Many people, when they read Romans 9, begin to think that Calvinists have a point about His choosing some to be saved and some to be lost. Since the Bible teaches that man has free will (see “Predestination” from February 8, 2009) and does not contradict itself, we must be careful to study this lengthy passage in such a way as to harmonize with other Biblical texts. Because God elects certain things does not mean He determines everything. The following analysis, although revised, first appeared in the 1998 Spring lectureship book on Calvinism.
For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites; to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers, and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen (Rom. 9:3-5).
Paul begins by expressing concern for his fellow Jews (kinsmen according to the flesh). He implies that the majority of them are accursed and wishes he could somehow be accursed in their stead, much as Moses once expressed himself: “Yet now, if you will forgive their sin—but if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written” (Ex. 32:32). Of course, Paul was well-versed in the Law and knew the futility of such a request; God had told Moses: “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book” (Ex. 32:33).
They had received so many privileges (the covenants, the law, the promises), yet they were now accursed from Christ. Why? Earlier in Romans, when Paul had demonstrated that the Jews were under the condemnation of sin just as the Gentiles were, he asked this question, “What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision?” (Rom. 3:1). Again, the oracles of God were entrusted to them (Rom. 3:2). A similar theme recurs here in Romans 9, but it turns in a new direction. Despite their numerous advantages, the majority of the Jews are out of favor with God (since they had rejected Christ).
But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son” (Rom. 9:6-9).
Paul explains that it is not the Word of God that is ineffective. The fact is that not all Jews descended in the flesh from Abraham are true Israelites. The apostle had written earlier: “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly…but he is a Jew who is one inwardly” (Rom. 2:28-29). To bolster this point, Paul refers to the fact that Isaac was born as a result of a promise that God made to Abraham—and not of the flesh (by which Ishmael was conceived).
This theme is also developed in the book of Galatians, in which Paul contrasts the children of the promise (Isaac through Rebecca, the free woman) and the children of the flesh (Ishmael through Hagar, the bondwoman). The children of the free woman are Christians (whether Jew or Gentile); the children of the flesh are the Jews (Gal. 4:22-31). The point is that the true seed of Abraham does not refer to just those born of his flesh—but rather those born of his spirit. Abraham was a man of faith (Gal. 3:9); “Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7). Many of the physical descendants of Abraham were not his spiritual descendants. Today those who are Christ’s are Abraham’s seed (Gal. 3:28).
God had chosen Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to receive the aforementioned spiritual blessings and advantages (Rom. 9:4), not the least of which was to bring Christ into the world (Rom. 9:5). He made of them a great nation, but told them when He gave them the land that they should remain humble about it. He makes it clear that what they had received was the result of a promise.
The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because you were more in number than any other people; for you were the least of all peoples; but because the Lord loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers… (Deut. 7:7-8a).
God does make choices and exercises His sovereignty in some matters—if the options are equal. The first full day of school, for example, a teacher who as yet knows very little about her students may select one for a particular task. After she determines how many students want milk for lunch that day, she sends him to the office with the total written on a piece of paper. Did he earn that honor? No. Was he the best qualified, the smartest, or the quickest? No. He was chosen at the teacher’s discretion. Does her choosing him for that duty mean he will receive an A in all his subjects? No.
So it is with some of God’s choices. Was there no other man besides Abraham that God could have chosen? Of course there was. When was Jacob selected over Esau? Before birth, they were both equal; God chose one—not for salvation, but for a special purpose. Despite the disclaimer in Deuteronomy, the Israelites came to feel that God chose them on the basis of merit—because they were better than others, an attitude typified by the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14. As Paul explains the reason that not all Israel is of Israel, he knows what the Jews will think on this matter. He anticipates their objections by pointing out the prerogatives God had exercised.
And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac (for the children being not yet born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him who calls), it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated” (Rom. 9:10-13).
Israel did not earn the right to be chosen to bring Christ into the world—or for any of their other advantages. However, Calvinists lose sight of this point; when they read this passage, they ignore the context and think of one word: election. But Esau was not lost because Jacob received this honor; nor was Jacob saved by it. God did not choose to save one brother and condemn the other, just as He did not save all Israelites and condemn all Gentiles. Consider, for example, Achan and Rahab. Achan (the Israelite) was stoned to death because of his sin; Rahab (the Gentile) was saved because of her faith.
This point is made repeatedly in Romans: “The just shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:17). If the Jews thought they could be excused when they committed the same sins as the Gentiles on the basis of their election, they were 100% wrong (Rom. 2:1-3). “But God gave us His holy law.” Yes, but it is not just the hearers of the law (or the trustees of the law) who are justified, but the doers of it (Rom. 2:12-13). Besides, “when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things contained in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves” (Rom. 2:14).
Likewise, God did not choose to condemn all descendants of Esau or save all of Jacob’s posterity. But Jacob was chosen by God before either one was born, before either one even had the possibility of doing good or evil, to be the seed line through which Christ would come. One might think that God’s choice would give the Jews advantages for salvation over all other nations, but New Testament history reveals that the Jews rejected Jesus, which is the focal point of Romans 9. When God chose them for those special privileges, His selection did not guarantee personal salvation when Christ came into the world.
That Paul is discussing those special advantages that the Jews had is seen both from Romans 9:4 and from the prophecy that “the older shall serve the younger” (9:12). This prophecy is not of individuals but nations. Esau lived in the area south of the Dead Sea. Jacob lived in various locations north of there when he returned from the land. They had a brief meeting in Genesis 33:1—20, at which time Jacob gave Esau many animals as gifts. Any other meetings between them, except for the burial of their father Isaac (Gen. 35:29) are not mentioned; certainly neither one served the other. It was long after the deaths of Esau and Jacob that the nation of Edom served Israel.
Paul, then, in Romans 9 is not discussing the sovereignty of God with respect to individual, personal salvation, but rather as it pertains to His election of a certain nation for a certain work. When God chose Israel, His decision was in no way related to their inherent goodness nor any other commendable quality. In response to this teaching on election, Paul anticipates a complaint coming forth from the Jews in Romans 9.
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteous-ness with God? Certainly not! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “Even for this same purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you, and that My name might be declared in all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens (14-18).
This passage emphasizes that God can use individuals to accomplish His will just as He can nations. But the passage in no way supports Calvinist doctrine about the salvation of individuals. Do these verses teach that God ordained from all eternity that Pharaoh would be condemned in hell and that there was absolutely nothing he could do about it—even if he wanted to? No. Do these verses say that Pharaoh had no freedom of choice? No. Is it fair to conclude from this passage that the salvation of each individual is determined from eternity? Hardly. Calvinism is built on a number of assumptions that are unwarranted.
The Calvinist does not know and cannot prove that Pharaoh had no freedom to decide whether or not to let Israel go. There may have been a number of nations which might have enslaved God’s people: Sumer, Elam, Ur, or others. God chose Egypt. There might have been a number of Pharaohs who were proud and arrogant; God selected this one. There is no proof that he was any more stubborn than any other world leader at that time—or any more stubborn than many individuals today.
And how did God harden his heart? Can anyone seriously imagine Pharaoh lamenting, “I really wanted to let the Israelites go, but God wouldn’t let me. He keeps imposing His will upon mine, and no matter how hard I try, I can’t give the release order”? God hardened Pharaoh’s heart with a series of events (plagues). Pharaoh was a willing participant in this process; a number of verses describe Pharaoh as hardening his own heart (Ex. 8:15, 32; 9:34).
In the Scriptures, God frequently allows people to believe what they want to believe and do what they want to do because they are committed to ungodliness. Paul writes: “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie” (2 Thes. 2:11). What? Do we read this verse correctly? Will God send a strong delusion when He has devoted Himself to truth? Actually, He is said to send it because He allows it to occur, but it is really “the god of this world” who blinds “the minds of them which believe not” (2 Cor. 4:4). The reason God grants the devil such success is that many have no love of the truth (2 Thes. 2:10). God therefore gives them up (Rom. 1).
People choose evil over good, error over truth, and moral abominations over righteousness because they treasure these things; they desire them in their hearts (Matt. 6:19-21). They resist God by hardening their hearts; they are stubborn and want things to suit themselves. God did not make them that way. Men devote themselves to wickedness because they like it, not because He compels them. God has never forced anyone to practice evil—not Pharaoh, not Ahab, not Judas!
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempt-ed by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed (James 1:13-14).
Since most Jews will resist what Paul writes here, he anticipates and answers one final objection.
You wilt say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will? But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles (Rom. 9:19-24)?
The natural response to the previous argument is, “So Pharaoh really helped to show the power of God; therefore, he did God’s bidding. So why should Pharaoh be blamed?” Of course, the application for the Jews would be, “We did God’s bidding in rebelling against the law and crucifying Christ; so why find fault with us?”
The answer is that, although God used Pharaoh to His advantage, this ruler over Egypt was nevertheless ungodly and was in no sense cooperating with God in order to show His power. Likewise, the chief priests and rulers of the Jewish nation had no noble motives in mind at all when they crucified Jesus—even though one of them prophesied the event (John 11:47-53). They were moved by envy (Matt. 27:18); they did it in ignorance (Acts 3:17); and they would have refrained from doing so had they known and understood (1 Cor. 2:8).
God’s role as the potter does not mean that anyone is predetermined at birth to follow a certain course. Two people can go completely opposite directions though they are made from the same lump of clay. The fault lies not in the clay but how they respond to God as they grow and develop. God can take a Pharaoh or a chief priest and make him a vessel of wrath without imposing or infringing on his freedom at all—just as Jesus did not force Peter, James, or John to be His disciples. No one disputes the fact that God works in the lives of men and uses events to mold them. It is the means He uses to accomplish His will that serves as the focal point of the disagreement.
Some would insist that because God is sovereign, He simply chooses arbitrarily some for destruction and some for glory. In reality, He fits for destruction those who have rejected Him and hardened their hearts, which is the reason the text says He endures them with longsuffering. He is merciful to those whose hearts remain open to Him. When God makes an arbitrary choice, His decision involves only WHICH Pharaoh or WHICH high priest He will use. He does not choose good men, ruin them, force them to practice evil, and then destroy them. He gave the Amorites 400 years to repent (Gen. 15:15), after which they were perfectly fit for destruction.
Only one of three ideas concerning predestination can be true.
1. God did not pre-determine ANYTHING.
2. God fore-ordained SOME things.
3. God had predestined ALL things.
The first position is false; anyone who has a passing acquaintance with the Scriptures knows that God pre-determined some things. It is stated in the book of Revelation, for example, that the Lamb was “slain from the foundation of the world” (13:8). Obviously, God had a plan for redeeming mankind at the very time the earth was created, which means that He knew that human beings would fall and be in need of salvation. The only real choice, then, is whether God ordains all things that happen or just some things.
The position set forth here is that God has ordained SOME things rather than ALL. The first reason for this conclusion is that no Scripture teaches that God pre-determined all things. If He had, then I would of necessity have written this article, and you would be compelled to read it—unless God did not want you to see it, but that is precisely the problem with position number 3. God decided ahead of time what everyone would do. So why worry about anything? If I fail to complete this article because I want to go home and watch reruns of Gilligan’s Island, that was fore-ordained anyway—just as much as if I wrack my brain to communicate in the most effective manner I can that the third alternative is false. In other words, if everything is already scripted, then no matter what any of us does, it was part of the plan in the first place.
