Gary Summers, Author at South Seminole Church Of Christ

The Law And Its Binding Requirements (A Review) (PART 1)

Furthermore, the envelope was not personally addressed; it simply reads: “Attn: Pastor.” Apparently, the sender does not know very much about churches of Christ. There is no personal note or letter included; it presumably was sent at random to several churches. The only reason for replying is that a return address was included.

It may be that members of the body of Christ will periodically come in contact with erroneous information such as is contained in the nine, afore-mentioned pages. Therefore, the errors need to be refuted.]

Below are the quotes of brother Moore, which declare Biblical truths.

The Old Testament is called “old” because it is the law that is no longer in force. According to the Bible, that law was given to Israel. It was temporary law that prepared the way, and had the foundation for the New Covenant given by Christ.

But does this mean that we are under the Ten Commandments as contained in the book of Exodus? Strictly speaking, no, we are not. The Ten Commandments were a part of the Old Law, and that Law was abolished by Jesus. . . Ten Commandments – along with the Levitical system of blood sacrifices, tabernacle worship, burning of incense, and special feast days – were temporary in nature. . . The Old Covenant has been abolished.” — John Moore (1).

The first line of the document in question, appearing even before the previous quotation, says: “The following is a righteous assessment” of John Moore’s book. How nice for the author of these pages to provide such an “objective” view of his own analysis! The reader will not have to wonder how well he did in offering a Biblical case for his beliefs; he has already informed us that it is “righteous.” Truly, as the Scriptures teach, “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Pr. 16:18). His position is full of error; and we invite the reader to see if we have proven our case or not.

Brother Moore’s critic errs in his very first argument and then wanders all over the place, trying to string together unconnected verses to prove his case—much the way premillennialists do. He writes:

In the ministry of our Savior on earth, He never taught His disciples any other Law, than that given in the Old Testament.

Really? Perhaps the writer of such “wisdom” can explain where the Old Testament teaches that one must forgive his brother who transgresses against him seventy times seven (Matt. 18:22). Where does Moses teach that a man may only divorce his wife for fornication and marry another (Matt. 19:9)? What in the Law says, “Love your enemies” (Matt. 5:44)? Where is “the Golden Rule” (Matt. 7:12) to be found in the Old Covenant? What Old Testament Scripture says, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16)?

Perhaps the critic has overlooked the first verse of the gospel according to Mark: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (1:1). Notice that the verse does not read: “The continuation of the law of Moses in which Jesus will teach His disciples ‘no other law, than that given in the Old Testament.’” It is amazing that anyone with any basic Bible knowledge could make such an incredible statement.

Jesus even contrasted His teaching with that in the Ten Commandments—twice.

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder.’ … But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be in danger of the judgment…” (Matt. 5:21-22).

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:27-28).

Both of the things that they had heard were from the Ten Commandments. Jesus pits His teaching against what Moses taught. It is not the same teaching. The Lord’s is different. It was not lawful to commit the act of adultery, according to the Ten Commandments. Jesus says that a person commits sin when he lusts in his heart. Hatred of someone, under the gospel system, is sinful. Where did the Law say that being angry without a cause put one in danger of the judgment? The Gospel is different from the Law. To say that these are the same is to ignore the meaning of words—not to mention the messages of Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews.

What Jesus Taught about the Law

Seventh-Day Adventists always trot out two passages to try to substantiate their views. The first of these revolves around Matthew 5:17-19, which the writer of this paper (henceforth referred to as Shernel) waited all the way until page 4 to mention (such restraint!). Jesus taught, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.” He contrasted destroying with fulfilling, but these folks always miss that comparison, so focused are they on the not destroying part. The next verse says that not even the tiniest, seemingly most insignificant part of the Law will not pass away TILL all be fulfilled. Somehow they miss the word till, also.

When Jesus died on the cross, He said, “It is finished,” signifying that He had fulfilled all that had been written of Him. But in case anyone missed the import of those words, He explained to the two disciples He met on the road to Emmaeus: “These are the words that I spoke to you while I was with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me” (Luke 24:44).

Since He had fulfilled all things, the Law was nailed to the cross with Jesus and taken out of the way (Col. 2:14). Now that the Law was completely fulfilled by the Lord, it was done away with so that mankind could be under the Gospel, which Jesus had been teaching for three years. Just because the new system was being taught in advance, however, did not mean that the Law was no longer in effect; it had to be obeyed until such time as it was no longer valid. Since Jesus was about to contrast His teachings (on hatred and mental adultery) with the Law, He first explained that the Law had not been destroyed yet; it was still in force. Notice that Matthew 5:17-19 (which upholds obedience to the Law) immediately precedes the new teachings concerning hatred and lust (5:21-28).

The second passage (1) usually mentioned to try to circumvent the replacement of the Law with the Gospel is Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19:17. In verse 16, a man asked what good thing he should do to have eternal life. Jesus answered that, if he wanted to enter into life, “keep the commandments.” What would anyone expect that Jesus should say, since they were still living under the Mosaic Law—and would until His death?

However, consider the question posed to Him by a lawyer not too long afterward. He asked what the greatest commandment was. The answer came not from Exodus 20 but from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18 and involved loving God and one’s neighbor. These two were greater than the ten because they encompass them. Paul makes this point in Romans 13:8-10. For the rest of us, this conversation poses no problem; however, it serves as an embarrassment for those who overly venerate the Ten Commandments.

They Never Taught a “New Will”

According to the writer, Jesus’ disciples “never taught a ‘New Will,’ another way, a New Commandment, only ‘the way the truth and the life.’ John 14:6” (1, the lack of punctuation is Shernel’s). The first problem the reader might see is the misapplication of John 14:6. This verse records Jesus saying, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” In other words, this Scripture does not say anything about what the disciples taught; Jesus is speaking to them about Himself! Thus, it does not apply to the point Shernel made, and he is without proof of his assertion.

A check of a concordance, however, will show that he is also wrong on other counts. He had asserted that Jesus only taught the Law, yet Jesus Himself says, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another” (John 13:34). This “new commandment” was not part of the law of Moses. John also wrote: “Again, a new commandment I write to you…” (1 John 2:7-8). Whoops! Well, who are we to believe—Shernel, or the inspired apostle? But beyond the direct statement of a new commandment, anyone familiar with the New Testament knows it is not the same as the Old.

Where in the Old Testament are instructions regarding the observance of the Lord’s death (Matt; 26:26-30; 1 Cor. 11:23-29)? Where are all the passages of eschatology, the fact of Jesus’ second coming (1 Cor. 15; 1 Thess. 4:13-18), and the end of the world (2 Peter 3)? Which book describes the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23)? Where is the message of salvation explained and taught in the Old Testament? The Law of Moses is not the same as the Gospel of Christ.

The entire purpose of the book of Hebrews is to show that Jesus and the Gospel are far superior to anything previously given, including the law of Moses. The reason the book was written was that some brethren were being called back into Judaism from Christianity, and to leave the New Covenant for the Old was “to draw back into perdition” (Heb. 10:39). Those who did so were crucifying the Son of God all over again and putting Him to an open shame (Heb. 6:6). Hardly anything could be clearer, however, than Hebrews 8:6-7.

But now has He obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for the second.

Some of these verses are acknowledged on page 3. If Shernel admits the validity of these verses, he loses his argument; if he denies them, he is in the unenviable position of trying to make the Word contradict itself. The fact is that there is a new covenant, and it contains new teaching.

Another important point on this topic is that Jesus had not revealed all of the gospel, the faith, the truth, the new system by the time of His death. He told His apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them “into all truth” (John 17:13). Both Peter and Jude claimed that Jesus kept His Word. Peter said that God had given them “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3); Jude exhorted brethren “to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (3). The very fact that all truth was revealed to them shows that it had not been delivered in the Law of Moses previously. Since all things that Jesus taught were going to be brought to their remembrance (John 14:26), He was, therefore, providing new teaching. The Savior never promised that the apostles would be reminded of everything taught in the Law.

God Doesn’t Change

As with all false teachers, Shernel misinterprets and misapplies the Scriptures. The reason that such people do so is that they are arguing a position and use (actually, misuse) Bible verses to try to prove their point—instead of studying Scriptures in their context to see what they teach. In the same paragraph in which all of these other points appear is this one, also: “The Ten Commandments…are the foundation of our Heavenly Fathers throne, unchangeable, because He is unchangeable. ‘With whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.’ James 1:17)” (1, missing apostrophe in Father’s is Shernel’s error).

First, where are the Scriptures that teach that the Ten Commandments are the basis of the Heavenly Father’s throne? No Scripture is cited to prove this allegation—and for a good reason: no passage of God’s Word so teaches. Does the way this statement is worded not imply that Deity is subservient to the Law? God’s attributes far transcend the Ten Commandments. His moral laws are based on His holiness; they are not the foundation for His throne. One could just as easily say that the two greatest commandments (found in Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18) are the foundation of His throne (Matt. 22:34-40), but the point is that the Bible makes neither this statement nor the one made by Shernel. He must think no one will be able to distinguish between Bible truths and his own personal opinions.

Second, the Ten Commandments (this “foundation of the heavenly Father’s throne”) are allegedly unchangeable because God is unchangeable. These two statements are not properly connected. Whereas the Bible says that God is unchangeable (Mal. 3:6; James 1:17), no passage says that the Ten Commandments are unchangeable. The one concerning the Sabbath day was part of the Law of Moses. It was not observed in the Patriarchal Age, nor is it commanded in the Christian era. (More will be discussed on this point later.)

The Seventh-Day Adventists make the same mistake with the Father that the Pentecostals do with Jesus: they are fond of quoting, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8). Therefore spiritual gifts are in operation today. Putting it the way the Adventists do, they would say: “The use of miracles and spiritual gifts in the church is unchangeable because Jesus is unchangeable.” The character of Jesus refers to His essence; the miraculous gifts were a technique to accomplish certain goals (Eph. 4:11-16). God is eternal and does not change, yet He has given different laws and commandments to different men at different times. Anyone who does not believe that fact should invite us all over to view the ark he is building. People are confusing who God is with methods that He uses and covenants that He makes.

Shernel has an explanation for the contrasts of the Old and New Testaments, which, though interesting, are erroneous. These will be examined in part two of this series, along with the remainder of the errors found in the same paragraph analyzed in this article. Is it not amazing how much falsehood can be crammed into one paragraph?

All Christians should be able to observe the way false teachers operate. They join together two statements, even in one sentence: the true one lends credibility to the erroneous part. For that reason Bible students must read carefully what everyone writes and not be impressed by the use of Scriptures—unless they are pertinent and properly applied to the argument being made.

Reasons For Thorough Bible Study

Although all religious groups devote some time to the study of the Bible, not all of them emphasize it. In fact, some groups have been known to discourage their members from reading and studying on their own while others print up booklets with selected texts that are used, which means that many important texts and certain pertinent topics may never receive the attention they are due.

So why do the churches of Christ place so much emphasis on studying the entire Bible? First of all, if God did not intend for all of His Divine Revelation to be considered, then why did He not only inspire it to be written but preserve it so that we have it in these current times?

Second, when He gave His Law to Moses, He included a warning not to add to or take away from what He had given them (Deut 4:2). When we only study certain portions of the Word, we have, in effect, taken away other portions. In other words, the sum of God’s Word is truth (Ps. 119:160).

Especially, the entire New Testament needs to be scrutinized closely because it comprises the covenant that we live under. Paul told the elders at Ephesus that he had not shunned to declare to them the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). This emphasis on thorough Bible study was necessary so that Paul would be free from the blood of all men (Acts 20:26). In other words, people need to know all of God’s Word so that they can keep it all and be saved.

Although we are not under the Old Testament, it provides the background and the basis for what is taught in the New. The things recorded there were written for our learning (Rom. 15:4). Probably, we emphasize the New more, since it is our covenant, but we try to avoid neglecting the Old. In what ways are we profited by a thorough study of the Scriptures?

1. We must study the Bible thoroughly for our own spiritual profit. To begin with, one gains important information that cannot be found anywhere else. Our society, including its literature and small and big screen entertainment venues, draws frequently from the Bible. If for no other purpose, a person ought to know the Bible because of the place it has in our culture, but this is the least of the reasons for study.

It is the only place where one can find truth—spiritual truth. One can find some truth in just about every location, but only in the Bible can we find everything we need. “Buy the truth, and do not sell it…” (Pr. 23: 23). A person can find error everywhere, but only the love of truth can save (2 Thess. 2:10)—if what is learned is put into practice.

