The author of The DaVinci Code, Dan Brown (aka as Word Bann, using scrambling techniques included in his former novel), is back. His famous character, Robert Langdon, has been resurrected (whoops, make that returns) to be the main character in yet another thrilling novel, all of which was highlighted in last Sunday’s Parade (September 13, 2009). (To be fair, he is a good writer and would probably be enjoyable if he could just resist the temptation to write on religious themes.). The DaVinci Code was first published in 2003 and enjoyed tremendous success with 80 million copies being sold throughout the world. The movie, starring Tom Hanks, “grossed over $758 million dollars” (4) despite the three-article series that remains on our Website (along with the factual errors exposed by several others, also).
The movie now appears on television every other night. With such success, it was inevitable that a previous work of Mr. Bann would also be made into a movie; this summer a novel written prior to Code, called Angels and Demons, was released. It opened with $48 million in sales the first weekend but is not one of the Top Ten grossing movies in the United States. The latest book by the popular author, The Lost Symbol, came out Tuesday (4). This book is about secret societies, art, symbols, and history—only it is set in Washington, D.C. Undoubtedly, the movie will follow in 2010 -11.
Bann’s Naïveté
According to Parade, the bestselling writer “still seems surprised that his book [Code] started such a frenzy” (4). Really? He writes an adventure story that involves an intriguing mystery to hook the reader, but part of the solution to the entire matter involves the erroneous and fantastic notion that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married (Bann alleges she is in DaVinci’s painting, The Last Supper). When He was crucified, she (referred to as the Holy Grail) ran off to France, where she gave birth to their daughter.
Did he really not think that anyone would notice that he repudiated the entire New Testament? Isn’t that rather like Lee Harvey Oswald hoping that no one will notice that he had just assassinated the President? He had to know, since all of Christianity rests on the foundation of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, that Christians might react just a tad negatively toward Jesus having a bride other than the church, for which He died! (All of Bann’s errors were reviewed in Spiritual Perspectives on April 30, May 7, and May 14, 2006.)
All that Parade mentioned is that the Catholic leaders denounced Bann’s novel because of his negative portrayal of Opus Dei, “a conservative Roman Catholic group” (4). Needless to say, they have a right to be concerned about this group’s portrayal, but far greater insults and blasphemies occur in the novel than that. Bann has a character assert (without contradiction) that Jesus’ marriage to Mary Magdalene is “a matter of historical record” (244), which is preposterous! Even more so, however, is that he did not think anyone would mind or object to these statements.
Word Bann Grew Up Religious
The Parade piece has Bann growing up as an Episcopalian and not getting an answer to an important question for him. In 8th grade he studied in school the Big Bang theory; so he asked a minister about the discrepancy between the Big Bang explanation versus a six-day Creation in the Bible. The answer he was given was, “Nice boys don’t ask that question” (4). Many who are in religious denominations (and a few brethren) do not have an explanation that can satisfy an interested youth. The reason is not that answers are unavailable. The reason is that many have bought into the error that “science deals with facts and religion deals with faith,” which is probably one of the most effective doctrines that Satan ever invented. The statement contains not even a kernel of truth in it.
Science Vs. Faith—A False Dichotomy
God is the author of knowledge; He revealed to us the truth of the origin of things. Many scientists for several centuries lived, operated, and discovered “scientific” truths within that framework. When Darwin’s theory of evolution came along, a different slant was put on things. Though evolution was never proven to be factual, the “scientific” community (with notable exceptions) began to act as if those who accepted the theory of evolution were the ones dealing with facts and those who accepted God’s factual account of Creation based their views on fantasy. Satan has always made evil look good and good look evil. He can make darkness seem as light and light as darkness.
In this instance, he took those whose beliefs are founded on an unproven theory and made them look “scientific” and those whose views are based on truth look like they were building upon a shaky theory. Trusting in God became equivalent to believing in the tooth fairy. Faith suddenly became “guesswork” instead of trust based on evidence. When Jesus made His claims concerning His Deity, for example, He did not expect people just to trust Him just on His say-so alone; for that reason He did the miracles. One can argue easily with an unsubstantiated claim, but when a tempest is stilled on the Sea of Galilee or a man blind from birth is able to see, it becomes a little easier to listen to the One capable of such great things. Bringing a man back to life who had been in the tomb four days is difficult to ignore, although the spiritual leaders of the Jewish people did—but that was not because of faulty evidence; rather it was due to extreme prejudice, just like many “scientists” today possess.
The worst thing is that many in religion bought into the “evolution-science, faith-fantasy” paradigm. They sacrificed the truth to an unproven theory. Rather than show that science is consistent with the Bible, they allowed the Bible to be regarded as “religion”—some-thing that just deals with philosophical matters. Therefore, many religious groups never study Christian evidences or science. They are content with letting atheists define all the terms. These attitudes account for the answer to Bann that nice boys don’t ask such questions. They are unprepared to provide an intelligent answer.
Young Bann drew the wrong conclusion from this inept response: “The Bible doesn’t make sense” (4) Well, what else is someone supposed to think? Without an adequate defense (1 Peter 3:15), the natural conclusion would be that the Bible was not intended to be rational, but science is. Word Bann “gravitated away from religion” (4). Despite the departure, he said he has returned somewhat. Science led him to conclude that “there is an order and a spiritual aspect to science” (5). Studying the creation can cause one to notice the marvelous order in God’s universe. Chaos cannot create such perfection. However, Bann’s conclusions concerning order did not lead him to the Bible as truth, or The DaVinci Code would not exist.
Religion and Randomness
Perhaps the most curious comment in the interview with Word Bann is this one: “The power that religion has is that you think nothing is random: If there’s a tragedy in my life, that’s God testing me or sending me a message” (4).
Does the Bible teach that God is in such control of the universe that nothing is random? The Scriptures teach God is Sovereign and possesses all power, but they do not teach that He exercises that power at all times. Anyone who argues that God controls things so tightly that everything that happens is His will would need to explain the presence of evil. No one could begin to understand why God ordained for innocent children to be abused or for innocent adults to be tortured and murdered. Calvinists are not very popular when, after a tragedy such as occurred at Columbine High School, they resign themselves to, “Well, it’s just God’s will.” No, it’s not!
It was an evil act that occurred when two human beings exercised the free will that God gave them. Can God bring good things out of evil events? He can, but that wondrous ability does not mean He caused the evil or wanted it to occur. Calvinists think THAT God causes everything to occur. He does not, but He arranges some things to occur as with Jesus dying for our sins on the cross. Even then, He did not force men to crucify Jesus; they did it because they were wicked.
Are there random events? If there are not, then Calvinism would be correct. Everything that occurs is not part of an Almighty comprehensive plan. We are free to choose what we do, just as other people are, and we enjoy or regret the decisions that we make. Many who believe in karma or New Ageism, like Calvinists do not believe in random acts. The popular New Age novel, The Celestine Prophecy (see May 18, 1997), frequently made the point: “There are no accidents.” The philosophy of determinism also advocates a lack of choice. Many believe that people are the product of their genes, their environment, or their upbringing, despite numerous examples to the contrary.
In Jeremiah’s day, after the captivity, those who remained in the land had a governor named Gedaliah. Johanan warned him that he was the target of assassination. He did not believe it and thus was killed. His choice proved fatal. Then the people asked whether they should stay in the land or flee to Egypt. God told them, through the prophet, to remain in the land. They fled nevertheless (Jer. 40-43). Neither of these actions were “ordained” by God; there were warnings against both of them; these cautions were ignored. Neither event was planned by God; both Gedaliah and those of Judah had the free will to choose their future course. True religion should not make anyone think that everything is predetermined.
On the other hand, God works providentially, also. He may supply an opportunity for a person to obey the gospel—or for a Christian to repent of his sins. He may supply opportunities for spiritual growth. These are not random but purposeful on His part, but one may fail to see the import of what God has provided. For example, a Christian woman is shopping and notices a backsliding sister in the same grocery store. The first lady encourages the second by saying that she is missed and that she and her family would really profit from being there. But the unfaithful sister ultimately ignores the concern shown to her. Christians often pass up opportunities for growth by missing regular worship, gospel meetings, and lectures—all of which God has authorized and provided (I Peter 5:10).
One should, when thinking of religion, not conclude that there is no randomness in life—but, on the other hand, realize that God had a plan for Jesus dying on the cross—that we might have forgiveness of sins. He has a goal that we be with Him in heaven and may provide opportunities to move us in that direction, but the choice is ours. Actually, it is the writer of novels, such as Word Bann, that controls everything—not God.
A Christian is a New Creature
Marvin L. Weir
The Ephesian brethren needed to understand that, as new creatures in Christ Jesus, they were to have buried the old man and his former way of life (cf. Eph. 4:22). A lack of spiritual growth and maturity will allow one to be influenced by false teachers and conquered by false doctrine. Thus, the warning by the apostle Paul to the Ephesians was “that [they] be no longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of error” (Eph. 4:14). Let us learn from Paul’s admonitions to the brethren at Ephesus.
A new life demands a new lifestyle! One who obeys the gospel and becomes a child of God should be raised up from the waters of baptism to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4). Paul taught the Corinthian brethren the same thing, saying, “Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17). The Bible makes it very clear that a true change in relationship necessitates a change in the way one lives his life. If one claims citizenship in heaven (Phil. 3:20), he cannot conduct himself according to the ways of the world. The apostle Paul drives home his point that a new life requires a new lifestyle. The unsaved are described as having:
Vanity of mind – Those who are foolish and seek to live their lives without true wisdom and knowledge that comes from God (Eph. 4:17).
Their understanding darkened – Without true knowledge and understanding of God’s Word this becomes man’s degraded state (v. 18).
Hardened hearts – Repeated acts of sin renders one’s heart callused and hardened so as to be insensible.
Closed minds – A hardened heart will lead to a mind that is closed to God’s truth.
Impure and greedy thoughts – Debauchery of every kind flourishes without any sign of restraint (v. 19). Christians are to avoid those things that smack of immorality and ungodliness. Children of God must be willing to die to worldly ways and develop a spiritual lifestyle. Paul says it clearly in saying to the brethren at Rome, “knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin” (Rom. 6:6). Thus, members of the Lord’s church are to always cast aside the old self, which includes:
◾Lying (Eph. 4:24) – It is the opposite of truth. A “white lie” or “small lie” is unacceptable as a Christian is obligated to always speak the truth.
◾Uncontrolled anger that leads to sin (4:26) – One must not let anger contribute to him committing sin. Worldly anger is not identical with righteous anger (Mark 3:5). Righteous anger has its place, but it must not be used as an excuse to commit sin.
◾Stealing (Eph. 4:28) – Theft, swindle, and fraud are things the Christian will not participate in.
◾Corrupt communication (v. 29) – Adam Clarke notes that this means “any word or thing obscene, anything that injures virtue, countenances vice, or scoffs at religion.”
◾Grieve not the Holy Spirit – One grieves the Holy Spirit when he refuses to abide by the Spirit’s teaching (v. 30).
Paul next reminds Christians of what the new self they should have put on will include:
◾Building up of one another (4:29) – Encouragement and edification are necessary to help members withstand the devil’s attacks. A servant of God should not care who gets the praise. If something is accomplished for the cause of Christ, then let everyone rejoice.
◾Kindness and compassion (v. 32) – Consideration of another’s needs and a willingness to empathize and do that which is in his best spiritual interest (cf. Phil. 4:2-3). The parable of the Good Samaritan reminds us that we are to avoid the attitude of the priest and the Levite while imitating the actions of the one who had compassion for his fellowman.
◾Forgiveness (4:32) – A spirit of forgiveness must be shown. Some are unwilling to forgive, and this is wrong! Jesus makes this very clear in saying, “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matt. 6:14-15). On the other hand, one cannot forgive one who does not seek forgiveness. We cannot do what God cannot do! Repentance and confession are mandatory if forgiveness is to be obtained. Let us remember that a new life demands a new lifestyle. May we as God’s children truly die to self and the world and set our hearts on that which is above!
In Medieval times there arose various religious dissenters who were opposed to the Catholic Church, and most of them desired both “moral and religious reformation” (465). (All of the quotations are from Volume V of Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church.) The various groups that were formed generally had in common a rejection of certain Catholic doctrines, including the idea of a separate priesthood (instead of the priesthood of all believers), the doctrine of transubstantiation (the notion that the bread and the fruit of the vine turn into the literal body and blood of Jesus), the baptism of infants, and the worship of the cross and other images (as they were forms of idolatry) (465).
These groups were absolutely correct to reject these Catholic errors, but they also disagreed with plain Bible teaching. Thus they were branded as heretics which were then defined as those “who dissented from the dogmatic belief of the Catholic Church” (465). They were regarded as worse than Muslims (against whom all their Crusades were directed) and worse than persons of depraved moral character. Although today we tend to value people of good moral character—even if we do not agree on doctrine, they did not. Such was their outrage against anyone calling himself a Christian who did not conform to Catholic doctrine.
Dissent did not fare well in the 11th – 13th centuries. “Bernard Guy expressed the opinion of his age when he declared that heresy can be destroyed only when its advocates are converted or burnt” (467). In Southern France, the Cathari were “slaughtered by the thousands” (469). In fact, dissenters were put to death in various locations in Europe. This particular group is the one out of all of the dissenters we want to look at more closely. Their opposition to a corrupt priesthood is to be applauded, as is their devotion to purity of speech and of life in general. How ironic that the priesthood did not embrace holiness. Even average citizens, largely uneducated, knew more of the right way to live.
The term Cathari comes from the Greek katharos, meaning “pure” (470). For all of their good points, how-ever, they had some doctrinal problems. They held to the philosophy of Dualism—that is, that there are two Gods of equal strength and power who are always battling with each other; one of them is good, and the other is evil. It is not difficult to understand how man, on his own, apart from any Divine revelation, might have thought of this explanation, since it would fit the reality of the constant conflict of good and evil. But it does not offer any hope that anything will ever be any different. The truth is that Satan has great power, but he is not as powerful as God. He will be relegated to the lake of fire eventually, where he will not be allowed to afflict the righteous any more (Rev. 20:10).
The Manicheans had earlier held similar beliefs. Ac-cording to dualists, matter is eternal, having been created by the evil god (whereas the Bible teaches that God created the world and all that is in it). Furthermore, He pronounced it very good (Gen. 1:31).