If position 3 is true, none of us ever really has a decision to make, and it is futile to invite people to obey the gospel (Matt. 11:28; Rev. 22:17). What was Paul thinking when he tried to persuade men (2 Cor. 5:11)? Did he not read his own epistles or comprehend them? After all, he is supposed to be the one who taught the third theory. If Romans 9 teaches that God fore-ordained all things, then why do we read these words in Romans 10:1: “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved”? The obvious question to ask is: “Paul, if God has predetermined all things, why are you bothering to pray for people to hear and obey the truth?”
God did not predetermine all things but rather some things. In order to discover what those things are, our methodology is to look at the key words used in the New Testament that embody the concept of fore-ordination and see what they are used in connection with. One verb is proginosko (Strong’s number 4267), which means “know before.” The noun form is prognosis (4268). The other word is proorizo (4309), which means “determine before,” from the Greek verb horizo (3724), meaning simply “determine.” Below is a list of texts from the Word of God that tell us what God determined beforehand.
1. Romans 8:28-29. Verse 28 mentions those who love God, “who are the called according to His purpose.” Jesus taught that the Father draws people to Him through teaching. As the prophets declared, “‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me” (John 6:44-45). Those described in this manner are ones who love God—those whom God (as a group) foreknew (4267). He also predestined (4309) them to be conformed to the image of His Son (Rom. 8:29). Paul does not say that God predetermined who would be a Christian and who would not—just that those who are Christians were ordained to be conformed to the image of Christ, which is what God wants them to be. One cannot be “saved” and go on his merry way. All Christians have the responsibility to grow spiritually in order to be like Jesus.
Verse 30 adds: “Moreover, whom He predestined [4309], these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.” This verse simply illustrates the process by which those who are Christians eventually end up in glory. This predestined group is first called; when they respond in loving obedience to the truth, they are justified; when Jesus returns and they join Him in the air, they shall be glorified (2 Thess. 1:6-10).
2. God foreknew (4267) the Israelites (Rom. 11:2). Even if this text means that God selected Abraham and His descendants before He created the world, it does not prove He foreordained everything. Nor does it mean that they were saved as a result of His selecting them in advance. It is obvious from the generation that died in the wilderness (who lacked faith, according to Hebrews 4:2), that many died in rebellion against God and were lost. Later, they were attacked by enemies because of their sins, and eventually they were taken captive. This passage does not prove the third position.
3. In 1 Peter 1:19-20 we read of Christ “as a lamb without blemish and without spot,” Who was “foreordained [4267] before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you….” These verses show that God had planned the manner and the One through whom He would redeem mankind—and nothing more.
4. Peter told those present on the Day of Pentecost that Jesus was “delivered by the determined [3274] counsel and foreknowledge [4268] of God” to them to be crucified (Acts 2:23). This is the same plan as discussed in the preceding point.
5. In 1 Peter 1:2, the apostle addresses the brethren as “the elect, according to the foreknowledge [4268] of God the Father….” Does this description mean that God selected everyone individually to be a Christian? The remainder of the verse explains the meaning: “in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Christ.” Again, this verse does not mean that God handpicked ahead of time those who would be saved; but those who chose to obey were cleansed by the blood Jesus offered and were sanctified by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:11). God had determined the church, the spiritual kingdom, ahead of time—not only that Christ would die for all—but that the obedient would become the elect and part of the body of Christ.
6. In Acts 4:28 Peter reiterated that the Jews and the Gentiles, in crucifying Jesus, were doing His purpose “determined before [4309] to be done.” This likewise refers to the salvation Jesus procured for all, according to God’s pre-creation plan.
7. 1 Corinthians 2:7 also refers to the same plan that God had “ordained” [4309] before the ages for our glory.”
8. The book of Ephesians also discusses the church, the group that was foreordained by God as recipients of the redemption procured by Jesus. Paul writes that God chose us (the saved, the redeemed, the church) “in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined [4309] us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will” (Eph. 1:4-5). Once again, there is no predestination of individuals to be saved; rather, God fore-ordained all the saved (the church) to receive special benefits, which also require special responsibilities on our part.
9. Later, in the same text, Paul says to these same Christians that God has predestined (4309) them to have an inheritance according to His purpose (Eph. 1:11).
10. The death of Jesus was determined (3724) (Luke 22:22).
11. God ordained (3724) Jesus to be the judge of the living and the dead (Acts 10:42).
12. Paul repeats that Jesus was ordained (3724) to judge the world (Acts 17:31).
13. Jesus was declared (3724) to be the Son of God with power (Rom. 1:4).
14. Concerning the nations, “God has determined [3724] their preappointed [4384] times and the boundaries of their habitation” (Acts 17:26).
15. Some have thought that individual predestination is found in Acts 13:48, where the text says: “And as many as had been appointed [5021] to eternal life believed.” Notice that this word is not related to the others that describe predestination or foreordination. Some scholars, such as J. W. McGarvey and Joseph Henry Thayer have pointed out that a more accurate translation of the verb would be that they were disposed to eternal life—that is, they were receptive. Just as many of the Jews judged themselves unworthy (Acts 13:46), these Gentiles were disposed toward eternal life.
These are the main passages that have to do with predestination. That doctrine has to do with Christ being the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world, and believers who are part of the saved, the body of Christ. God had a plan to save mankind, which was foretold by the prophets. That plan involved having the Jews and Gentiles together in one body (Eph. 2). God also planned that the saved would be conformed to the image of Christ, that they would be justified, and eventually glorified. But God never chose each and every individual to be part of the church; neither did He select anyone to be denied ahead of time—except those who are not disposed to hear and obey (who judge themselves unworthy). The desire of all should be to hear and obey the will of God (Matt. 7:21).
TWO BIRTHDAYS
Roelf L. Ruffner
“Folly is joy to him that is destitute of wisdom; but a man of understanding walketh uprightly” (Pr.15:21).
February 12, 2009, will be the two hundredth birthday of two important historical figures: Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin. The world plans to go all out in its remembrance of Darwin’s birth, especially in the scientific community; while Lincoln’s birthday will be scarcely recalled outside of the United States. This is a tragedy! When you wipe away all the mythology and hero worship of Lincoln which developed after his death, you find a remarkable human being who tried to do what was right and cared for his fellow man. Darwin, a former seminary student, left God and wallowed in unbelief which ended up in his infamous, still unproven theory of evolution.
Darwin’s theories became the underpinning of at least two vicious and murderous ideologies: Communism and Nazism. The Communists believe that, since man is basically an animal, they can extinguish as many lives as needed for “the good of the many.” Nazis, drawing from evolution’s “survival of the fittest,” viewed themselves as the superiorly evolved “master” race with all others being inferior and worthy of extermination like cockroaches.
Worse yet, Darwin’s diabolical theory became the main argument of atheism – the belief in nothing. Many have been enslaved to this malignant philosophy which makes men into instinct driven animals rather than fallen children of God.
Lincoln left no theories behind—just a wise and compassionate example. During his administration this nation suffered a tragic Civil War. History reveals that Lincoln tried to avert this war, but when it was thrust upon him, he sought to end it as soon as possible with victory. Mistakes were made, and many died on both sides, but victory was attained. Because of his love of America, even of those millions who loathed him, he planned a magnanimous peace. Unfortunately, an assassin’s bullet ended his plans. Many of those who followed only saw vengeance, and so they reaped decades of sectional bitterness and racial segregation.
The other great legacy Lincoln left us was the emancipation of the slaves. Lincoln’s proclamation did not immediately end slavery for many, but it did start them and their descendents down the road to freedom and eventually to liberty. American slavery was a horrid evil and blight upon this nation; the antithesis of what this country stands for. Most Americans believed the Bible back then or at least respected it. And the Bible teaches that God “hath made of one blood all nations of men” (Acts 17:26). Lincoln believed in this fundamental value of every human being as created in God’s image. Slavery flew in the face of this belief. I believe this is why Lincoln rose above his own racial prejudices and political instincts and signed the Emancipation Proclamation. It was the right thing to do. It was the American thing to do. I thank God he did it!
As we look at the flawed sinful state of this world, let us never forget that there has been only one perfect example in history – Jesus Christ. I am reminded of the amazement of the nameless Roman centurion as he witnessed the ultimate act of love and compassion at Calvary: “Truly this was the Son of God” (Matt.27:54).
And as the world recalls the lives of Darwin and Lincoln, let us not forget their legacy. One left an awful heritage of unbelief and barbarity; the other left a continuing inspiration of hope and compassion. This is why I choose to remember Abraham Lincoln on February 12th and relegate Charles Darwin and his theory to the dustbin of history.
When Abraham sojourned in Gerar, he told King Abimelech that Sarah was his sister, which resulted in the king taking her for himself. God revealed to Abimelech that Sarah was Abraham’s wife, and that he was a dead man. Abimelech protested that he was innocent and had acted only on the information Abraham had given him. God agreed and said that for that reason He had kept the king from touching her. He then commanded Abimelech to return her to Abraham, which he immediately did (Gen. 20.1-11).
How interesting that two entirely different perspectives existed concerning the land of Gerar! Abimelech asked: “Lord, will You slay a righteous nation also?” (v. 4); yet Abraham, in explaining why he had deceived Abimelech, said: “Because I thought, surely the fear of God is not in this place, and they will kill me on account of my wife” (v. 11). Abraham does not give reasons for his conclusion about Gerar; on the other hand, God did not refute Abimelech’s claim of righteousness. The reason for two opposite viewpoints remains a mystery.
However, the reader is given insight into what the fear of God means. The nation that fears God would, of necessity, practice righteousness. We might ask ourselves, “Does the United States of America fear God?” If we claim that our country does, then how do we explain the legality of abortion, loose laws governing divorce, and courts promoting homosexual marriage? To be sure, many individuals do not practice these things, but our nation allows them.
David quoted God as saying: “He who rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God” (2 Sam. 23:3). How many in Washington, D.C. could be described by such a phrase? Some make decisions in the fear of the ACLU or the lobbyists. A few might vote in fear of their constituents, but how many give God any consideration at all? Yet it is to Him they must ultimately give an account for their decisions.
Those Who Fear Not God
This article does not seek to examine the responsibilities of the nation, however. Rather, the goal is for each one of us to ask ourselves, “Do I possess the fear of God?” Solomon said that the whole duty of man is to fear God and keep His commandments (Ecc. 12:13). It is obvious that many in the world have no fear of God; if they did, they would not lie to others and seek their harm. Nor would they neglect His commandments.
How is it that so many are wicked and choose to transgress God’s laws? The very first thing cited to describe this attitude is: “There is no fear of God before his eyes.” (Ps. 36:1-2). He “flatters himself” as he practices evil that God either approves of his actions or that He does not approve but will do nothing to stop him. The first option is expressed in Psalm 50:21:
These things you have done, and I kept silent;
You thought that I was altogether like you.
People mistakenly think that God’s silence and patience means that He approves of what they are doing. Is God corrupt? How could anyone think such a thing? The Old Testament makes clear that God is holy. No one could read Exodus or Leviticus and in any way come to the conclusion that God is like man. Isaiah knew immediately how sinful he was in comparison to God (Isa. 6:1-5). Yet because God does not send an immediate rebuke or punishment upon ungodly acts, people vainly imagine that He does not care—He understands how the game is played down here.
The second idea—that God does not approve but will do nothing to stop the wicked—is based on experience. When those who do wrong things first transgress, they may be fearful, but as time goes on, they become emboldened by a lack of punishment. They mistake the patience of God for indifference.
Associations
The one who has no fear of God may demonstrate that attitude in a number of ways. “The words of his mouth are wickedness and deceit.” Some who do not fear God may be truthful most of the time due to their upbringing, but many have realized that if God neither cares nor punishes, they have no reason to be truthful with others. More and more in today’s society we are learning that people no longer tell the truth. In fact, it is alleged that the average person tells three lies during every ten minutes of conversation. A significant portion of people tell lies on their job applications to make themselves look better to prospective employers.
