocrites whose “faith” was either a sham or merely a means of obtaining wealth. Paul possessed genuine faith, and his life bore witness to that fact. There is no duplicity in his statement, “For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Phil. 1:21). When Paul says, “Set your mind on things above, and not on things on the earth. For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life appears, then you will also appear with Him in glory” (Col. 3:2-4), we know without any doubt that Paul had his mind on heavenly concerns and that Christ was his life. All of us ought to note Paul.

Open Letter to Janet McDaniel: Bible Believers Have Lives by Gary W. Summers

Dear Janet,

We are not Southern Baptists, but since we do believe the Bible, we were likewise offended by your June 12th column in the Denton Record-Chronicle. We think we have lives and are sorry that you have such a low opinion of those who, unlike you, have faith in God and in His word.

The purpose of this letter is not to defend Southern Baptists or what they decided to do in their conventions; rather, it is to point out to you (and whoever else may read it) that the wisdom of God is higher than the wisdom of man–or woman (Isaiah 55:8-9).

Particularly offensive is your attack upon Paul and the validity of his writings. You wrote:

As far as these verses being commandments from God or teachings of Jesus worthy of recognition as a statement of faith, remember that this is Paul speaking, not God or Jesus directly.

This paragraph is absolutely incredible. No one who has studied the Scriptures could possibly write these words. In the first place, they imply that a Bible teaching is only valid if God or Jesus personally said something. So what did they personally say in the books of Acts, Romans, and all the other letters up to the book of Revelation? Paul wrote the bulk of the New Testament letters, but you have nullified the importance of all New Testament writers, including Peter, James, and Jude. These books comprise the basis of New Testament doctrine. Are they to be summarily dismissed?

Second, Paul and the others were inspired by the Holy Spirit in what they said and wrote. Jesus promised His apostles: “However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come” (John 16:13). The apostles, then, did not invent teachings to suit themselves. They were only teaching the message that the Holy Spirit provided them.

Some might think they see a loophole here since Paul was not among the apostles when Jesus spoke these words. Such a notion, however, would be a mistake. Paul commented on the source of his doctrine:

But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came by the revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:11-12).

Jesus selected Paul (Acts 9) as an apostle. When He sent Ananias to a now penitent Saul of Tarsus, He told him: “. . .he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel” (Acts 9:15). Just as Jesus selected all his other apostles, so He personally chose Saul. Paul also wrote:

If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord (1 Cor. 14:37).

Janet, you may have unwittingly disqualified yourself from being a spiritual person, in light of your comments.

Paul also wrote:

For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe (1 Thess. 2:13).

These brethren apparently had little trouble believing that Paul taught them the inspired Word of God, yet you do. Perhaps their attitude might serve as an inspiration for you. Since the Bible is also referred to as the Holy Scriptures, perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider these words of Jesus’ apostle:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Theoretically, someone might object to all these passages of Scripture that Paul wrote about his own inspiration on the ground that he is bearing witness of himself and that therefore his testimony must be discounted. That would be a big mistake.

Certainly Paul, his apostleship, and his teachings are endorsed in the book of Acts. In an effort to negate the influence of Paul, one would need to attack Luke, also–thus destroying the only inspired history of the early church and in the process casting out all of the marvelous teachings of Jesus in the book of Luke (once Luke is discredited, his gospel account of Jesus’ life also becomes worthless).

Furthermore, Peter also endorsed the writings of Paul:

. . .as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-16).

Jesus personally promised Peter that the Holy Spirit would guide him into all truth (John 16:13), and Peter bears witness to the fact that Paul wrote Scripture. Will you now find that Peter is suspect (especially since he shares Paul’s view of women, 1 Peter 3:1-7), along with John who recorded the promise of inspiration? Ms. McDaniel, your canon is shrinking fast.

Let’s face facts. Sooner or later, you will have to consider the possibility that Paul, Peter, Luke, and John are right about inspiration and women being submissive and that you are wrong. All of the New Testament writers are speaking and teaching what God has authorized them to say. Your real dissatisfaction is with God Himself.

Could you explain why it is “discrimination” for the husband to be the head of the wife and for her to submit to him? You don’t seem to have any problem understanding Ephesians 5:32-33; what is so different about verses 22-25? The husband is required to love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it. Does this description sound tyrannical? Does the submission of a wife to her husband exclude a fair discussion in which the views of both are exchanged?

Granted, some issues may not be solved satisfactorily for all involved, but is it better to have constant bickering, open hostilities, and ruined marriages than for one partner to submit to the judgment (even if it is at times erroneous) of the other? There may be more wisdom in God’s system than you are willing to give Him credit for.

The assumption so many people make is that headship and submission imply superiority and inferiority. Such is not at all the case. Many wives are more spiritually-minded than their husbands. Even if the husband is willing to abdicate his spiritual leadership responsibilities, God has not authorized such a role reversal.

Frequently, wives are smarter than their husbands; they may also be more skilled. All these considerations, however, are beside the point. God still gave the headship in the home to men, just as he did in the church (1 Tim. 2:11-14).

The fact that God has assigned different roles to men and women has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. Anyone who doubts the truth of that statement (or God who originated it) should take a look at 1 Corinthians 11:3.

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of every woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

First, please notice that man is not without his own head–Christ. Second, ask the question, “Is Christ inferior because the Father is His head?” How many times do the Scriptures show that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equal (2 Cor. 13:14)? Yet, Jesus did not consider His equality with the Father as something that would prevent Him from submitting to Him. Even the message that He preached was not His own; He got it from the Father (John 12:48-50). If Jesus can submit to the Father and retain equality with Him, why is the same thing not possible between wives and husbands?

One more question that you might consider, Janet: Is “middle-class status” so sacred that the family relationships must suffer to obtain or retain it? What did Jesus teach about the vulnerability of material things to corruption or theft (Matt. 6:19-21)? What did He teach about God supplying our needs (Matt. 6:25-34)? Prosperity may make good political campaign rhetoric, but Christians ought to have a more spiritual emphasis.

Disagreements in the New Testament by Gary W. Summers

Why do people attack the Scriptures? There are usually only two reasons: one is doctrinal; the other is moral. Those in the first category do not like something that the Bible teaches. As Joe Barnhart admitted in his debate with brother Warren, he rebelled against the thought of his father being lost and suffering in hell; thus, for him, the doctrine of hell had to go. If the Bible teaches such a doctrine (and it does), then the Bible itself must be attacked. Those who are partial to various fleshly sins also find fault with the Bible. Rather than repent of the sin, they assault the Scriptures.

John Shelby Spong, Episcopalian bishop from Newark, New Jersey, is just about the chief prosecutor against the Scriptures these days. Consider his assessment of inspiration. “Inerrancy is not a viable option for the serious Christian, even when the claim is focused narrowly on the New Testament” (Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism 79). Apparently, the “scholarly” Spong is unaware of the classic work, Alleged Discrepancies in the Bible, by Haley. He seems equally ignorant of men like McGarvey and others who answered the “higher critics” in the last century.

Of course, many who want to reject the Scriptures cling to Spong’s writings like blood-sucking leeches. Lester E. Robbins is one of those. He also wrote a defense of Spong in the Dallas Morning News of June 7th after William Murchison took issue with Spong and his new book. Robbins postulates that the New Testament writers disagreed with one another. He is not very specific (in terms of citing the Scriptures), but a refutation of his ideas is in order.

His first unsubstantiated assertion is: “Paul did not agree with the disciples of Jesus, as he indicated in his epistle to the Galatians” (3J). We can only guess, in the absence of any details, that he might be referring to Paul’s rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:11-14. The controversy was not over the teachings of Christ; it was in the application of the Truth. Some still had a hard time fellowshipping Gentiles because of what they had been taught as Jews. They knew, however, the truth that God had accepted the Gentiles (Acts 11)– even if they fell short on occasion. Paul and Peter did not teach different doctrines at all. Anyone who has studied the New Testament knows how many parallel passages these two men wrote. Furthermore, Peter said that what Paul wrote was Scripture and calls him “our beloved brother Paul” (2 Peter 3:15-16). This “disagreement” is a figment of Robbins’ imagination.