When Peter arrived at the household of Cornelius, the centurion and his family were eagerly waiting because they had been promised that the apostle would tell them words by which they would be saved (Acts 11:14). Jesus came to seek and to save the lost (Luke 19:10), and everything about His life and teachings is recorded so that very thing can occur in every generation.

Jesus taught that He came to give people a more abundant life (John 10:10). Yet today many have no sense of purpose for their own existence because they do not know what is available to them. All the spiritual blessings that God can provide for us on this earth are ours through Christ. The Bible provides meaning and direction in our life.

The Word is that by which we shall be judged (John 12:48). Nothing else can prepare us for that day, allowing us to choose the right and avoid the wrong, as the Bible can. Those who study and apply the Scriptures shall be prepared for that Significant Day and will hear, “Well done, good and faithful servant.”

2. We must study the Bible thoroughly for the pro-fit of others. If we are living by the New Testament and enjoying the abundant life, others cannot help but notice. They will want to know how we choose the moral positions we hold. They will want to know the secret of our peace and strength in the face of trials. Inquiries afford us opportunities to praise God and His Word, by which we are able to endure. Jesus said to let our light so shine before men so that they would see our good works and glorify the Father in heaven (Matt. 5:14-16).

People are going to ask questions whether or not they know us very well. Knowing the Word of God thoroughly enables us to give them a factual, honest, and Biblical answer. We can also explain the virtues of knowing God and His Word. God has imparted wisdom, and it is available to all who look for it. Others will profit from it in their lives even if they do not obey the gospel. They will want Biblical morality upheld in their neighborhoods, their schools, their communities, and in the country. Christian influence is what has made this nation great, and when we depart from it, as we are in the process of doing, we will eventually fall, as every other ungodly nation has. We should never underestimate the importance of the positive pressure of Christianity.

But the greatest value to others of Christians knowing the Bible is that we can teach them about salvation. Most people probably assume that what they hear is generally correct—“just believe in God” in some sort of vague, general way, and that is sufficient for salvation. Never mind actually reading the Scriptures and offering up to Him worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24); people are told to just pray, “Lord, forgive me,” which is not what the Bible teaches about obtaining salvation. When people ask us for our thoughts, are we prepared to open the Bible and show them the truth? If not, why not?

Furthermore, most have been taught the popular error, “once saved, always saved”; therefore, they are convinced that it does not matter all that much what they do afterward. They can meet with fellow Christians or not, learn the Scriptures or not, and participate in sin—“moderately,” of course—and still be saved. This is the prevailing attitude in society; who will explain otherwise unless we do?

3. We must study the Bible thoroughly because doing so pleases God (Heb. 11:6). God is looking for those who are willing to seek Him diligently—not those who are interested in a casual relationship. We come to know Him by delving into the Word, wherein He has revealed Himself to us. We cannot get that information through osmosis or simply memorizing John 3:16, as if that was all that God wanted us to know about Him. People want to be spiritual and saved without putting forth any effort, but there are no shortcuts to heaven.

Imagine Moses speaking to God at the burning bush, going to Egypt to deliver the Israelites from bondage, and then crossing the Red Sea with the nation. After finally being freed from their life of bitterness, God begins to give Moses His Law to deliver to the people. Is it possible that Moses would say, “Wait a minute, please, Lord. Don’t think we don’t appreciate what you have done, but I don’t think we want to know this much about You.” But isn’t that what people are doing today? Most people know that Jesus suffered terribly on the cross and died for their sins, but they, in effect, say (when they refuse to study His Word diligently): “Lord, we’re not THAT grateful and we don’t want to know quite this much about You.”

God planned mankind’s redemption from the foundation of the world, and He prepared the kingdom (the church) for all who trust in Him and obey Him. If someone paid off our mortgage, we would want to know all about him and see if there were any thing at all we could do for him. How much more ought we to desire to please God who has always acted in our best interests? He gave us life, period, and to those who please Him He is ready to give eternal life. Our mission in life should be to know Him and to please Him.

4. We must study the Bible thoroughly because Satan is defeated by it. Is there anyone who has ever showed such jealousy as Satan? It may be that he felt he did not receive the honor he deserved in heaven; therefore, he led a rebellion against God that ended up with him and his henchmen being thrown out. He does not know the meaning, however, of defeat. He has (perhaps, with the same motivation) determined to fight against God every step of the way.

After encouraging the first couple to sin, he convinced their son to murder his brother. It did not take long for him to entice the whole world into enjoying sinful pleasures so that they had no room for their Creator in their thoughts, so full of sin were their minds. God destroyed that world and will do so again (2 Peter 3:10-13) because the whole world lies under the sway of the evil one. (1 John 5:20).

Not only does he use the lusts of the flesh to great advantage in leading men away from God, he has made expert use of error—especially with regard to Christianity in general, and salvation and the church in particular. False information abides in the world, yet truth is in the Book, which is the reason people must devote themselves to knowing it thoroughly. Satan is neither distressed nor disturbed by the gold crosses people wear around their necks. What frightens him is a knowledgeable Christian who knows the Word and can set forth the truth convincingly (1 Peter 3:15).

The Bible, known and lived, will profit all,

Makes Satan angry, but doth God enthrall.

The history of the Israelite people is one of peaks and valleys. They had blessings beyond measure from God and at times served Him faithfully, yet they often failed by revolting against God and worshipping idols. It was during a time of great wickedness that Jeremiah was called to deliver God’s message to the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. It was Jeremiah who foretold the destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of the Jews to Babylon (Jer. 16:10-13).

The message Jeremiah spoke to the Israelites was not his own, but the oracles of God.

Then the Lord put forth His hand, and touched my mouth. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have put My words in thy mouth (1:9).

If the people rejected the words of Jeremiah, they were rejecting the Words of God. This is exactly what they did; so God deported them to Babylon for seventy years of captivity. “And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon for seventy years” (25:11).

Speaking the utterances, oracles, of God did not put Jeremiah in favor with the people. There was a conspiracy against his life.

But I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, saying, Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered (11:19).

The men of Anathoth desired to kill Jeremiah so his name would be forgotten, but their names are the ones that have vanished from history.

Jeremiah was obligated, legally bound, to speak the words that God gave him. There is no less an obligation to us in speaking the “oracles of God.” Peter said:

If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen (1 Peter 4:11).

In matters of religion, one must speak the words God has given us in the Scriptures. When man faithfully reveals the oracles God has given in the Book of Books, the Bible, God is glorified, honored, exalted, hallowed, and revered.

As in Jeremiah’s time, when God’s Word is proclaimed today, people often fail to respond. Resentment and hostility for the message can cause hatred toward the messenger.

Bitterness toward the message does not lessen the obligation of the messenger to faithfully communicate the oracles of God. This was the attitude of Jeremiah and must be the attitude of Christians. Even in the face of death, one is committed to trust in God and “teach no other doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:3).

During Isaiah’s day the attitude was one of rebellion. The people did not desire truth, the oracles of God; so they sought out men who would speak lies and deceit. God said:

That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD: Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits (Isa. 30:9-10).

Sadly, this is the norm for many today concerning God’s Word. They seek men who speak pleasing things to the ear and entertain them with false religion, making them believe that all is good. These are teachers with charisma who use the Bible as an ornament to beguile and destroy the souls of men, all because there is no love for the oracles of God.

Let everyone prepare his heart to receive and follow the utterances that God has given us in His Word, the Bible.

—via the Beacon

(Bellview Church of Christ, Dec. 29, 2008)

STUDY

Michael Hatcher

Bible study is one of the most important, if not the most important things in this world. When Jesus asked the apostles if they were also going to leave Him, Peter said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life” (John 6:68). These “words of eternal life” are recorded for us in the Bible. These words are so important that they determine our eternal destiny (John 12:48). By our obedience or disobedience to these words we shall be saved or lost (2 Cor. 5:10).

The instruction to Timothy teaches us the importance of Bible study. “Study to show thyself approved unto God…” (2 Tim. 2:15). To be approved of God, we must study. The only way to rightly divide God’s Word is to study. The phrase, rightly dividing, refers to properly understanding the Bible so we can explain it correctly.

Timothy’s mother and grandmother recognized the importance of Bible study; thus, they taught the Scriptures to him (2 Tim. 3:15). God commanded the Israelites to have His Word in their hearts and teach it to their children at all places and all times (Deut. 6:6-9; 11:18-20). Let us each make a determined effort to study God’s Word to our soul’s salvation.

—via the Beacon

(Bellview Church of Christ, Dec. 29, 2008)

The Use Of Logic

This morning’s Bible lesson used logical reasoning in it—nothing difficult—only that which is usually taught in high school geometry. There are three possible ways of altering an original statement (designated 1).

1. All A’s are B’s.

2. All B’s are A’s (the converse).

3. All non-A’s are non-B’s (the inverse or obverse).

4. All non-B’s are non-A’s (the contrapositive).

The first statement above is considered a positive statement. The converse merely switches the order of the original statement. The third one negates the original statement; thus it is called the inverse or the obverse. The fourth statement switches the original and negates both sides; thus it is the obverse of the converse—or the contrapositive (against the original positive statement).

If the first statement is true, which of the other three is also true? They are all potentially true, but only the fourth one is always true. To help visualize what is being discussed, imagine a one-foot square (A) sitting inside a two-foot square (B). The initial truth is set forth by number 1; the other possibilities follow:

1. Every point in Square A is also in Square B.

2. Every point in Square B is also in Square A.

3. Every point not in Square A is not in Square B.

4. Every point not in Square B is also not in Square A.

Which of the three statements following the original is true if it is true (which it is)? Number 2, the converse is false. Since Square B is larger than Square A, it contains points not found in Square A. The third statement is also false, since there are points not in Square A that are in Square B. The contrapositive, however, is true (which it always is). If a point is not in Square B (which includes Square A), then it cannot be in Square A, either.

Application to the Scriptures

Taking a statement of Jesus, we will list the four possibilities.

1. If you love Me, keep My commandments.

2. If you keep My commandments, you love Me.

3. If you do not love Me, keep not My commandments.

4. If you keep not My commandments, you do not love Me.

The converse is also true (#2): Those who keep His commandments love Him. Although people might obey outwardly the commands for reasons besides love (out of fear, peer pressure, or the insistence of a loved one), they cannot keep the greatest commandment—to love God with all their hearts, souls, minds, and strength unless their hearts are in it. To fail to keep one commandment is to fail to keep His commandments.

The third possibility (not loving God means not keeping His commandments) is also true. People who have no love for the Lord sometimes keep certain commandments (if they were raised to be kind or forgiving to others), and they may only refrain from murdering someone for practical reasons (such as being caught, tried, or put in jail), but they do not keep all His commandments and therefore do not love Him. Jesus Himself declares this to be the case: “He who does not love Me does not keep My words…” (John 14:24).

The fourth statement (the contrapositive) is also true: Those who do not keep His commandments do not love Him. Someone might protest, “But I keep some.” Keeping some of God’s will is not worth anything, as Matthew 7:21-23 demonstrates. One must humbly submit to the will of God in all things. Any time we place our own judgment above the wisdom of Almighty God, we have shown that we neither love nor trust Him.

Can we go wrong in the use of logical principles or in human reasoning? We might do so if we reason incorrectly or state a point inaccurately, but if we have done everything correctly, logic cannot fail. Consider a few other examples. In John 8:31-32, Jesus made a statement with two conclusions.

1. If you continue in My Word, you are My disciples.

2. If you continue in My Word, you shall know the truth.

To continue in His Word means to study it, know it, and abide by it. Although we will concentrate on the second result, what is said for the second can also be said for the first. Only the statement and the contrapositive will be listed.

1. Those who continue in the Word will know the truth.

4. Those who do not know the truth are those who have not continued in the Word.

One might argue that many denominational scholars have labored tremendously in the Word, but they come to different conclusions than we do. The explanation is twofold. First, many of those under consideration are those who have never obeyed the truth in the first place; therefore, they cannot continue in something they have never been in to begin with. Second, many of them began with denominational doctrine, and they have continued in that, but the creeds of men are not the same things as the truth. Too many scholarly minds have accepted denominational doctrines along with portions of the truth, but that mixture no longer constitutes the truth (Deut. 4:2). The contrapositive statement remains valid.

In one instance Jesus makes the positive statement and states the contrapositive immediately afterward.

1. “He who is of God hears God’s words;

4. therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God” (John 8:47).