Those who do not fear God cease to be wise, since the “fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Pr. 9: 10). They also cease to do good (Ps. 36:3), which makes sense. If they are not punished for doing evil, why should they think they will be rewarded for doing good? In fact, they devise wickedness on their beds—how they might take advantage of others in order to advance themselves. They do not abhor evil (Ps. 36: 4). Since they have lost the fear of God, they can rejoice in all the wickedness that goes on in the world, whether theirs or others. No doubt they have come to believe that only two classes of people who exist—suckers just demanding that someone take advantage of them and sharpies like them, who think that this life is all there is and therefore desire to get ahead in it.
In Romans 3, God describes the unrighteous as those who do not seek God, who do not practice good, whose tongues practice deceit, whose mouths are full of cursing and bitterness, whose feet are swift to shed innocent blood, whose ways involve destruction and misery, and for whom peace is not a priority. Quoting from Psalm 36:1, Paul then concludes this thought by saying: “There is no fear of God before their eyes” (Rom. 3:10-18).
It is obvious that the Gentiles had no fear of God. First, they remained gathered in one location after the Flood instead of filling the earth, as God commanded. Then they built a tower to reach the heavens, and God confounded their language and scattered them into the various parts of the earth. Nevertheless, they rebelled further. They “exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature instead of the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen” (Rom. 1:25). The long list of sins that follows shows what man becomes when he no longer fears God (Rom 1:26-32). Does every person become each one of these things? They do not—or all people would be homosexuals (although all can do so, as they did in Sodom).
The point is that all people are free to practice all manner of wickedness—once they no longer have a fear of God. Some atheists are humanitarians, but many of them rejoice in their own or others’ immoralities because it reinforces their view that either God does not exist or He does not punish. Without the fear of God, the most depraved behavior is possible.
The Reason for Fear
Why ought men to fear God? There could scarcely be an easier question to answer, but it may be that some have lost sight of these truths.
1. God is to be feared because He is all-powerful. Revelation 19:6 declares: “Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns!” The word omnipotent literally means “all-powerful.” This means that human beings will never, individually or collectively (as with the Tower of Babel), be able to outsmart, outthink, outmaneuver, or outmuscle God. His will is going to prevail whether anyone agrees with Him or not. No one can find a weakness on the part of God to tap into, nor can they find a character flaw in His holiness. There is no higher authority to whom one may appeal. His will shall be carried out.
2. God is to be feared because He is eternal. Anyone who thinks that some new regime will come to power and overturn what we read in the Scriptures will live and die in vain. Unlike Greek mythology, there is only one God, and He is self-existing, which was enunciated to Moses at the burning bush when God said: “I AM WHO I AM” (Ex. 3:14). God existed before He created the earth and will be around long after it is destroyed.
3. God is to be feared because He will hold man accountable for his sins. If anything causes post-modern man to wrinkle up his nose in disgust, it is the idea of being “judged.” They not only want to be allowed to do whatever they want by their fellow man, some will even despise God for deigning to criticize their ungodly actions. Since God has all power, however, everyone will give an account to Him (Rom. 14:11-12), and everyone will stand before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Cor. 5:10).
4. God is to be feared because He has the power to destroy both body and soul in hell (Matt. 10:28). All of those who thought that He approved of their sins (or did not care) will learn that He most certainly did care. The Bible teaches that hell is a place of everlasting fire (Matt. 25:41), a place of darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matt. 22:13), and a place of everlasting destruction away from the presence of the Lord (2 Thess. 1:9). Those who are sent there cannot return. Hell is eternal and therefore a place of no hope—ever. In this horrible environment many will undoubtedly ask themselves over and over again, “Why did I have no fear of God while I lived upon His earth?”
5. God is to be feared because He always keeps His promises. All prophecies and all promises that God has ever made have all come to pass—whether of the coming of Christ, salvation, or the church—they always occur just as God has foretold. All that He has said about the judgment and eternity will happen precisely the way He has described. His Word is always fulfilled (Matt. 24:35).
The Meaning for Us
Since these things are so, what manner of people ought we to be? First of all, as noticed earlier, we must fear God and keep His commandments. The natural tendency of man is to ask, “What laws must I keep?” “Which ones are the most important?” or “Hey, what’s the least amount that I can get by with?” Anyone who asks such questions still does not have a handle on what the fear of God really means.
When God gave Israel the Ten Commandments, did He also say, “Keep 80% of these, and you will be all right”? No. God does not grade on a curve, either. Considering Israel’s infatuation with idols, one would think that they were allowed to overlook the first two commandments. If given a choice of ignoring two of the ten, many today would select number seven and number 10, since they covet mates that belong to others and want to commit adultery with them.
But God never had in mind such foolishness; He gave all commandments for a reason—even those in the Old Testament were for the people’s good (Deut. 10:12-13). Jesus said that more than lip service had to be paid to Him. One cannot simply call Him Lord; he must do the will of the Father (Matt. 7:21). How much of the Father’s will needs to be done? God expects all of it to be done. Jesus asked people how they could call Him Lord and not do what He said (Luke 6:46).
What should be cut out? “Say, that stuff about being evangelistic is kind of difficult; surely I don’t have to do that.” Well, then, perhaps Christians can get exemptions from loving one another, also. Many of the Jews would have liked a free pass from helping a Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37). The problem in seeking loopholes is that there still is no fear of God, and such thinking is futile.
The second thing that we do if we fear God is to perfect holiness in our lives (2 Cor. 7:1). We cheerfully do so because we have such great promises from Him. He has pledged to be our God if we cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit. We must be certain that we do not engage in the sins of the world that pollute our bodies and our minds. If we understand the holiness of God, we will want to abstain from the pollutions of the world which war against the soul (1 Peter 2:11; 2 Peter 2:20).
Perfecting holiness means not only abstaining from worldly lusts (Gal. 5:19-21), it also requires us to grow (1 Peter 2:2). We do not want to prostitute our bodies with unlawful sexual liaisons or pollute them with alcohol, drugs, or smoke. On the other hand, we need the spiritual exercise of love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal. 5:22-23). These can be developed with prayer and practice. Some seem to think that, if they are baptized and attend worship, God will surely be pleased. He will not—if we neglect to develop ourselves spiritually.
Benefits
The book of Proverbs contains several verses that deal with the fear of the Lord in both negative and positive ways. The fear of the Lord, for example, is defined as hating evil, pride, arrogance, the evil way, and the perverse mouth (8:13). In other words, we ought to hate the things that God hates (Ps. 119:104). Most people do not think that God hates anything, but He does: He hates sin—those things that will keep people out of heaven and out of fellowship with Him.
On the positive side, the fear of the Lord prolongs a person’s days (Pr. 10:27). Also, in the fear of the Lord is “strong confidence” (14:26). The reason for that is that one’s faith in and fear of God cause him to walk in God’s ways. Knowing that one is pleasing to God provides confidence in dealing with life’s daily crises and is a comfort in time of turmoil because we know that, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s (Rom. 14:8). If God is for us, who can be against us (Rom. 8:31)?
“The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life…” (Pr. 14: 27). It not only refreshes along the way, it helps avoid “the snares of death.” It will bring one safely into eternal life, which ought to be the goal of every human being that God created. “The fear of the Lord leads to life, and he who has it will abide in satisfaction; he will not be visited with evil” (Pr. 19:23). How many people can say that they are satisfied in today’s world? Those who seek to please God will find that living His way is the best and happiest way.
“By humility and the fear of the Lord are riches and honor and life” (Pr. 22:4). These things do not always occur immediately when a person decides to live in the fear of God, but they generally come along eventually. We ought not to be upset with evil people and the ways in which they seem to be blessed. “Do not let your heart envy sinners, but in the fear of the Lord continue all day long; for surely there is a hereafter, and your hope will not be cut off” (Pr. 23:17-18). Final rewards are not received in this life, but patience and dedication will be recognized by the Lord. Sinners receive good things now from God (Matt. 5:43), but those material things are all that they will ever enjoy. On the other hand, the “fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever” (Ps. 19:9). Christians are blessed both now and in eternity.
Who is the one who walks in the fear of the Lord? Is it the one who ignores the Word or the one who studies it? Is it the one who worships God in the assembly of the saints or the one who thinks that the church is irrelevant? Is it the one who only knows God’s morality or the one who lives it? Is it the one who comes home from work, eats the evening meal, and watches three or more hours of television or the one who is visiting those with spiritual needs or reading religious materials? Is it the one who is seeking ways to take advantage of others or the one who is planning ways to show love to others? Is it the one who only speaks good religious sentiments or the one who lives the commands of God? All mankind needs to take seriously living in the fear of God.
Most e-mails that I receive require no reply. They may be bulletins or items of interest that are simply being passed around the Internet. Of those that necessitate a response, some are requests for information or Bible questions. Occasionally, someone sends something bizarre, which prompts the question, “What do I do with this?” The first one, reprinted below, was a one-time correspondence from November 21, 2008. The writer occasionally quotes from me, and those are indented even further and italicized to stand out.
I am a parent searching for information on Max Lucado, because my son has recently been attending his church with his girl friend. I have never heard one of his radio broadcasts or read one of his books or been to his church myself.
We recently have stopped attending our church when financial records were exposed. I am really sick to death of greedy pastors living like millionaires on the money parishioners donated for good.
I came across your site and I am just shocked by you! I have spent the last three hours reading such contradictions, I can not even begin to put into words. I think that people like you spend way too much time with words and arguments. You must spend ALL your time with words just spinning in your head that you loose [sic] the meaning of them. Words mean many things to different people due to culture, language and time. One word can have multiple meanings. I think the biggest fault in human history is misinterpretation! The Old Testament and scripture can be misinterpreted or used to justify the KKK or to put fear into the average sheep herder for political gain and control. You get stuck on too many words and pointless points loosing [sic] site [sic] of what the message was as a whole. Are you in politics? Maybe you should be. Your comment concerning Ken Starr and Clinton really got my attention.
It never ceases to amaze me that the one who exposes error often times receives more criticism than the person who is actually the source of the problem, kind of like blaming Ken Starr for what Clinton did.
Are you insane? Ken Starr is tainted! His associates are tainted. He used corrupt testimony and leaked grand jury information. His motives, tactics and alliances defile the temple of justice!
Are emotions always bad? No, they can have great value if they are controlled and if they are in harmony with the truth. Unfortunately, however, such conditions are frequently the exception rather than the rule. When Joshua and Caleb reasoned with their brethren concerning faith and the power of God, it did not faze them. They picked up stones to kill them (Num. 14:6-10). Later, the children of Israel were determined to have a king. Samuel pointed out the problems that having one would incur. Did the people even listen? They responded immediately, “No, but we will have a king over us, that we may be like all the nations…” (1 Sam. 8:19b-20a).
Hummm, sounds a bit like our President Bush, and I think you should practice what you preach. I think you have gone beyond being the ”spiritually correct police.” I think it has become personal for you, or an obsession, a lot like Ken Starr…..
I am not defending anyone here. I do not claim to have any knowledge about you or Max, I am trying to get some “facts.” I am not the smartest person in the world, I do not claim to be perfect, but I am not blind either. Do you really think that what was meant by “beware of false prophets” means for us all to be watchdogs? Do you really think you are an equal to the prophets of Baal? It is obvious to me from this site you have created, that you ARE mean spirited and have an underlying hatred/jealousy for this man Max. That you thrive on insults or any attention this web site brings to you. Any other lessons or message has been tainted by your FEELINGS.