The Cathari began to call Catholics Romanists and said there were two Churches—“One of the wicked and one of the righteous” (475) Applying Matthew 7:15, the Cathari taught the fruits of the Catholic Church proved it was not the true Church. They also said the true Church endures persecution rather than prescribing it. The true Church teaches first and then baptizes those who want to respond. The Roman Church baptizes first and then teaches. The Cathari believed that the Roman Church was the harlot described in the Book of Revelation (475).
Someone might conclude: “These folks seem pretty good. They lived pure lives and opposed many false teachings of the Catholic Church. So they were a little kooky with respect to God and Satan; should that detract too much from their salvation? Furthermore, they gave their lives for what they believed in.”
False Doctrines
Despite all of these good teachings and qualities, the Cathari had some doctrinal problems. Below are listed several false teachings to which they subscribed. Some of them are related to dualism and their view of matter; some are not. These are found on pages 475-79 of Schaff.
1. The Old Testament was the work of the devil.
2. The god of the Old Testament is an evil god.
3. Jesus was created in heaven and not born on earth. He passed through Mary as through a pipe.
4. He never ate physical food or drink.
5. John the Baptizer was one of the major demons and was condemned for asking if Jesus was the One to come or if there was another.
6. Satan had ascended to heaven, where he waited 32 years to be admitted. A porter allowed him in, and he hid himself among the angels for almost a year without God noticing him. Then he began to deceive the other angels. He praised women and the pleasures of the flesh. When they asked for more information, he brought them a sample—a woman “decked in jewels and gold and beautiful in form.” The angels became “inflamed with passion”; Satan took the woman and left heaven. The angels followed them, and they continued to leave for nine days, when God closed up the exit.
7. They replaced baptism with what they called the consolamentum. Usually this practice occurred close to death. Someone would lay hands on the person, and the gospel of John would be placed upon the head or on the breast. The candidate would confess “all his sins of thought, word, work, or vision.” He would affirm his trust in God.
8. If a member of the Cathari died before the consolamentum could take place, then he was lost, or maybe upon his death he passed into another body and returned to earth.
9. There was “no resurrection of the body.”
10. Baptism in water involved a physical element and was the work of the evil god. “John’s baptism was an invention of the devil.”
11. Since “the human body was made by the devil,” “marriage was renounced as contrary to God’s law.” The “eating of the forbidden fruit in Eden meant carnal cohabitation.”
12. All meats were forbidden, as well as eggs and cheese.
.
13. Capital punishment was rejected on the basis of Romans 12:19.
. Now why are all of these strange doctrines listed? The reason is that they are not doctrines currently held by anyone (we trust). Therefore, no one has any emotional attachment to them and will not try to defend any of them. Also, it provides a look at the kind of teachings that people disagreed upon in the past. But, having noted these two things, the third reason is to use these doctrines to try to attempt to decide what Christians would be able to fellowship and what they would not be able to endure. How many men, each of whom held one or more of the preceding doctrines, would we: a) allow to preach to brethren in our congregation? b) fellowship at a lectureship or encampment? c) teach in a Christian college or school of preaching? d) allow the director of a good work to have taught without ever repenting of them?
Anyone holding to view #1 could not preach from the Old Testament, without which the entire New Testament is undermined. All of the devotion and praise of God in the Psalms and all the wisdom in Proverbs must be pitched. The account of the Creation, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel has been eradicated, and what are we to do with Jesus and the apostles who cite these verses? One of the greatest evidences for the truth of the Bible consists of the hundreds of prophecies which Jesus fulfilled in His life, yet all of those cannot even be considered. This doctrine is dangerous and would overthrow the faith of many.
The God of the Old Testament is evil (#2). This borders on what many people still believe—that the God of the Old Testament (vengeful and full of wrath) is different from the God of the New Testament (full of grace and love). In effect, this doctrine teaches that either Satan was the author of the Old Testament or that God has changed (which is a direct contradiction of the Scriptures (Mal. 3:6; James 1:17). In either case, can we fellowship one who teaches this doctrine?
Doctrines #3 and #4 deny that Jesus is the Son of Man. It makes a liar out of Matthew and Luke, who provide the details of His physical birth. If Jesus was a heavenly Being with only the appearance of a body, then He was not made like His brethren in all things (Heb. 2:14), nor could the crucifixion have been remotely painful, which means He did not really suffer for our sins. He must have deceived people when He referred to Himself as the Son of Man; He possessed no humanity whatsoever.
Jesus said of John (#5) that no man born of women was greater than he was (Matt. 11:11). Can we fellowship someone who treated John as the Cathari did—who categorically denied what the Bible teaches concerning him? What if someone taught that doctrine nearly 20 years ago? Can we fellowship him now if he is no longer teaching the doctrine? What if his position is recorded or written? Some will hear of it and say, “Well, if he taught that and has achieved a position of prominence in the brotherhood, and brethren (by and large) fellowship him, perhaps John really was one of the major demons in the New Testament.”
Will the weird story of how Satan seduced the angels in heaven to sin (#6) harm anyone’s salvation? Is it just a bizarre but benign tale from someone’s fertile imagination? It implies that God is not omniscient. Satan sneaked into heaven without His knowledge, and even when all the angels followed Him, it took God nine days to seal up the exit, which reflects on His omnipotence as well. The fact is that ideology has consequences. Certain statements imply certain other ideas, many of which can be dangerous.
One cannot replace baptism with any substitute (#7), since it is clearly a command of God (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38, et al.). Most brethren would not fellowship anyone teaching this error. But then, how are we to view those who might use materials produced by such an individual? Some, like Max Lucado, teach that one is saved before and without baptism; why do brethren use anything produced by him? Even if he does not teach that particular error in one of his books, all of them contain numerous errors.
The Bible teaches that it is appointed to men once to die and after this the judgment. How would brethren react today if a preacher adopted the heresy of reincarnation (#8)? Is that one of those optional matters concerning which we can all look the other way so that we can maintain unity?
To say that there is no resurrection (#9) clearly contradicts many New Testament verses, not to mention the marvelous text of 1 Corinthians 15. Surely, no one would appear on a lectureship program with such an individual, would he?
Jesus asked: “The baptism of John—was it from heaven or from men?” While the Scriptures answer, From God” (John 1:31), the Cathari said that it was of the devil (#10). Yet the implication of Jesus’ question was that it was from heaven, which means that the wisdom of men (as seen in the Cathari) has failed again. That water is the proper element is clear from Acts 8:35-49, Acts 10:47, and 1 Peter 3:20-21.
The human body was made by God out of the dust of the ground (Gen. 2:7). God said that His creation was good—not evil. As for marriage, the pleasures God placed within it do not defile people (Heb. 13:4); in fact, husbands and wives are charged with refraining from abstinence—except for a period of fasting (1 Cor. 7:1-5). Marital privileges had already been authorized for man in the Garden; they could not possibly have contributed to man’s sin. The forbidden fruit was on a tree and involved spiritual rather than carnal knowledge.
God authorized the eating of meats in the New Testament (see Acts 10:9-15). Men who take the position that certain foods are still forbidden (#12) are binding where God has loosed. To teach men that they cannot enjoy lawful things that pertain to the flesh is to go beyond what is written. In the case of marriage, it also would prohibit procreation, which was a direct command of God in the beginning (Gen. 1:28).
The last of this “baker’s dozen” rejects capital punishment based on Romans 12:19. All one needs to do is read a few verses further to see that the civil government has the God-given right to execute evildoers (Rom. 13:1-5). What is prohibited is personal vengeance.
Conclusions
Admittedly, some of these errors are worse than others, but they all involve a contradiction of the truth, and it is only the truth that can save (John 8:31-32). What happens if someone teaches less than 1% error? Are we not told that 99.995% of the ingredients in rat poison are good—perhaps, even nutritious? Only .005% of the concoction that is filled with the poison kills the rat.
How much truth can be compromised before someone is rightly called a false teacher? Suppose they, for whatever reason, gave up the first eleven heresies but insisted upon the last two? Meat-eaters are not going to be happy about them binding their opinions. If someone believes that position and refuses to eat those items, are they wrong? Yes. Will they be lost because of it? NO. But what happens when they begin to bind these doctrines on others? And how is the church to react if it begins to be taught by the leadership that capital punishment is wrong and that the only moral thing to do is to hold candlelight vigils whenever someone is executed?
Such personally-held beliefs would not cause one to be lost, but what about when others are taught these errors? Whatever the doctrine is, we must be concerned about the truth. Without a love of the truth, no one can be saved (2 Thess. 2:10). What kind of attitude is it that refuses to study the matter and submit to what the Scriptures teach? Jesus prayed that His disciples be sanctified through the truth (John 17:17). Psalm 119 is a lengthy praise of the Word of God, which is truth.
God took great care to be certain that the Scriptures were inspired. The Holy Spirit brought to the minds of Jesus’ disciples all that He had taught them (John 14:26). The Holy Spirit also inspired all of the Scriptures in the Old and New Testaments (2 Tim. 3:16-17; John 16:13). Could the reason be that God wanted everyone to know the truth? But of what value is it if then, having it, we decide that it is not all that important and that we can fellowship those who teach error right along with those who teach the truth? If we possess such an attitude, do we not fall into the very theology of Ketcherside-Garrett-Shelly? The modern-day mantra is: “Doctrine doesn’t matter. Teach a little truth; mix in a little error—nobody cares any more.”
Members of the church need to return to the basics that we were once taught. One fundamental truth is that we cannot fellowship error (2 John 9-11). When we find brethren doing so, it needs to be called to their attention that they are in serious violation of the Word of God. If we respect truth, then we must abide by what the Lord and His apostles taught—even if it means being neither popular nor politically correct. Unheeded, we will become (eventually) as permeated by error as the Cathari.
The Bellview Church of Christ in Pensacola, Florida published an article by Johnny Oxendine (8-24-09) that raises again some important points concerning fellowship. The intriguing title is:” The Hybrid Church And Why It Has a Real Chance to Succeed With Some.” He leads off with the following two paragraphs:
The title has probably caused some of you to have a puzzled look or a frown on the brow. What could possibly be meant by this phrase, the hybrid church? Today, we want to introduce you to this phenomenon with the understanding that this is a real amalgamation in the church. The hybrid church is a newcomer in the brotherhood. It is composed of brethren of all stripes who share a common denominator to not pass judgment on the activities, errors, false teaching, or associations (fellowship) of others.
Hybrid means “a thing made by combining two different elements, a mixture”; these newly-combined elements are quickly transforming into a sector that will shortly (if they continue on this path) not resemble the Lord’s church at all. There will probably be some identifiable remnants remaining, but what we see in the New Testament will be radically changed as a result of this new hybrid (or Greek mythology Hydra) church.
He then brings into view “the most recent flyer advertising the Tahoe Family Encampment” (July 2009), and he comments on the names that are listed on it, wondering how it could be that, if they are on the same program, they are not in fellowship with each other. This is a good question, which some Scriptures later in this article touch upon. Are brethren giving thought concerning whom they fellowship? How far does fellowship extend? If one fellowships a man affiliated with a certain work, is he not also fellowshipping it?
The issue of fellowship ought to be of concern to all of us, since it is a Biblical topic. It has not been all that long since both preachers and churches agreed concerning what the Bible taught. Now someone looking at us would probably wonder, “What do these people believe?” To demonstrate how things have changed, when I attended the Joplin Unity Summit 25 years ago, someone asked me (before I had figured out what the true purpose for the occasion was) if I thought that Carl Ketcherside would be there. My immediate response was, “Not if they want anyone to take this unity effort seriously.” Ketcherside, like Leroy Garrett, had a name associated with compromise. Both men emphasized unity at the expense of truth; one wonders if the same thing is not now recurring.
Rubel Shelly decided in the early 80s that there were Big F and little f forms of fellowship, which basically resulted in fellowshipping false teachers. Even though Alan Highers wrote a book specifically against that concept and William Woodson wrote against “change agents” in the church, it seems that the idea of a broader fellowship has currently gained ground—even among those who once opposed it. So here is a crucial question:
At what point does association with false teachers and false doctrine constitute sin in the sight of the Lord?
Brethren in most areas of the country need answers to that question. In Orlando, for example, every two years there is a Spiritual Growth Workshop. Are all the speakers’ flat-out liberals? No, but many are. For each event they invite men like Randall Harris and John Clayton—both of whom have been well-documented to be unsound with respect to many of their doctrines. Liberals attend this gathering of wolves, but brethren from non-liberal congregations also go! Why is this not fellowship on their part with error and false teaching?
The Jerusalem Spiritual Growth Workshop
Had there been a “workshop” in Jerusalem and a famous Sadducean orator was teaching that there were no angels and no resurrection; would Jesus have attended to “learn” from such a person? No. Had He been there at all, it would have been to oppose the doctrine. However, Jesus did not go to their conferences; they came to Him (Matt. 22:23-33).
But consider this foolishness a bit further. Suppose all the groups in Jerusalem “agreed to disagree” and have an ecumenical forum. A prominent Pharisee could speak on topics such as “The Value of Manmade Traditions,” “How to Make Long Prayers and Subtly Disfigure Your Face While Fasting,” and “Keeping Oneself Outwardly Pure.” The Sadducees could have someone speak on “Is the Rich Man in Torment?” The zealots could have classes on “Organizing Your Own Private Militia,” and the Herodians could do “Accepting Without Question Every Government Program.”
The Galilee Family Encampment
If such an absurd event ever occurred, would Jesus or His apostles have advised anyone to attend? If not, why not?Perhaps after the destruction of Jerusalem, some brethren hosted a Galilee Family Encampment. Of course, Paul, Peter, and most of the other apostles were already martyred, but what would Paul have thought if he had seen the apostle John on a program with Hymenaeus and Alexander, who had made shipwreck of the faith and had been withdrawn from (1 Tim. 1:18-20), lecturing on the grace of God? Paul would be no more kindly disposed toward Hymenaeus and Philetus attempting to prove that the resurection was already past (2 Tim. 2:16-18).
