Previously, we noticed that people may try to play the, “That’s your opinion” card even on things that are very plain, such as keeping the Sabbath day holy. “What else is there?” one might wonder. So, how about Acts 2:38? It
clearly states that those on Pentecost who believed Peter’s gospel message and wanted to know what to do were told to: 1) repent; and 2) be baptized. However, they were not told to just be baptized, but they were given a reason—for
the forgiveness of their sins. Does anyone think this is difficult to understand? But listen to the “That’s your opinion” advocates.
Paul said we are saved by “faith only” in Ephesians 2:8-9. Well, no, he did not use the word only. But if he had, it would only prove that the Bible contradicts itself since “faith only” and repent and be baptized are not the same.
Is it a good thing to try to make the Bible disagree with itself? Is it proper to take a plain statement and try to relegate it as opinion and interpretation when the Holy Spirit inspired the apostle Peter to say those words? We do not deny faith; we believe it is necessary. Peter did not mention it because if they had not believed, they would not have asked what they should do (Acts 2:37). However, the “faith only” group does put themselves in an unenviable position by denying what is necessary to have salvation—namely, repentance and baptism.
Peter was speaking only to the Jews; there’s a different message for the Gentiles, which is “faith only.” Where did anyone get the idea that there were two gospels? Not from Ephesians 4. Peter was the first preacher and apostle to go to the home of Gentiles, preach to them, and eat with them as well. He did not teach them “faith only.” Instead, he asked if anyone could “forbid water, that these should be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (Acts 10:47). Yes, he commanded them to be baptized in water—just as those on Pentecost were (verse 48).
All of the passages that mention baptism refer to Holy Spirit baptism—not baptism in water. How was that conclusion arrived at? Water is specifically mentioned in Acts 10:47, as seen above. The queen’s treasurer went down into the water with Philip, where he baptized him (Acts 8:35-39). When Peter said baptism now saves us, he was referring to water baptism (1 Peter 3:20-21). That means that those to whom he preached on Pentecost were baptized in water, also. Water baptism is always for the forgiveness of sins. Baptism in the Holy Spirit had a different purpose. It is in water baptism that the blood of Jesus washes away all sins (Acts 22:16; Rev. 1:5). It is not that the Bible is unclear; many people simply have a bias they are unwilling to let go of. The Scriptures are plain for those who have a love of the truth (2 Thess. 2:10).
Imagine that some additions to the book of Numbers have been found. [They have not; this is only a flight of fancy.] The following comments lie between Numbers 15:34 and 35. The man was brought to Moses to see what should be done to him for gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. Moses asked him, “Were you unaware of the law commanding that the Sabbath be kept holy—that no work should be done on this day?” The man answered, “Well, sure, but I wasn’t working. I was just gathering a few sticks. It was a day when nothing else was happening, and I thought I may as well make good use of the time.”
“But gathering sticks is work,” Moses protested. “All such work is supposed to be accomplished in six days’ time—but not on the seventh.”
“Are we talking about something so insignificant as picking up a few sticks?” Moses assured him that even a small job still constituted work. Then the man replied, “But that’s just your interpretation. I don’t understand the law the way you do. You surely don’t think you can hold me to your own private opinion as to what the Law says.”
“What is there about not working that you don’t understand?” Moses pleaded. “I didn’t make up this law; God did.” The man responded, “But the law says to keep the Sabbath holy, and I do regard it as a holy day. I have finished my work in six days. The idea that one cannot do anything at all on the Sabbath is just an implication on your part that the law excludes anything—even something incidental. That’s why I said it’s just your interpretation.”
Moses nearly tore his clothes. “Man, just listen to yourself,” he said. “You’re trying to justify unlawful behavior.” The man insisted, however: “I’m not a legalist. I did no harm to anyone. My intent was pure. I see nothing wrong in what I did. My conscience is clear, and I will undoubtedly be totally exonerated. Just because you’re in a position of authority over the people does not mean you get to impose your interpretations on the rest of us who are keeping the spirit of the law. We must have the liberty to abide by our own understanding of the Law.”
He might have argued further, but at this point the Lord said to Moses, “The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” Those extra (fictional) verses might be useful any time someone is tempted to undermine the plain meaning of the Scriptures.