I am going to give my son the green light to attend this church. You just drove me to it. I plead “madness” because, I really do not get you at all. I have read enough here to show me that you do not speak the truth. You speak your truth as you see it or interpret it. Your site is sad for your church and your followers and you should be ashamed of yourselves. And, you should not be surprised that there was no further reply from these other letter writers supporting Max Lucado, they should not lower themselves to your level or waste anymore time with you, which is exactly how I FEEL!
Obviously this message was an “I can tell you off and make myself feel better” communication. It started in one direction, rambled all over the place, and finally came back to the subject. How can anyone respond adequately to such ravings? My reply was brief.
Dear anonymous,
You seem unhinged. If you actually read any of the articles about Max Lucado, you would have seen that in many of them I quote his words, as is the case with anyone’s error that I warn people about. Was Jesus a watchdog (Matt. 7:15; 16:12; and chapter 23)? One can only imagine how you would FEEL about Him.
Gary
Of course, any reply would have been futile; for that reason I kept it brief and tried to find something that might get through to this person (the warnings that Jesus gave about false teachers).
It is obvious that the message was prompted by emotion rather than logic. Ironically, the anonymous soul who splattered words upon the electronic page quoted what I wrote about the lawful use of emotions, but ignored the comments altogether, saying they sounded “like our President Bush.” This non sequitur, along with the trashing of Ken Starr, reveals that the writer was as politically motivated as he or she was spiritually motivated to write. Furthermore, when one takes issues with Scriptures uttered by Jesus (Matt. 7:15), then they have allowed their emotions to carry them too far. The letter is an example of a person being controlled by his own biases.
This next letter is also strange in that the writer asks questions that he already knows the answer to. One would think he should have sent his letter to a Baptist instead of to me, also. Is the guy just putting me on, or is he serious? His last question may be a hint.
First off I do not know you from Adam. So anything that you recommend has to be backed up with scripture from the 1911 King James Bible.
My wife professed to be a Christian 25 years ago but refused to be baptized because the church her parents took her to sprinkled her when she was a baby. The Baptist Preacher that led me to the Lord convinced me beyond doubt that after I was saved that I needed to be scripturally baptized to follow Gods word. I did so, much to the dismay of my wife. She even hid or destroyed a certificate I was given after the Baptism.
For the next 20 years she tried to convince anyone and everyone that told her to follow the Ordinance of Believer’s Baptism. Every time we would start to feel comfortable in a church and sought membership she was denied membership because she did not partake in Believers Baptism. She would soon start finding fault with different members and even tried (unsuccessfully) to start an insurrection at one church. So we jumped from church to church.
During that time she went from the excuse of already being baptized as a baby; then went to the excuse that she didn’t like the way the pastor placed a handkerchief over the person’s nose before they were immersed; and lastly she spoke to a counselor who convinced her that the reason she was so adamant against being immersed was because she fell out of a boat when she was young. I find the last excuse unbelievable because she would often engage in a dunking contest in swimming pools, ponds, or lakes.
At some point she became acquainted with the seeker sensitive movement and began believing some of the unscriptural practices there. I’m not sure how it all came about but one fellow offered to baptize her in private. If you haven’t already gathered, she is very defiant of authority, whether it be a Preacher, Policeman, or any other authority.
We are now attending a very good Independent Baptist Church that strictly follows the Baptists’ Profession of Faith. I’ve learned that individually joining a church would be a recipe for disaster. We have been rightfully denied membership unless she is Scripturally Baptized. The church will not accept baptisms from other churches (including some calling themselves Baptist Churches) if they accept unscriptural baptisms (i.e., sprinkling, pouring, baptism of unsaved, or if their doctrine isn’t clear or scriptural, etc.). I’ve given up on trying to convince her myself. Several friends, including the pastor, have explained Scriptural baptism wonderfully using the Bible, illustrations, etc., and yet she refuses to accept truth.
So what scriptures would you recommend? Am I all wet?
The following answer was sent, in the event the inquiry was a legitimate one.
Below is a brief answer to your questions. Each observation is numbered, in case you want to refer to them in your reply.
1. If your wife does not like authority of any kind, then the rest of these answers seem like a waste of time, but as it pertains to authority, consider what Jesus taught:
a. He has all authority (Matt. 28:18). [You may look these up in the version you use.]
b. Jesus asks why people desire to call Him Lord but then do not want to do what He says (Luke 6:46). She cannot call Him Lord and then refuse to do what He says.
c. Jesus taught that if we love Him, we will keep His commandments.
d. Jesus said that people need to believe and be baptized in order to be saved (Mark 16:16). If she refuses to be baptized, she is refusing to obey Jesus. She does not love Him, and He is not her Lord. He only saves those who obey (Heb. 5:9).
2. Where did Jesus authorize for a baby to be baptized? This practice lacks Biblical authority, which we need for everything we do (Col. 3:17).
a. Babies do not believe in Christ (Mark 16: 16).
b. They cannot repent of sins (Luke 13:3), which they do not have in the first place (Matt. 18:4).
c. They cannot confess with their mouths (Rom. 10:9-10).
d. They are not baptized of their own free will.
3. Baptism involves immersion, which is the way any Greek lexicon (dictionary) defines the word.
a. John baptized where there was much water (John 3:23). One does not need much water in order to sprinkle someone.
b. Baptism is a burial (Rom. 6:3-5). The burial and being raised up is important in this passage. Sprinkling does not fit the image.
c. Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water and came up out of the water, which is totally unnecessary if sprinkling were all that was done (Acts 8:35-39).
Again, you suggest that the main problem is that she refuses to understand these things—that “she refuses to accept truth.” This is the heart of the matter. Without a love of the truth no one can be saved (2 Thess. 2:10). Perhaps if you point out the wisdom of accepting truth (Pr. 23:23) and show her what happened when people knew the truth but refused to live by it, it might help (Rom. 1:18-32, especially verses 21 and 25).
Let me know if any of these points have merit with you and her. I would like to discuss the nature of the church with you at some further time.
Gary
This last question was dated January 21, 2009. The reply was sent on January 25th, and to date there has been no further response.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
ALWAYS A WAY
Grace E Easley
There’s always a way, but we have to try.
Though life is a gift to you and I,
We can’t expect to merely sit,
With never an effort to merit it.
There’s always a way, though the going’s rough,
And only our best is good enough.
We haven’t the time to count each loss;
If the bridge is out, we swim across.
There’s always a way; life’s not in vain,
Though joy may be the twin of pain.
Whichever way we chance to go,
The Master walked it first, you know.
He simply wouldn’t put us here,
And then withdraw His tender care.
Whatever His dear Love may ask,
He makes us equal to the task.
For it is true He walks beside us
Through each dawn and eventide.
Though bones may bend and sight grow dim,
No thing’s impossible for Him.
And so whenever walls may rise
To block the sunlight from our eyes,
That is the time for us to say,
“Dear Lord, please help me find the way.”
Preaching the truth results in criticism and even persecution. John the Baptizer told Herod that it was not lawful for him to have his brother Philip’s wife (Mark 6:17-18), and Herodias, who had left Philip for Herod, became so incensed that she eventually found a way to arrange John’s death. Many did not like Jesus when He talked about God’s concern for the Gentiles (Luke 4:25-30), when He healed on the Sabbath day (John 5:1-16), when He taught that He had the ability to forgive sins (Mark 2:1-12), or said God was His Father, making Himself equal with God (John 5:17-18). Needless to say, when Jesus exposed the hypocrisy of the scribes and the Pharisees in Matthew 23, they hated Him even more. Eventually, they were able to manipulate the crowd into urging the Romans to crucify Him, but they could not prevent His resurrection. Paul and many others likewise suffered persecution as a result of preaching the Word.
In the course of preaching the gospel, Jesus and His apostles were asked many questions. And they answered them! Sometimes the questions were for the purpose of obtaining information. The woman at the well asked Jesus several questions, and He answered them all (John 4). Sometimes opponents asked Him questions to trap Him or to put Him into a difficult situation, such as when the Pharisees asked Him: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” (Matthew 19:3) or when the Sadducees asked Him whose wife a woman would be in the resurrection, since she had been married to seven brothers (Matt. 22:23-33).
Jesus answered the questions designed to trap Him just as much as He did those for information. He might answer a question with a question, as He did when the chief priests and the elders asked Him by what authority He acted, and He answered, “The baptism of John, where was it from? From heaven or from men?” (Matt. 21:23-27). They declined to answer, and so did Jesus.
When the woman taken in adultery was brought to Him, and the hypocritical Pharisees asked Jesus: “Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do you say?” (John 8:5), He was silent—for a few moments. Then He raised Himself up and responded to them: “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first” (John 8:7). Now it was their turn to be silent, and they all left.
Not only did Jesus and the apostles set forth and defend their beliefs in the first century, our brethren in the 19th and 20th centuries did also. We have always been willing to defend what we believe in debate. How many times have we told others: “Truth has nothing to fear”? How often have we pleaded with others, “Come now, and let us reason together”? How often have we urged an honest discussion of the Scriptures? How many of us have echoed the sentiments of N. B. Hardeman, who said, “I can state my position on any Bible subject on a postcard and still have room to ask about the wife and children”?
Yet now it is the case that many have taken vows of silence instead of being forthright. When asked questions that could easily be answered, they refuse to speak, to correspond, to communicate in any fashion. It is kindly pointed out that this attitude is unscriptural and breaks with the tradition established by Jesus and the apostles, which faithful brethren have upheld until this postmodern 21st century.
“Some Reflections”
In the October, 2008 Harvester, published by the Florida School of Preaching, Jackie Stearsman wrote a brief article in which he apparently is trying to defend the school’s silence with respect to questions asked of them. The analysis that follows does not spring from any malice on the part of this writer with that institution or anyone who is a part of it.
The fact is that I have spoken on lectureships with Gene Burgett, Brian Kenyon, and Jackie Stearsman, the latter of which recommended me to the brethren here, which may have contributed to them asking me to come work with them. In other words, there is no personal ill will whatsoever against the school, as a whole, or the instructors individually. What follows deals with an issue; it is not an ad hominem attack.
Brother Stearsman begins his article by asking if his readers have ever considered why the Lord stood silent before Pilate and Herod? He cites Matthew 27:12-14, Mark 15:4-5, and Luke 23:8-11. Many of us have studied these passages and believe there is a logical answer to the question. The questioning of Pilate and Herod were not to obtain information. They were not for the purpose of posing an “insoluble” predicament. The determination to crucify Jesus would not be altered by Him fielding questions at this point. Herod only wanted to be entertained by Jesus. His questions were pointless and basically for the sport of him and his soldiers.
Pilate actually did ask some serious questions, and although the gospel of John was not cited above, Jesus did answer a few of them, after having first remained silent (John 18:33-38). It was during this conversation that Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world,” a passage we often quote to refute Premillennialism. After being scourged, Pilate asked further questions, and Jesus remained silent once more, and when the governor became upset with that silence, he reminded Him that He held the power of life and death over Him. Jesus spoke once again: “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin” (John 19:11). Jesus was mostly silent, but He did say some significant things.
Is it the intention of the brief article under review to equate FSOP with Jesus under trial for His life? If so, who corresponds to Pilate and Herod? Is it appropriate to cite the only time Jesus refused to answer questions (when He was on trial and about to be crucified), and then use that as a defense for being silent as a matter of course? The reader can judge for himself how accurate such a parallel might be.
The article puts forth another question: “Do you think some might label Jesus a sinner because He did not answer every question posed to Him?” Apparently, those who have wondered why FSOP refuses to answer questions about where they stand on certain issues are now accused of being so heartless and mean that they would accuse Jesus of being a sinner!