The Gospel of Matthew rejects Paul’s rejection of the Mosaic Law, and the letter of James refutes Paul’s view that salvation has nothing to do with good works.

Paul did teach that the Law of Moses was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14; Eph. 2:15). But Matthew did not teach otherwise. Moses himself prophesied the coming of a new lawgiver (and thus, a new law) as early as Deuteronomy 18:15-19). Jeremiah also foretold of a new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34). Where did Matthew argue that the Law of Moses will NOT be done away? The only verse that could possibly be so misconstrued would be Matthew 5:17-19, which emphasizes obeying every point in the law “till all is fulfilled.” When it was all fulfilled (Jesus said, “It is finished”), then it was done away. There is perfect harmony in these Scriptures.

The alleged “contradiction” between Paul and James is frequently cited despite the fact that this issue has been explained time and again. (The problem with liberals is that they never pay attention; they just keep teaching the same errors over and over. Their students repeat the same fictions their professors learned.)

When Paul writes that we are not saved by works, he is referring to works of merit. No one is able to say, “I have earned salvation.” He is usually arguing against the Judaizing teachers, who were a continual problem in the New Testament. James is not affirming that we are saved by works of merit. He is using the word works in the sense of “obedience.” Some, like those today, had misunderstood what Paul wrote about grace and faith. Paul dealt with some of those misconceptions himself in Romans 6. The point that James makes is that faith does not negate or nullify man’s responsibility to act, and he challenges anyone to define faith apart from obedience (works). The only people who see a contradiction between the writings of James and Paul are those who willingly ignore the facts and the background against which both are writing.

Next Robbins asserts:

Besides rejecting Paul’s teaching, Matthew exhibited little faith in the narrative of Mark. Matthew’s numerous disagreements with and corrections of Mark’s Gospel are dealt with extensively in Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution, by Robert H. Gundry.

Well, that settles it. Robbins read a book! He was told this hogwash by another ÒscholarÓ–end of discussion! Without having read Gundry’s book, but having seen many like it, it is safe to say that the entire thing is a matter of conjecture. It is a theory concocted by someone concerning what he thinks Matthew knew and what he thinks Mark knew (and, if he is anything like Spong, what Q knew). Q stands for an unknown document written by an unknown person from which Matthew and Mark allegedly got their information.

Matthew and Mark do not disagree. Each New Testament writer recorded things from a certain perspective. One will include more details than another. Sometimes a subject may be treated thematically instead of chronologically. Variations are not contradictions; to claim such just shows the shallowness of the “scholar.”

To suggest that Matthew had read Mark’s narrative is nothing but conjecture; to suggest he didn’t trust it is fantasy. The reader would do well to ask himself, “How do these ‘scholars’ get all of this information?” They have no objective evidence. They look at the text and decide what happened–as a child might look at some strange footprints and conclude that a space alien had been there. “How do you know?” Well, he left his footprints, the child retorts.

This is the same kind of circular reasoning Spong and others use. They assert that the book of Daniel, for example, could not have been written during Daniel’s lifetime. Why not? Because the prophecies are too accurate. The book must have been written after all those things had already occurred (what does this tell you about Spong’s view of inspiration?). The next assertion is that Daniel did not write Daniel. Oh, why not? Because it was written so many years after his lifetime.

Another trick, which Spong uses, is that he constantly denigrates the Biblical text–until he wants a piece of information to back him up. Then the text must be good because it supports him (No, I’m not making this up). When Spong wants Jesus to be older than thirty, he cites John 8:57, in which some critics said He was not yet fifty years old. Wait a minute! Is this the same text that Spong has so often assure his readers is inaccurate? How about the very next verse? Would Spong agree that Jesus is the I AM? Or did the text suddenly become corrupted? See how many games a person can play when he makes up his own rules?

Finally Robbins closes by insisting that Matthew and James did not preach “justification by faith” as Paul did. In the first place, their purposes in writing were different. Matthew is recording the life of Jesus; James has frequently been called the proverbs of the New Testament; he provides practical applications of Christian wisdom. Paul was teaching doctrine to combat error. Disagreement should not be assumed just because they are emphasizing different aspects of Christianity.

How about considering what they specifically agree upon–such as the resurrection of Christ (Matt. 28; 1 Cor. 15)? If James does not mention the resurrection; is he in disagreement with Matthew and Paul? How about rescuing those who have departed from the faith? James closes his book on that note (James 5:19-20), and Paul commands it, too (Gal. 6:1). Is Matthew out of the loop on this one?

These conjectures are silly. There have always been, and always will be, critics of the Bible. Some are modern-day Jehoiakims who enjoy taking their penknives out to carve up the Word of God, which they hope will destroy its contents as effectively as throwing it in the fire did. However, the king only destroyed the scroll; the contents remained. Likewise, liberal “scholars” succeed in impressing very few people–usually only other like-minded “scholars” and a few other assorted persons who dislike their sins being condemned.

Robbins listens to men like Spong, who in their great “wisdom” conclude such things as “Paul was not a universal scholar. He was not even a good biblical scholar” (Rescuing the Bible 104). Perhaps at some future time, say, the day of judgment, we will find out how God rates Spong as a scholar!

R. C. Foster, in his monumental work, Studies in the Life of Christ, comments on this sort of “scholarship,” although he uses the phrase professional historian, to refer to those men who are constantly denying the inspiration of the Scriptures.

Now who are the “professional historians”? What are their qualifications? What bases of judgment do they use? Fiske [another liberal “scholar” who wrote the book, The Real Jesus, gws] talks as if the great commission reads: “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to the professional historians. Whatsoever they may decide to be in harmony with the theory of evolution and the latest skeptical fantasies shall be declared true; and whatsoever they shall deny to be in accord with their theories shall be declared false. No one else is to listen or judge for himself; all are to await the dictum of those who have elected themselves to do their thinking for their fellow men (754-55).

Upon what ground ought we to listen to Fiske, Gundry, or Spong? Just because they (and numerous others) tell us they are smart, should we believe them–especially when they have no respect for the Word of God?

One thing is certain, if the Bible is as they claim it is, it is a worthless document. It cannot claim to be inspired and yet be full of historical errors and conflicting accounts of what happened. Jesus could not tell us that the truth was valuable enough to set us free from sin (if we learn it and obey it) if His words and deeds were to become so garbled as to be unintelligible.

If the Biblical writers were not inspired, but claimed to be, they are liars and frauds; nothing they wrote can have any credibility. If they did not claim Divine inspiration, and someone wrote that in at a later time, then two things (at least) are true. 1. The original writings were not inspired and are therefore relatively worthless, so far as truth is concerned. 2. Someone tampered with what had been written if the claim of inspiration was never there in the first place. And if they trifled with the text to add those words about inspiration, who knows what else may have been altered?

The choices are basically two. EITHER the Bible was inspired when it was written, as it claims to be, and therefore those who are analyzing it to death do not know whereof they speak, OR the things that were originally recorded were uninspired and faulty remembrances written some 30 to 40 years after the fact, and then possibly redone and reworked by uninspired men.

Everyone is entitled to make his own decision, but if the latter option is true, we do not know any spiritual truths for certain, and therefore we have no real, genuine hope. None of the works of Graf-Wellhausen through Spong contains enough evidence to dissuade any believer. The Word of God is precisely what it says it claims that it is–the Word of God.

Spong Defenders by Gary W. Summers

On June 7th in The Dallas Morning News there were three responses to Murchison’s column on Bishop Spong: one agreed, and the other two defended the Bishop. Space allows us to deal with only the first of these letters this week; the second will have to wait until next week.