While scheduling this great annual event, no one would want to omit those two-legged dogs of the mutilation (Phil. 3:1-2, 18-19). And wouldn’t Peter be surprised to see certain liberty promisers on the program, if he were alive (2 Peter 2:17-22)? No encampment would be complete without scoffers who insisted that all things had continued the same since the fathers fell asleep (2 Peter 3:1-9). Suggested topics for the Galilee Family Encampment are: “The Pleasures of Carnal Living,” “The Earth is Eternal,” and “Did You Miss the Resurrection?” What a great time everyone would have! To make it complete, we just need to add: “What Did Paul Really Mean When He Said to Mark False Teachers?” Perhaps one of these illustrious figures could write a book: Big F and Little f F(f)alse Teachers.
Of course, if such an event had actually been scheduled in the first century, everyone would want to know, “Why is the apostle John associated with this endeavor?” Obviously, he would not, since he wrote: “Beloved, do not believe 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). Concerning this same group of men, the disciple whom Jesus loved wrote:
Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house, nor greet him, for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds (2 John 9-11).
Defenders of such encampments and workshops often say, “They will not be allowed to teach error here.” Oh! Apparently many of us have not seen that exceptive clause in 2 John 9-11. Which part of the passage is it that warns against encouraging or using false teachers but then supplies the caveat: “But you can greet them and let them speak if they don’t present any error”? Under this logic Hymenaeus and Philetus could be asked to speak on the virgin birth, the Deity of Christ, a few dozen other topics. Of course, if they were used, faithful brethren would assume (erroneous-ly) they were sound men in fellowship with the church.
What Makes Someone a False Teacher?
At this point it might be helpful for several brethren to offer a definition—if it is different from the one following. My philosophy is that a false teacher is one who teaches any specific doctrine that—if believed and followed—would cause someone to lose his salvation.
Teaching that the resurrection was already past was overthrowing the faith of some; therefore, Paul considered it harmful to the well-being of the church. Peter showed the dangers of any doctrine that leads brethren into being carnal rather than spiritual. He also said that convincing brethren that the Lord would not be returning was deadly. For one thing, it would make everyone relax their moral guidelines rather than watch and pray (Matt. 24:42-51). Paul adamantly opposed those who tried to bind circumcision and other parts of the Law of Moses upon Christians. He said those who believed such a thing had fallen from grace (Gal. 5:4)! Jesus taught that religion that focused on externals was useless—that faith must be genuine. Any efforts to set aside God’s holy Word He condemned.
In light of these Scriptures, what was brother Oxendine’s complaint? He, like many of us, marveled at the conglomeration of teachings held by those who spoke and fellowshipped at that event. He mentioned BradHarrub of Focus Press. To my knowledge, no one has ever ascribed a teaching error to this brother. No false doctrine has ever been promulgated in the magazine he edits, Think. But he has been associating himself with the other speakers on that program who do.
One of the men who speaks annually is Truitt Adair of the Sunset Bible Institute. Some of Sunset’s instructors have taught error on divorce and remarriage for decades. Is that something over which a person could lose his soul? Yes! If two people are committing adultery, having been unscripturally divorced and married again (as with Herod and Herodias), then they are in an unlawful situation that will cause them to be lost—unless they repent of it by leaving the situation. What Adair himself believes may be the truth, but the institution he heads has had false teachers in it who have never repented. Would Paul fellowship such a one?
Besides, Adair will not condemn error. The following information may be verified by doing an Internet search of Sunset International Bible Studies. Select the “External Studies Overview” from the list of options. It will be first or near the top. In the bar across the top, select “Resources” and under it “Christian Chronicle Interview.” One year Sunset did not participate in the Tulsa Soul-Winning Workshop (a promoter of just about everything liberal), and the Christian Chronicle interviewed Truitt Adair. That year they had scheduled to speak on Friday evening Max Lucado and Bob Russell of the Christian Church. Adair commented thus:
We were told by workshop planners that each evening there would be a speaker to represent the “Church of Christ” and one to represent the “Independent Christian Church.” As with any program of this kind, planners endeavor to select speakers and topics that advance the message they are trying to communicate. Though we would have chosen differently, the program and speakers selected by workshop planners seem to be consistent with the purpose and agenda of this year’s workshop as we have understood them in our conversations.
First, one wonders which of these men was supposed to represent the Lord’s church. If the answer is Max Lucado, such is preposterous! Second, Adair could find no fault with the program (which is bizarre in itself)—except he would have chosen different speakers. Third, he says the speakers were consistent with their agenda. In this he is correct; Tulsa’s “agenda” for years has been compromise. Why is Adair not troubled by that? Can sound brethren fellowship him?
The Sharrod Avenue Church of Christ in Florence, Alabama, which Kerry Williams is part of, lists on their Website links to all “Christian” colleges associated (no matter how loosely) with churches of Christ. Why? Most of us would not recommend Abilene, Pepperdine, or Rochester under any circumstances. Perhaps they could explain why they have links to those institutions who have been leaders of apostasy.
Then there is the Edmond Church in Oklahoma. This congregation is associated with Oklahoma Christian University, the Christian Chronicle, and the television program, In Search of the Lord’s Way. Information regarding the university has been plentiful, and all anyone needs to do is to read the newspaper to know that it should be called the Liberal Christian Chronicle. Phil Sanders has written for conservative publications, such as Think and Spiritual Sword, but now that he is working with In Search of the Lord’s Way, how is his name not to be associated with the liberal Edmond Church and the Christian Chronicle? If someone is not a false teacher, can he fellowship those who are?
World Bible School
Glenn Colley was another speaker at Tahoe. If one goes to the website of the West Huntington (Alabama) Church, they have an entire page that spotlights World Bible School as one of their works. If one then goes to worldbibleschool.net, one finds across the top of the page the fifth heading, “church enrichment.” On the left-hand side, there are three menus: the second heading is “Info Menu.” Click on “Who Are we?” and be prepared to be amazed. The answer is “the Center for Church Resources,” which “operates in association with Abilene Christian University” and is directed by Dr. Ian Fair. Under Web Links are ACU, Christian Chronicle, andHeartlight. Does anybody think Glenn Colley is supportive of ACU? No, but why have fellowship with World Bible School, who thinks they are great?
Apologetics Press
Glenn Colley, Memphis School of Preaching, and many other brethren endorse Apologetics Press. No one has ever expressed any complaints against the work that Apologetics Press does. They have some talented people who work for them, and the materials they produce are of good quality. But the current head of AP is Dave Miller, whose name has become synonymous with two false doctrines—the re-evaluation and reaffirmation of elders, which he defended and never has admitted to be false, and the “marital intent” doctrine that he used to defend a colleague who ”married” a cousin to get into the United States, after which they separated. Many brethren protested Bert Thompson’s hiring of brother Miller, but the protests were waved off.
It is true that he issued a “statement” concerning these things in 2005, but the statement does not include any admission of wrongdoing. One of the elders who oversees Gospel Broadcasting Network asked me: “Even if it were true that Dave taught these doctrines, would it be worth splitting the church over?” Of course, I was shocked by such a question. One of the first departures from God’s Word in the second century involved false teaching regarding the eldership. How can one fellowship a brother who teaches that elders can remain or retire according to the results of an approval rating by the congregation? (Another GBN worker wondered in their last bulletin why they don’t have their 7,000 monthly contributors yet.)
So now we return to the original question, written in bold on page one. It’s a serious question. If anyone holds a different position regarding fellowship than what has been set forth here or can explain the liberal connections that some have, it would be wonderful to hear it. If ours is wrong, then it needs to be corrected. Anyone who wants to write anonymously is free to do so. Many of us would like to concentrate more on love and unity, but we did not originate these false doctrines—and we are not going to fellowship them. Any legitimate rationale would be helpful. Until something changes, we will maintain our current position, marking (rather than fellowshipping) false teachers (Rom. 16:17-18).
The newspaper headline for the Peoria Journal Star for April 13, 2009 was “Two Churches, One Faith.” This title is just the first thing wrong with the entire article. In order for the heading to be correct, one needs only to rewrite the Scriptures. Jesus did not say in Matthew 16:18: “On this rock I will build two churches.” did He? And in the famous passage that Paul wrote, in which he stressed unity, he did not write: “There are two bodies and one Spirit, just as you are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, two faiths, one baptism, one God and Father of all…” (Eph. 4:4-6). It is always amazing that people accept disunity, division, and denominationalism—as though the Bible spoke approvingly of them.
The second error is the caption under the picture:
The Rev. William Preston of City on a Hill Church in South Peoria washes the feet of the Rev. Jeff Browning during a joint Easter Sunday evening service held at Washington Christian Church in Washington. The pastors washed each other’s feet just as Jesus washed the feet of the disciples at the Last Supper
Why men prefer to use exalted titles such as “Reverend” when Jesus clearly told the apostles not to use them is always a mystery (Matt. 23:6-11); perhaps their use should be a clue about those individuals to those who sincerely desire to follow God. A similar question is: “Why would any devout Christian, let alone a leader, be involved in an ‘Easter’ service, something totally foreign to the Scriptures?” When did the apostles observe an “Easter” service or command brethren to do so?
Easter was an invention of men to honor the resurrection of Jesus annually. The Lord’s Supper was instituted by Jesus to remember His death on the cross each week. Manmade traditions cannot take the place of what God authorized without producing vain worship.
Both men are called pastors. Are they really pastors in the sense of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1—or is this another compromise with denominational error? Did they wash each other’s feet as Jesus washed the disciples’ feet? It does not appear so. Jesus laid aside His outer garments and wrapped a towel around Him (John 13:4). These men are wearing shirts and pants and are not girded with a towel.
More importantly, they are not doing as Jesus did. Jesus washed the disciples’ feet because they were dirty. The rest of their bodies were clean because they had prepared for the Passover properly, but their feet were dirty. They had no host, and none of the disciples had offered to wash even the Lord’s feet, let alone each others. Jesus used the moment for a teaching opportunity. When Peter protested, Jesus said he would have no part with Him unless he let Him wash him (John 13:8). Jesus also told him that what he was doing he did not understand—although His actions were plain for all to see (John 13:7). The men in the photograph probably wore socks and shoes to this “Easter” celebration and therefore did not even have filthy feet. Jesus was not instituting a new act of worship; He was demonstrating humility to His disciples (who would shortly be arguing about which of them was greatest)
So What?
Someone might wonder why this is worthy of a mention, since these types of things go on all the time. The answer is that the City on a Hill is not the entire name of that religious group; its full name is the City on a Hill Church of Christ! Most brethren might say, “What? Is it possible that a church of Christ is worshipping with instruments, observing Easter, fellowshipping denominations, and engaging in foot washing? Sad, isn’t it? One might further wonder what kind of name City on a Hill is? It’s not the name this church used for nearly forty years, nor does it describe the location.
One might also wonder just what kind of bozos preached there that this kind of apostasy could have been inaugurated. Actually, the church had many fine preachers of the Word, and the evangelist who spent the most time there (11 years) is the bozo writing this article, who preached there from 1980-1991.
“Well, didn’t you ever teach on any of these subjects?” would be an appropriate question, and the answer is a rather emphatic, “Duh!” All of my predecessors did, also. To be specific, in eleven years, I probably published articles on the origin of Easter at least three times. It, along with other traditions of men, was warned against in the course of classes or sermons dealing with Matthew 15:1-9.
What about instrumental music? Several sermons over the years were presented on the topic, but one of the most comprehensive presentations on the subject occurred when I presented the gist of the material in the Highers-Blakely Debate, which occurred April 12-15, 1988. The material was well-received; not a single member showed any hint of disagreement. The material in this book (which was published later) remains useful—especially since it highlights the various failed attempts to justify the use of mechanical instruments of music in worship to God. That material was only presented 21 years ago. Are memories so short?
The use of religious titles was often mentioned as something that was not done in the Lord’s Church, and all the members knew why. And everyone certainly knew that denominationalism was not begun by nor sanctioned by the Lord. Over the years, members studied the various sinfulness of the idea itself, as well as where teachings of various groups contradict the Bible. Beyond all of that, however, I wrote specifically about the Joplin Unity Summit when I returned from it.
A friend had asked me if I would be attending it, and I made plans to be there. Neither he nor I knew that it was by invitation only. Four “selected” men were not able to participate; so my friend asked Alan Cloyd (the coordinator for “our” side) if I could sit in one of the groups. He answered that he could not allow it because the men in the groups had been specially chosen, and it would upset the balance. He said I could attend the public lectures, however; so I came the next day and was asked by the President of the school who was hosting the event (run by the Christian Church) if I wanted to sit in a discussion group, which I affirmed.
Thus I participated in the entire event and saw how slanted things were—especially when materials by Carl Ketcherside showed up on the tables of free materials. I wrote a few things about it (and presented it to the church in Peoria), but brother Joe MacDonald actually taped several of the lectures. What occurred there is a matter of record; it was a compromising event. “Restoration Forums” have continued since 1984, but unlike the first one, faithful, sound brethren no longer attend. The overall point is that the sin of religious division was thoroughly dealt with over the years.
So What Happened?
Having left there only 18 years ago, what could have possibly happened in a short period of time? No, it was not the next preacher, who died while working with the church. The problem began with the next man who went there to preach. Radical changes soon occurred, and a significant portion of the congregation left. Race can be omitted from most stories as irrelevant, but here it plays a role.
Although the Southside Church of Christ (its original name) was begun by white families in the early 60s, it soon became integrated. My wife and I were members from 1968 until 1972, prior to beginning full-time work in Pennsylvania. If there was any disharmony in the congregation during this time of national turmoil, we never heard anything about it. We were brothers and sisters regardless of skin color.
When I moved to Southside in 1980, the congregation was about 60% white and 40% black. Again, so far as we know, no problems of race ever developed. In the early 80s a black family came to worship with us; the husband let it be known that he would like to preach on occasion, and he was given several opportunities. His approach was somewhat folksy, and we all loved to hear him speak
While he and his family were with us, some brethren from certain cities called upon me and said their goal was to hold a tent meeting and start a black congregation in Peoria. They wanted to know if Southside could help them get started. We had no money, but I said I would present it to the men. We were having a morning get-together away from the city in a quiet place, and I told them of this group’s plan. The brother who spoke frequently asked: “Why do we need a black congregation? We have one now the way it should be.” Others commented that we never discriminated against anyone and that we would study with anyone (regardless of color) who was interested in the gospel. I was grateful that the men saw things this way without even a word from me. We continued to do what we had always done, and the other group gave up their plans.