Before answering this charge, the reader should ask himself something. Suppose that a school or a college did have something to hide. Perhaps funds had been misused, or there actually was a false teacher on the staff (this is hypothetical). Could not the school respond with precisely the same argument that brother Stearsman has used to avoid scrutiny?
The Reason for Silence
Having already noticed that Jesus was not totally silent, we should look at Matthew 27:11, which precedes the text of 12-14 in the article under review:
Now Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor asked Him, saying, “Are You the king of the Jews?” So Jesus said to him, “It is as you say.”
Jesus then remained silent because He had already answered the question. His kingship, however, was not of this world. The other questions that they asked before the governor He had already addressed. He had taught the people the gospel, and He had done noteworthy miracles all throughout Judea and Galilee to prove the claims He had made. They already had all the evidence they needed, yet they still desired to destroy Him. Of what further use would anything He said be at this point? Were they about to be persuaded by what He might now say? Hah!
But how does any of this parallel FSOP’s refusal to answer questions, period? Any school of preaching or college that seeks the financial support and good will of brethren ought to be able to explain where they stand on a few doctrinal points since they ask brethren to trust their judgment in the spending of money and in providing prospective students. In fact, they should welcome the opportunity to show that they stand where the Scriptures do.
Terry Hightower’s Three True – False Questions
It may be that brother Stearsman’s article was in response to the “Open Letter” (dated August 25, 2008) that brother Terry Hightower sent to the school. Certainly, as a former student and instructor, with close ties to Jackie Stearsman and Gene Burgett, no one would accuse him of having anything but the best interest of FSOP in mind. Now it would be cumbersome if he had sent the director and the board 100 questions or even 50. Such would be a time-consuming chore to answer, but brother Hightower only sent three, and they are not difficult to answer. They are True – False questions and are listed below.
1. T or F: We at the Florida School of Preaching hold and support the scripturalness of Elder Reevaluation and Reaffirmation as taught and practiced by Dave Miller, Director of Apologetics Press (Montgomery AL), and the Brown Trail eldership (Hurst TX).
2. T or F: We at the Florida School of Preaching hold and support the scripturalness of “mental intent” in regard to commitment in marriage with its subsequent implications for divorce and remarriage as taught and practiced by Dave Miller, Director of Apologetics Press (Montgomery, AL) and the Brown Trail eldership (Hurst TX).
3. T or F: Along with Dave Miller, Director of Apologetics Press (Montgomery AL), we at the Florida School of Preaching hold and support the scripturalness of fellowshipping false teachers [like Mac Deaver (Denton TX)] who teach the Direct Operation of the Holy Spirit and/or the present-day Baptism of the Spirit.
All three of these could have been answered false, which is the way sound brethren would answer them. So why would brother Stearsman write an article, misapplying the silence of Jesus at portions of His trial, instead of just answering these questions?
“Church Controversies”
However, there is more. In the same issue of The Harvester, an article by Wayne Jackson also appears; in fact, it is the lead article. “Church Controversies” was originally published by ChristianCourier.com on July 8, 2008. Before mentioning its contents, however, we affirm that the article, for all of its good points, is too vague to be of value. Jesus did not have any trouble identifying the Nicolaitans by name, saying that He hated their deeds and their doctrine (Rev. 2:6, 15). He also mentioned that there were false apostles (Rev. 2: 2) and a false prophetess named Jezebel (Rev. 2:20). Paul listed individuals (1 Tim. 1:18-20; 2 Tim. 2:16-18; 4:14). When specific names are not given, then usually their false teaching is singled out and examined. In the instance of Revelation 2:6, the recipients of the letter obviously knew who the false apostles were whom they had tested.
Brother Jackson, however, speaks of “little people” who make “big issues” out of “non-issues.” Unfortunately, he provides no examples so that anyone would know who he means by “little people.” And what does he regard as a “non-issue”? Since this article appears in the same Harvester as the one previously reviewed, the reader finds himself wondering, “Does brother Jackson think that the elder reevaluation/reaffirmation practice is a non-issue?” Would he refuse to answer the three True – False questions?
He goes on to state that some brethren are “chronic complainers” and “perpetually factious,” which is true, and we have all known some who, as the expression used to go, were “born in the kickative mood and the objective case.”
We can also agree that internal “personal problems…should not be broadcast throughout the brotherhood,” and his reasons for saying so are valid. He does not address, however, the situation of one congregation withdrawing from another—or from the elders of another congregation—which then places all the other brethren in the geographical area in a difficult situation. All brethren can do in such a situation is investigate the matter to decide whether the withdrawal was necessary and valid or not. Likewise, if a trouble-maker leaves one church for another, brethren cannot just plead ignorance.
Brother Jackson provides five guiding principles for brethren to use in dealing with church controversies, which would be fine, if he had just stated the tenets he thought were helpful, but he peppers these good ideas with blanket condemnations of certain anonymous brethren. One may be reminded of those times when elders have come to a preacher and said, “We’ve had some complaints about you.” When asked, “From whom?” the answer invariably is, “Well, that doesn’t matter.” Other preachers have fallen victim to the “they say” mentality. The Bill of Rights does not, in some instances, apply to the accused in the church; some apparently believe in trial by innuendo.
Some of the accusations brother Jackson levies at others (without mentioning specifics) are that a few brethren “are masters at taking words and phrases and twisting them to form an indictment alien to the meaning included by the original writer or authors.” It would be nice to have an example of such master word twisting; surely brethren would profit in seeing how someone does such a thing.
Who are the “long-distant critics” who desire to hand down “dictums to be bound upon other churches”? Would it be possible to identify the “small mob of Christians scattered around the country” who are issuing ultimatums to which “all churches are expected to yield”? Who are the “misdirected, lathered-up radicals” who are threatening to impose disfellowship on others? Should not these ill-tempered brethren be exposed? They sound dangerous enough that they need to be named; this is no time for vagueness to prevail.
Who are these “rabble rousers” who enjoy fanning “the flames of local church problems,” who have “dirty laundry” of their own? And why do they think they can monitor “the nationwide church”? If we have “self-deputized” cowboys who are “constantly caught up in the frenzy of a new fight,” shouldn’t they be marked and rejected as divisive (Titus 3:10)? Brother Jackson closes his article with this sentence: “Jesus pronounced a blessing upon the peacemakers, not upon the strife-causers.” Amen. But how is someone supposed to make peace when one party refuses to talk?
Scriptural Principles
Jesus said that if you have something against a brother, go to him and talk to him about it (Matt. 18:15-17). Issues, conflicts, and problems between brethren need to be resolved, and everyone has the obligation to do what it takes to bring about peace. In some cases people have asked brethren, as Terry Hightower did, why they fellowship those teaching false doctrines. The reply is silence.
Our Lord also said that, if you know that your brother has something against you, the first thing you should do (before worshipping God) is to first seek reconciliation with your brother. Many of us have something against those who fellowship error and have made it known. It is not Scriptural to prefer silence to resolution.
More than three decades ago, brethren knocked doors in Western Pennsylvania and set up several Bible studies. A few hours later, a lady with whom an appointment had been made called the church building and said that she had decided to cancel the meeting. I said that she had seemed interested earlier and asked if something had changed her mind. She replied that she had been in touch with her “leader” and that she was advised against it.
Who was her “leader”? Was she a member of a cult? Whatever she meant remains unknown since she offered no further explanation, but it is very possible that the individual who put the kibosh on the Bible study kept her out of heaven.
This past week a woman from the area called us to inquire about worshipping with us. She needed transportation, and we told her we thought we could arrange it for her. That evening we visited her, and she acknowledged that she did not know anything about us and was another religion. We told her she might attend and then decide if she wanted to return or not. She agreed but then called the next day to cancel. Her son, who ignored us during the entire visit, insisted that she not come—even though they were not attending anywhere and had been graciously invited. She said she could not convince them to let her come.
A third situation also occurred a number of years ago when I was driving a man to his radiation treatment. We discussed some things about the Bible for a few minutes, and then he entirely shut down. “I don’t have to study the Bible,” he insisted. He explained that he trusted the priest who had studied the Bible for years. “He’s a smart man; he went to seminary. I listen to what he says.” All of these have one thing in common. They all involve listening and following a human being rather than the Bible itself. It prompts the question: “Who are you following?”
1. Some follow tradition. To many people, Christianity is not a way of life (‘the way”); it is merely a matter of tradition. They were raised in a certain church; they have always attended that church, and even if they seldom attend, they still count themselves a member of that church. Their religion is more of an identifying tag than an indication they follow God. On one occasion I baptized a high school junior—with her parents present. Afterward, they told her that she could not worship with us any more—that they had their “own” church. The young lady was quite incensed. I made an appointment to talk to their “pastor,” and he confided that the family was just a “cultural” one, meaning that they were only nominal members. In other words, the family had no genuine commitment to their “own” church; they just did not want their daughter attending anywhere else. One uncle was a preacher for that religious group, and it probably didn’t look good for her to be elsewhere.
The same thing happened with another high school student. His parents seldom worshipped, but they too disliked the idea of a family member “defecting.” Circumstances do change. One college student began worshipping with us on one occasion and continued, obeying the gospel after a few months. Had she done so while in high school, her parents might have objected, since both sides of her family went back several generations in the same religion. Now that she was an adult, however, and on her own, they never offered any objections. In fact, they worshipped with us when they visited her.
Saul, the zealous Jew and persecutor of Christians, could have told the Lord Jesus that he preferred to follow the tradition of his fathers rather than become a Christian. If he had, the world would have been deprived of the apostle Paul, defender of the faith. What is the value of blindly following tradition and closing one’s mind to the Scriptures?
No one, on the Day of Judgment, is going to be asked, “How well did you keep your family tradition?” Do people really expect that Jesus will be happy with those who never opened the Book or studied His Word? People read magazines and newspapers faithfully, they watch television incessantly, yet somehow they think it is proper to ignore the only communication that God ever gave to us—the Holy Bible. If they knew the Scriptures better, they would know that they will be judged according to what is written there (Rev. 20:12-15).
The same thing applies to those who were members of the churches of Christ but seldom attended worship and were never involved in the work of the church. How woefully inadequate will it be to tell the Lord in Judgment, “I kept my family’s tradition; I never became a Jehovah’s Witness or 7th-Day Adventist”? Jesus might answer: “Have you never read: ‘If you love Me, keep My commandments’? (John 14:15). You never made it a point to remember My death each first day of the week, let alone act as a functioning part of My body.”
If we are all going to be judged by the Word of God (John 12:48) (and we are), isn’t it necessary to know what it says? How are we to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God if we have never read its words?
Family cannot save anyone. Only Jesus has the power to save people from their sins (Matt. 1:21). To paraphrase what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 1:13: “Was mother crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Uncle Bob?” One and only one person deserves your undying allegiance—the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
2. Some follow a religious leader. It may be the priest, the rabbi, the pastor, or the preacher that some devote themselves to obeying. If Preacher Ted or Pastor Ned say something, that settles the matter, so far as some are concerned. They are trusting in men rather than in God. The folly of such an approach to Christianity is clearly seen in the fact that human beings have a distinct disadvantage—they are human. How many people trusted in Jimmy Swaggart, hanging on his every word? How many had complete confidence in Jim Bakker? Even the apostle Paul said to follow him as he followed Christ (1 Cor. 11:1). “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in men” (Ps. 118:8).
Have people forgotten the lesson of Jonestown in Guyana? Jim Jones turned out to be a seriously-flawed individual, and all of his followers (except a handful of survivors) joined him in “revolutionary suicide.” How is it that some are more devoted to a man than to Jesus Himself? Once again, the answer lies in the fact that people are following people more than what the Holy Spirit revealed to them in the Word. Like the man of God in 1 Kings 13, they are listening more to the old prophet than to God.