Jim Wasserman (“Demonizing the Left”) wrote, “To go straight to the source, the Bible, nowhere does Jesus in his documented sayings condemn or speak out against abortion. Similarly, nowhere does Jesus speak out against homosexuality.”

Let’s consider abortion first. Was abortion being widely practiced in the first century? Were there Planned Parenthood clinics in Jerusalem? Yes, evidence indicates that in portions of the world there were some abortions being done. Far more common, however, was exposure of infants. If they were unwanted, the newborn were just exposed to the elements until they died. Jesus never specifically spoke against this practice, either. Possibly the Lord figured that by affirming respect for life, people might have enough sense to know that innocent human life should not be disregarded. Did He not say of little children, “Of such is the kingom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14)? The Scriptures do call the child in the womb by the same term as the child out of the womb (Luke 1:41,44; 2:12, 16).

Probably the most often-repeated piece of disinformation is that Jesus did not condemn homosexuality. Jesus did not specifically speak out against rape, incest, or bestiality. Would Mr. Wasserman like to defend those sexual immoralities, also? The fact is, however, that Jesus did condemn all of these things in His use of the Greek word porneia. According to Thayer: “a. prop. or illicit sexual intercourse in general” (532). This word is usually translated “fornication” in the KJV and “sexual immorality” in the NKJV. It is an all-encompassing word that includes homosexuality, incest, relations between people who are not married–or not married to each other (adultery), or any other aberration that the mind of man can invent.

Once again, Jesus taught what God had authorized (see Matthew 19:3-9 and the Scripture on which Jesus based that teaching, Genesis 2:18-24)); therefore, when one affirms what is correct, it is not necessary to then teach against everything that has not been authorized. When God appointed the Levites as priests, for example, He did not then have to tell the other tribes one by one that they could not be priests. Furthermore, Jesus did not sanctify any sexual sin defined in the Old Testament. He did not say, ÒUnder my covenant homosexuality will now be considered all right.”

Wasserman is not through, however; he has some other arguments which are equally invalid.

As for condemnations of homosexuality elsewhere in the Bible, they may be found among many prohibitions conveniently forgotten, such as the dietary laws of Leviticus or the New Testament admonishing against women adorning themselves of wearing gold and pearls (1 Timothy 9:9 [sic]) (3J).

First of all, has anyone argued the point that homosexuality is a sin based on Leviticus 20:13? It is often pointed out that homosexuality has been a sin under every covenant. It was wrong during the Patriarchal Age, as demonstrated by God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. It was wrong under the Law of Moses, as already noted. And it is still considered a vile passion and “against nature” in the New Testament (Rom. 1:26).

Comparing the condemnation of homosexuality to the dietary laws of the Jews is apparently the new popular defense of this sin, though it is lame and easily refuted. The dietary laws were not in force prior to the Law of Moses, and they are not part of the new covenant, either. Peter was told that such animals were now clean (Acts 10:15). When the Jerusalem conference met, they did not bind any of these Old Testament laws upon anyone–except the eating of blood or things strangled (Acts 15:29). Jewish brethren were to accept Gentile brethren who ate things they had formerly been forbidden to consume. But, as has already been pointed out, where did God “cleanse” homosexuality? He did not, but continues to define it as sin.

Being charitable, as is our custom, we will assume that the newspaper was responsible for 1 Timothy 9:9 when there are only six chapters in the book. But the reference, even if it were 1 Timothy 2:9, would still make no sense. There is not a verse about homosexuality anywhere near the passage discussing how women should adorn themselves. That being the case, we can only assume that his point is that the entire New Testament is “out of touch.” Of course it is Mr. Wasserman who is “out of touch” with the meaning of the passage (he should not give up his day job). Even a superficial check of commentaries would have apprised him that this passage is one of emphasis and contrast. Few have ever understood it to be literally forbidding such things.

We notice that Mr. Wasserman failed to comment on Jude 7, in which the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are cited as an example of “sexual immorality” who are “suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” The reason is that he, like Spong, does not believe the Bible. Because the Bible condemns that which these men want to defend (either because they practice it or have friends or family members who do), the Bible must be wrong. The Bible must be discredited because it condemns sin. Not everyone executes a personal vendetta against the Scriptures, but many reject them rather than repent.

Wasserman’s last paragraph also deserves to be commented upon because it is also becoming popular to mouth these or similar sentiments.

Jesus’ life and ministry were simply and unequivocally about love, of God and each other. To turn such a message into one of hate and intolerance is the epitome of a “perversion.”

A more flagrant misrepresentation of Jesus and the gospel would be hard to imagine. Although Jesus taught significant ideas about love, that was not the focus of attention in His ministry. The first message preached by John and Jesus was, “Repent” (Matt. 3:2; 4:17). People need to practice love, but they also need to repent of their sinsÑsuch as homosexuality.

Perhaps it would be a good idea for Jesus to tell us what His purpose in coming to earth was (instead of Mr. Wasserman, who thinks the New Testament is outdated anyway). Jesus said, “For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). People who practice homosexuality (and rape, incest, etc.) are lost in their sins. They need to repent, which means “give them up.” Mr. Wasserman mistakes itolerance for love. Love communicates to people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear.

Jesus said He came to bear witness to the truth (John 18:37). John added that the Lord came to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8). Jesus taught love all right, but He did not define love as advising people do their own thing. He taught spiritual realities and truths; He taught that if people want salvation from their sins and eternal life, they must be willing to give up their sins.

Wasserman implies that anyone who teaches against sin (particularly homosexuality) is a person of hate and intolerance. Jesus said that sins such as fornication defiled a man (Matt. 15:18-20); and He told people that unless they repented, they would perish (Luke 13:3). By Wasserman’s definition Jesus was full of hate and intolerance. Obviously, Wasserman has constructed a vision of Jesus that is not Biblical, and his definitions are erroneous.

The theme of the entire Bible is redemption. Sin separated man from the fellowship of God (Gen. 3:8; Isa. 59:1-2). Not only is the Old Testament the struggle of God’s people trying to be holy (which charge God gave them), it is also the story of their bringing The Holy One into the world to redeem mankind. Consequently, if we have repented of our sins and been baptized, we have been washed, sanctified (made holy), and justified–even those who have given up homosexuality (1 Cor. 6:9-11). “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit” (Rom. 8:1). Holiness, like love, is the message of Jesus and His apostles.

Spong Is Wrong by Gary W. Summers

John Shelby Spong is an Episcopal bishop based in Newark, New Jersey. He is well-known for being outspoken: two of his books have raised eyebrows, if not blood pressures: Living in Sin? A Bishop Rethinks Sexuality (1989) and Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture (1992). He was also part of the infamous “Jesus Seminar,” which made it a point to distinguish between the words Jesus actually said and the ones this group decided He could not have said. Spong also has a new book just recently published, entitled Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers in Exile (April, 1998).

Spong claims a “love for Holy Scripture” (Rescuing 10), but one needs very little familiarity with his writings to understand that he believes only what he wants to believe and tosses the rest of it away like a thoughtless litterbug. Consider a typical sample:

Am I suggesting that these stories of the virgin birth are not literally true? The answer is a simple and direct “Yes.” Of course these narratives are not literally true. . . . I know of no reputable biblical scholar in the world today who takes these birth narratives literally (215).

Of course, if a Biblical scholar did take them literally, he would not be “reputable.” As long as Spong controls the definitions, he can say anything he wants. His mission is to “free the Scriptures from the killing straitjacket of literalism, fundamentalism, and inerrancy” (226). In other words, he refuses to believe that the Bible means what it says. Spong is the only one who actually knows what it means. Just ask him.