A Profile in Apostasy
A dozen years after this event Southside began to consider hiring someone to replace the brother who had died. Although both black and white preachers had held gospel meetings through the years, the local evangelist had always been white. Some of the brethren asked if they could consider hiring a black, and the answer was, “Of course.” In fact, I recommended someone to them, but he ended up not moving there.
At last, they found someone, but a few members wondered about his soundness. Another former preacher and I checked on him and found some things that sent up red flags, which we conveyed to the brethren, but they asked him to come and work with them anyway. He made some changes quickly.
First, he changed the office from the front of the building, where it had been for two decades, to one of the classrooms also serving as an entrance to the baptistery. No, it was not more spacious; it was the same size. The reason for the change was that he wanted to remain in the room until it was time for him to speak. He did not participate in the singing, the prayers, or even in the Lord’s Supper. He remained in the office until it was time for him to speak; then he made his entrance. Many of the brethren thought that this practice was designed to exalt him rather than Jesus and that it was not Scriptural to behave in such a manner.
But worse yet was that he encouraged the church to clap their hands while singing spiritual songs designed to praise God. Brethren began protesting that such a practice was clearly not Scriptural, but his response was, “Things are going to be different here now.” Well, they were. Just as brethren were ill-treated 100 years ago by those who would have the instrument no matter what, those who objected here were ignored. Many could not conscientiously worship under such conditions; so they started meeting with other congregations in the area.
Although one black family and one single mother left, the majority of those leaving were white. Suddenly, they were racist—even though they had unanimous-ly voted to hire this man. The preacher tried several times to get the single mother to return, telling her that those white folks didn’t care anything about her. Hmm. Who was the racist, do you suppose? He continued there for more than five years. Eventually, he was arrested on charges of molesting his step-daughter; he didn’t last much longer after that. How many sermons did they hear during this time to remind them that denominationalism was sinful and that Christians must only do in worship what God has authorized? The problem was not that he was black; the problem was that he was liberal. Then the congregation hired their current “Reverend-pastor,” who got them to change the congregation’s name and turn their back on efforts made by all the sound preachers in the past.
Why didn’t those who remained during this decade of change stand up and say, “We were taught better than this”? Perhaps some did, but the congregation has degenerated into what is now little more than a denomination. They have forgotten their past. They have forgotten those who established the church on the south side of Peoria in a storefront building. They probably cannot give a single name of the original elders and deacons of that congregation, all but one of which has passed on.
They have probably forgotten all the faithful brethren of both races that worked hard year after year to make Southside a flourishing congregation. The names of the preachers who labored there, such as Arlen Campbell (who baptized me), Don Flanagan, Kenneth Dinkins, Ted Clarke, James Lowrie, and this writer are probably nearly unknown at this point. Even the name of the church has been changed.
Hypocrisy
Yes, there is a reason for supplying all these details. Of course, the Journal Star might not have been as impressed with this page one story if they had done a background check, but publishing pertinent facts has never been their forte. This “news” story is not just the account of two different churches having a unity love fest. It’s a story of racial harmony. What? It begins:
The racial lines that once separated two churches— one black, one white—were blurred on Sunday….
That gap, created by differences in culture, tradition, ethnicity and a roughly 25-minute drive, was nearly unnoticeable as the two congregations joined hands and voices under the roof of Washington Christian Church (A1).
What the story fails to mention is that for three decades there was racial harmony every week in the building that City on the Hill now occupies. Yet the newspaper staff has no clue. They think it is wonderful that a “black” congregation and a “white” one got together for one day. During the thirty years that differences in culture, tradition, and ethnicity were irrelevant in a racially mixed congregation, the newspaper never bothered to report on it, but now it has suddenly become a hot item.
Sounding like Rubel Shelly, “Rev.” Preston mentioned that there are differences between the two religious groups, “but we come together to focus on what we have in common rather than what sets us apart” (A1). That’s not hard to figure. What they have in common is that neither group respects what the Lord taught concerning Biblical authority. And if Preston would like to focus on our differences (say, in a public debate), this writer would be glad to accommodate him. Perhaps it could be held in Peoria.
A comment made by one of the members of the former Southside Church, however, reeked of hypocrisy. Perhaps I should be kinder and suggest that she has just forgotten a few things—such as that she was part of an integrated congregation for years. The newspaper article says that she drove to the “Easter” service with her husband to help “set an example” for other churches divided by race (A9). Hah! Are you kidding me? She continued: “This is what we all need to be doing. When we get up to heaven, the color of our skin won’t matter. We’re going to be mixed together.” It will be the case for those going to hell, also!
If skin color doesn’t matter and she is so interested in unity, why did she and others not care that all the whites had to leave Southside for conscience’ sake? Why didn’t that matter? How many did she call to encourage them to stay? How often did she plead with the preacher, “Listen, you may not think this is a big deal, but several people have left because of it”? “Have you thought about studying whether the practice is right or not? And even if you think it is, can’t we forego it during worship so that we can remain united, as we always have been?”
Platitudes about racial harmony ring a little hollow in light of reality. The newspaper may have got snookered on this phony racial harmony story. It was just a gathering of black liberals with white liberals—for unscriptural practices.
Hebrews 11 lists many of the heroes of the faith, such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, Gideon, and David—men whose deeds are well-known. Yet the man whose name heads the list was not known for leading brave men against an overwhelming enemy, capturing a city, or delivering God’s people out of slavery. In fact, very few words are devoted to Abel in the book of Genesis.
We know that he was born after his brother Cain and that he was a keeper of sheep (Gen. 4:2). The text also says that Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat to the Lord, which were accepted (v. 4). The last thing we read concerning him is that he was talking to his brother in a field when Cain murdered him (v. 8). With so little being recorded about him, why does he top the list of faithful men?
First, the length of time one serves God is not a factor in determining his salvation. Nothing indicates that he would have ever been anything other than a man of faith had he not been deprived of his future life. As it was, he died in full fellowship with God, his sins having been forgiven. What, then, demonstrates his faith?
By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks (Heb. 11:4).
Only one thing is mentioned as a criterion for Abel’s faithfulness—his correct worship. Since what he did was by faith, and faith comes by the hearing of the Word of God (Rom. 10:17), Abel was responding to something that God had commanded him to do. The writer of Hebrews explains further just a few verses later when he mentions the “sprinkling of blood” in connection with Abel (12:24). As good as what he offered was, it could not do what the blood of Christ did, and the two are contrasted.
Under the Law of Moses, the sprinkling of blood was done for the mercy seat, the Holy Place, the altar of burnt offering, the book, and the people (Lev. 16:15-19; Heb. 9:19-22). We do not know if Abel sprinkled the blood upon himself, an altar, or both when he gave his offering. While it is true that, under the Law of Moses, this sprinkling of blood was done, it can hardly be a surprise that under the Patriarchal system blood sacrifices were also required, since “without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22).
The writer of Hebrews also tells us that the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin (Heb. 10:4); the animal blood served as a type of that shed by Christ: “Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12). The fact is that blood has always been required for the purging of sins, whether under the Law or prior to the law when God first created the world. But the blood of sprinkling offered by Christ speaks better things than that which was offered by Abel (Heb. 12:24).
Why then is Abel listed as a hero of the faith? The answer is that he obeyed God by giving Him the kind of sacrifice He required. How simple is that! Although Cain did give God an offering of his own, which undoubtedly did cost him something (and perhaps was even a heartfelt gift), nevertheless, it was not what God had required. Therefore, God rejected it. It contained no blood with which to purge sins.
Abel is, therefore, referred to as faithful because he worshipped God the way God required. Something so uncomplicated should be imitated. God considers as faithful those who worship as He has commanded. Not a few take the approach that Cain did—they give to God what pleases them. Since the beginning of the world, mankind has never learned this lesson: Man the creature cannot worship God the Creator as he wishes.
Man’s Thinking
No sooner did God give a command than man began to deliberate on how important it really was and how many variations to the command could be found. If God said He wanted a blood sacrifice, a man with the PETA mentality came along to see if just the fruit of the ground would suffice. It did not. If God specified a fire that he wanted used with the censers, Nadab and Abihu wondered whether or not the source of the fire really mattered. It did (Lev. 10:1-2).
When God said that He wanted no graven images, Israel decided just weeks later to see if He really meant it; He did. If God specified that the Levites should be priests, Jeroboam speculated that it would probably be all right to make priests from any of the other tribes, also. It was not. In fact, the changes he made in worship were called “a great sin” (2 Kings 17:21).
Notice that none of these examples involves deep theological thinking. All Cain had to do was offer a blood sacrifice. All Nadab and Abihu had to do was use the fire God had specified rather than some other fire of their own choosing. All Jeroboam or any of the kings who followed him needed to do was to destroy the golden calves (in Dan and Bethel) and be certain that only the Levites served as priests.
Simplicity
No, man has not grown any wiser in the 21st century. God says for the men to exercise leadership in worship (1 Tim. 2:8-14), but today’s churches want an “expanded” role for women. So now they are deaconesses and Scripture readers, treasurers, and (in denominations) evangelists.
God commanded us to sing, but people say, “Let’s use instruments of music, or we will lose our young people” (as if they cannot understand the principle of authority taught in Colossians 3:17).
God says that He wants the local church to be organized under elders and deacons (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1), and most religious groups assume that He is happy with the “pastor” system under which they operate.
God says that the church is be supported by members giving as they have been prospered (2 Cor. 9:6-7), and many assume that means having fundraisers.
God says that His people must live righteously in order for their prayers to be heard (Ps. 66:18; cf. I John 1:5-7), and many think that means that they only have to be holy while they are in the assembly—that how they dress and behave outside is irrelevant.
People do not stand condemned for not comprehending the deep subjects found in the Bible. The fact is that we do not follow the things that are easy to understand. All that God requires is that we do what He said in the way He said it. Are you Abel?
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT
Gary W. Summers
[Editor’s note: Religion and politics don’t mix—right? Okay; so in general we do not write political articles, and this is not one, either. We do, however, devote attention to moral issues, which sometimes intersect with the realm of political activity. This is one of those occasions. As always, we are only speaking of things that can be documented.]
Dear Mr. President,
On Wednesday, August 19th, of the past week, you called upon religious leaders to help you promote the truth about your health care reforms. You said that people were mischaracterizing the issue and that there were
fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation, and that is that we look out for one another, that I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper, and in the wealthiest nation on Earth right now, we are neglecting to live up to that call.
First, I want to thank you, Mr. President, for consulting with religious leaders. I have been preaching for 43 years with the primary goal of saving the souls of men. You are correct, of course, in saying that we are our brother’s keeper, a fact ironically introduced by the first murderer on earth. When God asked Cain about his brother, he asked that famous question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen. 4:9). The entire Bible answers this question, “Yes.”
Jesus healed people wherever He went (Mark 6:54-56) and taught that love means compassion (Matt. 25:31-46). Since you have sought the thinking of religious leaders and have shown familiarity with some of the Scriptures, I am emboldened to provide my insight into a few Biblical subjects, which I pray that you will consider carefully.
Since you have spoken of moral and ethical obligations, could you explain how you reconcile those words (and your seeking the help of religious leaders) with your position in favor of abortion—even late term abortion? The Bible teaches respect for human life. One of the Ten Commandments that God gave to Israel was: “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13; all quotations are from the New King James).
The only question that is relevant to the topic of abortion would be: “Is what is in the womb alive?” We read in Genesis 25:22 that the twin sons in Rebekah’s womb “struggled together within her.” A prophecy of the two brothers follows. Can any theologian or politician argue that they were not alive? Yet your director of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, would have approved Dr. Tiller’s murder of those twins.
Is there no moral obligation to keep children alive until the time of their birth? How about John the Baptizer in Luke 1? His mother was an older woman who had been barren for many years when she conceived. Mary, the mother of Jesus, went to visit her, and the babe (the Greek word is brephos) leaped in Elizabeth’s womb, thus indicating life (Luke 1:41, 44). Would it have been murder if Elizabeth had decided to have an abortion? If it would have been in her case, then why is it not in the case of all other children?
Perhaps none of the religious leaders that you have consulted with have ever mentioned it to you, Mr. President, but the same Greek word that refers to the babe in the womb also is used by the Holy Spirit to refer to a ‘fetus’ that has been born. In Luke 2:12 and 16 Jesus was a “Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger.” The same Greek word (brephos) that is used of John before birth is used to describe the child Jesus after His birth.
While I am on the topic of morality, sir, and since you brought up Biblical language and teaching, will you not consider what the Bible teaches about homosexuality? Paul, the inspired apostle, selected personally by Jesus (Acts 9), said that the practice involves “vile passions” and that it is “against nature” (Rom. 1:26). In fact, Paul also says that this “shameful” practice results from men who “did not like to retain God in their knowledge” (Rom. 1:27).
The purpose of bringing up this topic is not to encourage some kind of legislation to outlaw the practice, but neither do we think that government should encourage an immoral practice such as homosexuality. Let me exhort you to continue to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. As you know, Mr. President, God created, in the beginning, one woman for one man for life. You and your wife and daughters are a model of the type of family God had in mind at the Creation. Two people of the same gender being “married” makes a mockery of God’s Divine design. Please hold firm on this issue.
You might wonder why I should spend so much time on these other moral issues; the reason is this. The Bible teaches that, if one part of it is upheld, then all parts must be upheld. Consider these verses:
For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, is guilty of all. For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law (James 2:10-11).
The application is easy to see. If you urge people to be their brother’s keeper, you cannot at the same time encourage murder (abortion) or immorality (homosexuality). Anyone who appeals to the Scriptures for moral authority must be subject to and abide by all that the Word of God teaches.
Can religious leaders count on your support on these moral matters? But now, let us return to the health care issue which began this discussion. You have called upon us to help fight the misinformation that is out there. To be sure, many people are protesting the plan and are worried about some of the provisions. Many have taken the time to actually read the 1,018 pages of HR3200 or the 615 pages of the Senate version. Some may have drawn incorrect conclusions, and we would all like to clear up any misconceptions there might be, if we can.
Once again, you used the Biblical terminology, decrying the use of those who have been “bearing false witness” against your health care plan. At this point, however, things become a little murky—because on August 11th, when you were in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, you said, “I have not said that I was a single payer supporter.” That sentence seems straightforward. You said you had not said you were a single-payer supporter.