For that reason the Bereans searched the Scriptures daily to see if Paul was teaching correctly or not (Acts 17:11). John had warned brethren that they needed to try every spirit, and the Ephesians were doing just that. Jesus commended them for testing those who said they were apostles but were not. They proved them to be liars (Rev. 2:2). The fact is that some men will lead people astray (2 Peter 2:1; Acts 20:28), and the only way to avoid such a possibility is to know the Word. To ignore the Bible and trust some man instead is not only risky but foolish. The only man you can trust with your salvation is Jesus, who was God in the flesh (John 1:14).
3. Some follow their own will. Some have not made themselves captive to family tradition or to following one leader, but they are prisoners of their own thinking. This may take place in one of two ways.
Some place all their trust in themselves instead of God (Pr. 3:5-6). They reason that what they think is right—because they thought it! Anyone who is full of that much pride is not likely to ever be poor enough in spirit to enter the kingdom of God (Matt. 5:3). These individuals make religious decisions in the absence of knowledge. They know a few passages of Scripture, and they think they can justify themselves before God one day, but they are deluding themselves because it is not possible for man to be saved by his own righteousness (Isa. 64:6). “There is none righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3:10).
Another form of self-deception involves those who have convinced themselves that God is talking to them. He assures them that they are saved even though they have never done what the Bible says they must do in order to be forgiven. In the first place, God is not speaking to anyone today (for daily guidance or any other purpose)—directly. He promised to guide the apostles into all truth (John 16:13), which He did (Jude 3). If all truth had been revealed, what could the Holy Spirit be revealing further? How can one have more truth than all truth?
To safeguard the gospel message, Paul told the Galatians that anyone who taught them something contradictory should not be believed: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8). That goes for oneself, also. Anyone who thinks God “has revealed to him” a message that contradicts God’s Book obviously did not get that message from God. When the Word was completely revealed, the means of revelation ceased (1 Cor. 13:8-10). God is not providing salvation in any way other than through Christ; those receiving “new revelations” are self-deluded.
Following tradition, some man, or one’s own inclinations (even if attributed erroneously to the Holy Spirit) will not save anyone. The only infallibly safe guide is to follow the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, which have been revealed in the New Testament (Acts 20:32).
Several years ago, during a Gospel meeting held by brother William Cline at Eagle Lake, Florida, a married couple presented themselves at the close of the Lord’s Day evening services. After they expressed regrets for arriving late, they began to distribute cards. The cards bore the “two most important scriptures in the Bible,” according to the two late visitors.
The two Scriptures on the cards were John 3:16 and 1 John 4:1-3. These two people were devotees of the Pentecostal movement. They may have intended to visit the Assembly of God Church which meets around the corner from the Eagle Lake congregation but had stopped too soon. They said the Spirit led them to us.
I began a discussion with the couple, and before long brother Cline joined in. The couple misunderstood 1 John 4:1-3, and that misunderstanding became the center of our discussion. They claimed to have the Holy Ghost in a very special way and asserted that He spoke to them, revealing the true meaning of the Word of God.
They attempted to use 1 John 4:1-3 to teach that one had to confess verbally that Jesus has come in the flesh. That confession must be made in prayer to the Holy Ghost so that the Holy Ghost could be tried. If one followed these three steps, then the Holy Ghost would reveal the meaning of any portion of the Word or provide an answer to any query.
The couple also said they could not sin at all because of having the Holy Ghost. Brother Cline and I used Scripture to show them they did not have the Holy Spirit in the same way the apostles had the Spirit—and that the Spirit does not speak directly to men today. We also used 1 John 1:8-10 to refute the idea of perfectionism (living sinless).
We tried to set up a time for further discussion, but the couple refused. Most distressing was the way they blocked logic from their minds.
When asked to answer an argument from Scriptures, they bowed their heads and mumbled a prayer that began, “Blessed Holy Spirit we confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.” At that point their words became incoherent. After finishing they would raise their heads and say something like, “The verse doesn’t mean what it says.” I tried to convince them that illumination of the Word by the Spirit is unnecessary by showing that I, who disavowed such power, could understand a verse exactly. I said Jude verse one teaches Jude was the Lord’s servant. They said they would have to ask the Holy Ghost before they could tell me whether Jude 1 teaches that Jude was the Lord’s servant. This response stunned me.
The man accused brother Cline of using a devil’s trick because he pointed out that the force of the Greek in the present tense construction of 1 John 3:9. Apparently they did not know that the Spirit originally used Koine Greek to write the passage. The man also mangled 1 John 1:8 by claiming that he had sinned in the past, and it was on his record, but now he was unable to sin. He said this was the true meaning of the passage.
When asked for their name and address, the couple said that they had to ask the Holy Ghost for permission; then they began their ritual. A short while later, the man lifted his head and said, “I can’t get a yes from the Holy Ghost.” His wife nodded the same. To this day I don’t know where they came from nor where they have gone.
Recently, a leader of the Boston Discipling Movement made claims of special Divine guidance. He claims to be led by the Spirit of God in the decisions he makes and in the rules he gives. He also claims the Spirit helps him to lead a perfect, sinless life. This type of thinking calls for more dramatic pronouncements; so “hold onto your hat! You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!”
Jeremiah said:
Then the Lord said unto me, “The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them; they prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart” (Jer. 14:14).
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
EXCERPT from the IOWA MESSENGER
Mike Demory
[Editor’s Note: The preceding article and this one both relate to the third point made on page two. This one is from Mike’s December, 2008 newsletter.]
Lanell has been influenced by the Pentecostals and has been attending various Pentecostal congregations in town. He believes that God gives him visions and speaks to him….
I then asked him how God revealed to us whether a doctrine was true or false, and he replied that he will ask God to tell him with some sign…. So we discussed how the Word of God is the only mode given to us today to know God’s will and that if a doctrine is not found in the Bible, then we can know it is false….
Lanell was shocked to learn that there is only one reason for divorce and couldn’t believe that a loving God would force him to stay in a marriage he didn’t want. He said, “How could I serve such a God? That’s not the God I know.” That’s because he has created God in his own image—like the majority of denominational people.
[Additional editor’s note: Isn’t it interesting that he claims the Holy Spirit guides him—but he did not know what the Holy Spirit taught about marriage and divorce?]
Those who visit us for the first time may well have this question in mind. “I don’t think I’ve ever heard of them before. What do they do?” Because there are so many religious groups and therefore a number of similar designations, some may have us confused with the United Church of Christ, the Church of God, or organizations like them. We are, however, different from all of these. Below are some things you might want to know about us.
Christians
In the New Testament, God uses several terms to describe the followers of Jesus. Oftentimes, they were referred to as disciples, meaning “learners.” We are still disciples, and we have a responsibility to continue to learn and grow throughout our lives (2 Peter 2:2; 3:18; Heb. 5:12).
To be called Christians, however, brings honor to Jesus the Christ (the Messiah or “anointed one”). The disciples were called Christians first in Acts 11:26, and the name has been used ever since. To call oneself a Christian is to claim that Jesus owns us, that we belong to Him, and that we obey Him in all things.
The New Testament also calls Christians saints because Jesus has made us holy (1 Cor. 1:2; 6:9-11) and brethren because, as brothers and sisters, we are all equal before God (Gal. 3:26-29). All these words have their own meaning and are appropriate.
Many people call themselves by names that have resulted from manmade organizations. We only use the names that are in the Bible. We are brethren, saints, disciples; we are Christians. That name is both appropriate and sufficient. If you were a member of this congregation, that is all you would be—a Christian. If our brethren in the first century were content with being called by such a name, so are we.
Authority
As you have probably already noticed, we cite the Scriptures often. You may wonder why. Although we live in a time where people want to be free to do their own thing, Christianity is not our religion in that we did not invent it. Jesus (at the Father’s bidding) did. He told His disciples: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18).
Actually, we have never been our own; we belong to the One Who created us in the first place, which is described in the very beginning of the Bible (Gen. 1-2). He gave us the free will to decide whether to serve Him or to please ourselves instead. Since the latter option carries with it eternal punishment, He encourages us to worship and serve Him—so that we can have an eternal reward.
In order to save us from the punishment that our sins deserve, He sent Jesus to die on the cross and pay the debt that we owed (John 3:16). Since God is the one Who created us and Jesus is the One Who died for us, we belong to them—“For you were bought at a price; therefore, glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s” (1 Cor. 6:20).
If we choose to accept the salvation that God offers us through Christ, then we must realize that we are not in charge of determining how to worship or serve Him; God is. He did not need to consult with us; He already knows what is the best way to love Him and to live for Him.
Jesus gave His life for the church (Acts 20:28), and He is the Head over it (Eph. 1:22-23); therefore, what He says is right, and our own opinions are not valid. Because Jesus is the authority, we cite what He and His apostles wrote to demonstrate that we are doing what He wants rather than following our own ideas.
The Word of God
We believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. What we need to know about God cannot be boiled down to sound bytes to be presented on the evening news. Phrases such as God is love and Jesus saves are true, but the Bible would be considerably shorter if that were all we needed to know. Following are some things that the Bible says about itself, beginning with what Jesus told His followers:
“If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32).
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
“And now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:32).
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart (Heb. 4:12).
“He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day” (John 12:48).
These are just a few Scriptures which show the value of God’s Word and show the reason we need to know it. For these reasons, you will find that we study the Bible here. Although literary works of men may be referenced, as Paul cited a Grecian poet to show that his point was not one that was strange or unfamiliar, nevertheless our focus is upon the Scriptures, because they were inspired of God (Acts 17:28).
Many devout men have formulated creeds, which members of a particular group must accept. Many of these creeds contain valid Biblical principles, and the motives of those who designed them were usually good, but they are still the thoughts of men. The churches of Christ have no written creed. The Bible is our only authority. No one is ever asked to memorize or repeat a creed.
Everyone is, however, encouraged to read, study, mediate upon, and know the Holy Scriptures. Both the Old and New Testaments are worthy of our attention, but we are under the New Testament of Jesus Christ, and not under the Law of Moses. Failing to make that distinction has led to much confusion. Jesus is our mediator of a better covenant (Heb. 8:6-7).
The Church
Many people may think of the church as a sort of “religion thing” for some pious souls—but not something needed by most folks. All too often our ideas are shaped more by society than by what the Bible teaches. Did you know, for example, that God had the church in mind before He even created the world (Eph. 1:4)? He also knew that, if He created man, Jesus would need to be sent to die for our sins (Rev. 13:8); so He planned that all of those who would be saved by the blood of Christ (Rev. 1:5) would become part of this special body of Christ, the church (Eph. 1:22-23).
Because of what would later occur, the church was prophesied of in advance; usually it is referred to as a kingdom. Consider this prophecy:
“And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever” (Dan. 2:44).
When John the Baptizer began to preach: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Matt. 3:2), people began to take notice. Jesus is King over this kingdom. In fact, the Jews wanted Jesus to be their earthly king, but He rejected that honor (John 6:15) because His kingdom is not of this world, as He told Pilate (John 18:36). The kingdom of heaven is spiritual, and Jesus received it after His resurrection. Daniel had said:
“I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed” (Dan. 7:13-14).
This passage brings to mind Jesus ascending into Heaven after His resurrection: “Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight” (Acts 1: 9). Peter, on the Day of Pentecost, affirmed that God had raised Jesus up, that He had been “exalted to the right hand of God,” and that David’s prophecy (a different one than Daniel’s) was fulfilled in Christ because “David did not ascend into the heavens” (Acts 2:32-34). Many other passages relate to this event of Jesus ascending to heaven to receive His kingdom.