Another application of this principle is John 13:35:

1. All will know you are My disciples, if you have love one for another.

4. If you do not have love for one another, all will know you are not My disciples.

No wonder Paul warned the Galatians that they should not bite and devour one another (5:15). Jesus prayed similarly in John 17:20-21:

1. If Christians are united, the world will believe God sent Jesus.

4. If the world does not believe that God sent Jesus, the reason is that Christians are not united.

Other factors could affect the world’s rejection of Jesus, but the unity of believers is the key factor. No man or religion has a greater message of salvation or hope, but disunity undermines the message.

Below are listed several statements and contrapositives found in the Bible that are interesting to consider.

1. If you do whatever I command you, you are My friends (John 15:14).

4. You are not My friends if you do not keep whatever I command you.

1. “He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16).

4. He will not be saved who does not believe and is not baptized.

1. If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided (Matt. 12:26).

4. If Satan is not divided, he cannot cast himself out.

The following verse (John 8:24) contains a negative in the first part. In the contrapositive, therefore, the negative must be changed to a positive.

1. If you do not believe I am He, you shall die in your sins.

4. You shall not die in your sins if you believe I am He.

1. “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham” (John 8:39).

4. Since you do not do the works of Abraham, you are not his children.

1. “If this Man were not from God, He could do nothing” (John 9:33).

4. This man can do something (heal a blind man) because He is from God.

1. “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me” (John 10:37).

4. Believe because I do the works of My Father.

1. “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to Myself” (John 12:32).

4. I will not draw people to Myself if I am not lifted up from the earth.

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

4. Anyone who does not acknowledge that the things I write to you are the commandments of the Lord is neither a prophet nor spiritual.

1. “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine [the doctrine of Christ—that is, the fundamental teaching of the New Testament], do not receive him into your house or greet him” (2 John 10).

4. Greet and receive into your house the one who comes to you, bringing the doctrine of Christ.

Many teachings of the Bible can be viewed by means of these two methods (the positive statement and the contrapositive). If handled properly, both are always true. God expects us to reason properly (Isa. 1:18; 1 Thess. 5:21-22).

WHAT PURPOSE IS DRIVING RICK WARREN’S LIFE?

Sandy Rios

[This article was published on April 14, 2009, on www. onenewsnow.com. with the title, “Rick Warren—Another Easter Denial.” The writer approaches the subject from a denominational perspective, but she makes an excellent point about Warren’s duplicity.]

“Even if others do, I will never deny you,” declared the Apostle Peter some 2,000 years ago just hours before he did exactly that, three times, when the heat was on. Ten others boasted the same, but when the risk was more than theoretical, all deserted Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. Only one was seen at the cross.

A fascinating story…the “old story,” as the secularists like to call it. Barack Obama alluded to this in his speech in France. We need a new story…a discovery of “new ways” of thinking. We must throw off the old, and embrace a much more enlightened, intelligent point of view, he said. By doing so, our president argued, we remove inconvenient barriers, cumbersome moral values and achieve self-determination with our new understanding of the world guiding the way. Surely we cannot be bound in this advanced new age by the old moral codes or put plainly, by what Jesus taught — certainly not if we are to curry favor with the world in which we live.

During Holy Week, Peter’s portion of the “old story” was revisited in a very contemporary way. The last instruction Jesus gave as He left earth was that His followers should tell His story of forgiveness and redemption not only in their communities, but to the “ends of the earth.” And as His followers told the “old story,” they should not leave out all the other things He had carefully taught them. He wanted future generations to go beyond mere intellectual understanding and move to actually living out the principles.

One of those principles was marriage. “For this reason shall a man leave his parents and join with his wife and the two shall become one flesh,” Jesus instructed. One man…one woman…for a lifetime; no sex outside of that union. His clear moral teaching applied to homo-sexuality and never entertained a discussion of same-sex “marriage,” because it would have been unthinkable. “I have come to fulfill the law, not to destroy it,” Jesus said in regard to Old Testament moral standards.

Fast forwarding to November 2008, California voters of various religious persuasions—in a ballot measure called Proposition 8—held to the Judeo-Christian teaching that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Pastor Rick Warren—author of the multi-million selling book The Purpose Driven Life; pastor of Saddleback, one of the largest churches in the country; deeply influential—rightly told his congregation just weeks before the election: “…if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8. I never support a candidate, but on moral issues I come out very clear.”

Until last week…Holy Week.

“Though others may turn away, I will never deny you,” promised Peter. But then in the chill of night in a courtyard just outside the place of Jesus’ trial, as others around the fire began to probe his relationship to Jesus, he denied even knowing Him. No one was threatening his life, but the derision increased, until Peter’s denial escalated to a curse to more emphatically deny he had ever known Jesus.

Peter was worried about his reputation. He didn’t want to be the odd man out in the courtyard over the fire…it wasn’t a Roman soldier with a sword who challenged him, it was a servant girl.

“On moral issues I come out very clear,” declared Warren when speaking in the safety of his church last October. But when confronted by homosexual friends and by CNN’s Larry King, he folded like Peter. He told a national television audience that he had “apologized” to his homosexual friends for making comments in support of Proposition 8. He “never once gave an endorsement” of the marriage amendment, he declared in that much larger, electronic courtyard. “I never once issued a statement.” But that was not true. He had given an impassioned plea on camera for support of Proposition 8…a plea worthy of a Christian leader…a plea to follow Jesus’ teaching on marriage. Then in one CNN moment, he not only backed away from the hard teaching, but lied in the process. On camera…both times…for all to see.

Seduced by the pressure of fame? Driven by the desire to please his friends? Afraid to be seen as bigoted to a national television audience? Whatever the motivation, the denial is no less significant.

After Peter finished his denial, he went out and wept bitterly. Jesus later forgave him in a personal exchange, and Peter became one of the greatest examples of Christ-following of all time…crucified upside down for his faith…fearless to the end.

But he repented. If Rick Warren does not, he has lost his moral authority as a Christian leader. Without repentance, he joins the apostate ranks of others who declare Jesus’ teaching when it is expedient and deny it when it interferes with choice or reputation.

Another Easter denial—but we pray Warren will not let his story end there.

[Final editorial comment: Certainly Warren does not compare to the apostle—except in the denial of truth. Warren is a Calvinist who does not preach what Peter did about salvation. If Peter were alive today, he would know where he stands on homosexual “marriage.”]

The Devil “Debate?”

On Friday evening, March 26, 2009, ABC’s Nightline program hosted a debate on the topic of “Does Satan Exist?” It is not as exciting as it sounds. The two-hour event was edited down to twenty minutes of air time. While it is the case that not all the comments were directly pertinent to the subject, many might have found them intriguing.

There were four individuals who were invited to take part. Taking the position that Satan does not exist were Deepak Chopra and “Rev.” Carlton Pearson. The former’s name is well-known. According to the Internet Wikipedia, Deepak is “an Indian-American medical doctor and writer.” He is heavily influenced by Eastern religion and is associated with the New Thought Movement in this country. He is credited with writing 36 books since 1987, including the following titles: Quantum Healing (1989), Perfect Health (1991), The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success (1994), Everyday Immortality (1999), Grow Younger, Live Longer (2001), Synchrodestiny: Harnessing the Infinite Power of Coincidence to Create Miracles (2003), and The Third Jesus (2008). Together with the fact that he named his son Gotham (a Batman fan?), we all should have some insight into his New Age leanings.

Carlton used to cast out demons, but now he no longer believes in Satan or demons, which prompts the question, “Was he deluded back in those days, or is he deluded now?” Answering “both” is probably a safe response. In 2006 he wrote The Gospel of Inclusion, which means he is a Universalist—he believes that everyone will be saved and that they can believe whatever religion they fancy. He was educated at Oral Roberts University, but they removed him from their Board of Directors when he got too flaky even for them (which is not easy to do). He also formerly spoke on the Trinity Broadcasting Network. One course said that the Joint College of African-American Pentecostal Bishops has labeled him a heretic.

The other two participants believe in Satan’s existence—one of them is Annie Lobert, a former “escort” in the city of Las Vegas, who spent more than a decade as a “sex” worker before leaving that lifestyle. She was nearly killed by her “boss,” and later nearly killed herself with drugs. She has formed the recovery group, Hookers for Jesus, and tries to help other women out of that bondage.

The fourth disputant was Mark Driscoll, the “preaching pastor” of the Mars Hill Church in Seattle, a congregation of 7,500. He too is an author and co-founder of the Acts 29 Network. Possibly he was invited to participate since the event took place in his church building. He consistently made the best comments of anyone that evening.

Deepak

Since this writer did not know about the event in time to tape it, he is depending on the quotes and descriptions of Amy Letinsky, whose name appears first when referencing the debate. The procedure used here will be to present the quote or the summary and then comment on it.

Deepak said: “Healthy people do not have any need for Satan.” Neither do unhealthy people, but they follow his will just the same. This comment is framed in an odd way. Has anyone ever said, “I have a real need for Satan in my life”? Mankind did not invent the devil because we need him. He is the one who needs us—to do his bidding. Eve did not “need” Satan, but he helped her on the pathway to sin. The message of Christianity is not that Satan forced us to sin or that he is always the cause of our disobedience, but he frequently plays a part. David, for example, was a spiritually healthy king and a “man after God’s own heart” (1 Sam. 13:14). He certainly did not need Satan, but he listened to him, which resulted in shame.

Does that incident prove that David had no free will? No, he overcame who knows how many other temptations. When David repented, he did not blame his actions on Satan; he said, “I have sinned against the Lord” (2 Sam. 12:13). He did mention the sinful influence that exists in the world as a factor (Ps. 51:5), which is certainly reasonable, but he laid the blame upon himself.

Deepak also said: “Be done with Satan and confront your own issues.” Jesus overcame temptations in the wilderness and was “done with Satan,” but Satan was not done with Him; he only “departed from Him until an opportune time” (Luke 4:13). Would Deepak, having been educated in all the ways of the Hindus, have advised the Lord not to worry about Satan but just confront His own issues? Jesus did not have any issues. Deepak’s New Age theology denies reality and the truths that are taught in the Scriptures.

Deepak affirmed: “Evil has only appeared in the world when human beings have shown up.” In one sense he speaks the truth, although he did not intend to do so. God created the world and called it very good. Man had free will, however; therefore Satan showed up to tempt them to sin. As everyone knows, he succeeded. Evil, then, appeared, because Satan showed up to prompt the first pair to choose disobedience to God. Probably what Deepak meant is that only humans are to blame for evil, but that view ignores Satan’s role in encouraging rebellion.

Many of the statements made did not relate to Satan but to Jesus and the Bible. Most of these were edited out of the television segment. But Deepak confidently asserted that, while he did not trust his mind, “I do trust my spirit implicitly.” Really? Which did he use in writing his 36 books? This statement sounds the same as the one who says, “I may not be right, but at least I am sincere,” which is unacceptable to God: True worshipers must worship the Father in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24). Understanding truth (John 8:31-32) involves the mind’s ability to think and reason correctly. It is not too reassuring to hear someone say that he cannot trust his mind.

Another tangential remark that Deepak made was: “Our goal is to seek the enlightenment Jesus spoke of.” The word enlightenment does not appear in the entire Bible, although enlighten, enlightened, and enlightening are found, but they are never used by Jesus. En-lighten is found only in Psalm 18:28, and enlightening is used only in Psalm 19:8, where we read: “The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.” Enlightenment is not taught in the Scriptures as some mystical process; it occurs when we read and understand the Scriptures. The word enlightened is used twice is the New Testament but not by Jesus. Paul uses it once (Eph. 1:17-18), and so does the writer of Hebrews (6:4). In neither instance do the writers of the Word of God use the word in the same way that Deepak would.

To round off our sixpack of Deepak quotes, he remarked, “As soon as you define God, you limit God.” Even if you define Him as limitless? The problem that this self-help guru has is that he apparently does not see that God has defined Himself. He has declared Himself to be eternal (Ex. 3:14), light (1 John 1:5), jealous (Ex. 20:5), holy (Lev. 11:44), love (1 John 4:8), just (Isa. 45:21), the God of all grace (1 Peter 5:10), merciful (Deut. 4:31), et al. God has not limited Himself in providing all these definitions; He has explained and clarified Himself. What kind of being would He be if He did not define Himself?

Carlton

Whereas Deepak Chopra tries to manipulate Jesus and the Bible into agreeing with his theology, Carlton Pearson plainly does not believe it and does not hesitate to contradict it. Concerning Satan, he seems to agree with Deepak that we invent him to explain things. “We were prepared to meet the devil, and he showed up. He always shows up when you have faith in him.” If he is referring to casting out demons here, he is probably right. People often get what they expect will happen. Those who have seen The Exorcist have a certain idea of what the devil does to people and the difficulty there will be in getting purged.