This Episcopal bishop thinks that the Bible is too old to be of any use to “modern man.” All of our ideas, medicine, and technology require new ways of thinking and new interpretations of the Bible. William Murcheson’s introduction to an essay about Spong captures the essence of this heretic. The article is entitled, “A Wolf in Shepherd’s Clothing,” and it appeared in The Dallas Morning News on May 20th. Murchison wrote:

Well! First, there’s all that “sin” talk we gotta get rid of. Plus, who believes in all those miracles the New Testament mentions? The cross as the enduring sacrifice for sin? “A barbarian idea.” Nor was Jesus raised physically. Morality isn’t external or objective. And don’t ask some “theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way” (25A).No, Spong doesn’t believe in the virgin birth, the resurrection, miracles, or the morality taught in the Bible. But he loves the Holy Scriptures. (What else would he have to use for target practice?) Spong’s conviction is that “it’s time to throw out the whole Christian faith and start over. Why? Well, you don’t keep month-old bread around, do you?” (25A).

Start over? What need would there be to start over? There is already a faith which teaches what Spong believes; it is called secular humanism. It believes in human potential, subjective morality, and man-made rules. In humanism there are no miracles, no Savior, no system of objective morality. Since we are starting over, why bother to retain that old burdensome name of Christianity? People might associate it with all that confining fundamentalism. Why not choose a new name?

If humanism will not suffice, let’s call it Lascivianity or Licentianity, or Libertarianity. Then people will know immediately that this is a group that refuses to hold to those old stuffy morals. They will know that we have moved into the modern era–with a new vocabulary and everything. Spong is wasting too much time trying to reform a bunch of old fuddy-duddies. Consider what he wants to do this summer.

A pivotal moment in modern Christianity’s history could be coming in England this summer at a worldwide gathering of Anglican bishops, whereat Mr. Spong proposes to talk up gay rights, the Joy of Unmarried Sex and the need to dress Christianity in modern glad-rags (25A).Oh, what an exciting time! But it will probably result in a lot of frustration. How many of those stuffy Anglicans will listen to a man with Spong’s vision? They will probably just tell him that the Bible does not teach those doctrines or provide him with some other staid, safe answer. John, these guys are boring and out of touch. Who cares what they think? Why not spend the time more profitably writing new Scriptures to accommodate the 21st century? Instead of calling the new holy book I Ching, call it something catchy: I Change. Here are a few suggestions:

1) In the beginning man created himself. 2) And society grew upon the face of the earth, and with it came ever-changing culture. 3) And society said, Let there be change, and there was change. 4) And wrinkles came forth upon the faces of the deep-thinkers. 5) And they said, “Let us create morality in our image.” 6) And so they said, “Morality is defined as whatever is right in our own eyes.” 7) And they agreed that a second principle was like unto it: “Truth changes daily so that it is ever fresh.” 8) And all the people said, “Amen.”

Now that’s the kind of Bible people can really relate to. Why doesn’t Spong just write it the way he thinks it should be? Why does he spend all of his time trying to reform the one God gave, but which he thinks is hopelessly out of date and full of inaccuracies? And why would anyone want to spend his time studying something that is full of errors? There are old textbooks and computer manuals galore that may be purchased for a buck. Everyone knows the reason for the cheap price: the material is outdated.

Spiritual truths remain valid, which may be the reason that millions of Bibles are published and sold each year. Most people (lacking the bishop’s great knowledge) think that the Bible is relevant and that it deals accurately with sin and its remedy. Spong justifies sin (especially sexual sins). He cannot help anyone spiritually. Appropriate for him are the words of Psalms 52:3: “You love evil more than good, and lying rather than speaking righteousness.” Spong is wrong; the Bible is right.

A Review of “Christianity and the Baha’i Faith” by Gary W. Summers

Attractive brochures are currently being circulated promoting the Baha’i “faith.” [This article will not use the accent marks over the second a and the i because this computer does not function that way (so far as we know), and it looks messy anyway.] The main purpose of their publication appears to be to convince the public that the Baha’i religion is compatible with Christianity. In fact, on the front it quotes from no less an authority than Shoghi Effendi (no, we don’t have a clue as to his importance, either):

Let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that [Christianity’s] divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized…

The first question that comes to mind after reading such a statement is: “Why is such a statement necessary–unless the teachings of Baha’i-ism have left people the impression that this religion denies those facts (or at the very least left them confused)?” Maybe we are just too suspicious, but we will hold the brochure to this standard: Do they equivocate? Is Jesus Divine? Is the Gospel treated as divinely inspired?

Unfortunately, we only get to the first sentence on the first page inside before we find a major discrepancy. The Baha’i Faith is just a little over 100 years old. Whatever it is, it is way too young to be what the New Testament teaches. There is no mention of “the Baha’i faith” in the New Testament; there is no prophecy of some new faith to come 1,800 years after the completion of the New Testament. In fact, the Divinely-inspired Gospel teaches that there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:4). There were not many “faiths” in the New Testament, and there is not more than “one faith” authorized today.

The second paragraph lists this “faith’s” founder as Baha’u’llah (1817-92). We do not know a great deal about this man, but we do know that Jesus founded Christianity and that it is built upon His Deity (Matt. 16:13-19). Since “the faith” was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3-4), there can be no place for another “faith.”

Baha’u’llah “claims to be the latest in a series of Guides through whom the divine Christ-spirit has shepherded humanity toward redemption, and whose inspiration has been the chief civilizing force in history.” This sentence merits a whole host of comments. First, does the capitalization of the word Guides imply Deity for Baha’u’llah? There is only One who lived upon the earth who was Divine, and His name was Jesus. Anyone else making such a claim would be a false prophet. The only “guide” that was promised to come after Christ was the Holy Spirit that Jesus sent to His apostles (John 16:13). And since He would guide them into all truth, one cannot imagine the need for anyone else.

Second, who are these other “guides” preceding the founder of the Baha’i “faith”? Third, why have any of these “guides” been necessary, since the Gospel teaches God has “given us all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3)? Fourth, humanity does not need to be “shepherded toward redemption”; Jesus obtained redemption for us (Heb. 9:12).

Fifth, Baha’u’llah is the latest in a series of “Guides”? Was Joseph Smith the one immediately preceding him, and should we give heed to The Book of Mormon? Why did Baha’u’llah follow so soon after Smith and so close to Mary Baker Eddy? Why hasn’t he been replaced by her? The fact is there are a number of people who claim to be “the latest prophet,” but they are all centuries too late. They do not have any message authorized by God. As it has been so correctly stated so many times: “If they have added teachings that are not in the New Testament, they teach too much; if they have removed portions of what the New Testament teaches, they teach too little. If their message is identical to the New Testament, they are irrelevant.”

Sixth, the only civilizing force in history has been Christianity, and it only works if people are willing to pay attention to it. Baha’u’llah’s influence has not stopped hostilities among India, Pakistan, or China. He has not kept the religious rivalries in Ireland or the Middle East from erupting periodically. And if hostilities ever do cease, it will be because of adherence to the teachings of the Prince of Peace, not some obscure individual who lived in the last century.

Baha’is see in today’s worldwide tribulations a divinely driven process that is leading in stages to the Christ-promised “Kingdom of God on earth”. Just as Jesus proclaimed the gospel of personal salvation, Baha’u’llah addresses the need for collective salvation through which society (as well as the individual) will be reborn in the image and likeness of God (panel 1). [The error in punctuation above is theirs–gws.]

As most premillennialists, they are completely unaware that the “kingdom of God” has been upon the earth for centuries. John and Jesus both preached that it was at hand(Matt. 3:2; 4:17). Jesus even said that some of those standing there would not taste of death until they saw the kingdom of God come with power (Mark 9:1). Did Jesus lie? Or are Premillennialists wrong?