When Lawton the lawyer sent out his letters to “all churches of Christ of any significant size nationwide,” he stated his avowed purpose in so doing. He wanted to encourage “all churches of Christ to forsake any claim to be basically the only Christians alive today.” He touts himself as a lawyer, but he does not prosecute a case like actual lawyers do. Most of them present a case; they offer evidence. They are not allowed to ask questions such as, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” to which a man might respond, “No, I have not stopped beating my wife because I never began the practice.” No one can quit something he is not in the habit of doing.
In order to forsake a claim “to be basically the only Christians alive today,” one would first have to have made the claim. Now, if all the churches of Christ to whom Lawton sent material have made such a claim, why did he not enter into evidence some of those statements? Why did he not present even one such statement? Many congregations contain statements of belief on their websites; if such a claim is so common among churches of Christ, why did he not cite one?
The answer is that making such claims is not the way any of us goes about trying to be evangelistic. What we do is call people to what the Scriptures teach about salvation, worship, the kingdom, and other Bible topics. We do not bring them to an alleged prophet, such as Joseph Smith; nor do we try to make them subject to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Nor do we tell them to listen to Pope Somebody-or-Other or the High Council of InterDenominational Churches (if there is such a thing). Our only desire is to bring them to the Word of God inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
The only thing that matters is—not the traditions of men—but the teachings God put in the Bible for our learning (Rom. 15:4). It does not matter whether the majority of Bible believers agree or disagree with us; what matters is: “Are we believing, practicing, and standing in the truth?” If we are, then presumably others will want to stand with us (although this is not always the case). If we are not teaching the truth, then no one should stand with us—and rightly so. We believe that we are. Is there someone who does not? Are there religious groups that say, “Hey, we don’t have a clue if what we’re doing is right, but come along with us anyway”? No. Most honest people think they believe and practice the truth; we are no different from any of them. We are willing for our beliefs to be scrutinized, however, and some groups will not do that. We discuss the Word, we search the Scriptures, and we are willing to debate our beliefs in a public forum, putting them to the test. Perhaps Lawton is criticizing the wrong people.
Years ago, your congenial editor worked in a Plastics Factory before, during and after obtaining a Bachelor of Arts. Most of the time the machines operated themselves; so, we found ourselves with extra time, which furnished an opportunity to do homework or to be mischievous (such as throwing plastic pieces at other machine operators). Occasionally, there would be time to have a theological discussion with my Mormon Foreman. He didn’t like to be called a Mormon because he was part of the “true” followers of Joseph Smith, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, headquartered in Independence, Missouri. The Mormons had been deceived and had received the wrong revelation. Only the RLDS were the true group.
In the course of our many conversations, he made the statement more than one that if a beautiful, naked woman stood right in front of him, it would not tempt him at all. To say the least, this claim stretched one’s credulity. Was he that spiritually-minded, or was he deceiving himself? Most Christian men would get rid of the temptation by turning away or perhaps fleeing, as Joseph did from Potiphar’s wife, but, no, he gave the impression that he could continue to stare ad infinitum without any appreciative affect. I could not speak for him, but I do know what Jesus said: “But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28).
“But he said he didn’t lust after her.” Right! Maybe he could avoid doing so, but the Scriptures also teach that “the flesh lusts against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another…” (Gal. 5:17). Would anyone affirm that it would be right to gaze upon nude photos in a magazine or a book published by Madonna? How about in a “art” textbook? How about drawing nude figures? I could not defend my Mormon foreman’s claim—even if it was true. Neither can I defend Freed-Hardeman’s policy—and can’t help wondering why other people do. How can brethren, who are otherwise sane, not get that the policy is wrong?
“Well, maybe you misunderstood it.” Think so? Here are the exact words which President David Shannon said and which he claimed the faculty backed him up on: “It is crucial for an Art graduate from a liberal arts university to be able to draw the human and therefore understand the body.” Then he had the temerity to say: “Perhaps drawing the human form or studying semi-nude or nude art violates your conscience.” Perhaps? The entire art population at Freed-Hardeman must be as unfazed as my Mormon foreman. No one is ever affected by nude art, and it doesn’t bother their consciences, which is absolutely incredible. In years past anyone who made such statements would have been called upon to repent, but the church today has become so sophisticated that David Shannon is instead called upon to speak to young people at youth gatherings. How can the majority of brethren be as silent as those Elijah addressed in 1 Kings 18:21?