Or perhaps they have read or heard various tales of what this is like. However, the true unclean spirits are no longer in the land (Zech. 13:2). In all of the New Testament there is no formula for getting rid of demons. When Jesus and the apostles did it, they spoke with authority, and the demon departed, perhaps convulsing a poor victim on his way out (Mark 9:26), but this simple solution would not make much of a Hollywood movie. None of the New Testament writers give any instructions whatsoever to the young preachers or to the churches for casting out demons. This may be the one Carlton is correct on—that these exorcisms are only events that match psychological expectations.

Carlton wondered how, since all that God created was good, could He create bad? How does this question help? That bad exists is undeniable. It had to come from somewhere. The fact is that God did create everything good, but in allowing free will for the angels first and then man afterward, He opened the door to the possibility for evil to exist. He gave everyone sufficient reasons to trust in Him (thus obeying Him), but Satan desired to depend upon himself rather than God. Not content to entice other angels to follow him, he could not wait to invade the realm of human beings. God did not create bad; His created beings, displaying great ingratitude, chose to depart from the good, thus bringing evil into existence.

Most of the time Carlton made bizarre attacks upon Jesus and the Bible. He called Jesus’ virgin birth part of “mythological Christianity,” along with the concept of the devil. What he reveals in statements like these is that he does not really believe anything that the Bible teaches.

Other comments confirm this attitude. “I believe in the mystical Jesus rather than the mythical Jesus.” He evidently thinks the Jesus defined and described in the Scriptures is the mythical one—even though no one thought so for centuries. He prefers the “mystical one,” and one wonders where we might go to find such an individual. Do we sit with our legs crossed on the floor, chanting, “Ommmm”? Obviously, Carlton is referring to the subjective Jesus—the one a person makes up so that He can be just what he wants.

At one point the moderator asked Carlton if he just picked and chose what he wanted to believe from the Bible, and he answered, “Actually, yes!” The audience could not help laughing at this statement; so he tried to justify his position by claiming that Bible translations were inaccurate, and the Bible is not trustworthy. The audience instinctively knew who was not trustworthy. Certainly, no Bible translation is absolutely perfect, but we have several translations to compare in addition to the original Greek and numerous lexicons and commentaries. His insinuation is absurd.

He continues by saying: “Christianity has borrowed a lot of myth. We cannot prove any of the letters to be authentic.” The first assertion here cannot be proven; those claiming to be Christians incorporated myths into their manmade traditions after the Bible was written (such as December 25th being the birthday of Jesus), but those things are not in the Bible. Concerning the second slur against the letters, since most of them have been accepted as authentic from the time they were composed (or shortly thereafter), a better question would be, “Can you prove that any of the letters are forgeries or clearly not authentic?”

Carlton talks about what some believe in African “spiritism” and “voodoo,” attempting to reconcile those things with being a “Christian.” What? On the other hand, he says: “Jesus is not to be worshiped.” That will be news to the four living creatures, the 24 elders, and many angels who said with a loud voice: “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom, and strength and honor and glory and blessing” (Rev. 5:12). After having the arrogance to say that Jesus is not to be worshiped, Carlton coos: “I think I have some measure of the anointing.” Is there any need to comment on his self-assessment?

His explanation for evil people, such as Adolph Hitler, and evil events, such as the chimp attacking the unfortunate woman in Connecticut, is the “animalistic spirit.” Oh. That might clear everything up—except for the tiny little question, “Where did the ‘animalistic spirit’ come from?” Did God create that, or did it just evolve?

A final Carlton comment concerned “most fundamentalists of any religion—their thinking is obscured.” If Carlton Pearson is the standard of clear thinking, all of us who actually believe the Bible should take that intended insult as a compliment. We think we are reasonable and logical; we have debated atheists before and have found that we have nothing to fear.

Annie Lobert

As the reader can tell, this was not a debate in the usual sense of the word. Usually, someone is given ten minutes to a half hour to state a case, and the other side responds. This event was more like being offered appetizers than a full course meal.

Amy Lobert did express belief in Satan and demons. She said: “I saw demons, was raped by them…. When I came to, I saw red eyes and black faces. How do you explain the face, the feeling that you’re being pulled into hell?” Apparently, she means these things literally, which poses a problem for her credibility, since we do not have a single report in the New Testament of demons committing sexual assaults upon women or trying to pull them down to hell. She has made it no secret that she was a drug user, also, and that might explain some of the things she describes.

She did, however, profess that the Bible is “the Word of God,” that “God loves sex in the context of marriage,” that “God is love,” and that God and the devil are both real. She is correct in these matters (Heb. 13:4). She erred, however, in saying: “You can’t have one without the other.” God existed from eternity without the devil. After the judgment both will continue to exist—but not together. Heaven and hell will be two mutually exclusive kingdoms forever.

Mark Driscoll

He probably gave the best, most Scriptural answers of anyone that evening. On free will, he made the following appropriate assessment: “If you don’t have choice, you don’t have love.” God could have created all of us to love Him, but what would it be worth? Choosing Him over all alternatives redounds to His glory. Mark also correctly affirmed: “I put my faith in the man that this book (pointing to the Bible) tells the story of.” “He is the true God and eternal life.”

To Deepak, he pointed out a flaw in his ideology: “There are more wars and death than ever at the same time there is more enlightenment.” He added: “If you believe that everything is one, you can’t believe in good and evil,” which is a valid point. The fact is that New Agers do not believe in the concept of evil. To Carlton he asked, “You believe in the resurrection and not the devil?” Say, why was it again that Jesus was crucified in the first place—something to do with sin? He also wondered if Carlton would say that it was bad if he punched him. These philosophical lightweights leave themselves open to this type of ridicule.

These seem to be the core comments of the evening, and the “debate” did stir up quite a bit of interest. The format was geared more toward that of discussion than a legitimate delving into the topic. Probably, however, we should be grateful to ABC for even giving the subject this type of exposure. If it causes just a few people to think seriously about sin and salvation, it will have been worth sifting through all the errors there to find it.

Christian Rock Music: Trojan Horse In The Church

Last Saturday a “Family Adventure Seminar” was held at a congregation near here. The morning session was quite profitable for the first hour-and-a-half as the one conducting it warned about the entertainment media and the influence we let it have over our lives and especially the lives of our children. The material was excellent and combined with pertinent Scriptures.

But suddenly it was as though a cold wind swept through the room, which should have chilled everyone present but apparently affected very few. The speaker began to argue passionately that parents get their children involved in listening to Christian rock music.

To be sure, he prefaced it by saying that there was no agenda to get instrumental music into our worship but that our young people need a healthy alternative to the seedy rock music found on most popular stations.

Following is how the presentation worked. A video from Focus on the Family was played which lowlighted the worst of rock music. The words were flashed on the screen (with obscenities partially deleted) while a portion of the song was played. Selected songs were “Me So Horny” by 2 Live Crew, “Cop Killer” [by Ice T], “Suicide Solution” by Ozzy Osborne, and a few others that have received a great deal of publicity.

These were contrasted on the video with words from Christian rock music that protested abortion, advocated Christian morality, and exalted Jesus. Obviously, if the only criteria between the two things presented on the “Learn to Discern” video by Robert DeMoss was the words (and it was), it’s a no-brainer to decide which is better for kids.

After the video was completed, the speaker continued to sing the praises of Christian rock music as an alternative to the other. Following are a few of his tools of persuasion.

1. Youth groups in churches of Christ all over the country are promoting Christian rock music for their young people. A group of 50 youths at White’s Ferry Road are really into it. [Wow, an endorsement!]

2. A young girl was addicted to sex from the age of fifteen. She began listening to Christian rock music, and now she’s cured. [Double wow, a testimonial!!]

3. Young people today are going to listen to rock music (Substitute “have sex” for “listen to rock music,” and see if this argument sounds familiar); you can’t stop them. They’re going to do it; so why not let them listen to something with wholesome words instead of those profane lyrics?

After a few minutes of these exhortations, some of the brethren began to agree with the concept; some of them were already listening to this music with their children. Since no one seemed disposed to offer any objections, I spoke.

A Fair-Minded Discussion

“I want to inject a note of discord into this discussion. Is instrumental music sinful?” In the context of the discussion, the speaker surely knew what I meant, but he hedged by saying that instrumental music is not inherently sinful. That is true; so I reworded the question: “Is using instrumental music in singing praises to God sin?”

His answer was something like: “We’re not advocating instrumental music in worship.” I countered with: “Is there a difference between in and out of the assembly?” He responded: “This is not the time for a discussion of this nature.”

“Aren’t you just exchanging one sin for another?” He repeated that this was not the time for discussion. Pray tell, when was the time for it? He had spent twenty minutes advocating as strongly as he knew how getting young people in the Lord’s church to listen to Christian rock music. When will the parents present that day hear the other side, since he chose to silence any opposition?

Objections to Christian Rock Music

1. The phrase, Christian Rock, is a misnomer. Rock Music is secular; Christian songs are spiritual—the two don’t mix. It’s as inconsistent as the phrase, theistic evolution, which is supernatural naturalism.

2. God did not authorize the use of mechanical instruments of music in our worship of Him. Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 are universal statements that are applicable in a number of situations. The singing referred to herein may be done in the assembly or out of it. The exhortations are not limited to one context any more than 1 Timothy 2:8 is (“I desire that men pray everywhere”).

3. There is no Scriptural justification for the brethren to conclude that it is wrong to sing with musical accompaniment in the assembly but all right to gather around the piano at home or a guitar at camp. Wherever Christians meet, they are to sing and make melody in their hearts to the Lord.

4. If it is unauthorized (and therefore sinful) for Christians to use musical accompaniment in singing praises, and hymns, and spiritual songs, can it be right to approve of others doing so?

5. To be more precise, it’s a matter of fellowshipping error. Why is it that God’s people always want to be like the nations around them (1 Kings 8:20)? All of the religious denominations are now participating in this newest craze; so its time our young people joined them. Right; we wouldn’t want to be distinctive, would we? Anyone who thinks that our young people can listen to this music, buy it, attend the concerts, etc., without it affecting them, is incredibly naïve. How long will it be before some want to form their own Christian rock band? How much longer yet will it be until they begin to say, “We sing these songs with instruments all the time; why can’t we use it in the assembly?” Christian rock music is nothing more than the latest form of the Trojan Horse.

Arguments Refuted

1. The workshop emcee appealed for acceptance of this practice by the fact that brethren in various locales were doing it. So what? The same thing could be said about any false practice. Instrumental music itself crept in little by little.

2. Christian rock music got a young girl off of illicit sex. Should we offer those who have tried LSD marijuana? Whereas much of rock music is sinful (which is a good reason to turn it off at that point—as well as the television), some of it does no harm. But it is always wrong to add instruments to spiritual songs. One sin is just being exchanged for another that is deemed lesser.

3. Kids will listen to rock music anyway. Not all of them do, but even if they did, why not teach them to exercise good judgment rather than give it up altogether (the same goes for country music)? It is a false dilemma to say it’s either 2 Live Crew or Christian rock. There’s quite a bit in between.

4. “But it’s only entertainment; the purpose is not worship.” It has already been argued that the reason for listening to Christian rock is that the words are inspiring and uplifting. Shall we say edifying? Does it admonish and teach? Sounds like a spiritual song.

5. On what basis is Christian rock music authorized? Who will set forth an argument, the conclusion of which is, “The Bible authorizes my children and me to listen to Christian rock music”?

Additional Observations

The original article concluded above, but there are some additional points that ought to be made, considering that fifteen years have elapsed since it was written. The first of these points is that there are so many types of radio stations available that in most parts of the country practically any kind of music can be accessed—Big Band era, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, contemporary, country, easy listening, alternative, or anything whatever. And if these choices are not enough, a person can carry compact discs from either major artists or downloads off the Internet. If all of these fail to satisfy, one can invest in an iPod and take whatever he wants with him. In other words, there is no Christian music versus filthy rock and rap dilemma. It was not actually the case in 1994, but it is really not the case now.

Second, some of the predictions made in the original article have already come to pass. The fact is that many young people who have grown up listening to “Christian” rock music have not made the distinction between listening to it and being involved in it. About a year ago, this writer had a conversation with a younger man whom he has known for twenty years. He had released a CD. He should have been taught better, as a member of the church for all that time period, but his CD consists of his voice and a friend accompanying with a guitar. How does something like that happen except in the absence of Biblical teaching concerning instrumental music and the recommendation of listening to “Christian” music? No one needed to be a genius to see the way that this kind of approval was going to work out.