How can society be reborn in the image of God? The new birth is spoken of as an individual requirement (John 3:1-7), as is conforming ourselves into the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29). Society will never be Christ-like–free from all corruption. It would be nice to pay for gasoline at a service station that did not sport abundant containers of alcohol, dozens of pornographic magazines, hundreds of cigarettes, and thousands of lottery tickets. When all of those industries have shut down, we might have a serious beginning at reforming society, but it will not happen while this world stands.

Baha’i sacred texts abound with passages that speak of Satan exactly as the Bible does. The reality of Satan is one question; his nature is another. Baha’is believe Satan is a manifestation of the lower, rebellious nature of the human ego. He represents the beast trapped inside each human being, seeking to tempt us away from the path of God. Because Satan exists inside every one of us, he is infinitely more dangerous than any external Adversary could ever be (panel 4).

Well, this warrants asking a few questions: “When Satan tempted Jesus, was it His own ‘beast trapped inside’ Him causing this conflict?” “When Satan appeared before God in the book of Job, was it really Job’s ‘lower, rebellious nature’ that God spoke with?” “When Peter warns against Satan seeking people to devour, is the beast within to be spewed out so that he can then devour its owner?” Where does the Scripture teach this figurative idea of Satan? What Scriptures were cited? None! (Some are given in which Christ calls Peter Satan and Judas is called a devil, but these do not at all prove their point–especially when the Bible speaks of Satan’s personality and characteristics.

Despite the Baha’is claim to believe in hell, how can they, since it was created for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41)? How can the devil exist in the lake of fire when he is only man’s “lower rebellious nature” (Rev. 20:12)? And how did the “beast trapped inside” become so clever as to deceive the whole world (Rev. 12:9)? And who are the devil’s “angels”?

If these facts are not enough to dissuade someone from Baha’ism, consider this: “Baha’is believe that all the Bible’s prophecies concerning the return of Christ are fulfilled in Baha’u’llah.” Oh, really? Jesus was to have returned on a cloud from heaven (Acts 1:9-11); is that how Baha’u’llah came to this world? Did every eye see Him (Rev. 1:7)? Sorry, but like so many others, Baha’u’llah is no more than a Baha’u’mbug.

A Marriage License by Gary W. Summers

On May 19th a graduate student at TWU, Kate Covington, had a guest column published in the Denton Record-Chronicle, which was titled “Marriage Is Individual’s Choice.” They must be teaching young girls well over there for her to be so confident at a young age that she knows what is wrong with marriage.

The fallacy in the whole system concerning the ceremony lies within the marriage license. Now what exactly is a marriage license? A marriage is a bond of love between two people. A license is proof or permission to do so. Proof or permission to do what? Fall in love. Remain in love. Be together for the rest of your life (10A).

Is this not the height of conceit? A system that has worked well for several hundred years is discovered to be flawed by a TWU graduate student. Pray tell, on what does this, our Caesarette, feed?

To answer the question, a marriage license possesses great value. In the first place, it is a legal document and becomes a matter of public record. Second, it protects the husband and the wife. The husband cannot legally, after two or three years, desert his wife (and possibly his child) and marry some other woman without going to court and being made to provide for them. If, on the other hand, they just “lived together” (based on their verbal vows of undying love) for that period of time, she would have nothing. Our current legal system is far from perfect, but it provides better protection than nothing at all.

Third, a marriage license may serve as a historical record. As a graduate student, Kate should realize that much of the information we have about the past is due to the legal document of a marriage license and church records, such as baptismal certificates. Research into one’s family tree is also facilitated by marriage records.

Fourth, the importance of a correct family history in our age has been heightened by the need to know one’s medical history. There are certain medical problems and traits which one may inherit; ignorance could result in a loss of life due to a delayed diagnosis, which a complete record would have facilitated. It is not too helpful to tell the doctor, “Oh, my mom was a free spirit who didn’t believe in marriage; it’s hard to say who my father may have been.”

A license is not permission to “fall in love,” whatever that means. When two people love each other and decide to marry (rather than just cohabit for a few months or years), they are merely complying with the laws of this (or just about any other) country. Neither is a license permission to remain in love (since many do not).

Marriage is a commitment that a man and a woman enter into. God did not institute marriage for “two people,” but for a male and a female (Gen. 2:18-25).

This graduate student laments that there are no qualifications given by the state for being a good husband or wife. She bemoans that there are no tests given to determine a couple’s chance of success. Of course, we have all had moments to regret their absence, as well as the lack of a test to qualify one for parenthood. But the alternative is probably worse. Who would design such tests: bureaucrats? And from what sources would they derive their values? The state has wisely abstained from expanding its role in these matters.

The writer of this diatribe tries to compare interracial marriages with homosexual “marriages.” The basis of comparison is that interracial marriages were not accepted (and still are not) by many in society. Her observation about it seeming odd to people is correct. When the Wright brothers began flying, it seemed so unnatural to people that they made statements, such as, “If man were meant to fly, God would have given him wings.” So what kind of reaction could be expected of most people to the first few interracial marriages, except a negative one?

But just as flying was not unscriptural, neither was interracial marriage, as people learned when they examined the issue honestly. But what does interracial marriage have to do with homosexual “marriage”? They are not comparable except for the initial reaction people might have. An interracial marriage still involves a man and a woman, as God originally designed it. God did not design marriage for two members of the same sex. He could scarcely condemn homosexuality as vile and against nature and then say it is permissible for two men or two women to “marry.”

Covington calls opposition to same-sex marriages “the most unnatural societal fallacy.” No, homosexuality is unnatural. God has declared it unacceptable, and society thus far agrees (except for Disney and a few other corporations). Who would have thought, ten years ago, that homosexuals would be granted special rights? Credit (or discredit) the news and entertainment media for changing people’s attitudes.

[For those who are already tired of this subject, it will not go away. No one should think that homosexuals will be satisfied with anything less than societal approval of their “marriages.” Expect the news and entertainment media, along with many teachers (from grade school to the postgraduate level), to keep hammering away on this idea. In every article or news story, it will be assumed that all opposition is just prejudiced.]

Gays in the military. Pro-choice. Pro-life. Legalizing marijuana. Where do we find all the answers to our questions? Simple–the Bible. I have one word for Bible-bearing God solicitors–interpretation. The Bible is a subjective piece of literature. It is to be analyzed and interpreted by the reader for their own personal understanding. It is not to be a manipulative tool whose sole purpose is to wage a holy war on society.

Wow! Not only is Kate an expert on marriage; she also apparently knows all about the Bible to boot. How did she learn so much at such a young age?

Kate, there is one word which may be accurately used of the Bible–TRUTH! Solomon, who was far wiser than any of your instructors (and whose wisdom was acknowledged by a woman, 1 Kings 10:1-9), believed first of all in the existence of truth and second in one’s ability to know and understand it. He wrote: “Buy the truth, and do not sell it, also wisdom and instruction and understanding” (Pr. 23:23).

Jesus taught His disciples that if they continue in His word, they would know the truth, and the truth would make them free (John 8:31-32). He also, in His prayer for His disciples, said, “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth” (John 17:17).

The Bible claims to be the inspired Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17). It does not claim to be a subjective piece of literature: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation [margin, 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 21:20-21). Anyone who wants to turn the Bible into a “subjective piece of literature” will have to do more than make such a claim; she will need to discredit what it says about itself.

Who said the Bible is only for one’s “own personal understanding”? Jesus instructed His disciples to “preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). He also said, “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him–the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day” (John 12:48). The Bible is objective in nature, not subjective. It will be the standard by which all people will be judged. It was not designed as a literary curiosity with quaint personal lessons for each of us. It deals with sin and its remedy. Paul said, “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). Unless we repent of our sins and live by God’s standards and values, we shall all perish (Luke 13:3). The Bible is for all.