The problem is that in 2003, you said, “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer, universal health care plan. That’s what I’d like to see.” In 2007 you said, “But I don’t think we’re going to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade or 15 years out or 20 years out.”
You made it clear in 2003 that you are a proponent of a single payer, universal health care plan, and in 2007 you made it clear that you wanted to do away with employer coverage, yet on August 11th you said you have never said that you are a single payer supporter. Uh, sir, are you bearing false witness against yourself?
Mr. President, some of us are confused. For all we know, you may be confused, since you are contradicting yourself. May I make a suggestion? It might be wise to step back and learn specifically what the American people want. It does seem that some reforms would be beneficial, but most people are suspicious of a bill requiring two reams of paper to print. God has given us everything that pertains to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3) in fewer than 400 pages of the New Testament!
Why not take the time to figure out if the American people want a health care system that is run by our government—or if we want one that allows for competition between various companies? Right now it looks as though the majority of people do not want either the House or Senate plan in their current forms. We do not need meetings where people are hostile and are shouting at each other; we need quiet discussion and deliberation on what is best for the citizens of this country.
If you are still reading, thank you for your patience. A predecessor of yours, George Washington, observed the connection between this nation’s success and morality: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports….” Thank you for bringing morality to the forefront of discussion. May the Bible continue to influence you and your administration (Acts 20:32).
Too often it happens that someone desires to avoid hell and gain the promise of heaven; so they are baptized and somehow think that this action is sufficient to save them regardless of what else they do or do not do. Even though they have been taught about being added to the church and becoming a working part of a local congregation, they remain aloof. Even though they have been taught about the Lord’s expectation of spiritual growth on their part, they do not grow. Many remain under-developed and may not even know it. Below, then, is a test to determine if you’re a D.U.D.
1. True – False. “I care more about what a congregation has to offer me and my family than what all of us can bring to the church.” If you honestly answered true, have you ever thought that, perhaps, your attitude leans toward selfishness? The church consists of members who are people just like you. If everyone had the attitude that you have, there would be no programs of any kind because everybody would be waiting for someone else to do something. The only way anything gets done is through volunteers who have a commitment to their Lord and to the well-being of the local congregation. By working together we function as the body of Christ should (1 Cor. 12:12-27).
2. True – False. “If there are not any children that are my children’s age, I will try to find a larger congregation.” If everyone had the same attitude, wouldn’t that pretty much insure that small congregations would remain small and large congregations would stay large? Have you ever thought that if you stayed with your family, the next family who came would be more likely to stay since your children were there? If no one takes the first step to build up the youth population, how will it ever happen? Have you not thought of the idea that you could work to bring other young people who know your children? Your family could be a catalyst rather than a disappointment.
3. True – False. “I make encouraging comments to others to help build them up and keep my negative comments to myself.” If that is false, you are not helping. It is not that there is no need for constructive criticism. Taking people aside to vent your complaints does not contribute to the esprit de corps of the congregation, and it makes you look bad. “I didn’t like the song leading today,” “the prayer was too long,” or “the sermons just don’t move me” may indicate that the crux of the problem is with you—not those leading in worship. Have you thought about making a positive suggestion to any of the leaders instead of whispering behind their backs?
4. True – False. “People in the congregation don’t pay enough attention to me.” If you answered true, why is that, do you suppose? How often have you made an encouraging phone call to other brethren? Have you prepared food for others when they were ill or visited them in the hospital? Have you offered to mow someone’s lawn while he was recovering from a sprained ankle or broken leg? Have you asked yourself why you expect to receive kindness if you have never shown any (Pr. 18:24)?
5. True – False. “I am more of a positive influence than a problem.” If you can be depended upon each week to be present for worship and to participate in the various activities of the congregation (unless illness prevents you), may your tribe increase. If it is false, shouldn’t you determine to do better? People should not have to leave worship each week wondering where brother absent and sister sluggish are. Elders must give account for the souls of the members. Do you make it easy or difficult for them (Heb. 13:17)? If they were discussing your absence, would they be saying, “We’d better call him immediately; he never misses worship” or “That’s the third absence this month; what else is new?” Are you an asset or a liability?
What Is a Disciple?
According to the Scriptures, certain things are to be true of those who are disciples of Christ. It is simply stated in Matthew 8:23: “Now when He got into a boat, His disciples followed Him.” The key word is followed. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, a disciple is a “person who subscribes to the teachings of a master and assists in spreading them.” In other words, he is a follower and evangelistic (by definition). The contrapositive form of this statement (which is always true) is: “He who does not follow what his master teaches and does not help to spread those teachings is not a disciple.”
It is important to note what Jesus taught His followers in Matthew 10:24-25a: “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his master.” What are the implications of these words? When a disciple is being taught, he may have questions about teachings he does not fully understand; so he asks questions for clarification. What he does not do, however, is disagree. He cannot place his opinions and judgments above his master’s—first because he is a follower, and, second, because the master is wiser than the pupil.
Therefore, non-involvement with the church is not an option. The brethren at Corinth had a lot of problems, but this one was not one of them. They were eager to be present to worship—and just as eager to be the center of attention by exercising their spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12). They were rude to each other and divisive, and these problems had to be corrected. But they were not apathetic and lazy. They were true disciples, as shown by the corrections that they made when Paul rebuked them for their errors. They improved themselves from being very imperfect to gaining a level of maturity.
Forsaking the assembling of ourselves together is not the mark of a disciple. How can one be a learner if he is not present to be edified? How can one assist in spreading the teachings of Christ if he does not first know them himself? Furthermore, how can one be a disciple when he does not practice what his master taught? Jesus exercised compassion on the sick, healing them wherever He went. Today, Christians do not have the ability to heal, but they can still express compassion on those who have various needs (Matt. 25:21-46).
Your goal, then, is not to disagree with your Master, but to follow Him. Not doing what He taught is not only foolish (Matt. 7:21-27), it is dangerous and indicates that you are not a disciple at all. As Luke records, “A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher” (6:40). While genuine disciples know that at times they will fall short of the goals the Lord has set before them, they must also realize that they cannot just ignore them and still be called disciples.
Besides following Jesus and not disagreeing with Him, discipleship involves other elements. First is commitment (Luke 14:26-33). The time to make that decision is at the point of initial obedience. Yes, Jesus wants to give you salvation, but He expects commitment out of you, also. You don’t find that in many “sinner’s prayers.” Those concocted salvation promises were invented by men, not God, and are barely more than slogans. Most of them say nothing of repentance, although a few do. All of them omit baptism, which the Scriptures never do, and none of them say anything about commitment or counting the cost in becoming a disciple. Those statements have no other goal in mind than to try to impart salvation cheaply. They are disgraceful and an insult to the Holy Spirit who inspired the New Testament! God is interested in those who diligently seek Him—not those who passively and momentarily want salvation.
Second, a disciple is one who continues in the Word of the Master (John 8:31-32). No one becomes a follower of Jesus by displaying a casual interest in spiritual concerns. One must read the teachings of Christ, meditate upon them, think about their meaning, and then walk and abide in them (1 John 1:7). There are no shortcuts to spiritual growth.
An absolute requirement, third, is meeting with the saints for worship, as is described in Acts 20:7 and required in Hebrews 10:25. A young disciple needs to be taught by those who are older in the faith and encouraged by his older brothers and sisters. A true disciple does not say (unless a health issue is involved), “Shall I go to worship this morning or stay home and catch up on sleep or various projects?” To intentionally determine to be somewhere else or do something else is to disagree with the Master who built the church and is Head over it (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22-23).
True disciples, fourth, have love for one another (John 13:34-35). But how can that love be expressed if you isolate yourself from the assemblies and activities of the church? A great many things can happen in a week’s time. The one who misses a couple of Lord’s days may have missed a great deal. How embarrassing it is to be one of few who do not know (due to willful absences) of a serious medical condition that has befallen a brother or sister! You cannot exercise the proper love and care for your brethren if you choose to be absent when all the other brethren are meeting.
Fifth, Jesus expects certain actions on the part of His disciples; He said: “By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples” (John 15:8). Bearing fruit is not accidental; it results from purposeful efforts. It results from the spreading of the Master’s teachings. Other people may decide to become Christians based on what they see in your life and what they read in the Scriptures. You cannot convert others if you yourself are lukewarm and uncommitted. You cannot afford to be a stumbling block to another (Luke 17:1-2); you must walk as closely with God as you can.
A Disciple Under Development (Excellent!), (DUDE)
The good news is that you don’t have to be a DUD; you can go from being a DUD to a DUDE. Everyone has free will, and God has given you the time to repent! If you have grown slack in your worship and service of Him, why not determine to become a disciple all over again? It may be that you once had a strong determination to love Jesus, your Lord, but over time, and confronted by various problems, you allowed yourself to slip (Heb. 2:1-4). Don’t become complacent! Hell is still hot, and heaven makes a much better eternal dwelling place. Sin is just as real as it was when you first obeyed the gospel, and you are still in need of salvation from it. Repent and become a disciple again. There remains much work to do in the kingdom!
TRUTHS WE MUST FACE
Marvin Weir
Would it not be wonderful if all at the age of accountability could see Satan for the master deceiver that he is? The warning is clearly sounded forth by Paul:
“…for even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of light. It is no great thing therefore if his ministers also fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works” (2 Cor. 11:14-15).
The devil is no one’s friend; he works day and night “seeking whom he might devour” (1 Pet. 5:8). Satan encourages everyone to take a “lighthearted” approach toward sin, but the wise man tells us: “Righteousness exalteth a nation; But sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34). This is a truth that we must face!
If we are going to make the world a better place in which to live we must take seriously the responsibility of training our young people in the way of the Lord. The wise man again reminds us: “Train up a child in the way he should go, And even when he is old he will not depart from it” (Prov. 22:6). This is a general rule that does not prohibit freedom of choice. A child who has been properly trained at least has a good foundation to which he can return. Paul said to young Timothy: “And that from a babe thou hast known the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3: 15). Failure to properly train children when they are young meets with the devil’s approval. This is a truth that we must face!
There was a time when the home, the school, and the community demanded that young people comply with a higher standard of morals. The truth is that such a standard of morality has eroded at an alarming rate the past several decades, and many young minds no longer have a conscience that convicts them of wrong-doing! The teaching of the Bible and its sacred principles is the only solution to successfully combat the problem of immorality. The Psalmist states: “Thy word have I laid up in my heart, that I might not sin against thee” (Psa. 119:11). Young Timothy is instructed: “Take heed to thyself, and to thy teaching. Continue in these things; for in doing this thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee” (1 Tim. 4:16). Without God’s Word to anchor a young person’s life, he is like a ship that has broken away from its mooring. This is a truth that we must face!
The things written in the Old Testament were written for our learning (Rom. 15:4). One cannot help but give thought to the period of time when judges were raised by God to deliver God’s people who had been brought to their knees because of sinful living. The book of Judges ends with this sad commentary of the people: “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).
What about many who profess to be Christians today? The world continues to influence far too many members of the Lord’s church instead of those members influencing the world. So many times Christian parents “give in” to the demands and peer pressures of a worldly society and thus teach these compromised standards to their children. One preacher states it like this:
“Styles of dress have changed to include the acceptance of nudity; filthy language is promoted as a mark of maturity; alcoholism is identified as a disease; fornication is labeled as an affair; and the people enter and exit marriage relationships at will.”
Friends, teaching must take place that clearly marks the above things as being contrary to the will of God and that which will prevent one from entering into the kingdom of Heaven. This is a truth that we must face!
The Bible is our pattern, and it is this very pattern that is under such vicious attack today from within and without the Lord’s church. Parents must see that the Bible is exalted in their homes; the study of this book must be demanded. The concept in the minds of many that Bible classes and Sunday evening services are optional has led to an ever-growing lack of respect for God’s Word. Parents have become so busy with secular matters that they have ceased to see that their children are involved in Bible study. It is no wonder that far more young people now find things other than the Bible far more interesting and challenging. Such is not the fault of the Bible or the church! In most cases, parents have allowed the world to influence their homes much more than the Word of God. This is a truth that we must face!
Several years ago some of the “advice” columns in the newspapers began to deteriorate as it pertains to the quality and the soundness of the opinions given. No improvements have been made over the past decade. Consider this advice from ”Dear Abby” on Wednesday, July 22nd.
The advice-seeker stated the problem in terms that were easy to understand. He and his wife visit certain friends three states away two times a year. They plan the trips well in advance; so their hosts know when they will be there. During the last three visits, their friends hosted a “swingers” party. The first time they were mortified and thought it was a joke. After being loosened up with a few rounds of drinks, the guests began to pair up with someone other than the spouses they came with and left for different rooms in the house. One attendee came on to the writer’s wife. They were not interested in participating in the swapping business, but they did not want to lose these people as friends.
Abby’s advice was to schedule the visits on a time other than Saturday (when these “parties” take place) and to plan for a specific event (such as dinner or a movie). If necessary, they could leave before Saturday. Apparently, “wisdom” such as this is based on the notion that no one is to be judgmental. Following is my response to the man who wrote for counsel.
Dear “Satisfied”: What is the matter with you? Have you never heard of the words indignant or outraged? The first time this happened you should have walked out of their home and made other arrangements for housing that evening and spoken to them about it the next day. You actually sat around while a pack of degenerates were committing adultery with each other in various rooms of the house? Doesn’t that seem “sick” to you? And then you endured the same thing twice more? What does it take to offend you? You didn’t even leave when someone propositioned your wife? Hello!
What kind of tie to these people do you have that you are willing to tolerate their immoral behavior? Have you talked to them at all about this gross immorality or quoted to them Hebrews 13:4: “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge”? Being in torment forever is not worth the paltry pleasure this lewd and lascivious behavior brings those people.
They have a lot of their own “friends” now, and they don’t need you any more. The fact that they keep scheduling these orgies during the times you visit them is a clue that they have a higher priority than your friendship (or perhaps they want you to participate with them). My advice to you is to find new friends—ones who have values more in line with yours. If they were truly your friends, they would respect you more than what they have demonstrated—GWS.