A Door to Apostasy

How does one explain the recent phenomenon of churches, such as Richland Hills, adding instrumental music to some of its services? The speaker, who fifteen years ago advocated acceptance of “Christian” music, made it very clear that doing so was in no way an attempt to introduce instrumental music into worship, yet that is precisely what has happened. To advocate participation on any level with musical accompaniment to spiritual lyrics will open the door to its ultimate acceptance in worship because the immediate effect is to blur the lines of distinction.

Barb and I own a well-traveled piano that has lived in the six states we have. We bought it originally in order to play secular music (I’ve been playing Elvis’ “Don’t Be Cruel” since the age of nine or ten.) When we lived in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, we had a couple from the Christian Church that visited our Sunday evening worship periodically. His first name was Thorn. We invited them over for dinner one evening. In the course of conversation, he asked if we played hymns on the piano. We answered that we did not.

He actually looked crestfallen. After a moment, he said, “When I walked into your house and saw the piano, I just knew I had you. I was going to ask you, ‘If you can play the piano and sing hymns in your home, why can’t you do the same thing 25 feet away in the church building?’” His argument would have been that we were inconsistent, and he would have been right, since the Bible makes no distinction about whether the singing is in or out of the assembly.

It is also inconsistent today for a person to tell his neighbor that we sing a cappella because God gave us no authority to sing with musical accompaniment and then play a CD of “Christian” music for them when they ride in his car. People must be amused by our inconsistencies and think we are hypocritical.

It’s Only “Entertainment”

Many brethren have advanced the notion that it is all right to listen to “Christian music” because we have no intention of worshiping when we listen to them; it’s only entertainment. If we are driving a car while listening, there is no reason to think we would be worshiping any more while listening to “Amazing Grace” being sung than the latest hit by Taylor Swift. While this point is valid, it is not the only consideration.

What was the purpose of the one who recorded the song? The fact that over the years those singing religious music have included such titles as Hymns of Inspiration should tell us that the purpose of the singer(s) is to praise and glorify God, which constitutes worship. If the intention is to praise God, then the use of instruments in doing so is wrong. If they were wrong in worshiping God in that manner, why are we correct to buy their CDs and fellowship them in their error? On what basis do we not stand guilty of wrongdoing?

Is anyone uncomfortable about calling practices related to sacred things “entertainment”? Can anyone imagine Jesus introducing Peter, Andrew, James, and John as “The First Gospel Quartet” to sing religious songs as entertainment? What’s wrong with this picture? Did Jesus preach for entertainment, also? Perhaps the Pharisees prayed for entertainment; truly they were only after the praise of men. They might have enjoyed applause. Does anyone see a danger in combining the sacred and the profane? According to the dictionary, to entertain means “to amuse.” Yes, let’s amuse ourselves by listening to people sing their hearts out in praise to God.

At some of the lectureships brethren host, it has not been uncommon to record the prayer as well as the message. If we are listening to one of those tapes and a prayer is included, are we worshiping if we listen to the prayer? Was the one leading the prayer worshiping? Was the lecture, the proclamation of the Word of God, worship on the part of the one who rendered it? Is it worship to us if we are listening to it in the car while traveling? Surely, we would not claim that it is entertainment.

What if someone took a lectureship tape by one of our faithful brethren and edited it by adding instrumental music to the introduction and perhaps scattered some sound effects throughout (thunder and wind noises for the storm on the Sea of Galilee, for example). When the speaker preached on the grace of God, an instrumental version of “Amazing Grace” played in the background. Would any of these additions be acceptable? They would if the tape was only for “entertainment.”

Conclusion

Singing songs, hymns, and spiritual songs with the accompaniment of instruments of music is inherently wrong because it is not authorized by the New Testament (Col. 3:17). This is the same fundamental sin that Nadab and Abihu committed when they offered “profane fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them” (Lev. 10:1). Even the NIV, which mistranslates frequently and is generally unreliable, got this verse correct when they said of the two priests that “they offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, contrary to his command.” The fire they used was unauthorized, and so is instrumental music when it is used to accompany songs of praise to God.

There are occasions when we must listen to songs accompanied by instrumental music, such as attending someone’s funeral who was a member of a denomination. We do not, however, participate in the singing, nor do we enjoy it. Why, then, would anyone want to buy a CD of that type of music and listen to it? It is not consistent, and it is not right. Furthermore, it should not be done in the absence of an argument which clearly authorizes it. No one has or can set forth such a proposition. In these perilous spiritual times, brethren should be as careful as they can to follow the teachings of the New Testament and abstain from worldly influences.

The Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ

The above title is the heading of a flier that one of our young members was given on his way home from school. He was accosted by a few Black youths wearing some seemingly specially designed white robes. They asked him what race he was, and he answered, “African-American.” They demanded to know, “Are you from Africa?” He told them he was born in the United States, and they told him that he was Black then.

“What color do you think Jesus was?” they wanted next to know. He answered, “What difference does it make?” It mattered to them. “He was Black,” they announced to him. The leader of the group asked, “I suppose you think that Jesus died for everyone.” When he admitted that he agreed with that statement, they shouted, “WRONG!” He was talked to for several minutes before they gave up and moved on. He then gave the flier to me; this article will examine the contents of the doctrine included on it.

Adjacent to the title at the top of the document is a circle, which contains within the star of David, formed by two equilateral triangles—one pointed up and the other pointed down, and overlapping each other. The effect is that six small triangles are formed on the periphery of a hexagon. Within the hexagon are two tablets that represent the tablets of the Ten Commandments.

Underneath the title and symbols is the address of the meeting place of this group, along with its telephone number. They conduct classes from 7:00 to 10:30 P.M. each Thursday and Friday evenings. On the Sabbath (Saturday) they meet from 8:30 A.M. To 2:00 P.M. They also list two websites: www.thecomforter.info and www.theholyconcep-tionunit.org.

Immediately below these bits of information is a rectangle that runs the full width of the text and about an inch downward on the page. With a Bible on each end within the rectangle, the question is asked, according to the way it appears at the top of the next column.

Is Your Church Teaching

THE TRUTH

According to the

HOLY BIBLE?

Immediately underneath the rectangle is an astonishing statement: Those whose fathers are of Negroid and Indian descent make up the twelve tribes of the nation of Israel. No, they do not seem to be kidding, although what else can one do but laugh? What is this doctrine—the Book of Mormon as told by Malcolm X? Of course, there is no evidence presented for this fantastic conclusion, and the subject is dropped until the bottom of the page where there is another rectangular figure, although its bottom border is missing. Inside, the heading proclaims: THE TWELVE TRIBES OF THE NATION OF ISRAEL—ACCORDING TO THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE.

The reader would need this sheet to be informed that the Negroes came from the tribe of Judah! Haitians came from Levi, the Puerto Ricans from Ephraim, and Cubans from Manasseh. The North American Indians are descended from Gad, and Mexicans came by way of Issachar. Really? And what historical evidence is there for such wild and crackpot assertions? How strange it is that, on a page full of Scriptures, not one is cited to proved this group’s contention about the origin of these peoples.

In the center of the page are two “pictures” of Jesus. The one on the left is one of a white Jesus with a trimmed beard and long hair. Above it is the caption: “This is NOT Jesus Christ!” Underneath the tiny picture of the Lord, the flier states: “Cesara Borgias, the 2nd son of Pope Alexander the 6th of Rome. This is one of many false images painted by Michaelangelo during the ‘Renaissance’ period.” Undoubtedly, this image is incorrect.

However, the other picture is just as inaccurate. The claim is made: “This is a true image of Jesus Christ!” Below this claim is a Black man sitting down in a robe, and he appears to have a halo around his head! Yes, that’s much better. And where did this representation of the Lord originate? Is it from Isaiah, Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John? No. This one “comes from Greece (17th century). It shows Christ as He is described in the Holy Bible (KJV): A BLACK MAN!” Hmm. So why is a 17th century Black Jesus any more correct than a 16th century White One? The fact is that the Bible does not provide a physical description of eyes, hair, or skin color. No reason exists to assume that Jesus looked any different from other Jews of His time, which were neither White nor Black.

Underneath the pictures is another rectangle, running from the left margin to the margin of the second picture. Adjacent to it in the last column is yet another rectangle, in which it is declared that the Star of David symbol is the true one “for God’s chosen people,” but the contents of the box on the left are pertinent to this topic. One can only marvel at the exegetical skills of this group as he reads:

The true image of Jesus Christ is found in Revelation 1:1 & 14-15: The revelation of Jesus Christ, (verses 14-15) His head and his hairs were white like wool (The wooly-textured hair of the Negroes – black people), as white as snow, and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace” Jesus Christ’s SKIN is so DARK that the Bible compares it to brass that had been BURNED in a furnace! SO JESUS CHRIST IS A VERY DARK SKINNED BLACK MAN!

It makes about as much sense to apply literally a description of Jesus in a symbolic book as it does to insist that the figure, 144,000, is literal. In the first place, Jesus is not said to have woolly hair; it was white like wool. Had it been white like snow, would that prove that Jesus was an Eskimo who had been outdoors too long? One is about as absurd as the other. It is the color of His hair that is being depicted; the astute reader will notice the other colors in Revelation 1: About His chest was a golden band; His eyes were orange or red like fire. No color is given to accompany the description of the feet. Neither is the color of the garment He was wearing.

Each characteristic is given for a purpose. Revelation 1:16 tells us that “His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength,” which was conveniently omitted in the flier. So, we have a Jesus described here with white hair, eyes red like a flame of fire, a face yellow like the sun, with dark feet. How could anyone possibly claim that the Holy Spirit is giving a racial picture of Jesus? If so, He is everyman—white, red, yellow, and dark brown. There’s probably a song in that somewhere.

Furthermore, this Jesus has a “sharp, two-edged sword” coming out of His mouth, which doesn’t prove He is related to Edward Scissorhands. The description of the flame of fire and the feet are used in the letter to those in Thyatira. The significance of them is the penetrating glance of Jesus and His ability to trample and destroy.

Jesus Did Not Die for All Nations

The people of this religious group could write a textbook on how to take Scriptures out of context. Any student of the New Testament knows that Jesus died and shed His blood for all mankind. Practically everybody has read of John 3:16—“For God so loved the world….” Well, nobody (but these guys) understands that verse properly. ”THE WORLD IN JOHN 3:16 IS THE NATION OF ISRA-EL!” One begins to wonder how much ignorance can be crammed onto one sheet of paper. What about 1 John 2:2? “And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” Are we to imagine that John means “the whole Israel”?

The passages cited to support this assertion are too numerous to list (21); Matthew 1:21 is the first one provided. Jesus was given His name because “He would save His people from their sins.” This statement is absolutely true, but it does not say He would not save Gentiles, also. In John 4:22, Jesus told the woman at the well that salvation is OF the Jews. Right. Jesus was a Jew, and He made salvation available to the Jews, but there is no hint that non-Jews would be excluded. Many of the other passages are along these lines.

What the writers of this false doctrine have ignored, however, is that the gospel is for all. It was obviously to be so from the very time God made promises to Abraham. The third of these was that in him “all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Gen. 12:3). Toward the end of Abraham’s life, God repeated the promise, using equivalent but not identical wording: “In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed…” (Gen. 22:18). Notice that He did not say the nation of Israel (which did not yet exist)–but ALL the nations of the earth. Isaiah saw a vision of the church. He said it would be “established on the top of the mountains…and all nations shall flow into it” (Isa. 2: 2).

Furthermore, the New Testament explains clearly that Jew and Gentile are both included into one body (Gal. 3: 28). In Ephesians 2:13-18, Paul describes how the Lord broke down the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles. He created “in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace.” Why do the proponents of this sect (or cult) think that after the Jews rejected the message of salvation that Paul said, “…behold, we turn to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:46)? Did he decide to just waste his time preaching the gospel to those who could not possibly be saved in the first place?

The Lord Does Not Love Everybody

Every Scripture reference given to prove this point is from the Old Testament, except for Romans 9:13, which quotes from it. These simply reveal a contrast: “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” This passage has to do with God’s selection of Israel as His chosen people and does not mean that He never wanted the Edomites to be saved. God is “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3: 9). Jesus also desires for ALL to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4).