This spiritual kingdom is the church; it is a privilege to be part of the kingdom designed from eternity, built (Matt. 16:18) and purchased by Jesus (Acts 20:28), over which He is Head (Col. 1:18). The church and the kingdom are the same thing; Jesus equated these two designations (Matt. 16:18-19).
Worship
God has always expected those whom He created to worship Him. He is worthy of worship because He is the Creator and because He is the Redeemer as well, having made salvation available to us (Rev. 4:11; 5: 12). The Lord, however, never said, “Worship Me however you want.” As Jesus told the woman at the well, the Father is seeking true worshippers, adding: “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24).
Worship that is not sincere would be worthless, and in Malachi’s day God’s people approached worship as a weariness (Mal. 1:13). Enthusiastic worship, however, does not mean jumping, clapping, swaying, or involve other fleshly exhibitions; it is more a matter of concentration. We focus our attention on God—on the message being presented, the thoughts expressed in prayer, the significance of the Lord’s Supper, and the words of the songs we sing.
Sincerity, however, is not enough. Since Jesus has all authority, our worship must also be according to truth. In the Old Testament God had ordained certain things to be done certain ways, but Jeroboam changed the object of worship (to golden calves), the place of worship (Dan and Bethel rather than Jerusalem), the time of worship (from the seventh to the eighth month); he even changed the priesthood from those whom God had authorized (the Levites) to just anyone from any tribe (1 Kings 12:25-33). Needless to say, God was displeased, and He refused to accept this worship. No matter how sincere the people might have been, their worship was not according to truth, and they were eventually destroyed because of it (2 Kings 17:21).
Our worship may not be what you are accustomed to, but we do only those things that God has commanded. The preaching and teaching of the Word is our emphasis, just as it is in the Scriptures. We also pray together when we meet (1 Thess. 5:17). And we sing, period. You will notice that we use no instruments of music. Yes, people sang to the accompaniment of instruments in the Old Testament, but we are not subject to that covenant. We are under the New Testament of Christ, and neither He, the apostles, nor any of the Christians in any of the churches in the first century sang to the accompaniment of musical instruments. We can only do the things that are authorized (Col. 3:16-17).
Two things are limited to the Lord’s Day (Sunday): the Lord’s Supper and giving. The New Testament teaches that giving was done on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:2), along with remembering the death of Jesus (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:22-29). Many do not emphasize the death of Jesus, but it was the shedding of His blood that made salvation possible (Heb. 10:4). Therefore, Christians partake of His body and blood (symbolically) in the way that He showed His disciples on the night He was betrayed (Matt. 26:26-29). These five things the church in the New Testament practiced.
Salvation
Since being saved from one’s sins is vital, we make certain that we teach only what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches a great deal about God’s grace, but some make the mistake of thinking that it is universally applied instead of universally offered. The grace of God is avail-able to all (Titus 2:11-14), but God placed requirements on its reception.
First of all, one must believe in God and believe in Jesus as the Son of God. Jesus performed numerous miracles to confirm this truth (John 21:25). John recorded a sampling of miracles to prove the Lord’s Deity (John 20:30-31). Many verses of Scripture emphasize the necessity of faith (John 3:16; 8:24; Heb. 11:6). But God requires more.
The hardest thing to do is to take this next step—repentance. Why is it so hard? Most of us are fond of certain sins—whether it be coveting what is not ours, desiring to fulfill fleshly appetites in an unlawful way (such as committing adultery), or simply by being willful and stubborn (1 John 2:15-17). We might find that giving them up is difficult, but in order to follow Jesus we must let go of all these and turn from them, practicing them no more. Yet repentance is just as essential as faith is. Jesus taught: “…unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). We must realize that Jesus has something much better to offer than sin—eternal life.
If one is willing to repent, then confessing the name of Jesus as the Son of God will surely not be a stumbling block (1 Tim. 6:12). Neither will being baptized so that your sins can be washed away. Some try to minimize or explain away baptism (usually the same ones who fail to mention repentance), but consider the first time the gospel was preached after the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ.
This great sermon was preached on the Day of Pentecost when Peter proved that Jesus is the Messiah the Jews were looking for. He affirmed that Jesus had ascended into heaven, as we mentioned earlier, and proclaimed the risen Savior as both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36). The message pricked the hearts of those present, and they asked what they should do (v. 37). Now, you have heard many answers to this question of how to be saved, but how many of them match what the inspired apostle told the people on that day? He said: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (v. 38). This is what the Bible teaches, and this is, therefore, what we teach when people ask the same question today.
Now you know a little bit about us—who we are and why we do what we do. We pray that you will want to know more and want to schedule a private Bible study. You may have been taught other ideas, and we welcome the opportunity to look at areas of disagreement with you. Please visit with us again and remember Paul’s recommendation of the Word (Acts 20:32).
As mentioned previously, Newsweek magazine’s Social and Religion editor, Lisa Miller, decided to enter the extreme “gay”-ety fray that has erupted since the citizens of California voted a constitutional amendment last November which upholds defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. Those who voted for Proposition 8 have been called hatemongers (which is absurd), and now, in December, marriage, as seen in the Bible, has come under attack.
The Bible Defines Marriage
Ignoring dozens of typical families in the Old and New Testaments, Editor Miller selected a few exceptions to God’s design and said, “See this is what marriage in the Bible looked like.” Evidently, she thinks that nobody has read the Bible and she can slant it any way she desires. Her ignorance of the Scriptures is set forth in this incredible statement:
First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
What?! It would be difficult to imagine a worse blunder! Someone needs to direct her attention to Matthew 19. In verse 3 Jesus is asked by Pharisees who came to test Him: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” Now think of all the ways Jesus could have answered this question. He could have discussed all the pros and cons of divorce, outlined a brief history of the practices in various cultures, reviewed what all the scholars and rabbis thought, and then told them what His opinion of the matter was. Instead, He asked them:
“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt. 19:4-6).
God’s definition of marriage, which Jesus endorses, was first set forth in Genesis 2:18-24. God designed one man and one woman to be married to each other. He did not begin with two men or two women. He did not create a man and two (or more) women (which would have populated the earth a lot faster), or a woman and two (or more) men; nor did He create five of each for a community marriage. The fact that marriage is to be a permanent arrangement is seen in that God gave no provisions for divorce. Jesus is telling the Pharisees that what they read in Genesis 2:18-24 IS God’s definition of marriage. Somehow, the Religion Editor misses the significance of the passage.
The Pharisees then tried to pit Jesus against Moses in order to make the Lord look bad. They asked why Moses allowed for divorce—if marriage was so defined. Jesus answered that Moses allowed the practice because of the hardness of their hearts and then added, “but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19:8). No one can miss the emphasis of the way God created the first man and the first woman as a pattern—except editors at Newsweek and homosexuals who are biased against the Bible in the first place.
Those who fail to see this definition have overlooked what God intended for them to see. Jesus once chided the Sadducees for not understanding the significance of the statement: “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” It meant that, although their physical bodies were dead, they (their spirits) yet lived in the presence of God. Similarly, God entwined marriage with the account of creation so that mankind would follow the Divine pattern.
Is the Bible a Living Document?
To counteract the clear teachings of the Scriptures, Editor Miller tries to brush away their effectiveness with a wave of her hand. She writes:
Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.
What these words mean is anybody’s guess. The Bible is a relevant document. People commit the same sins that they always have. There is nothing new under the sun. The lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life were present in the Garden (Gen. 3:6), were used by Satan on Jesus—without success (Matt. 4:1-11), and have been operative all through the Christian age as well (1 John 2:15-17). The Scriptures are always applicable to man, regardless of what new technologies are available.
The Bible is a living document in that the Word of God is alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword (Heb. 4:12), but it is not “living” in the sense that new portions are being added periodically. It says of itself that it is complete (2 Peter 1:3; Jude 3). Neither is it “living” in the sense that someone can assign any interpretation to it that she desires. God protected His Word so that it is fully capable of refuting any heresy. There are no reasons found in the Bible for homosexuals to exist, period, let alone be married.
Having affirmed that the Bible is a living document, Lisa then makes the comment that “the Bible authors could never have imagined the brave new world of international adoption and assisted reproductive technology.” Really? And she knows that, how? But even if she were right, the point is irrelevant because the God who inspired the writers of the Holy Scriptures did know, and that is the reason that the Bible contains sufficient information on all relevant moral issues.
But Editor Miller cannot have it both ways. Do Biblical truths “speak to us as we change through history,” or could God not have imagined “the brave new world” of modern man? How ironic it is that people talk about God and the Bible, but they do not necessarily accept the supernatural elements of the Book! Many will say they cannot believe in miracles or that the writers could have envisioned our current society. Hello! What is there about the definition of God that is hard to understand? He is a supernatural being, a Spirit, that is above and outside of the physical world He created. He is omnipotent, omni-present, and omniscient, which means He knows ALL things. For that reason He can declare the end from the beginning (Isa. 46:10). As much as it may shock some people, God is not surprised about atom bombs or DVDs.
The Non-Literal, Liberal View
One should not assume that, because someone discusses things recorded in the Bible, or even makes a flattering statement concerning the Scriptures on occasion, such an individual actually believes the Bible. Lisa Miller has a consultant for this article in Newsweek. He is “Barnard University Bible scholar Alan Segal.” A search on the Internet shows that he has an even more impressive title—“professor of Religion and Ingeborg Rennert Professor of Jewish Studies at Barnard College, Columbia University in Manhattan.”
All that anyone needs to know about him and his attitude toward the Scriptures can be summarized by what Editor Miller says of him. After he refers to Genesis 2:18-24, he comments that,
if you believe that the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God, then that verse was written by people for whom polygamy was a way of the world.
What this sentiment expresses is that Segal is a modernist who does not believe the Bible is inspired of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17) and frowns upon anyone else believing so, either. He is like those who put together The Bible’s Buried Secrets for PBS. Since these “Scholars” reject inspiration, they say, “Oh, Moses made up that Genesis part to get people to quit being polygamists.” Israel did need that teaching, but Moses did not originate the idea; the Holy Spirit inspired him to include the definition of marriage because it was the way God created the world.
Segal also said that marriage in the Old Testament was an arrangement between “one man and as many women as he could pay for.” He must be reading between the lines. Abraham was married to Sarah. He was with Hagar only once so that she could be a surrogate mother. The faithful patriarch could have afforded a multitude of wives, had he so desired, but he did not. Isaac married only Rebekah. Jacob had two wives under unusual circumstances (until his favorite died), and he had two handmaids who also served as surrogate mothers. Although occasionally a man had more than one wife (Elkanah), there is no indication that very many men did—with the exception of kings.
Comments like Miller’s and Segal’s only serve to attempt to undermine the inspiration of the Scriptures, but they do not stand up under scrutiny. Miller admits that “gay marriage” is not found in the Bible, but this fact does not slow her down. She repeats the erroneous statement that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, when a good Bible lexicon explains that porneia includes homosexuality, along with adultery, as part of its definition. What does it signify that Jesus did not specify the act, when it is included in the general term? Nothing! He did not single out the terms rape or incest, either. Will Miller argue that they are therefore acceptable practices? Besides, what the apostles taught is just as valid and authoritative as what Jesus said.
Minimizing Sin
Quoting from a Bible dictionary which is erroneous on this point, Miller affirms that “nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women.” Really? What about Paul when he wrote: “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature” (Rom. 1:25)? Whoops!