Interpretation? How does Kate Covington define vile, which is what Paul calls homosexuality in Romans 1:26? How does she “interpret” Jude 7? The text says that Sodom and Gomorrah gave “themselves over to sexual immorality,” went “after strange flesh,” and “are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” We would all be interested in a personal interpretation that can somehow deny these FACTS! It is one thing to suggest in a general way that “interpretation” dismisses truth; it is quite another to show specifically how such claims can be accomplished.

Waging the holy war is certainly a prejudicial phrase. A few years ago most of us had given very little thought to the subject of homosexuality. We all knew it was a sin because the Bible defines it as such, and articles in church bulletins, newspapers, or books were rare. But then came the media blitz in the early part of this decade, and those who believe the truth of the Word of God began to respond. So now a graduate student, with apparently little sense of recent history, accuses us of trying to use the Bible as a “manipulative tool.” Right; maybe it’s a conspiracy. Maybe Genesis 19:4-5 was added recently just to make homosexuals look bad. Maybe the idea of its being an abomination which warranted the death penalty in Israel (Lev. 20:13) was just hatched by a homophobe. Yes, people are no doubt reading into the Scriptures what is not there!

Pardon our facetiousness, but this charge flies in the face of reality. It is amazing to observe the desperation of those who seek to defend what has always been characterized as a sin in the Word of God.

This TWU graduate student makes a final comment worthy of response: “In a nutshell, marriage is not a bad idea. It is the idea that those who are not married, live in sin.” That idea comes from the Scriptures, and it is not an “interpretation”; it is the definition of fornication, which is condemned (Heb. 13:4).

Someone may think this student has a point. Maybe one of her classmates has avoided stealing from her because he “interpreted” that the Scriptures called it a sin. With enlightened eyes, he may now help himself to her possessions. Oh, sure, it’s legally wrong, but who can trust a government that requires marriage licenses? Oh, that we might find a Petruchio for this Kate!

Liberal Thinking on Salvation by Gary W. Summers

Many brethren have been convinced that within the church “doctrine doesn’t matter,” which is surprising. It would have been astonishing thirty years ago because in those days Bible study was greatly emphasized. Of course, now so many other activities require our time that many are content to merely have a passing acquaintance with the Scriptures. Consequently, many today are satisfied with short sermons composed of a lengthy story accompanied by a Bible verse (to keep up appearances).

So, few people are terribly interested in such tedious things as doctrine so long as they receive their weekly dose of encouragement from the pulpit, in which they are assured that they are fine people and that God’s grace will cover everything. Why concern ourselves with such deep things as acceptable worship, church organization, or the truth about the second coming of Christ?

It is incredible, however, that members of the church are also willing to listen to liberals when they decide to discard what the Bible teaches about salvation. Not content with destroying the validity of New Testament doctrine, to which we must give heed (1 Tim. 4:16), now (in the alleged pursuit of unity) some want to count anyone as a Christian who thinks he is one. Once again we quote from Cecil Hook’s article on unity.

For many of us in the Church of Christ, the most formidable barricade to unity with other believers is our judgmental mindset, and it centers around our definitions of baptism. If the claims of salvation and sonship of others do not meet our critical criteria, we deny their proper relationship with God which we claim to enjoy (7).

It is obvious that Hook is not using “the Church of Christ” in the Biblical sense, but rather in a denominational sense. Since only those who are baptized for the remission of their sins were added to the Lord’s church (Acts 2:41, 47), how could there be any “other believers”? Hook and a host of other liberals view us as a denomination. If we were a denomination, begun and maintained by men, we would have no reason for existence; no denomination can justify its existence).

But, just as Hook denies that restoration is possible, he also denies that Christians can just be part of the church for which Jesus died. If we affirm that truth, we just have a “judgmental mindset.” Apparently, then, THE church does not exist today–just denominations exist. Or maybe he thinks that all denominations comprise the church. It would be interesting for him to find a Scripture that justifies that rationale!

So, to hear Hook tell it, all these denominations have different teachings regarding salvation, and we must not judge others or question them. What is his proof for this view?

As I have associated with various congregations, my conversion has never been questioned. My new birth was taken for granted because I professed to be a child of God. Yet others do not know if I have been baptized, whether I was immersed or sprinkled, what I believed about baptism at the time, my purpose in being baptized, or if I was sincere. You accept me on my profession. I accept you on your profession. If my baptism was invalid, that is my problem, not yours. Out of loving concern, you may discuss it with meÉ.

The student of the Word should notice how far afield this gibberish is from the Book. There is an absence of Scriptures for a reason. Since when do we use the practices of denominations as our standard? Because others are gullible enough to accept that a person is a Christian because he says he is, should we imitate them? Are denominations our yardstick?

Paul found some disciples and asked them if they had received the Holy Spirit since they believed. They answered that they did not know there was a Holy Spirit. Paul did not say, “How curious, but I must not question these men.” Instead, he asked them unto what had they been baptized. When they answered, “Into John’s baptism,” Paul did not conclude that they were certainly sincere and that the whole matter was none of his business. He taught them the truth (Acts 19:1-5).

When Hook does eventually cite a Scripture, he mentions Romans 14 and Romans 15:7, neither of which has a thing to do with salvation: “Therefore, receive one another, just as Christ also received us, to the glory of God.” Does he really think that Paul is speaking to people in different religious denominations and solving their problem of unity for them? It is incredible that anyone could so misapply Scripture.

Every one of the people to whom Paul was writing had been buried with Christ in baptism (Rom. 6:3-5). How could anyone honestly, in good conscience, apply such a verse to people who have been baptized either not at all or for some reason other than those given in the Bible (to join the Baptist Church, for example)? If Peter did not have this kind of mistreatment of the Word in mind when he spoke of those who wrest or twist the Scriptures to their own destruction, then we do not know what the apostle meant (2 Peter 3:15-16).

No, apparently in a judgmental mood that day, Jesus answered, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me” (John 8:42). How did Jesus know their character? It could have been from Divine insight, of course, but the reason He cites is that they did not love Him. They challenged Him and took issue with what He taught. Is there no one who claims God as his Father today who does likewise? Many who profess to love Jesus contradict His doctrine.

Jesus rather judgmentally concluded of such: “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it” (John 8:44).

How was Satan a murderer? He taught a false doctrine, which was a lie. When it was believed, it resulted in death. The same thing occurs today. When Satan convinces someone to believe a false doctrine (one that clearly contradicts the Scriptures), he is guilty of murder again. When he sends forth pious-sounding people with the message, “Doctrine doesn’t matter,” and entire congregations accept the false idea, he becomes a mass murderer.

No wonder the Bible says, “If anyone speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11) and “My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment” (James 3:1). The one teaching the Word of God had a responsibility to speak the truth–not his own imaginations.

BUT the hearer also has a responsibility to be like the Bereans (Acts 17:11). Jesus cautioned His disciples, “Take heed WHAT you hear” (Mark 4:24). John warns: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). Peter promises: “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction” (2 Peter 2:1).

Consider what Paul wrote to the preacher Timothy about his message: “Take heed to yourself and to your doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you” (1 Tim. 4:16). What happens to the one who fails to take heed? The implication is that if a preacher does not continue in correct doctrine, he will grow lax and begin substituting opinions or, perhaps, his own wisdom. Maybe he will not add anything; he may just omit teaching the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). The upshot of his failure to continue in the truth, however, is a loss of salvation for him and those who listen to him. Doctrine is THAT important.

Those, like Max Lucado, who teach fellowshipping everyone who calls God his Father, have gone beyond what our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did. He refused to accept at face value what those men said. Jesus did not use the Cecil Hook approach or the denominational custom of acceptance without question someone’s professed Christianity. We are within our rights to ask the question, “Do those making such a profession really love Jesus?” If so, they will keep His commandments.

These men certainly mouthed high-sounding and lofty sentiments. Few asked, “Where will all of this new perspective and new hermeneutic take us?” Hook makes it clear (and so do many others by their actions, if not their words) that their destination (which they were not honest enough to admit at the start) is simply this: to fellowship anyone spiritually, regardless of whether or not he or she has been baptized. Consider Hook’s comments one more time.