Isaiah 40:15-17 does not say God wants some to be lost; compared to His power, all nations are before Him as nothing and counted worthless. The passage has nothing to do with salvation. Amos 3:1-2 is addressed to the Israelites, the very ones God is supposed to love and save. Whoops! Verse 2 says He will punish them for all their iniquities. God always punishes sin—especially in those whom He loves (Heb. 12:5-11). Deuteronomy 7:6 merely records that Israel is God’s special people; it does not prove He despises everyone else. He gave to Israel special privileges. Psalm 147:19-20 echoes that thought. 2 Samuel 7:13-14 is cited without including verses 12, 15-16. This is a prophecy of David’s son (descendant), Jesus, building for God a house (the temple, the church). None of these verses establish the alleged claim.

Jesus Did Not Do Away With the Law

Most of the Scriptures listed here are recycled from Seventh-Day Adventists. In Matthew 5:17, for example, Jesus said He did not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it. What many fail to see, however, is that He fulfilled it on the cross, thus removing it (Col. 2:14). One wonders how those who advocate that we remain under the Law of Moses to this day could possibly have missed the importance of the two divisions of the Bible—Old and New. If we were all still under the Law of Moses (and Gentiles, except for proselytes, never were), then there would not be any new covenant. Hello! Mark, in the very opening of his book, says, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”

He does not write, “This is part two of the Law of Moses.” He does not teach, “This is an explanation of the Law of Moses.” He does not say, “This is an addition to the Law of Moses.” The gospel is a new and different covenant. For that reason Jesus quotes verses from the Ten Commandments (“You shall not murder” and “You shall not commit adultery”), adding, “But I say to you….” Many of the Scriptures cited to prove this point have no relevance whatever to this false position.

The Bible Does Not Teach the Unity of All Races

Once again, the Old Testament passages presented just mention that Israel is God’s special people or that they are to destroy the Canaanites because He is using them as His arm of justice. None of them deal with the time after Jesus died on the cross. 1 Corinthians 10:21-22 has nothing to do with the unity that is possible in Christ; Paul is encouraging brethren not to have fellowship with idolatry! Nobody has ever taught that all people will be Christians, but the Bible does teach that some from all nations will be in the church. Romans 9:8 contrasts the children of the flesh with the children of promise. The last one, Revelation 18:4, contains a warning for God’s people to come out of Babylon. The faithful have always been urged to separate themselves from sinfulness (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1). None of this proves that all races can be united in Christ. All it takes is people from every race to be obedient to Jesus. God made from one blood every nation under heaven (Acts 17:26). He separated them at Babel, and He unites them in Christ.

Jesus Christ was not a Caucasian

Again, what difference does it make concerning the color of Jesus? He was Jewish, descended from Abraham and David. For most people, Jesus’ color is irrelevant, but the adherents of this cause insist repeatedly that He is Black. If Jesus had been Black, and the whole Jewish race had been Black (have they noticed what color Jews are to-day?), it would not matter to most of us; we would still call Him Savior—of all. But what does matter is the way these people abuse the Scriptures to try to make them say what is clearly not intended.

Two more sections are devoted to color. The first asks, “Was Jesus Christ a Caucasian man?” NO! The Scriptures cited to prove this pointless proposition are Revelation 1:13-15 (again), Daniel 10:5-6, Jeremiah 14:2, and Hebrews 7:14. Daniel 10:5-6 contains a vision of an individual not unlike the description of Revelation 1. A man is clothed in fine linen and girded with gold. His body is like beryl (green or blue), and his face has the appearance of lightning. His eyes are as lamps of fire, and his arms and feet are like polished brass. Daniel’s reaction is the same as John’s later would be. As previously asked, however, what does this multi-colored Jesus (if it is He) prove?

Jeremiah 14:2 says: “Judah mourns, and the gates of the city languish: they are black unto the ground; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up.” This is a description of the famine, not Christ; people are dressed in mourning. It is not part of a prophecy even involving Christ. Apparently, this Scripture is cited because it contains the word black.

Hebrews 7:14 is often cited to show the proper use of authority. Jesus could not be a priest under the Law of Moses (apparently this religious group forgot their claim that we are still under the Law because they certainly would not want to call attention to this passage). Priests were authorized only to be from the tribe of Levi. Jesus was from Judah; therefore, He could not be a priest under the Law. Therefore, the Law had to be changed in order for Him to be a priest (Heb. 7:12). Verse 14 provides a great illustration of Biblical authority: “For it is evident that our Lord sprang from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.” However, the verse says nothing about racial color.

Immediately below the above paragraph is the one that asks: “Does His color matter?” Their answer is “YES!” None of the Scriptures that follow (John 4:24; 8:32; 7:38; 17:17; 3 John 4; Isa. 8:20) have anything to do with why Jesus’ color might be important. They all emphasize the importance of truth—something these folks would not recognize if it bit them.

Conclusion

This religious outfit is just one (of several) that preys upon those who do not know the Scriptures. They pull out passages that seem to, but do not, prove their wild and reckless assertions. They cannot prove any of their outrageous claims and deserve not to be taken seriously. Their outrageous claims cannot stand up to Bible scrutiny.

What Is A Scholar?

This question, “What is a Scholar?” is worth examining in light of the article that follows this one about the “Christian” “Scholars” Conference. According to the third definition of Webster’s 2nd International Dictionary, a scholar is:

one who by long-continued systematic study, especially in a university, has gained a competent mastery of one or more of the highly organized academic studies; more narrowly, one who has engaged in advanced study and acquired the minutiae of knowledge in some special field, along with accuracy and skill in investigation and powers of critical analysis in interpretation of such knowledge.

Several of the definitions found in dictionaries of the word scholar contain only a few words and leave an inadequate portrayal, but this one is comprehensive and states some of the concepts that many of us think of when the word is used. These characteristics deserve to be highlighted and amplified.

1. By long-continued, systematic study is meant that the student has spent a considerable amount of time and effort in trying to grasp the subject matter. In other words, as it pertains to the Bible, he did not just recently read through a few epistles and decide that he had a thorough understanding of what the writer was communicating. Continued study is far superior to casual reading. Also, a systematic study is helpful because otherwise someone can misunderstand the material—if he does not have the proper framework into which all the parts fit. Therefore, one must understand the basics of Christianity—that is, what the Bible is about and how each book contributes to the whole. That is not to say that one cannot read verses here and there and understand them; he can, but for deeper study one must understand major themes and doctrines.

2. Having a competent mastery of the subject allows a person to see even less-intensive points with more clarity. The more one studies the Bible, the more he will notice how some of the same truths are made in other ways and under other circumstances. Applications become easier to follow, also.

3. Skill in investigation is a must. Too many Bible “students” are looking for a verse to confirm a teaching rather than looking to see what the text actually says. An example of this attitude is seen in the use of the “thief on the cross” to try to minimize or negate entirely the command to be baptized. The thief lived under a different covenant than we do—the Law of Moses. He was not one of the conversions of Acts where the gospel is preached. He shows signs of repentance on the cross. No one can prove he had never been baptized by John. The person who argues that the thief’s salvation did not involve baptism must ignore the entire book of Acts. And worst of all, the only helpful thing he succeeds in by bringing up the thief is to make the Bible look like it contradicts itself, which only serves to help the cause of Satan.

4. Accuracy and skill in investigation is another important characteristic of a true scholar. Anyone can cite what someone wrote, but did he quote him accurately? Did he even understand which side of the issue he was on? Paul was misquoted by some as saying, “Let us do evil that good may come” (Rom. 3:8). A genuine scholar would not knowingly misrepresent someone and would correct it if he did.

5. His critical analysis in interpretation of the Word must be sound. Any thesis that denies plain teachings found in the Bible, no matter how many sources are cited, is clearly erroneous and not scholarly. The following article highlights just how unscholarly some can be, and brother Jackson offers an excellent analysis of what has been done.

LIPSCOMB UNIVERSITY AND THE CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS CONFERENCE

Wayne Jackson

The Christian Scholars Conference (CSC) convened in June, 2008 on the campus of Lipscomb University in Nashville, Tennessee (formerly known as David Lipscomb University). With support from several sister schools, e.g., Pepperdine University, Abilene Christian University, Oklahoma Christian University, and Harding University, it was the twenty-eighth annual gathering of some of the most radically liberal, self-designated “scholars” on the planet. There were dozens of presentations (all of which were characterized as “high quality” productions), delivered by both men and women, representing sixty-eight colleges and universities, along with twenty-four additional institutions.

The conference was a heterogeneous blend of sectarian personalities (all of whom were identified as “Christian”), combined with a conglomerate of digressives who have surrendered virtually every vestige of interest in the restoration of New Testament religion. “Restorationism” is not merely ignored, it is repudiated emphatically.

The CSC platform affirms that it “is dedicated to the virtue of diversity which expands world-views, fosters collegiality, demonstrates the highest quality of scholarship, and provides opportunity for all Christian scholars.”

The sacred Scriptures enjoin unity; the emerging anti-restorationists applaud diversity. The lineup demonstrated how very far from New Testament teaching this aggregation of “elitists” has strayed.

One of the most startling participants was former Abilene Christian University student, Jared Cramer. Cramer is currently affiliated with the Anglican (Episcopal) movement (working toward priesthood). On his blog the “Reverend Cramer” (as he likes to designate himself) emphatically declares he has abandoned the ideal of “restorationism.”

I don’t believe in Restorationism or Primitivism. I just don’t. It’s not Biblical, there’s no call to it. I don’t care two bits if today’s church looks like the first century church, and I don’t think God does (Becoming Quicksand).

The most stunning thing, however, was the topic for which Mr. Cramer contended, with the obvious tolerance of the CSC screening committee and/or those affiliated with this program. According to an abstract that appeared on the Lipscomb University website, the author’s presentation was titled “One New Humanity: Reconsidering Homosexuality in Light of the Ecclesiology of Ephesians.” The abstract states:

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians presents an ecclesiology founded on unity in Christ rooted in the fullness of God. Ephesians builds on the fundamental truth that in Christ, God has broken down the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles and is creating one new humanity in place of the two. After examining the ecclesiology of Ephesians, this paper engages in a case study on the place of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered (GLBT) Christians in the Episcopal Church. Perhaps a deeper understanding of Paul’s message in Ephesians can lead to a renewed perspective on the issues facing Christians today.

This may represent an all-time historical low as an approach to Paul’s Ephesian letter.

The material submitted to the CSC (with only a slight alteration to accommodate a transition to the newer CSC format) is a regurgitation of Cramer’s previously published views. His position was set forth in an article titled Homosexuality: But Why?

It was submitted in a more extensive format as a thesis written while at Abilene Christian University and presented to Dr. James W. Thompson, November 28, 2006 (see the thesis here). The CSC submission (June 27, 2008) is virtually a carbon copy of his ACU thesis. It can hardly be claimed, therefore, that his position caught CSC officials by surprise.

Cramer contends that his defense of homosexuality is a response to an increasing number of questions he has received regarding his position on this subject. Incredibly, the author asserts that any discussion of homosexuality “is shallow until a person actually engages in an actual relationship with a person of a different sexual orientation.”

The main proposition the author attempts to argue is that there is nothing “wrong about a faithful, loving, monogamous same-sex relationship.” He says, “I fail to see what it is about homosexuality that declares it as inherently evil” (“Homosexuality: But Why?”). He contends that Paul’s “oneness ecclesiology” in the Ephesian epistle applies to gays and straights just as it did to Jews and Gentiles!

If this is so, the apostle contradicted his earlier instruction in both 1 Corinthians (6:9), Romans (1:26-27), and his later letter to Timothy (1 Timothy 1:10).

This brief review is not designed as a comprehensive rebuttal of the author’s superficial treatment of the Scripture texts that condemn homosexual conduct. He dismisses the biblical data with a cavalier wave of the hand and his personal assertion that some of the scriptural condemnations are “conditioned by time and culture”; thus they are not relevant to today’s gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgendered phenomenon. Other texts, he maintains, address “abuses” rather than loving homosexual liaisons.

The following questions are appropriate:

How does a “scholar” determine it is “wrong” if: (a) a homosexual relationship is breached by “unfaithfulness”; (b) is flawed when lacking “love” and is solely a matter of lust; or, (c) is unwarranted if it is polygamous instead of monogamous? How does one deduce that fidelity, lovingness, and monogamy are to be preferred over their opposites?

Might someone not contend that Bible teaching about faithfulness, love, and monogamy likewise are culturally flexible, and thus promiscuity, lust, and multiple sex-partners are permissible? These sexually inclusive attitudes and actions are common in numerous “cultures” within certain segments of the modern world.