A week later (July 29) the advice on another issue was no better. This time a woman wrote about a problem with her sister who two years previously had set up college funds for her three children; the amounts now total more than $25,000 for each child. Through a strange turn of events she discovered that her sister was able to afford such generous gifts because her actual occupation is that of a porn star. She no longer wishes to receive gifts from her sister and wants to return the college fund money. Her husband, however, disagrees with her and thinks they ought to keep the money because they will probably not be able to afford college for their children, otherwise. She asks if they should return the money and if doing so would cause a rift between her and her sister.
Abby said the rift would probably ensue and that she should keep the money. Although this is bad advice, her rationale is worth looking at—as an example of the ways people try to justify sin. How sad that covetousness trumps decency!
The first reason was that returning the money would make it appear that she was rejecting her sister. So? What about her sister having rejected all the decent and wholesome values she was taught as a child? What about her rejection of the moral principles taught in the Scriptures? Besides, if she cannot understand that her “profession” is being rejected—not her as a person—then so be it. The fact that she had not been upfront about her source of income and that it had to be discovered by a bizarre set of circumstances indicates that she realizes that others would not approve.
The second excuse for keeping the money is that her children should not be penalized because she does not approve of her sister’s lifestyle. Refusing the money does not constitute penalizing the children. What if her sister had stolen the money from an armored car and donated the same amount to the children? Would refusing it under those circumstances be penalizing the children? What if a family member was part of a mafia organization that shook down business owners? If she was the wife of one of those men, would it be all right to take the money? “Of course not,” someone might say, “but those are illegal activities.” Yes, they are, and committing fornication in front of a camera is an immoral one. Are man’s laws higher than God’s laws? As long as the activity is legal, is that the determination? It’s all right to receive money donations from an abortionist, since his murdering of infants is “legal”? Or is it still blood money?
Would it be all right to accept a gift from Judas with the money he made betraying Christ? Is the sister not betraying God, who gave her life, and breath, and all things? At least one church has refused to receive a gift from someone who won the lottery. Was the congregation being penalized when that gift was refused?
The way to look at the matter is this: the children are being spared embarrassment. Imagine a group of students comparing notes on financing: “I got a scholarship in order to come here.” “I’ve got a student loan, and my parents are helping me, too.” “My aunt is a porn star, and she’s footing the bill for me to be here.” How proud the children would be! A gift can be accepted or rejected. It cannot be considered a penalty when a gift is refused if there is a sufficient reason for the rejection. Besides, what is wrong with young people working to help pay for their education?
The previous rationale implies a third point—that the letter-writer was punishing her children because of something she personally disapproved of. How sad that pornography has made such inroads in America that many view it as a legitimate industry now. Many Americans now watch such movies frequently. The fact is that pornography remains an offense against a holy God, and society is only fooling itself into thinking that it is all right. Our laws have grown weak, and our hearts have turned lascivious in order to accept such outrageous behavior. We are on the path to Genesis 6:5 and need to come to our senses. Better counsel from columnists would be helpful.
The fourth point insults the writer. Abby tells her that her husband is being pragmatic while she is being emotional. Even if this statement were true, it would not necessarily be an indictment of the woman or an endorsement of her husband. While being pragmatic often is the right thing to do, it certainly is not always. It would be pragmatic to receive money in all the immoral and ungodly circumstances previously described, but it would not be right. Jesus came to offer a better way than pragmatism. He spoke of treating others the way we would want them to treat us, which involves love but not pragmatism.
Several years ago, two Christians applied for the same job. When one was asked what he thought about the other applicant, he said, “If you hire him, you will have hired a good man.” It might have been more practical to list a fault or two, but he answered honestly and lovingly. It would have been more practical and less painful for Jesus not to come to earth and die on the cross for our sins, but He acted out of love instead.
Was the advice-seeker reacting emotionally? Possibly, but she could also have arrived at the conclusion logically. Emotion is not wrong or dangerous if it is based upon knowledge and truth (consider the wrath of God, for example)—and kept under control. But we have no evidence that the woman did not reason the situation through first. The fact that she took the time to write a letter demonstrates that she first weighed the pros and cons of her actions.
Fifth, that money has already been earned. The same thing could be said if the woman was a professional assassin; the issue is not that it was earned, but rather how it was earned.
In the sixth place, Abby says, “You are not going to change your sister.” And how does she know that? In the time of Christ there were prostitutes that gave up their profession because of the gospel of Christ. It is possible that people do things that they abhor doing—for very pragmatic reasons—namely, money. Some are forced into doing what they do; others say they are prevented from quitting, as Linda Lovelace insisted was the case with her. Some might need encouragement from a friend or loved one. Who is in the best position to bring about change in her—a sister or a total stranger?
A seventh bit of advice is to love her for the generous and caring aunt she is trying to be. Apparently, it has not occurred to Abby that sometimes people often give away money in an attempt to provide relief for their consciences. Quite often, some celebrity whom all would least expect is giving away money to an animal shelter or donating money to some worthy cause—when what made them famous was moral corruption and pollution—which often resulted in causing young people to walk in their evil ways. Some may do so just to counteract their public image; others may be experiencing a sense of guilt. In either case, when people accept their gifts, they feel validated.
For that reason a polite refusal is in order; a short (but not hostile) explanation may challenge them to think about their actions. Why would the sister (or anyone else) ever be motivated to re-examine her life when everyone accepts her just the way she is? People are so committed these days to being non-judgmental that practically no one is rebuked any more unless it is for standing up for what is true and right.
It would have been disappointing not to have heard the eighth argument from “Abby.” Her final admonition was to allow the money “to be used for something positive.” Some brethren have used this pragmatic approach, also. When some children’s homes or educational institutions have been asked why they accept money from liberal churches, they have answered, “The devil’s had that money long enough; it’s time to put it to good use.”
The problem is that the Bible teaches that giving is a matter of fellowship (Phil. 4:15-18). A number of years ago, a person who had been withdrawn from put a check in the collection plate (there had been no repentance). It was returned to him. On another occasion, a woman had been withdrawn from, and she too began to put checks into the collection plate. She too had not repented, and they were returned to her. The pragmatic approach is, “Let the money do some good,” but the acceptance of the gift constitutes endorsement of the one who gave it.
God has been known to refuse what people offered Him: “I have no pleasure in you,” says the Lord of hosts, “Nor will I accept an offering from your hands” (Mal. 1:10). Oh, dear. Was that emotional and not pragmatic? On another occasion God called those who had returned from captivity “rulers of Sodom” and the “people of Gomorrah.” Then He declared that He wanted no fellowship with them until they repented:
“To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me?” says the Lord…. “When you come to appear before Me…bring no more futile sacrifices; incense is an abomination to Me, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies—I cannot endure the iniquity of the sacred meeting. Your New Moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; they are a trouble to Me, I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean…” (Isa. 1:11-16).
If God were pragmatic, He would take worship where He could get it, but He has standards. He refuses to accept worship, including gifts, from those who are impure and unclean. How refreshing! Now admittedly, we do not always have the information that God has access to, since He knows the hearts and minds of all, but in the instances of the “swingers” and the sister who was making pornographic movies, we have quite enough information to make a righteous judgment.
So what advice should be given to the woman in place of the eight points that Abby gave her? How about the response provided below?
Dear “G-Rated Sister”: You are in an unenviable position, but this awkward situation was not caused by you. You are the one who is faced with figuring out an appropriate response.
Of course, you are uncomfortable receiving money earned from immoral conduct, and in this instance you should not be forced to go against your instincts just because it would be financially rewarding to your family.
Tell your sister that you will always love her but that you cannot condone her “occupation” because she is shaming herself and her family. She is encouraging other young women to follow in her footsteps and contributing to the decline of morality in this nation. Tell her you are calling her attention to these facts because you love her and want to see her change.
Explain to her that you do not feel right accepting gifts that were earned from her immoral acts and that you will be praying for her to leave that lifestyle.
She may not react to your frankness well at first, but give her time to digest what you are telling her. If she knows that you genuinely care for her, it may just make a difference. If she rejects you as a busybody and a self-righteous snob, at least you will know that the rift occurred because you stood for what’s right—GWS.
It is time for Christians to quit kowtowing to the non-judgmental crowd. They do not care if people know about their immoralities; why should we, as followers of Jesus, be embarrassed to declare our stand in behalf of morality? If “friends” can brazenly invite their guests to enjoy an evening of mate-swapping, why should Christians be afraid to say that such a thing is sinful and disgusting?
If people are going to engage in or watch the acts of fornication and seek acceptance for such practices, why cannot Christians point out that such things offend their Creator? God told the wicked in Psalm 50:18: “When you saw a thief, you consented with him, and have become a partaker with adulterers.” Some people may not be involved, but they do not oppose evil, either. One becomes a partaker with such by his approval and lack of opposition.
Christians are past due in saying things, such as, “I cannot condone that,” “God does not approve of such things,” or “I cannot partake or have fellowship in such ungodly activities.” How did Sodom or any city or nation get to be so thoroughly perverted? Was the reason that people were too intimidated to speak up? All Christians probably have a few moments that they wish they could do over, but it cannot happen. We might learn from past silences and be prepared to speak the next time. Often, others will agree but do not want to be the first one to speak, but if not, somebody still needs to tell the truth.
1. Believe in the one true God (Hebrews 11:6).
2. Believe in the Bible as the inspired word of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
3. Believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God (John 20:30-31).
4. Marry someone who believes in God, in the Bible as God’s inspired word, and in Jesus Christ as the Son
of God.
5. Both partners strive with all of their hearts to live a life of walking in the light of God’s word (1 John 1:7).
6. The partners in the marriage love each other as the Bible teaches (1 Corinthians 13:1-7; Ephesians 5: 22-32; Matthew 22:34-40).
7. Especially be kind and thoughtful to one another every hour of every day.
8. If one partner should be unkind to the other, then let him/her repent and lovingly apologize for having been unkind.
9. Let the one who has been wounded graciously accept the apology and forgive—without reservation— the offender.
10. Do not go to sleep at night with some antagonism between you.
11. If one spouse becomes angry, let the other strive especially hard to remain calm and in such a frame of mind as to be kind even in the face of unkindness.
12. Be thankful for each other, and thank God for each other.
13. Become a Christian [if you are not one already, gws] by obeying the Gospel of Christ (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; 22:16).
14. Live the Christian life before your children (they will very likely be a tremendous joy to you throughout your life).
15. Do not bring up the mistakes of the past—in fact, forget them!
16. Be the husband or wife to each other that Christ wants you to be—recognize your intimate responsibilities (1 Corinthians 7:1-5).
17. Be good at saying, “Thank you,” and “I’m sorry.”
18. Be good at saying, “I really appreciate what you did when you did what you did.”
19. Be good at saying, “You really look good in that dress, and your hair really looks good, and….”
20. Never leave home without an affectionate farewell; kiss and say, “I love you, dear.”
21. Never meet each other without saying something like this, “Hi, Dear, I missed you; I love you.”
22. If there is something which you do not especially like, instead of blasting out with a roar of harsh criticism, why not begin like this, “My dear, there is something I would like, and I would like to learn what your reaction to it is”—then tell what is on your mind.
23. If your spouse brings up some point of criticism, accept it with love and concern, remembering that no one is perfect and that you very likely need the criticism which he/she is giving you.
24. When you do wrong, do not hesitate to apologize for it.
25. Always remember that marriage is for life—”until death do you part”—and that the main purpose of marriage is that the two of you (husband and wife) will help each other (and your children) to live for God during earthly life and to go to heaven after this earthly life is over.
[Editor’s note: Brother Thomas B. Warren will probably most be remembered for his debates with atheists—particularly those with Antony G. N. Flew and Wallace I. Matson. Those great discussions certainly ought to be “required” reading for college students and young adults. He also wrote Have Atheists Proved There Is No God?
After his work against atheism, he might be most noted for his outstanding work on the subject of Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage. His logic was unassailable, and it held against all attempts to try to get around it. The reason for his great success in this realm was that he was setting forth what the Scriptures teach. Many have taken issue with the material he presented in Keeping the Lock in Wedlock, and even more have ignored it (doing just as they please), but no one has ever exposed a flaw in his reasoning.
Brother Warren, however, was not only concerned about unscriptural divorces and subsequent unauthorized “unions,” he was also a great encourager that first marriages succeed, as the “25 Reasons” article demonstrates. He also wrote Marriage is for Those Who Love God and One Another and edited the book Your Marriage Can Be Great! A healthy preparation for marriage and the application of Biblical principles by both partners within the marriage would prevent many of the divorces that occur each year.
Although brother Warren spent much of his time in these endeavors, he also had an excellent exchange on the subject of salvation—the necessity of baptism—in The Warren-Ballard Debate. He wrote a book years later on this all-important subject of becoming a Christian—The Bible Only Makes Christians Only—and the Only Christians, which should also be “required” reading. If the fundamental precepts contained in this book had been studied by every congregation of the Lord’s church, there would not be nearly so many churches that have become apostate.
In his spare time, brother Warren also found the time to write an assortment of other books: a devotional one (A Sun And Shield For Troubled Hearts), two on Biblical interpretation (Logic and the Bible and When Is An Example Binding?), one on anti-ism (Lectures On Church Cooperation And Orphan Homes), and one that exalted Christ (Jesus—The LAMB who is a LION).
All of his work is appreciated by many and needs to remain available; the 25 rules for marriage should be practiced by all married couples.]
ATTACKS AGAINST BROTHER WARREN
Gary W. Summers
In looking up information about brother Thomas B. Warren, I came across something called “Matthew’s Blog” and something titled, “Musings on Spiritual Matters.” Not having the time to blog or facebook or twitter or whatever, I usually ignore such things, but this article came up third under the “Warren” listing, and the introductory words were eye-catching, since the author had some sort of complaint about brother Warren.
Matthew says that, while he was at the Brown Trail School of Preaching, he reached a conclusion: “About six months into the time there, I had a realization. Warren was not right.” (Probably, he had a reaction to Warren’s materials being taught at Brown Trail.) His explanation of the statement is provided below:
But Warren was not God in giving his methodology for reasoning. Pure logic is not the only measure of Biblical interpretation. Lockian methodology is not the inspired style of logic of God. It is a man made device to facilitate reasoning. I rejected Warren’s methods because he removed emotion, grace, mercy, and the human condition from interpretation. God does not always go by the letter of the law, he also takes in account the spirit of the law.