Never have I encouraged anyone to be satisfied with sprinkling or infant baptism. My conscience would not allow that. But others are not bound by my conscience. While I hold strong convictions about various matters, I am not necessarily obligated to assemble with those who violate them in full participation in all their activities. But I am forbidden from rejecting them (6).

What can this be but gobbledegook–when someone equates preaching the gospel message with binding one’s conscience on another! How about binding the TRUTH on others? Can anyone seriously imagine Paul writing such sentiments–considering his compassionate cry of saving some by all means? Can anyone possibly think that the vigorous and enthusiastic preaching of Paul would be tempered by, “but I don’t want to bind my conscience on you”?

Hook says that Romans 14 forbids him from rejecting as brothers and sisters those who have been sprinkled or “baptized” as infants. Oh, really? How does a discussion of eating meat and observing days apply to whether or not someone is Scripturally baptized? Talk about eisegesis! Is it the question, “Who are you to judge another’s servant?” that is being applied here? Jesus said, “He who is not with Me is against Me” (Matt. 12:30). Those who have never obeyed the gospel are not the Lord’s servants; they are still Satan’s. They need to hear the gospel, not erroneous rationalizations from someone willing to give them a bogus pass into the kingdom.

Liberals must be exposed as false teachers. Too many have already listened to them–at the expense of their souls. They began broadening the borders of the kingdom by counting as brethren those who had been immersed for any reason; now they want to fellowship all who claim to be Christians. What more can it take to open the eyes of some brethren? We ought to follow the Word of God rather than the “wisdom” of men.

The Liberal Mindset by Gary W. Summers

If one studies through some of today’s liberal ideology, the following points cannot be missed.

1. Conservatives are arrogant because they claim to know everything.

2. Conservatives should be like liberals, who are tolerant, loving, kind, and unsectarian. Furthermore, liberals understand grace, but conservatives don’t.

3. Doctrine doesn’t matter.

4. It’s all right to be sarcastic and insulting towards conservatives, so long as it is subtly done (it must be the subtlety which does not negate kindness).

Cecil Hook typifies these attitudes in his Internet publication, Freedom’s Ring. Consider some of his statements, which appeared in his article “The Quest for an Unidentified Unity” (No. 26, Week 1 of 5).

For too many years I thought I had the simple picture of unity. Just join in my segment of the Church of Christ. It was such a simple picture of five steps of conversion, five acts of worship, a scriptural name–you know, all those marks of the non-denominational church (which made us a distinct denomination). Why couldn’t the whole Christian world accept this way of unity so clearly taught in the Scriptures? Of course, we could not accept those who did not accept our concept, for they were not true Christians! (1).

Notice how Hook phrases everything he says (which reeks of sarcasm) to make it look as though conservatives (which he implies that he once was) are arrogant fools. Perhaps he was, but none of those preaching restoration concepts ever couched their messages in terms like these. Undoubtedly, he lacks documentation of this point for just that reason. Although there are abundant debate books yet in print, as well as collections of sermons, nevertheless he could not cite even one individual (besides himself) who ever looked at matters in the way he expresses them.

Who has ever preached that the key to unity is to “join in my segment of the Church of Christ”? Such is a perversion of the facts, calculated to prejudice the reader. Our plea has always been to restore the one gospel and true worship, which is a valid Biblical principle. Hezekiah thought it was; so did Josiah. When they each became king, they tried to restore things to the way God had authorized them to be in the Law of Moses.

Hezekiah, for example, returned the Levites to the temple (2 Chron. 29); he destroyed the high places and the altars (2 Chron. 31); and he determined to observe the Passover, which had been neglected. When messengers invited all the tribes to participate, however, certain Israelites “laughed them to scorn and mocked them” (2 Chron. 30:10). There will always be former Israelites like Hook, Shelly, and others, who take great pleasure in mocking those dedicated to restoring things to the New Testament pattern. But what is the alternative? Liberals must think either that restoration is impossible or that God gave no pattern in the first place (thus there is nothing to restore). Would not such ideas negate the concept of true worship (John 4:23-24)?

But what difference does it make how many steps there are? If God gave them, then they are requirements. Consider Noah, for example. He had to have faith that God was going to bring a flood upon the world; he also had to have faith that God would save him in the ark. Then he had to build the ark–according to God’s specifications. Could he have been saved by faith only? No, it was a matter of faith and works. Should we laugh and mock this two-step plan?

How many steps did Naaman need to cleanse himself of his leprosy? He had to have faith (which he lacked at first) that Elisha’s solution would work. Then he had to respond to the message by going to the Jordan River and dipping in it seven times.

Essentially, we are saved from our sins in the same way: faith, plus the correct response to God’s grace, which (in our case) includes repenting of sins, confessing that Jesus is the Son of God, and being buried with Him in baptism. Is there something here that the Scriptures do not teach? Even liberals know better than to challenge the Bible on these points.

If these points are Biblical (and they are), then why would anyone want to belittle the essentials for salvation that God has revealed (whether one or fifty steps)? Furthermore, if God has required them, which ones may man safely leave out? Can we discard repentance? Changing our lives is the most difficult thing there is to do anyway (it’s simpler to ignore what the Scriptures teach and then call it a matter of “interpretation”).

If it be admitted that nothing of what God requires can be dispensed with, the next question is, “If we must ourselves obey what God has said in order to have salvation, then how can we have unity with others who have disregarded various steps?” How can one who has neglected to repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38), for example, be a brother? If he does not need to do these things to become a Christian, then neither did we. Furthermore, we now have two gospels: one which includes repentance and baptism for the remission of sins, and one which does not (Gal. 1:6-9). Is God the author of confusion? No. Only liberals who want to make everybody a “brother” regardless of God’s plan of salvation are confused. Truth and error cannot be combined to produce unity.

Or is he implying that we are at fault for, say, refusing to unite with those who use instrumental music? Since nearly everyone in our culture does it, we should relent and count these people as brethren; is that his thinking? Should we ignore the fact that neither Jesus nor the apostles ever sang with musical accompaniment? Should we dismiss the fact that no New Testament church ever used musical instruments in their worship? The use of musical instruments in worship to God is clearly not authorized in the New Testament (Col. 3:17). Would Hook be happy if we worshipped the golden calves at Dan or Bethel?

We cannot be united with those who worship falsely. Again, the kind of unity some are advocating can only be achieved through sacrificing Bible teaching. We can reach a state of unity if only we have no principles.

Consider a painting by a great artist–perhaps done in his earlier years. Someone else paints over it, and several centuries elapse. Someone discovers there is a painting underneath the visible one and begins the restoration process. Obviously, he must believe that there was an original and that with painstaking work it can be restored.

Over the centuries men “painted over” God’s original teachings in the New Testament; we believe that there is an original and that it can be restored. Why is such a concept worthy of scorn? When the painting was restored, did someone find it necessary to accuse the restorer of being prejudiced or just painting the picture the way he wanted to? If the Bible teaches A, B, and C, and we uncover these teachings and begin to teach A, B, and C, why does that make us a denomination? The only way we could become a sect is by saying, “We don’t like B; so we are only going to teach A and C” (which is what others have done). Or if it became known that the Bible also taught D or E, and we refused to accept those teachings (“We’ve always just done A, B, and C”), then the accusation would stand.

But if the Bible teaches A, B, and C, and we teach A, B, and C, then we have restored the original, not created a new sect. If people insist that, despite all of our scrupulous efforts, we are nevertheless a denomination, then they simply do not believe that restoration is possible or necessary. We are distinctive–because we are interested in the truth of God rather than the opinions of men. We are not a distinct denomination.