One of Cramer’s arguments in defense of homosexual relationships (as he ideally depicts them) is that gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered frequently bear “all the fruits of the Spirit” (cf. Galatians 5:22-23), hence such must be evidence of their approval by God. He contends that “the holiness seen in the lives of these Christians has stood in ‘stark contrast with many sinful patterns of sexuality’ (e.g., promiscuity, prostitution, incest, pornography, pedophilia, predatory sexual behavior, etc.)” (“One New Humanity”). The “logic” is unbelievable.

What is to be said regarding the atheist who loves his wife, is joyful in his occupational employment, and is peaceable with his next-door neighbor? Do these qualities demonstrate that he enjoys the approval of the very God he denies?

What possible justification could Lipscomb University and its affiliates have for arranging and/or supporting a program that embraces a defense of this debauched level of moral irresponsibility?

What a disservice to the godly memory of the founder of this school! If this does not awaken a somewhat lethargic brotherhood to the gross level of corruption within a number of our universities, could anything bring us to a state of reality?

[Editor’s note: The last paragraph is well-stated in light of all that precedes it. This article was first published on September 16, 2008 in The Christian Courier. Our guess is that brethren have remained lethargic.

This article may be accessed by going to:

www.christiancourier.com/article/1437.

The portions that are in bold and underlined in this reproduction of the original article are links to the information herein described. This article is reprinted with the permission of the Christian Courier.

Final note: Peter dealt with these same types of “scholars” in the first century, who spoke “great swelling words of emptiness” and drew brethren who had escaped the pollutions of the world back into bondage (2 Peter 2:18-19.]

AMERICA FOLLOWS EUROPE

Gary W. Summers

Faith has become nearly extinct in Europe, and the United States is now headed in that direction. According to a poll published in USA TODAY on March 9, 2009, the “percentage of people who call themselves some type of Christian has dropped more than 11% in a generation” (1A). The article, written by Cathy Lynn Gross-man, goes on to provide the breakdown of religious groups and how many each has lost (6A). Following are just a few suggestions for this trend.

1. The promotion of immorality. Is it coincidence that the rise in faithlessness coincides with the acceptance of homosexuality? The entertainment and news media have shamelessly promoted the practice on television and in the movies. Courts also have found “Constitutional” rights for homosexual marriage, although it is unclear whose Constitution they were reading (probably one from France). The problem with the promotion of homosexuality is that one must reject the Bible in order to accept it because the two are diametrically opposed. Despite inept attempts to justify the ungodly practice by people such as Bishop Spong and the Episcopalians, anyone who reads the Scriptures to learn what they teach can understand the truth.

2. The message of Christianity has become so indistinct that people are no longer willing to consider it. First, there are those religious groups who speak up on behalf of abortion, homosexuality, and every worldly vice imaginable. If they do not specifically endorse sin, neither do they condemn it. Why should anyone be drawn to them? If they are going to approve of the people’s sins, of what value are they? People have been sinning for centuries without the “church’s” approval; why seek it now? Second, many religious groups only teach a social gospel, and while helping others is always good, the message excludes other essentials. Third, many “Christian” groups specialize in a “feel good,” “It’s all about ME” message, which promotes selfishness. Fourth, much of the television programming is about as phony as “wrestling.” People are entertained by the bizarre, but it is hard to take religion seriously when flakes are running the show. If people think worship is what is presented on “gospel” shows, no wonder they are staying away.

3. Christianity is marked by division, which discourages people from involvement with it (John 17:20-21). This is not only true in general, it is also true of the Lord’s church. If ever there was a need for peacemakers (however, not through compromise of Biblical principles), this is it.

4. Christianity may have lost sight of its commitment to evangelize. It is excellent to help brethren in foreign fields, but what are we doing where we are? Our energies must be aimed at our own communities, or we will fail our Savior, as well as those who are lost. We cannot blame the first three factors cited above for failure to perform our evangelistic responsibilities. Let us be certain that our commitment to Jesus is strong.

THE Trivaliazation Of Truth (The Circle)

The following piece of writing has occasionally been used by some over the years; on February 10, 2009, it (surprisingly) appeared in The Forest Hill News, edited by Barry Grider.

I DREW MY CIRCLE AGAIN

When I first became a member of the church, my circle was very big…for it included all who, like myself, had believed and been baptized. I was happy in the thought that my brethren were many…but—having a keen and observant mind—I soon learned that many of my brethren were erring. I could not tolerate any people within my circle but those who, like myself, were right on all points of doctrine and practice. Too, some made mistakes and sinned. What could I do? I had to do something! I drew my circle, placed myself and a few as righteous as I within, and the others without. I soon observed that some within my circle were self-righteous, unforgiving, jealous, and proud, so in righteous indignation, my circle I drew again, leaving the Publicans and sinners outside, excluding the Pharisees in all their pride, with myself and the righteous and humble within. I heard ugly rumors about some brethren. I saw then that some of them were worldly minded; their thoughts were constantly on things of a worldly nature, they drank coffee, when, like me, they should drink tea. So duty bound, to save my reputation, I drew my circle again, leaving those reputable, spiritually-minded within. I soon realized in time that only my family and I remained in the circle. I had a good family, but to my surprise, my family finally disagreed with me. I was always right. A man must be steadfast. I have never been a factious man! So in strong determination I drew my circle again, leaving me quite alone.

Some observations are in order concerning this variation of an old theme. The first is that the fanciful outlook described in these lines could just as easily go in the opposite direction. Below is an alternate version.

I DREW MY CIRCLE AGAIN

When I first became a member of the church, my circle was quite small, for it excluded all who, unlike myself, had not been baptized for the forgiveness of their sins. I was happy in the thought that I had obeyed the gospel—but sad to see so many religious folks in error. I could not tolerate those outside my circle in denominations who were wrong on points of doctrine and practice. But then I noticed that some in my fellowship were wrong on certain issues, also. What could I do? I drew my circle again and placed inside all who were as righteous as we were, whose fruits were as good as ours. I soon observed that some in the church were legalistic and dogmatic; so in rebellion against such attitudes I drew my circle again to include all immersed individuals, regardless of the reason, since they at least were involved in the right action. When some brethren complained about my “liberal” attitude, I began to wonder if I were too exclusive yet. Why, there are so many who have only been sprinkled as children, and they seemed as sincere as anyone. And why should some be excluded just because they wear immodest apparel, drink socially, and take trips to Las Vegas? I drew my circle to include them. Now I felt comfortable that I had included a great number, but Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists were still outside my circle, and some of these were my friends! I have never been a “grace only” type of guy, but how could I exclude all of these? I proudly abolished my circle, and now I love everyone.

Although both of these versions make the point not to be too exclusive or too inclusive, they are both too exaggerated and too simplistic to be of any real value. The original deserves an evaluation. First, it either unwittingly or intentionally mocks the Scriptures. Jesus did say that only few would seek and find the narrow gate that leads to salvation (Matt. 7:13-14). Furthermore, only two who left Egypt entered into the Promised Land (although Moses was certainly saved). Most of those who died in the wilderness lacked faith. And how many were saved on the ark when God destroyed the world with a Flood? Only eight human beings survived. Did Noah draw his circle too small?

In Jesus’ parable of the sower, three types of people who actually received the seed became Christians. Of those, two types fell away (Matt. 13:3-9, 18-23). The number of those who are faithful to God in any generation is always few. Therefore, to ridicule brethren who exclude from fellowship those whom God excludes makes fun of both God who gave such commandments and those who follow them (1 Cor. 5:11; Eph. 5:8-12; Rom. 16:17-18; Titus 3:10; 2 John 9-11).

Second, the Bible tells us what to do about brethren who are erring. Whether they are wrong in a doctrinal or a moral matter, we have the responsibility to speak to them (Gal. 6:1; James 5:19-20). Of course, some do not want to be spoken to. They refuse to return telephone calls, e-mails, or letters; they do not want anyone to visit them, either. Usually, this type of behavior is an admission of guilt. They do not want to discuss what they have already made their minds up to do anyway. Those who are in sin know it; they have made their decision and do not want to be confronted about it. They give members of the church no choice but to draw their circle smaller.

Third, the “self-righteous, unforgiving, jealous, and proud” are in as much danger as those morally or doctrinally astray, for those attitudes will lead to the commission of a great many sins. Jealousy (envy), for example, led to the crucifixion of Christ (Matt. 27:18). Pride and self-righteousness were also problems of the Pharisees, and they led to a rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. They could not even entertain the idea that God might be concerned about the Gentiles (Acts 22). Of course, to be unforgiving is to exclude oneself from being forgiven by God (Matt. 6:14-15). However, those who possess such attitudes cannot be excluded from fellowship unless one has first discussed with them the danger they are in.

Fourth, the use of the phrase, righteous indignation, is intended to be a humorous counterpoint to self-righteous, as humble corresponds to proud. This contrast does not consider that the humble do truly attempt to walk in obedience to God (James 4:6, 10) and that a genuine righteous indignation exists. God has acted out of indignation on numerous occasions (Deut. 29: 28; Ps. 78:49; Isa. 34:1-2; Heb. 10:27; et al.). It should be so that, when human beings take offense, we must be certain that it is against actual sin and injustice.

Fifth, truth is trivialized in the statement that some “drank coffee, when, like me, they should drink tea.” Although this probably was an attempt at humor to indicate that brethren divide over non-essential things at times, it does not succeed because it implies that all divisions among Christians are matters of option. Perhaps the writer could define more precisely what he thinks are issues of no consequence. Below is a list of doctrines. Which ones are unimportant?

1. People can be saved without being immersed for the forgiveness of their sins.

2. Jesus built and died for all denominations.

3. Instrumental music in worship to God is pleasing to God.

4. A Christian (one who has truly been saved) cannot fall from grace.

5. All prophecies in the New Testament (including ones in the book of Revelation) were fulfilled by A.D. 70.

6. All of life is worship.

7. The Holy Spirit operates on the Christian directly—in addition to Divine Providence or through His Word.

8. Abortion and homosexuality are not sins.

Which of these requires “circles”? Can a Christian fellowship those who are sprinkled (#1)? Can he fellowship all who are in manmade denominations (#2)? Can he fellowship those who use instruments of music in their worship (#3)? Can he fellowship those who believe that they can never fall from grace (#4)? Can he fellowship those who hold to the Max King error (#5), the Dobbs’ falsehood (#6), or to the Deaver doctrine (#7)? Are there any moral issues upon which he must take a stand (#8)? Do these things involve the difference between drinking coffee and tea?

Sixth, “I was always right.” Although the statement is made out of sarcasm, how many people, including the writer of this “circle” bit would affirm, “I am usually wrong”? Don’t most of us operate under the assumption that we are right? Do we desire to follow the Lord and NOT be right? Were those who “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine” (Acts 2:42) right? Is being right attainable or not? If the author answers, “No,” is he certain that he is right?

Moses, Aaron, Joshua, and Caleb were alone in their insistence that they go up and conquer the land. Stephen stood alone against the Jews (Acts 7). All men fled and left Jesus alone. Should all of these have started drawing bigger circles? Doing what is right is not determined by the majority; it is determined by truth. The fact that Jeremiah was ignored while the false prophets were heeded did not prevent Jerusalem from being destroyed. To be sure, some men invent their own traditions (Matt. 15:8-9), but such cannot deter us from taking a stand for the truth when it ought to be defended.

DRESSING TO PLEASE GOD

Joy Jensen

Much of my time recently has been spent preparing some lessons for an upcoming seminar we are having here in Moshi for the girls/young women. The theme of our day will be “Beautiful in the Eyes of God.” One of the four lessons that I will be teaching is “Dressing to Please God.” Regardless of where you live, this is a relevant topic. Insufficient clothing has been a problem since the Garden of Eden, yet many people have yet to learn the lesson.

We identify many people by the clothing they wear. Here in Tanzania, we can easily identify a member of the Massai tribe by their traditional clothing. We recognize policemen or other people in public service occupations by their clothing. As a Christian, what does your clothing say about you?

In 2007, a group of young people conducted a modesty survey.* While they are not members of the Lord’s church, they are religious. The results of the survey were very enlightening. For example, 70.4% of the guys agreed that a woman that shows any part of her cleavage is immodest. Here is a comment from one of those surveyed: “I find it totally distracting. It is EVERYTHING I can do to keep my eyes on her eyes when cleavage is showing.” Another comment: “This is the biggest thing that causes me to fall.”