One of the enjoyable aspects of the Hallmark Channel is that, to date, the viewer finds an absence of profanity. Sure, they run 65,000 Christmas movies in December, and in their mystery series, the woman is almost always the dominant character, but at least no one must worry about an outbreak of vulgarity. However, they do present a kind of Fantasyland as it pertains to their characters. They all drink, but no one ever gets drunk.
Almost every occasion calls for wine; one would think their programs were sponsored by Napa Valley. Wine is necessary for birthday celebrations, anniversaries, marriage proposals, weddings, solving murders, clipping toenails; okay, that last one involved just a little hyperbole. Apparently, no one drinks Mountain Dew or Dr. Pepper. One may spy coffee being sampled in the morning or tea for lunch, but for dinner it is always wine. And everyone drinks responsibly, which is the reason the viewer should know he is in Fantasyland. According to Internet statistics, 15,000,000 Americans are alcoholics, and since a substantial amount of these die every year, reinforcements continually arrive to take their places.
Of course, all the makers of beer and wine encourage their customers to drink responsibly. How hypocritical! They know full well that if everyone drank responsibly, they would not make a profit. So, how are they enriched? They have 15,000,000 customers who cannot drink responsibly. Many of them have tried “drying out”; many of them have joined Alcoholics Anonymous—for a time. But many eventually return to their irresponsible lifestyle.
Regular television and movies (not Hallmark) often portray adultery and fornication the same way—no consequences. Friends sleep with each other, people have affairs with acquaintances, but no one ever contracts a disease of any kind. The reality can be found by checking statistics on the Internet.
Rates of gonorrhea rose by 67 percent, syphilis by 76 percent, and chlamydia by 21 percent, to a total of almost 2.3 million cases nationwide. According to the CDC, 2017 surpassed 2016 as the year with
the most reported STD cases on record—and marked the fourth year in a row that STDs increased steeply in the U.S.
Men in their twenties have the highest risk. Promiscuity is the usual method of contracting any of these. Isn’t it interesting that no one ever develops one of these in the entertainment media? Anyone who thinks he is completely safe in engaging in alcohol and fornication is living in Fantasyland and encouraging others to join them.
Maybe you heard of the recent incident regarding the Denver Post. A popular columnist claims that he was fired for saying there “are only two sexes, identified by an XX or an XY chromosome.” Jon Caldara alleges that he exhibited a difference in style from what the paper feels comfortable with. They found him “too insensitive.” He had also criticized an AP story which insisted that more options were available than just those two—and he charged them with trying “to change culture and policy.” He accused them, in fact, of activism. Two weeks later he protested a new Colorado law that “required elementary school children to beinstructed in transgender ideology.” Apparently, children in Boulder were treated to various videos starring a transgender teddy bear and a “Trans Community Choir” who sang to them about a transgender raven.
Well, gratefully someone lodged a complaint—even though he was fired for doing so. Is this the wave of the future for elementary school students? And some people wonder why young people can’t make change for a buck or have no idea where Indiana is (let alone Jamaica). We can probably skip history, also, since it might prove dangerous to know what happened in our past. As for genuine science, we probably should cut that to a minimum so kids can be steeped in evolutionary fantasy. No doubt such emphases will help them get good paying jobs—as soon as they complete Gender Studies for a college degree.
We only have Mr. Caldara’s word for it, but it does fit the political correctness philosophy. What he claimed about men and women is exactly true. Male and female are determined biologically. God created an XX Eve and an XY Adam. Eve did not whine that she actually felt she should be a male, nor did Adam complain about the way God made him. God still has two genders; He has not invented a third, fourth, fifth, ad infinitum. One would think it would not even be necessary to state such an obvious fact that there are two genders. How can someone lose a job over making such an obvious statement? Where does such insanity
stop?
What did the newspaper say? Megan Schrader acknowledged that she fired the popular columnist, but she declined to say why. Well, that’s interesting. If what Caldara said was a lie, all she would have to say is, “No, that wasn’t it; there were other issues involved.” The fact that she refused to say why lends credibility to his account of what happened. She did say she was trying to fill his position with a conservative writer because the paper values such voices on their pages. Right! If they’re like the Orlando Sentinel, they throw in a token difference of opinion now and then. All in all, the news media would not recognize fair and balanced if it bit them.
Recently, in a discussion with someone, my correspondent said that Revelation 1-3 talks about the seven ages of the church. I asked him to explain what he meant by that, but he either didn’t know or he was unable to explain it. Of course, the Bible does not mention what he was talking about, but a search of the Internet yielded some information. Apparently, Hal Lindsay and some others believe this doctrine. Since he wrote The Late Great Planet Earth, where he described several flights of fancy (and presented it as truth), hold on to your hats; this theory is also far out.