What they refuse to comprehend, however, is that it is not doctrine that divides; it is error. The church in Jerusalem continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine (Acts 2:42), and they remained united (Acts 3:46-47; 4:32). It was not until error was injected amidst the truth that problems arose. What should Paul and others have said concerning the Judaizing teachers? “Oh, these doctrines are so confusing; some say that Gentiles must be circumcised; others say they don’t need to be circumcised. Listen, brethren, these doctrines are dividing us. We all believe that Jesus died for our sins. Let’s just forget about doctrine and be united.” Apparently this idea never occurred to the inspired apostle; he thought that people needed to know the truth on this subject. In fact, most of the New Testament letters were written so that brethren would know correct doctrine and abide in the truth.

It is not “our concept” that people need to accept; it is God’s concept. We have tried to be certain that “our concept” matches Biblical teaching. If we have failed, it would be helpful for someone to point out what has been overlooked or what we have added that is not there. To say of the Biblical attitudes and teachings we have attempted to restore that they are “our concept” is to presume that we are wrong or that there is no true concept. If the Bible, for example, teaches that we must have a love of the truth (2 Thess. 2:10), and we have a love of the truth, how then, is that our “concept”?

And if we seek to abide by the teaching of salvation taught in the first century, why is that called “our concept” instead of God’s concept? If God had a plan for people to become Christians in the first century (and He did), then why is it called “our” plan if we teach the same gospel? Certainly, men have devised other schemes of redemption, but the fact that there are counterfeits does not disprove that the genuine article exists. And the fact that liberals are willing to accept any bogus currency does not prove that God will honor it. Those who have never repented of their sins and been baptized for their forgiveness may be pious, religiously-oriented, conscientious, good parents, moral individuals, and good citizens, but they are not saved. God’s standards must always take precedence over man’s notions.

Hit the Road, Jack by Gary W. Summers

His first sentence is 99+% correct. All of the various religions that have existed and do now thrive in the world have been “concocted myth”–except one. If Kevorkian has studied some of these myths, he should have been able to tell the difference between mythical stories and truth. There would be numerous contrasts in both style and content. His powers of discernment are immediately suspect.

The Bible begins with a very matter-of-fact accounting of what happened each day of the Creation week. No myths parallel the real beginning in either form or substance. What is Kevorkian’s theory of man’s origin? Does he subscribe to the “scientific” handbook, which reads approximately thus: “A long, long time ago in a universe far away there was a big bang, which somehow resulted in suns burning in numerous galaxies and tons and tons of aimless, chaotic matter, which over billions of years came to life and evolved”?

Talk about a concoction which strains credulity! Of course, all this speculation may be unfair to “the bad physician”; maybe he has some other theory. By virtue of his powers of life and death, and with his certainty that every religion is a concocted myth, perhaps a divine revelation of his own is forthcoming.

The Bible, however, was given by the inspiration of God. It was recorded, not by one man, but by forty different men, not over the course of one lifetime, but during a period of sixteen hundred years. Furthermore, more people have lived by it and died in its hope than anything Dr. Jack will ever devise. When he “assists” patients, all that he can offer them is freedom from physical pain. He certainly cannot promise them eternal life or guarantee they will be free from the fires of eternal torment. The only thing he can promise them is that with his help they will exit this life with no more chances to learn and obey the truth.

If he thinks the Holy Scriptures are a concocted myth and that Christianity is bogus, let him explain his basis for such a conclusion. If these are merely his opinions, let him say so; if he has some objective evidence that we all can study, let him present it. There have been many who have boasted that the Bible was antiquated and would shortly come to nothing: Voltaire, Ingersoll, and now Kevorkian. All of his predecessors are dead–even Sagan and Asimov; the Word of God, however, is still thriving. People are still memorizing Scriptures; many still have a hunger and thirst for righteousness. People are still repenting of their sins and being baptized for their forgiveness. Many still enjoy Christian living.

Book-Burning
Jack, you have really committed a major faux pas with this religious book-burning suggestion. Some of your most ardent admirers will draw back in horror when they discover this idea. Most of those who support you are moral liberals; what will they think when they see that you have advocated a conservative concept?

Why, for years liberals have insulted moral conservatives by calling them book-burners, likening them to Hitler flunkies. It did not matter to them that no conservatives had ever actually said such a thing; they were capable of judging our hearts. They knew that even though we said we had a genuine concern over young people becoming exposed to pornography of various types, foul and blasphemous language, and perverted actions, deep down we were just suppressing our real Nazi mentality. They knew that right-wing fanatics just wanted to control the world and tell everyone else what to think (consider The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood if this line of reasoning seems too absurd).

So all the liberals banded together to make sure that practically nothing got censored (Oh, what a despicable word!). Who knows how much society has profited from their actions as a result? No doubt, they rested easier, knowing that young people could go to the public library and read about male sexual fantasies in graphic and obscene language (which they can now view on the Internet). It makes one proud to be an American.

But now, Jack, Jack, what have you done? Do you expect all of your liberal buddies to stand with you on this idea of burning all religious books? Consistency will demand that they be outraged over this suggestion. You have put them in the position of having to denounce you. Of course, they could take a page out of the feminists’ playbook, who are willing to let liberal womanizing politicians off the hook while they continue to try to nail conservatives (even without any evidence). Who knows? Maybe they will agree with you on this one, since it is just religious books you want to burn and nothing sacred, such as Playboy or Penthouse.

Cleaning Up Society
So, if all religious books were banned, society would be cleaned up? Here is a novel idea. Perhaps Kevorkian is right. Who needs all those books making suggestions on how to be better wives and husbands? Who needs all those Christian counselors and authors with their stupid monogamy fixations? If a man or woman wants to have an affair, why should they be made to feel guilty about it? Look how much better off society already is with some families experiencing multiple marriages due to such “freedoms.” Yeah, Jack, all those religious books telling people how to love their children? Bah! Who needs them?

No doubt, society would also be much improved in the absence of all those religious books on ethics. If taken seriously, they just tend to stifle creativity. Life is so much more exciting in an environment which lacks trust of any kind.

How perceptive of you, Jack, to notice that religious books are the source of so many problems. Say, do you suppose that those two boys in Arkansas had just finished reading “the sermon on the mount”? And that boy in Pennsylvania–maybe he had been studying Jesus” resurrection. The Menendez brothers had probably been reading about grace and love for years; what else could cause such inexplicable behavior?

The Religion-Free, Secular Society
Jack, I don’t know how you’re going to be able to accomplish this goal. The Supreme Court has been doing its very best for years to make America totally secular, yet even this august body has not quite succeeded. True, Bible study and prayer have been thrown out of schools, and certainly that’s been a great improvement. Teachers trained and tested by government standards will often parrot what they have learned. So evolution and other godless doctrines will likely be taught there. Many young people have given up religion while in school. After all, parents are busy people; they can’t always know what their young people are being taught, who their friends are, or where they are at all times.

But having the majority of society religion-free is not really enough, is it, Jack? Much more remains to be done. For one thing, there are all these private schools and home schoolers. Who said parents had any rights concerning their own children? Children should be the responsibility of the state, right? Some legislation will need to be introduced to prohibit anyone from growing up outside the “system.” George Orwell and Aldous Huxley suggested some techniques that might work; we could try their ideas.

For Whose Sake?
This tongue-in-cheek look at Kevorkian’s speech must conclude at this point because whereas his rantings are so obviously absurd that they fall by their own weight, his last three words are blasphemous and obviously calculated to insult and enrage Christians. Having denounced religion, Kevorkian cannot be doing anything but using the name of the Lord in an intentionally profane way. But he need have no fear of Christians; if he had any sense whatsoever, he would fear Him whose name he profaned–the One who will be his judge on the last day (John 5:27). Failing that (sense), however, he will probably continue to rail against religion. All that we can do is tell him that he has succeeded in making himself odious to us and suggest a course of action from a Ray Charles song: “Hit the Road, Jack.”