For the most part, the women of Tanzania tend to keep themselves more covered than females in the states. So, after living here for a year and a half, when our family went back to the states for a visit, we were struck by the degree of immodesty we faced at every turn, including members of the church.

Missionaries have many different challenges on the mission field, and one that we’ve had is the immodest clothing worn by women who come to help, especially during campaign time. Even when the issue has been addressed during orientation time, some continue to do as they wish. This does not help the work!

Ladies, if you catch a man because you advertised with your body, you can lose him just as easily when something better walks by. Is that the kind of person you want? What does your clothing say about your heart? Are you dressing to catch the eye of men, or are you dressing to please God?

[Editor’s Note: Joy Jensen is a missionary working in Tanzania, East Africa, and this message appeared in the January, 2009 Mission Bulletin from that country, published by the Kensington Woods Church of Christ in Hattiesburg, Mississippi.]

*(See, www.therebelution.com/modestysurvey/
for the complete survey and results.)

SCRIPTURES ON HOLINESS

Gary W. Summers

Match the Scriptures references below to the verses that are quoted.

___ 1. Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

___ 2. But as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, “Be holy, for I am holy.”

___ 3. “And you shall be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation….”

___ 4. In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation….

___ 5. And one cried to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory!”

___ 6. I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.

___ 7. He has sent redemption to His people; He has commanded His covenant forever: holy and awesome is His name.

___ 8. For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that you should abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor.

___ 9. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

___ 10. For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness.

___ 11. And be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in righteousness and true holiness.

___ 12. But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end everlasting life.

a. Exodus 19:6 g. 2 Corinthians 7:1

b. Psalm 111:9 h. Ephesians 4:23-24

c. Isaiah 6:3 i. 1 Thessalonians 4:3-4

d. Romans 6:22 j. 1 Thessalonians 4:7

e. Romans 12:1 k. 1 Timothy 2:9

f. 1 Cor. 6:11 l. 1 Peter 1:15-16

THE Calvinistic Bible

Are there a few Scriptures that seem to reflect the Calvinistic teaching that God foreordained every individual to salvation or damnation before He even created the world? Yes. On the surface, John 6:44 seems to support Calvinistic doctrine—until John 6:45 is consulted. If one does not consider the context of Romans 9, one might think Calvinism is taught. Two or three other Scriptures might seem to support their contention—until one looks closely at the text. But Calvinism disagrees with a multitude of clear-cut Scriptures in order to make its case.

This false system of theology cannot explain away these numerous passages; their attempts make it appear as though God is playing word games with His creation. Consider, for example, the way Donald Grey Barnhouse, in his commentary on Romans (Eerdmans, reprinted 1989), handles passages in which people are invited to come to God (of their own free will):

“Whosoever will” means “whosoever determines.” My next question is: “Who will determine to come to Christ?” The answer from the whole of the Bible is that, by himself, no man will determine to come to Christ. We read at the end of the Bible, “Let him that is athirst come; and whosoever will [whosoever determines], let him take of the water of life freely” (Rev. 22:17). I ask these solemn questions: Who will come? Who will determine? Who will take of the water of life? The answer comes from the whole of the Bible: Nobody, nobody, nobody…. Then why are the promises there? They are there to prove the total depravity of man… (4:1:41).

So, God is not only sovereign; He has a sense of humor, albeit, a little on the “sick” side. Imagine a parent saying to his crippled son, “If you want this $10,000 gift, son, walk over to me. C’mon. Walk over here to me, and I’ll give it to you.” “But, dad, I can’t walk. I want to, but I can’t.” “I know, son, hahaha. I just wanted to call attention to the fact that you are crippled.”

Consider the great invitation of Jesus: “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). How surprising that the next verse does not read: “Oops, what am I thinking? You can’t really come of your own free will—because I didn’t give you any. Sorry, it’s just my little joke—to show you that you can’t do it”!

Just think of all the fun God had inspiring the Scriptures He did not mean to be written. According to The Calvinistic Bible (TCB), we should find the following:

“Choose you this day whom ye will serve” [but don’t strain yourself trying to decide because I already ordained what you would do from the foundation of the world]…“but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” [although it was not really our choice; God foreordained that I do it] (Joshua 24:15).

Poor, deluded Joshua! The whole Bible says nobody can make this kind of decision on his own. “Nobody, nobody, nobody.” He may have thought that he and the people had free will, but God had to will that all generation be faithful—just as He willed the next one to be unfaithful. Of course, one wonders why God conquered them with enemies so that they would cry out for deliverance, since there really is no lesson for Israel to learn about being obedient to Him. Whether they are faithful or ungodly, it is all a matter of His will—not because they love Him or have rejected Him.

Whatever did Solomon mean when he described some who “did not choose the fear of the Lord” (Pro. 1:19)? He writes as though man is a free moral agent. In fact, the whole beginning of Proverbs carries that perspective. “My son, hear the instruction of your father…” (v. 8). Why? “My son, if sinners entice you, do not consent” (v. 10). Why not? If a man hangs out with sinners, it was fore-ordained, just as it is if he avoids such men. Why the warning?

Solomon also writes: “Do not envy the oppressor, and choose none of his ways” (Pr. 3:31). What is it with this guy? Why does he keep thinking that men have choices to make? Solomon would make a lousy Calvinist—and so would the Holy Spirit who inspired what he wrote. Notice below what God Himself said in Deuteronomy 30:15-20.

See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the LORD your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. But if your heart turns away so that you do not hear, and are drawn away, and worship other gods and serve them, I announce to you today that you shall surely perish; you shall not prolong your days in the land which you cross over the Jordan to go in and possess. I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; that you may love the LORD your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days; and that you may dwell in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.

Why is God inviting the people to life and good when He knows they can only do death and evil on their own? Who can choose life and good? “Nobody, nobody, nobody.” But God grants various conditions depending on which choice they make (blessing versus perishing). He then encourages them to choose life for the sake of their descendants. He had just given them the covenant of blessing and cursing in Deuteronomy 28, which also involves the people making the appropriate decisions. God makes so many eloquent pleas for His people to choose life, and yet Calvinists tell us that the whole Bible tells us that people can not determine, by themselves, to choose life.

Is God always insincere when He makes these pleas? He would be monstrous to do so. Consider the heartfelt plea of Ezekiel 33:11:

Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’

How anyone can read all these passages yet think that man has no free will is mystifying. Israel could have answered back to this question: “You know why we will die—we don’t have any choice because you made us this way and determined the destiny of each one of us before the world was created.” God does not act foolishly. He would not beg the people to choose life if they were utterly incapable of doing so.

In Isaiah’s prophecy of the virgin birth, he talks about the time period before the “Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good” (Isa. 7:15-16). The Calvinistic Bible needs to add an explanation to this verse—something like [Of course, no child can actually choose between good and evil.]

Why does the New Testament contain so many warnings against falling away, since 1) backsliding (or apostasy) was fore-ordained anyway, and 2) “once saved, always saved.” Yet Paul writes as though brethren were actually at risk (Gal. 1:8-9; 3:1, 5:4; 6:1). A true Calvinist would have to spend half of his life “explaining away” all of the Scriptures that involve choice or contain warnings against falling away. Hebrews admonishes us that we will be punished if we neglect our great salvation (2:1-4), if we do not mix the hearing of the Word with faith (4:2), or if we draw back (10:39).

These are just a few warnings. Why does Paul write to Timothy to take heed to his doctrine so that he will save himself and others (1 Tim. 4:16)? What difference could it possibly make—if everyone’s individual salvation was pre-determined? Why the emphasis on speaking as the oracles of God (1 Peter 4:11)? Why be concerned about truth at all (Pr. 23:23), since only those God wants to understand it will—and those He has predestined for torment could not understand it anyway? What value is a love of the truth (2 Thess. 2:10), if a person can only have it as God’s gift?

Below is what God should have said to Cain, if Calvinism were true.

“And if you do well, will you not be accepted? [But you can’t do well, Cain, because since your parents sinned, you are totally depraved.] And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. [Actually, you will never do well, since I have already determined that you would not. I selected you to be a bad example.] And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.” [Tee hee. You can’t really rule over sin. I just said that so that you would realize how powerless you are.] (Gen. 4:7, TCB).

Actually, the whole Bible is full of choices for man. It contains promises and encouragement for him to do right and condemnations for rejecting the truth. The Bible clearly teaches that each of us will have to give account of himself to God (Rom. 14:11-12; 2 Cor. 5: 10). How dull would be the Day of Judgment to hear all the wicked say, “You know why I did evil, Lord. You made me this way.” We would scarcely be rejoicing with the righteous who would be saying the same thing. “You know why we were righteous, Lord. You made us this way.”

If such were the case, the evil would not be worthy of condemnation, nor would the godly deserve praise. We all just read the lines that were in our script. God can only be glorified by human beings if we genuinely offer Him our love and obedience of our own free will.

THE FIRST MURDER

Alton W. Fonville

For even Christ pleased not himself…. Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him. Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God (Rom. 15:3; Heb. 5:8-9; 10:9).

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross (Phi. 2:5-8).

For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning (Rom. 15:3-4).

The Bible plainly declares that “obedience to God” is the prime requirement if we expect to please Almighty God. Our Lord Jesus Christ demonstrated that in such a graphic way. He did not “do His own thing” as so many people want to do. He obeyed the will of His Father in all things, and “wrote the instruction book” for each of us to follow in order to also please God.

And the saying which we all hear so often, “when all else fails, read the instructions” has a definite bearing on our eternal salvation. Not following the instructions was behind the very first murder which was recorded in the Bible. The book of Genesis, chapter 4, records the details about Cain becoming envious and killing his brother Abel because God did not accept his “worship”. However, God did accept Abel’s. So, as we read, we ask, “Why did God not accept Cain’s worship?” The Bible tells us that also, but we need to study some more.

The New Testament book of Hebrews, chapter 11, which we commonly refer to as the “catalog of the faithful,” tells us:

By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and by it he being dead yet speaketh (Heb. 11:4).

By faith means that Abel was following the instructions which had to have been given earlier, since “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). Both Cain and Abel had, no doubt, heard the same instructions from God about how to offer acceptable worship, but Cain used his own wisdom and “presumed that his sacrifice would be just as good.” When it was not, he was angry with his brother instead of himself. This is so typical with people, even of this day and time. When they are asked “the reason of the hope that is within them” concerning things which they do in worship or teach regarding salvation, the first thing which happens is an angry reply. Instead of “sanctifying the Lord God in their heart,” being ready to obey the Lord and giving a “thus saith the Lord” for their actions, they want to set themselves apart and do “what pleases them.”

Recently, I had the opportunity to ask a pastor of the local “Bible church” for his Bible authority for teaching that “saying the sinner’s prayer” made that person a child of God. His reply was typical. I got a short letter from him expressing his anger with me and even asking my forgiveness for that anger, and telling me that I did not show the love and compassion that Jesus taught. He made it clear that he did not want to discuss the matter or give me an answer to the questions which I asked of him.

Not only is this typical of denominations, even in the Lord’s church when the same questions are asked regarding Bible authority for certain practices and teachings, the first reply is usually anger. Some do not even show the common courtesies of an answer and just ignore the person who is trying to save a soul from death. 1 Peter 3:15 might as well be snipped out of the Bibles of many people, because it causes anger to arise in a hurry, which might even cause another murder. We need to “by faith” follow the instructions—Jesus did!

—337 Madison 4605; St. Paul, AR 72760

via Beacon (Pensacola, FL) December 22, 2008

THE SIN OF OMISSION

M. E. Slaughter

It isn’t the things you do, dear.

It’s the things you leave undone—

That give you a bit of a heartache at the setting of the sun.

The tender words forgotten, the letter you did not write,

The flowers you did not send, dear,

Are your haunting ghosts at night.

The stone you might have lifted out of a brother’s way,

The bit of heartsome counsel

You were hurried too much to say.

The loving touch of the hand, dear,

The gentle, winning tone

Which you had no time nor thought for

With troubles enough of your own.

Those little acts of kindness so easily out of mind,

Those chances to be angels which we poor mortals find.

They come in night and silence,

Each sad, reproachful wraith,

When hope is faint and flagging

And a chill has fallen on faith.

For life is all too short, dear, and sorrow is all too great

To suffer our slow compassion that tarries until too late.

And it isn’t the things you do, dear.

It’s the thing you leave undone,

Which gives you a bit of heartache

At the setting of the sun.

« Older Entries

Next Entries »