Although people who hold this view probably believe that Jesus wrote the seven letters to seven churches in Asia, they also think that the seven letters are prophetic—in that they describe seven ages of future history, beginning in the first century and lasting until “the tribulation” or the “rapture” or some other non-Biblical designation. That is to say, each church letter represents a period of history. One version can be found on a website dealing with “The Seven Churches of the Apocalypse.” Below is their chart.
1. The Church in Ephesus: Apostolic Church (A.D. 33–100)
2. The Church in Smyrna: Era of Persecution Under the Ten Caesars (A.D. 100–312)
3. The Church in Pergamum: Era of Church-State Union (A.D. 312–590)
4. The Church in Thyatira: Era Spanning the Middle Ages (A.D. 590–1517)
5. The Church in Sardis: Protestant Reformation (A.D. 1517–1750)
6. The Church in Philadelphia: Era of Revival and Great Awakening (A.D. 1750–1925)
7. The Church in Laodicea: Era of “Higher Criticism” (A.D. 1900–Tribulation)
If none of it makes any sense, the reason is that it is not Biblical. Nowhere does the book of Revelation teach that the seven letters are describing seven church ages. This notion was invented by men without any Divine statement (or even hint of such a thing). Considering number 2, it is true that persecution broke out in Smyrna and that Christians suffered persecution on and off until the Edict of toleration, but what happened in Smyrna was before A.D. 100, and so was the persecution under Domitian. So, the dates are off at the very outset. The Protestant Reformation occurs at the “time” of Sardis, when the church was dead. There’s not a word of truth in any of this; it is all guesswork. We are all far better off to remain with what the Scriptures actually teach rather than playing games with them.
When this publication first began on July 9, 1995 (in Denton, Texas), the purpose for it was stated in the very first issue (which will be cited shortly). In 2003, the brethren in Texas were kind enough to discontinue publishing with that title in case the editor wanted to continue using it, which has been done since the move to Winter Park. Regardless of the location, however, the purpose for the publication remains the same.
It was initially pointed out the word perspective has several definitions, the one most applicable for this publication (from Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary) is, according to “2b”: the “capacity to view things in their true relations or relative importance.” In this instance, it would be to view things from what the Bible teaches. We are not interested in the wisdom of men. Many things in this world are distorted; how often do we see things as they really are? Thus, our goal is to present various matters in the light of truth. Below is a portion of that original article.
Satan continually attempts to deceive all of us; we must guard against worldly wisdom and philosophy, lest it taint our thinking. God’s people must test every doctrine by the Word of God (1 Thess. 5:21-22)….
Satan is also causing harm within the church: there are those attempting to lead us away from the truths of the Bible. Some are subtly slipping away while others are moving in quantum leaps. It is important to have the proper spiritual perspective on these matters, also.
Our goal in publishing Spiritual Perspectives is to provide a viewpoint on all matters that takes God and His will into account. Many of us watch news on television from a solely secular outlook; perhaps we read the daily newspaper or listen to Talk Radio. None of these takes into account what the Bible teaches. The Word of God must be at the basis of our thinking as well as our actions. God cannot be divorced from daily living. Jesus must always be at the center of our life; He must be the motivation for why we do what we do.
Basically, our purpose here will be to inform and to encourage…. Jesus said: “If ye continue in my word, then are ye My disciples indeed, and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32). It is through the study of and a continuance in the words of our Lord and Savior that we can have true spiritual perspectives. May we be diligent in our study of the Bible, swift to practice what we learn, incisive in our evaluation of the day’s events, and steadfast in our loyalty to God.
Eddie Money (born Edward Mahoney) was one of those post-World War II babies that grew up in Levittown, New York, on Long Island. He started out as a policeman, like his father, but left it for a career in music. “Baby Hold On” reached number 11, and “Take Me Home Tonight” topped out at #4. Ric Ocasek was a founding member of the Cars. He wrote most of their hit songs including “Just What I Needed,” “My Best Friend’s Girl Friend,” “Let’s Go,” “Shake It Up,” “You Might Think,” and “Drive.” Daryl Dragon was the Captain, who, along with his wife, Toni Tennille, stayed at number 1 more weeks than any other record in 1975 with “Love Will Keep Us Together”; they also had their own television show in 1976-77. Peter Tork was one of the four Monkees, whose recording of Neil Diamond’s “I’m a Believer,” stayed at the top of the charts for seven weeks in 1966-67—more than any other song for both years.