When I finish writing a critique of these words, I plan to send it to Matthew’s Blog, and I trust he will be able to see the emotion that motivates my response even though I intend to use logic and reasoning to answer him and the other spiritual pygmies who chimed in on his blog. One wonders if they ever had the intestinal fortitude to speak to him face to face about his short-comings; they are welcome to pick on me instead, even though I am a poor substitute.
Matthew, first of all, neither brother Warren nor anyone else claimed that he was God in giving his methodology for reasoning. This expression of contempt for brother Warren, issued seven years after his death (November 30, 2007), is insulting, assumes what is not true, and is a straw man argument.
Second, did someone say that pure logic was the only measure of Biblical interpretation? Whether it is or not is irrelevant to this point: the Holy Spirit used logic in composing the Word; Jesus used logic in facing His adversaries. Do you have a problem with Warren’s use of logic or how he applied it?
Third, while it is good that you have enough education to have learned the name of John Locke, it is still the case the Jesus used logic centuries before Locke was born. Your dislike of Locke and his methods is fine—so long as you can point out the flaws with his system. Can you? Where does Locke differ from the Scriptures? Did he “invent” some principles of logic that are not Biblically sound? If so, please tell us all.
Fourth, concerning your main and unsubstantiated complaint that you “rejected Warren’s methods because he removed emotion, grace, mercy, and the human condition from interpretation,” I don’t know where you were in 1976, 1978, and 1980, but I was present for all three of Warren’s debates against atheists, in which he used logic effectively. Would you have had him stand before these men and try to emote them into accepting the truth? Few would have attended beyond the first night if all brother Warren did was talk about God’s grace and mercy rather than make his case for the existence of God. Actually, Warren expressed many emotions in the course of the debate, but his emotions were under control, as they are supposed to be.
But enough about brother Warren, Matthew; you denigrate the Lord Jesus Christ who combined grace, mercy, love, compassion, and logic in His ministry. Do you wish to accuse Him of lacking these things when He gave people either-or choices?
He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad (Matt. 12:30).
Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many there be that go in by it. Because narrow is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it (Matt. 7:13-14).
Why, just consider how much of God’s grace and compassion are lacking in these two verses. Everyone knows we’re all just trying to get to heaven and there are many roads that take us there. How “narrow”-minded to say the ultimate destinies are heaven and hell. Is that what you tell your friends, Matthew, or have you been educated beyond that? And what about the first statement? It implies that those who follow Muhammad and Buddha are against Christ and therefore lost. Or are we not going to bother with implication? Is that too Lockian?
In John 8:39 the Jews said that Abraham was their Father. Jesus responded with a logical argument: If they were truly Abraham’s children, they would have done the same works he did, but they did not. They sought to kill Him for telling them the truth—something Abraham would not have done. Simply put, Jesus is saying, If A (they were Abraham’s children), then B (they would do the same works he did). But they did not do B (since they tried to kill Him for telling the truth), therefore they were not A (Abraham’s children). This is a demonstration of the contrapositive. Matthew, do you reject this point, and is Jesus devoid of grace and mercy for reasoning this way?
Jesus made another logical argument: Those who are of God hear God. When people do not hear, the reason is that they are not of God (John 8:45-47). Jesus once again uses the contrapositive. [If a statement, such as If A, then B, is true, then its contrapositive (If not B, then not A) is also true.] Is the concept of contrapositive “a man made device to facilitate reasoning” or something that God designed when He made the universe? Does man invent logic or did God (and we just discover its operating principles)?
In Matthew 21:24, Jesus asked the chief priests and the elders whether the baptism of John was from God or from men. He gave them the horns of a dilemma, and they could not safely answer either way. If they spoke the truth (that they thought it was from men), they would have lost favor with the people who counted John as a prophet. If they answered that his baptism was from God, they would have been embarrassed, since they had not believed. So they said they did not know. (The reason most brethren do not answer questions is for this same reason—the harm that it would do them). Jesus also used implication with the Sadducees. The fact that God said, “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Ex. 3:6), proved that those patriarchs are still alive (although their bodies had died).
How about the logic used by various writers of the Bible. How often did Paul argue against error when opposing false teachers? After offering irrefutable evidence for the resurrection of Christ, Paul asks, “Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1 Cor. 15:12). Paul then enumerates several consequences of that false teaching, which are all in the form of if-then statements. Did Paul lack grace and mercy? Was he indifferent to the human condition?
What about James’ use of logic in James 2:14-16 in order to prove that believing, apart from obedience, is worthless? He first gave an illustration of failing to clothe or feed someone as a parallel of the unprofitable circumstance of believing but not obeying (James 2:14-17). Then he argued against the false notion that one person can have faith while another has works (James 2:18-20). He also provided as evidence those who believed in being justified by their works. In making these arguments, was James one of those who believed in going by the letter of the law and not taking into account the spirit of the law? Pfui!
In fact, false teachers thrive in the absence of logic. Brother Warren pointed out in his debate with Flew that Max Black, in his book on Critical Thinking, quoted from Josiah Stamp to the effect
that 400 pages of crowded fact and argument may deceive the very elect, but when reduced to a three line syllogism, will lay bare the bones of the argument and expose the fallacious reasoning involved in it (The Warren-Flew Debate 90).
Using logic does not make one a legalist, devoid of the proper spirit. One wonders what kind of spirit one has that makes him denounce it. It is often said: “No man turns against logic until it turns against him.” The proper use of logic will not lead anyone from the truth nor make him an emotionless machine; some who dismiss it could themselves use a little grace and mercy.
They came by on Tuesday evening, July 14th—only this time it was not two youngsters. As we discovered later, the older one was married with two children. He lives in the area; the younger one is a missionary from Utah. The younger began the conversation, but the older man soon became the spokesman.
They began by asking if I had read the Book of Mormon. I answered that I had written a 50-page review of it for the Spring lectures back in 2001 (392-439). They asked what I thought of it. “Do you want an honest answer?” They did. “”It was tedious at times and quoted from the King James a lot.” The speaker asked if I would want to read it again. “Once was enough.” He then affirmed, “I love to read the Book of Mormon. I plan to read it several more times.”
The Completed Revelation
When he got around to affirming that it was “another testament of Jesus Christ,” I politely disagreed, explaining that in the New Testament Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles into all truth (John 16:12-13). Peter said that God had given us all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3), and Jude said that brethren should contend for “the faith” which was once for all given to the saints (Jude 3). “If you have been given all, then there is nothing left. If you have a thousand dollars in a savings account at the bank, and you draw it ALL out, you can go back and ask for more, but you won’t get it because it is ALL gone.” They did not know how to respond.
Of course, Joseph Smith anticipated objections to the Book of Mormon. There is a section in which he writes: “Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible” (2 Nephi 29:6). The fundamental difference between Mormons and us is that they believe there is more Bible, and we do not. Their “proof” for it must be carefully considered.
Subjective Religion
The lead conversationalist said that he had posted an article on a website and received a great deal of hostile response from readers. I asked from whom? He said that most of it came from former LDS members. Really? That sounded interesting. “Yes,” he continued, “They keep saying that if you trust in your own heart, you’re a fool.” I told him, “They are referring to Proverbs 28:26, which warns against trusting your feelings.” He insisted that God had revealed to him that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is true.
Such is hardly surprising. When a child is taught from his youth to believe those two things, and then he prays to God as to whether or not those are facts, what kind of outcome would anyone expect? Naturally, he imagines that God has confirmed what he has learned from his parents and their church.
“But that evidence is subjective. Even if God told you that, how does that help me?” I picked up a book off the coffee table, written by Bill Wiese, with the short title, Hell. “His original book was called 23 Minutes in Hell, and this one is the sequel. He claims that God showed him what hell is like. He was able to observe and sense all that occurs there—the torment and agony of the people. He claims that God revealed these things to him—just as you say God told you the Book of Mormon is genuine. If we had some Pentecostals with us, they would all have occasions to share with us in which God spoke to them, also. Now how is anyone going to discern between all these messages?”
No one ever comes up with a very good answer to that one. Sometimes, a person will say, “If the message is in harmony with the Scriptures, then it is from God.” But Mormons cannot say that because they have teachings that conflict with the Bible.
Celestial Marriage
The leader brought up one of those subjects to explain why we need additional revelation. Mormons believe in earthly marriage, but you can also marry someone for time and eternity. “Wouldn’t it be great to know that you can be with your wife forever?” he asked. “Yes, it’s a nice thought, but Jesus said that in heaven there is no marriage.” “Sure, He said that, but He was just answering the Sadducees, who didn’t believe in the resurrection.”
He moved quickly to another statement, but one should not gloss over this text. It is true that Sadducees did not believe in angels or in the resurrection, and Jesus did prove from the Scriptures that the spirit does not die with the body by quoting God as saying, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob” (Ex. 3:6). In order to trap Jesus, they had asked: Whose wife would the widow be in the resurrection, since all seven brothers had married her? Mormons would answer today, “Why, she would be a wife to the one she married for time and eternity.” Jesus, however, said: “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven” (Matt. 23:30).
That last sentence is undoubtedly for those who might argue, “Okay, you can’t get married in heaven, but if on earth, you marry for time and eternity, then you enter into heaven already married.” Nice try, but it remains the case that angels are not married, period, and neither shall we be. What would be the purpose? Marriage on earth is to satisfy sexual needs and to procreate. Spiritual, resurrected bodies do not have sexual needs, and procreation had no purpose in heaven. Of course, two people who were married for a number of years may be allowed to be with each other. Mormons, however, have a more fleshly view of eternity, but the conversation did not drift in that direction.
The All-Sufficiency of the Scriptures
In light of the claim that the Bible does not contain all revelation, I returned to the point about its sufficiency. “The Bible is equipped to deal with everything in life that we need. There is no false doctrine that it does not defend against.”
“Oh, but the Bible says that we don’t have everything that Jesus taught—that if it were all written down, even the world itself could not contain it all.”
“Many people think that the text says that, but let’s turn to John 21:25 and read the text.” Of course, it makes the claim that if everything Jesus did were recorded, the world would probably not be able to contain it all (which is a hyperbole). After showing them this text, I reiterated that the Bible is sufficient—that no false doctrine or moral issue has been raised that the Bible does not deal with. They did not have an answer for that statement, nor could they think of a single issue that the Bible does not deal with.
Contradiction
A portion of the discussion centered on contradiction. I asked the men how it was that in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith emphatically taught monogamy but said that polygamy was acceptable in Doctrines and Covenants. Their initial response was that sometimes conditions change and that God has more to say. They suggested that God can change His mind on any particular subject at any given time.
We granted that in times past God had allowed some things that are no longer acceptable to Him. For example, in the Patriarchal Age, God allowed Jacob to marry Leah and Rachel and have their handmaids as wives, also. Under the Law, however, Moses specifically prohibited a man from marrying two sisters (Lev. 18:18). God allowed polygamy and divorce under the Old Law, but in the New Testament Jesus restored the original pattern that God established in Genesis—one man and one woman for life—with the proviso that divorce be allowed only for unfaithfulness.
This admission, however, does not mean that God flip-flopped all over the place. The new covenant reflects the highest level of morality. It is unthinkable that God, under the Christian system, would authorize men to go back under the inferior system of polygamy. Yet that is what Joseph Smith authorized in his Doctrines and Covenants (in order to satisfy his own lusts). Furthermore, nothing in the New Testament anticipates a new covenant. Under the Law are prophecies of a new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34) and a new Lawgiver (Deut. 18:18-19). The New Testament predicts no new covenant but rather teaches that it is complete.
What is the purpose of a new “covenant”? As it has often been pointed out: 1) If it says less than the New Testament, it says too little and has omitted part of the whole counsel of God; 2) If it says more than the New Testament, it says too much and assumes as true what God did not put in it (the doctrine of marriage for time and eternity, for example); 3) if a new testament teaches the same as the original, then it is unnecessary.
Sooner or later a “new revelation” will contradict what the Bible teaches, or there is no purpose for having it. Those who are content with what God has revealed do not try to add new material to it. One of two things is usually the case. The first is that some want their own disciples (Acts 20:28-32). The way to have one’s own personal following is to have a new, slightly different (and better, no doubt) message.
The second reason for a different covenant is so that a person may do the thing he desires to do, whatever it might be. It may be a means of obtaining wealth. It may be a means of satisfying sexual desires. Inevitably, it results in the glorification of someone other than the Lord. When a conflict arises between the Bible and a cult leader, the charismatic person who has the ability to con people wins easily. How sad that people choose a personality over the truth!
Why differences?
The leader of the two men asked why there was so much division in the religious world. “Isn’t it because of different interpretations?” he suggested. It slowed him down a little when I answered, “Not always. Sometimes the reason is that people do not want to hear the truth; sometimes it interferes with their morality, or it just might be that they were taught error by someone they trusted.”
“That’s true,” he acknowledged, “but often it is interpretation. Wouldn’t is be nice to have someone to resolve those difficulties?” He was heading toward the need of latter-day revelation and perhaps the need for apostles as well. “We do have a way of knowing the truth; the Scriptures provide all the information we need.” When he brought up something about miracles, I mentioned that those had been done away with.
He looked shocked, probably because so many religious groups teach error on the subject. “When were they done away?” I tried to explain briefly, “The miracles were for a purpose, to show that what Jesus taught was the truth—especially concerning the fact that he is Divine, the Son of God.” He did not disagree with that, but then asked, “What about the apostles?” Continuing, I mentioned how that the people needed a reason to believe the apostles, also. But when the New Testament was completely revealed, then the means by which God revealed it (through the various spiritual gifts) was no longer needed. Miracles to confirm it were no longer needed (Mark 16:20).
“But didn’t the church need the Holy Spirit to tell them what books were inspired? Didn’t some council make the determination as to what books belonged in the Bible and what ones did not?” “Yes, a council did meet, but they only recognized what men had already determined. There were marks of authenticity that brethren went by as the letters were circulated.” He interjected: “So they had a checklist?”
“I don’t know that they had a checklist. But most of the documents had been around a long time and been accepted by the church from the very beginning as being inspired of God. For a few books, it may have had something to do with their harmony with the others. Obviously, if a purported work were not written until the second century, it was too new to be considered. If it contained contradictions or foolishness, it was also dismissed.”