Doris Day has too many song and movie titles to her credit to list them all. Billboard’s nationwide poll of disc jockeys ranked her as the No. 1 female vocalist nine times in ten years (1949-1958), and she starred in 40 movies, including Pajama Game, Midnight Lace, and The Man Who Knew Too Much. Georgia Engel played the softspoken and likeable Georgette on The Mary Tyler Moore Show and Valerie Harper was Mary’s sarcastic best friend. Carol Channing played on stage in Hello, Dolly! More than 5,000 times. Ross Perot ran for president in 1992. T. Boone Pickens and Gloria Vanderbilt were also wealthy beyond most people’s dreams. I.M. Pei designed the Louvre Pyramid. Toni Morrison was the first female African American winner of the Nobel Prize for her literature. Frank Robinson led the Baltimore Orioles to a World Series Championship and later became the first African American to manage a Major League Baseball team. Quarterback Bart Starr led the Green Bay Packers to victories in the first two Super Bowls.
What all these individuals have in common with each other is that they all died last year. So did a former Supreme Court Justice, TV news personalities, Sander Vanocur and Cokie Roberts, author Herman Wouk (The
Caine Mutiny, The Winds of War), and Andre Previn (multiple Oscar winner for his film scores). Emmy winning Tim Conway shuffled off last year as well. Even religious authors, Warren Weirsbe and Norman Geisler, went “the way of all the earth” (Joshua 23:14). So did Klaus Von Bulow, who was convicted of killing his heiress wife before that verdict was overturned. His future conviction will not be overturned. One thing that we all have in common is death—and eventually standing before the judgment seat of Christ. Money can’t prevent it; fame cannot stop it; athletic prowess gets no free pass. No amount of acting, singing, composing, writing—even writing essays of a religious nature, cannot deter us from our ultimate destiny. The best that we can do is be prepared (2 Cor. 5:10)—and help others prepare for it as well.
Names and places could be furnished, but they will be omitted because it is the concept that needs to be discussed. A couple lost their two-year-old child, which is, of course, tragic. Probably no one can imagine the tremendous amount of grief the parents experienced unless they had been through a similar situation. So, no fingers will be pointed at them, but why would anyone tell them that they should pray for their toddler to be resurrected? Even if the idea was their own, why wouldn’t someone tell them that events like those we marvel at in the Scriptures no longer occur and that they are only leaving themselves open for more heartache?
Yes, Jesus restored the life of Lazarus to him, but the purpose was to convince people of the power and Deity that Jesus possessed—not just because his sisters were heartbroken. Jesus and the apostles raised others from the dead as well because they had the power of God and used it in such a way that it authenticated their claims (Jesus to be the Son of God, and the apostles to be His spokesmen). Never did Jesus or His apostles teach that raising the dead could be expected to occur as long as the earth stands. Some apparently believe that what Jesus did was a model for us, but the Scriptures do not so teach.
The church the parents belong to teaches that miracles are possible today. Undoubtedly, they have heard testimonials from some who have assured them the dead can still be raised. Jesus did defeat the grave and is the resurrection and the life (John 11:25), but He will raise people up at the last day—not now. The parents actually felt confident that their little one would come back to life. How tragic! Finally, they had to face the reality that no resurrection was forthcoming. Did their believing in a false teaching make the circumstance even worse? “Hope deferred makes the heart sick…” (Pr. 13:12). One can only speculate on the results of hope denied.
David understood what the death of a child meant. He would not see his son alive again on this earth. David said: “But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me” (2 Sam. 12:23). There were a few exceptions to this principle while Jesus and the apostles were alive (and previously with Elijah and Elisha); none have occurred since. Some wonder, “Does this mean that God has lost His power?” Hardly. He remains just as all-powerful as He always has. The miracles authenticated Jesus and His apostles. No one is being endorsed by God today. It has not been His will to do miracles since the first century. He will, however, demonstrate His power again when He comes from heaven with His holy angels in flaming fire to take vengeance on those who do not know Him and who have not obeyed the gospel. To see the departed child, the parents need to obey the gospel and remain faithful (1 Cor. 15:3-4; Rom. 6:3-5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Heb 5:9).