“But don’t you need apostles or the Holy Spirit to make those decisions?” I asked him: “Do you believe in the Biblical doctrine of Providence?” He was quick to answer that he did. “Then, don’t you think God could have made certain that all of the inspired books were included and that those that were not His were left out?” He had to admit that it was possible. People today are often too quick to conclude that the only way God can do something is directly; the fact is that He is not restricted by the instantaneous and the immediate.
Evidence
The discussion returned to the subject of proof for the message being taught. ”How do I know who to believe?” I asked again. “Do I believe your confirmation that Joseph Smith is a prophet? Or do I believe this man who claims to have been in hell? Or do I believe the Pentecostals—even though they cannot agree amongst themselves? The Trinitarian Pentecostals believe that there are three in the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), but the Oneness Pentecostals only believe that there is one in the Godhead—namely Jesus. They both claim to do miracles, and they cannot even agree with each other! All of these have a basis in subjectivism, rather than the objective Word of God.”
They did not have an answer for that question, except to reassure me that they were right. I should have asked them, “What do you say to all of these others who claim to have the Holy Spirit guiding them when they say God told them the Book of Mormon was not genuine?” Instead, I told them about the Mormon foreman I used to work for. He did not like to be called a Mormon because he was from the Re-Organized Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, which was based in Independence, Missouri. They were not thrilled about this “renegade” group, saying that they did not even believe in the Book of Mormon any more. They missed the point about having miracles, and in this case, even apostles, and still not being united.
They probably decided they were not getting anywhere with me; so they arose to leave. The leader said: “I was rebellious until about seven years ago when I asked God if Joseph Smith was His prophet. My life has definitely changed for the better. There’s great satisfaction in knowing you are going the right way.” This last attempt at a testimonial did not have the desired effect. I responded with a smile and repeated, “When you are going the right way” (with the emphasis on right).
He had said the part about Joseph Smith with such intensity that I later thought, “What a shame!” His faith is bound up in a subjective experience rather than in the Word of God. And what would happen to him if someone convinced him that Joseph Smith was a fraud? Would his faith be destroyed? Would he revert to the rebellious state he said that he was in? In all likelihood, he would remain with his Mormon beliefs despite the evidence because his faith is tied up in it. But Jesus never said, “Unless you believe in Joseph Smith, you shall die in your sins” (John 8:24).
How does such a mortal scoundrel command such loyalty more than 160 years after his death? Alexander Campbell, who was alive when The Book of Mormon was first published in 1830 and also knew Smith’s background, wrote of him and the Book of Mormon:
Smith, its real author, as ignorant and impudent a knave as ever wrote a book, betrays the cloven foot in basing his whole book upon a false fact, or a pretended fact, which makes God a liar (392).
Anyone reading Shernel’s entire document would find that he seldom commented on any of the evidence presented to him. For example, in Part Three of the original series, a great deal of information and analysis was presented about the use of the Sabbath day in the New Testament. He failed to comment on any of that material; it was simply ignored, but he did reassert some points—without any evidence.
“The Sabbath was instituted on the sixth day of creation. It was given to mankind. No Jews existed yet” (5). First of all, God did not institute the Sabbath on the sixth day; it was the seventh. Second, He sanctified it, but nothing indicates that He gave it to mankind. Here is what the text says:
And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made (Gen. 2:2-30).
All we can do is to repeat what was in Part Three:
It is not the case, however, that God gave the Sabbath to man at that time. …there is no evidence that He “gave” it—even to Adam and Eve. In fact, the word Sabbath does not even appear until Exodus 16:23—2,500 years after the Creation. God does not record that Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or Moses ever kept the Sabbath until the children of Israel left Egypt (3).
When someone cannot answer the position he has set forth—but only repeat himself—perhaps it is time to consider that his position is false. He cannot cite any Scripture to support what he has written.
His only comment is: “Where is your proof about the Patriarchs not keeping the Sabbath?” Apparently, Shernel is so unfamiliar with argumentation that he does not realize that when he makes an assertion, he is the one who must produce the evidence. When he says that God gave it to mankind, it is incumbent upon him to show the command to Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc. In the absence of a command, he needs to provide an example of them keeping the Sabbath. Failing that, he must find something that implies it—something like: “Abraham could not travel the following day, for it was a day of rest.” He can find none of these as proof of his assertion and then wonders how I can prove they did not do it! Amazing! He cannot establish that anyone observed the Sabbath prior to Exodus 16:23, and he knows it. This is so much subterfuge on his part.
He says that the Creator “commands us to remember to keep it holy.” Really? Where is that command? Israel had it (Ex. 20:8-11). It was a sign between Him and them (Ex. 31:16-17). But where is the commandment that shows it is part of the Christian age? The fact that Jesus taught that people should keep it in His day is insufficient because He lived and died under the Law of Moses. He had to uphold that Law even though He spent His time teaching the gospel. He never taught that the Sabbath was part of the Christian system, nor did any of the apostles so teach, either, whom the Holy Spirit guided into all truth (John 16:12-13).
Shernel tries to get the Sabbath into Christianity by saying the disciples kept the Sabbath after His death (Luke 23:56) (5). However, Jesus had been taken down from the cross and buried only minutes before this Sabbath began. Does he really expect Jesus’ followers to begin practicing Christianity while they are in a state of confusion over His death and before His resurrection? The disciples obviously had not had time to be instructed in the ways of Christian worship as yet, including the day for it. The church had not yet begun.
This time Shernel is bold enough to cite two verses that he alleges teach the observance of the Sabbath as part of New Testament doctrine. His evidence of this point is Hebrews 4:4 and Colossians 1:16. The Hebrews reference is not a command issued to brethren or an example of the church meeting on that day. It is a reminder of what God had said in Genesis 2:2. The purpose for the writer of Hebrews quoting it does not at all relate to this controversy; he is the midst of an argument about there yet remaining a rest for God’s people. The text does not support his assertion.
The other reference should have been Colossians 2:16, since 1:16 does not include the word or concept of the Sabbath. Once again, our adversary ignored the explanation already provided in Part Three of the previous series. After citing this passage previously, I wrote as follows:
These comments are based on what Paul had just pointed out—that the law had been nailed to the cross. Since that old covenant is no longer in effect, Jewish Christians (or Gentile ones, for that matter) should not allow their fellow Jews (Christian or not) to judge them with respect to keeping portions of the law. They were no longer under that law, and they had no obligation to keep those commandments any longer (2).
It does not do any good to correspond with someone if he is not going to read the material or pretend it had never been mentioned. Probably, I should not feel slighted, since Shernel apparently did not read what he wrote, either. Last time he correctly referenced the 60 mentions of the Sabbath in Matthew through Acts. This time he writes: “”The Sabbath is mentioned 59 times. Where is Sunday worship mentioned in the New Testament?” (5).
The answer is the same as in the last letter. The disciples came together for worship on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). Paul commanded brethren to give on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 15:1-2). Thus, we have both a command and an example. So we ask: “The brethren in Troas who met for worship on the first day of the week—was it from heaven or from men?” Also, where is the passage that talks about the church meeting on the Sabbath day for worship?
Colossians 2:14
The force of Colossians 2:14 is so great that those trying to bind the Sabbath day today must find some way to try to explain it away. Shernel correctly notes that Paul warned the Colossians about philosophy and empty deceit (2:2, 8) (6). What he fails to realize is that some Jewish ascetics were numbered among them, with some Gnosticism thrown in just to make things confusing. One needs to be aware of all the false theories of men and be certain that he stands for the truth. It is false to claim this passage has nothing to do with God’s commandments—only those of men.
While it is true that Colossians 2:1-10 does not mention Judaism (although it refers to these others), it is also true that the practices of the Jews are brought into the discussion in verse 11, when Paul says that Christians are circumcised—not in the flesh but by the circumcision of Christ—“Buried with Him in baptism, in which you are also raised with Him…” (v. 12). Now why did Paul suddenly bring into the conversation the Jewish practice of circumcision unless some Jews in Colosse were arguing that Gentile Christians had to be circumcised in order to be saved? Those Judaizing teachers were a constant problem, trying to force certain things from the Law upon brethren (just like Seventh-Day Adventists try to bind the Sabbath day).
Can Shernel really think that “the handwriting of requirements” (“ordinances,” KJV) refers to the “rudiments of the world”? Why would God nail man-made traditions to the cross which were never valid in the first place? God is bringing to an end something that was once valid—namely, the Law of Moses. Since the Law was no longer in effect, that truth was the basis of not allowing someone to judge them with respect to those things (Col. 2:16). Ephesians 2:15 is even clearer, since what divided Jews and Gentiles was the Law. The reader can discern for himself the meaning of these two passages.
Our adversary cited Strong and Vine to try to establish his case, but he should be careful. If he gets to reading standard commentaries, he will find that they do not share his interpretations at all. Furthermore, in quoting Strong, he completely overlooked point number 12 from Part Two of the previous series, in which it was pointed out that all of the Ten Commandments are referred to as “ordinances” (Deut. 5:1). If they were referred to that way in the Old Testament, it is scarcely strange that they should be so designated in the New.
The Book
That covers the relevant material from Shernel’s second correspondence. Toward the end of June a package came to the church building, containing a letter and a book. The letter is from someone in Dongola, Illinois, we will refer to as Shamgar. He begins by saying he had read several Spiritual Perspectives that reviewed, ”The Law and Its Binding Requirements,” but that he did not know how long ago they were written, which is strange since the date is on each one—unless someone photocopied them without it or cropped them. He further does not say who sent them to him.
He thought that a book in his library might be of interest; so he sent it to me. The remainder of the letter deals with the qualifications of the writer and several endorsements of his work, which shall be skipped at the present time. The book is titled (and what follows is precisely the way it appears on the cover, except the top half of the last word is shifted a short distance from the bottom): divine REST for human RESTLESSNESS by Samuele Bacchiocchi. The subtitle is: a theological study of THE GOOD NEWS of the Sabbath for today.
It is interesting that the word divine is in small letters but that REST is capitalized. Although the value of the book is no doubt enhanced by the author’s autograph, it is uncertain what the value of it may be. Most of it seems to be irrelevant to anything I had written in the four articles—except the Appendix—“From Sabbath to Sunday,” which is a summary of the author’s published dissertation.
He mentions that several doctoral dissertations have re-examined this question. With all due respect to the hours of effort that went into all of these, the only thing that actually matters is what the New Testament says. He begins by quoting Thomas Aquinas as saying that “the observance of the Lord’s day took the place of the observance of the Sabbath, not by virtue of the precept but by the institution of the Church” (227). He cites another quote from the Council of Trent three centuries later. Yawn.
Supposedly Luther thought the Church (meaning the Roman Catholic Church) did away with the fourth commandment, and Calvin thought that Sunday was a human rather than a Divine idea (228). The quote from Calvin, however, ascribes the change to early Christians rather than the Church. The author next gives a list of religious writers that do not think that the Catholic Church changed the day—that it was done in the first century—so he examines all the claims.
Remarkably, Samuele does not provide a discussion of Acts 20:6-7. Nor can references to early writers be found. He finally draws the conclusion that Sunday became the new day of worship because of the ever-increasing popularity of worshiping the Sun, which is just as ludicrous as the claim that the Catholic Church changed the day. He also says that Paul talked about honoring the Lord’s death in 1 Corinthians but that the day for doing so was indeterminate. He did not comment on 1 Corinthians 16:2 providing a clue as to what that day was.
In the “Notes” section, however, he writes:
Space limitation has necessitated the total omission of significant aspects of the problem such as the NT reference to the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1-3; Acts 20:7-12) and to the Lord’s Day (Rev. 1:10); Paul’s attitude toward the Sabbath (Col. 2:14-17; Rom. 14:5-6; Gal. 4:10); the earliest patristic references to Sunday by Ignatius, Barnabas, and Justin Martyr…” (296).
Well, this is rather like saying that an automobile dealer has a beautiful car for sale; it just lacks an engine. Those omitted passages are at the core of the Bible’s teaching regarding the proper day of worship. We cited the quotations by Ignatius and Justin Martyr in Part Four; they are significant in showing that Sunday did not become the day of worship either because of the popularity of the Sun or the Roman Catholic Church. What was stated in Part Four remains true, Samuele’s book notwithstanding.
It does not matter what many people, who lived hundreds of years after the New Testament was written, might claim. What matters is what the Bible teaches.
Authority
How does the New Testament authorize what we are to do and teach (Col. 3:17)? The Bible may give us a direct command. There might be an approved example, or a passage may imply a certain truth. Paul actually did command brethren in Corinth and in Macedonia to take up a collection on the first day of the week. We contribute our money for the Lord’s work on the same day. We do so because this is the day we (and brethren in the first century) set aside for worship.
The brethren in Corinth had a time they came together as a church (1 Cor. 11:18, 20; 14:23). The time is not specified in those verses, but considering cultural conditions of the day, do we imagine that they switched days every week? One can only imagine the confusion of brethren trying to figure out which day they were going to meet during a given week. How chaotic!
We know that the brethren in Troas met on the first day of the week because the text implies that this meeting was their usual custom. Furthermore, they did not meet during the week, or Paul would not have waited seven days to meet with them, since he was in a hurry to get to Jerusalem (Acts 20:16).
We find a command, an approved example, and a text that implies a regular meeting on the first day of the week. Now where is the command to worship on the Sabbath, an example of brethren meeting on that day, or any implication that the church did so? The question that Samuele or anyone else needs to answer is the one posed before: “The brethren in Troas who met for worship on the first day of the week—was it from heaven or from men?”
Conclusion
Undoubtedly, until Jesus returns, some will continue to advocate that the Sabbath remains in effect, which means that from 6:00 P.M. Friday evening until 6:00 P.M. Saturday evening no work could be done. If someone owned a company, his employees could not work for him on that day (see Exodus 20:8-11). All God-fear-ing men would need to close their factories, gasoline stations, restaurants, etc., every Saturday. All worship would need to be conducted every Saturday, and everyone would need to live within a Sabbath-day’s journey of the meeting place (less than a mile). We ought to be grateful that the Sabbath did come to an end; it was not designed for the world we live in today—but for the people of a simpler society.
The focus of attention will remain upon what the church in the New Testament did. They did not meet on the Sabbath; they did meet on the first day of the week. In one sense, it is as simple as that. Christians have been right for 2,000 years to meet on the Lord’s day.