Miller continues blithely along, acknowledging that the Bible only condemns homosexuality for males in a handful of passages, “but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text….” They are clear enough to anyone who can read. She argues that, because Leviticus also includes advice about treatments for leprosy and how to offer blood sacrifices, all of these instructions should be discounted because “our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions.” Obviously, she knows nothing of the fact that the Mosaic law was given to Israel, and it was nailed to the cross when Jesus died (Col. 2:14). Again, she has returned to her “Bible is out of date” theme, when in fact it is only the Law of Moses that is out of date. From her slanted scenario, one would think that Christians are commanded to offer up blood sacrifices today. She is one confused commentator.
She acknowledges that Paul was “trough on homosexuality,” but then adds that “progressive scholars” believe he is speaking against flagrant promiscuity and debauchery, such as were practiced by Nero and Caligula. The phrase, progressive scholars, should be translated as “modernists who twist the Scriptures to mean what they want them to mean” (2 Peter 3:16). Editor Miller does not refer once to God’s destruction of Sodom (prior to the Law of Moses) nor the fact that Jude says it serves as an example of God’s judgment to those who have “given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh” (7), which presumably could include women as well as men.
Incredibly, Miller states: “Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, but in custom and tradition….” She needs a 17-point reality check. Why would most of us care about the subject—except God has branded it as immoral? It would be far easier to remain quiet and let the biased news and entertainment media just persuade everyone that it is all right. Christians oppose this sin just as we do adultery, fornication, gambling, and prostitution. These are not our thoughts on any of these subjects; they are God’s.
She erroneously argues that the Bible endorses slavery. Regulation of something being practiced by nearly every culture does not constitute endorsement. Christian principles brought about its demise. After citing the death penalty for adulterers and homosexuals in the Old Testament as being passé, she then suggests that we need a “mature view of scriptural authority” that lets us move “beyond literalism.” What she means, of course, is that we just forget about context and “interpret” the Bible however we want.
Scriptural Justification for Homosexuality?
Editor Miller’s arguments in favor of homosexual marriage are few and worthless. First, she uses the tu quoque fallacy, which basically means, “If I’m guilty, so are you.” She says: “Paul argued more strenuously against divorce—and at least half of the Christians in America disregard that teaching.” The fact that people disregard the Bible does not mean it is wrong or out of date. It means that people choose to disregard what the Bible teaches when it suits them. Jesus says they are living in adultery (Mat. 19:9). They cannot see the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-11). God will judge them (Heb. 13:4). One sin can not justify another sin.
Second, Miller writes: “Gay men like to point to the story of passionate King David and his friend Jonathan.” Apparently, Miller has never heard of being kindred spirits with a person of the same sex without there being some sort of physical relationship. She adds: “What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imaginations.” This is just plain sick. Both men were married, and nothing indicates anything more than friendship.
It is argued that the message of Christianity is one of inclusion rather than one of exclusion. Yes, everyone is invited to be a Christian—even tax collectors and harlots. But everyone must first repent of his sins. The adulterer cannot continue to live in adultery. Jesus did not approve the situation the woman at the well was in. He told the woman taken in adultery to “sin no more.” Homosexuals must give up their sin, also. All being one in Christ Jesus is written to those who have repented and obeyed the gospel (Gal. 3:28).
A forth lame attempt involves misapplying, “I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Ps. 139:13-16). While it is a great text to show that human life exists in the womb (and therefore abortion is murder), it does not relate to homosexuality at all. God did not create people who had no choice but to practice sin. Gay advocates assume that homosexuals are born that way, despite the lack of evidence, and then say, “If God made me this way, homosexuality must not be a sin.” This is the fallacy of circular reasoning.
A fifth claim is that homosexual rights parallel the struggle for racial equality. Galatians 3:29 states racial equality, along with Acts 17:26. Where is the verse that states homosexuals are born that way and are equal to heterosexuals? Anyone can see the difference.
Finally, “Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad,” which is exactly what the proponents of unlawful divorce and remarriage argue. God wants people to be holy (1 Peter 1:15-16). Genuine happiness results from obeying God, including being pure in heart (Matt. 5:8) and in body (2 Cor. 7:1). “More progressive denominations—the United Church of Christ, for example—have agreed to support gay marriage.” This is not the only error they practice. We “literalists” believe that God means what He says. “Progressives” do not.
HONORING THE POPE
For the last several days, the news media has given a great deal of coverage to the death of the pope and the appointment of his successor. Most have speculated who will be elected and how different he might be from the current pope. The possibility that he might be different and make some changes is very telling. Why? If the man were actually of God, he could not change any vital doctrines. With God there is no change, no variableness (James 1:17). “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8). He does not change either His doctrine or His morality based on culture or century. Paul said that he taught the same things in all the churches (1 Cor. 4:17). So, if people who think the pope is Christ’s representative are expecting different doctrines from him at different times, they are tacitly admitting that he is not really from God.
A Catholic woman was being interviewed concerning the possibility of change coming with the next pope. She said, “If the Holy Spirit tells him to allow for greater freedom in the Catholic Church (such as allowing women to be priests), then I’m all for it.” First of all, the Holy Spirit communicates with the pope the same way He does with all of us—through the Word that He inspired. Second, The Holy Spirit will not contradict what He revealed in the New Testament. The very presumption that God could change His mind on any teaching is faulty and bespeaks either a low view of Deity or a massive ignorance of the Bible. God did not make up some doctrines at the last minute, with the idea of seeing how they would work out.
Jesus Christ was slain before the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8); God plans ahead. Because of His omniscience, God had in readiness the plan of redemption at the very moment man sinned (Gen. 3:15). God could preach the Gospel to Abraham 2,000 years in advance (Gal. 3:16). Prophecies of the church—the kingdom and body of Christ—were given from 1,000 to 600 years in advance (2 Sam. 7:12-16, Isa. 2:1-4; Dan 2:44-45). God is not surprised at what happens; He does not need to revise His plans. He does not reverse Himself on morality; homosexuality is no more right in the twenty-first century A.D. than it was in the twenty-first century B.C. in Sodom (Jude 7). God’s teaching on the role of women in the home and in the church is based on the very beginning of man’s existence (I Timothy 2:8-15). Neither He nor any so-called representative of His is going to change it.
Jesus never appointed any man to be head over His church on earth. Paul writes that Jesus is the Head of His body, the church (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18). In fact, He stated clearly, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18). Human beings, however, are seldom satisfied with God’s arrangement. In the Old Testament, they wanted a king and were not satisfied with God reigning over them (Judges 8:23; 1 Sam. 8). Today, some are not satisfied with Jesus reigning over the church; they want a human being instead, but God has never authorized one.
Even our President, who has spoken many good things, said of the pope: “A good and faithful servant has been called home.” He is wrong on this point. No one who claims to be Christ’s representative on earth—usurping a position that Heaven has not granted him—is even a servant of Christ, let alone a faithful one. In fact, each pope perpetuates one of the most deceptive religions ever known to man. He encourages people to believe that he is Peter’s successor, concerning which the New Testament is silent. Each pope, regardless of whatever good things he might accomplish, is a participant in a lie which is of the devil (John 8:44). Christ did not appoint him, he is not head over Christ’s church, and he in no way speaks for the Lord. When he claims to do so, he is in error, and those who listen to him are therefore also in error (1 Tim. 4:16). A faithful minister teaches and preaches Christ, not himself.
But, since Catholics subscribe to this doctrine, then how is it that they do not listen to what the pope says? Understandably, those who are not Catholic feel no obligation to listen to the pope on any matter. Especially is he rejected among Christians who know the Word of God. But how can Catholics refuse to listen to their “leader”? They do not have to be Catholic; but if they choose to be, are they not bound to follow the teachings of the one they fancy is Christ’s representative? So how is it that so many Catholics practice whatever they please when they disagree with the pope? Many disagree with him on birth control; in fact, it is estimated that a large percentage of Catholics practice it.
Although most Catholics agree with the pope on the subject of abortion, not all do. A part-time English com-position teacher (with whom this writer shared an office) mentioned the hypocrisy of Irish Catholic girls who went to England to obtain abortions, since they were illegal in Ireland at that time (he was from there and knew of several instances in which young women did so).
Even more amazing are the Catholic politicians like Ted Kennedy who continually and zealously advocate the pro-abortion position and are repeatedly elected by a predominant Catholic constituency!
Now, when the pope died, there were countless individuals who wanted to get a glimpse of him. Many stood for hours; presumably such intense determination was prompted by a spirit of reverence. But what good does it do to show honor to someone when he is dead if his word was not obeyed when he was alive? Is it possible to love someone and ignore his teaching at the same time? Jesus did not think so: “But why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46).
Theodore McCarrick, the Catholic Archbishop in Washington, D.C., conducted a “mass” (not Biblical terminology) on the pope’s behalf at St. Matthew’s Cathedral. This event was attended by Senator Ted Kennedy, who has been called “patriarch of the most famous U.S. Roman Catholic family”—and has for many years been consistently pro-abortion. According to Crisis Magazine:
As late as 1971, Kennedy wrote, “Human life, even at its earliest stages, has a certain right which must be recognized—the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old” [http://www.crisis maga-zine.com/may2003/feature1.htm]
This same source says that the senator changed his mind soon after Roe v. Wade (January, 1973). Since that time Kennedy has “gone so far as to support federal funding of abortions.” When legislation was introduced in 2003 to ban partial birth abortion—one of the most heinous acts imaginable—all Republicans (except one, who did not vote) and many Democrats voted in favor of it. Those Democrats supporting the ban included Joe Lieberman, Robert Byrd, and Joe Biden. But Ted Kennedy and John Kerry (both professed Catholics) voted against it.
How can anyone call himself a Catholic and vote in favor of partial-birth abortion—something that the leader of their religion has condemned? How is it possible that Kennedy could so dishonor the pope in life and then show up to honor him in his death? The Catholics of Massachusetts obviously do not take seriously the teachings of the Catholic Church, either, or they would not keep electing someone who has defied their pro-life theology (which happens to be correct) for three decades. Their honoring of the pope is hollow—they do not believe in him any more than non-Catholics do, as evidenced by their actions.
Profession is one thing; behavior is another. Many people profess to be Christians, but they do not follow what Christ said. Many want to be Christians, but live outside of marriage with another (fornication). Many are trying to be practicing homosexuals, calling themselves Christians. It cannot be done. This point was illustrated by the preacher who asked his students, “How many legs does a cow have?” They answered, “Four.” “What if we call the tail a leg? Then how many legs does the cow have?” “Five!“ they shouted in unison. “Wrong,” he replied. “Just because we call the tail a leg doesn’t make it one. The cow still only has four legs.”
The same thing is true of the Word of God. You can call any sin a virtue, but that does not change a thing. Why would the Catholic Church tolerate someone like Ted Kennedy, who flagrantly and openly votes against the pope’s position on abortion? Could it be—money? If we ever elect a brother in Christ to the Senate who votes against what the Bible teaches, we had better pray that the church withdraw fellowship from him for doing so—regardless of how much money and influence he has.
And we need to avoid hypocrisy ourselves. What Jesus forbids we must reject and not practice. What our Lord enjoins, that must we do. Anything else would be hypocrisy.
MAX-LAX ATTACKS FACTS
For nearly a decade some brethren have re-fused to be warned about Max Lucado being a false teacher. Their defenses have been both predictable and humorous at times. First of all, we heard, “He was misquoted,” and its companion, “He is just misunderstood.” Devotees often used the rationale that he could not be a false teacher be-cause he is so inspirational (which is a king-size non sequitur). Some have charged that Max’s critics are just jealous and bitter over his success. No, we pray constantly for the success of faithful preachers of the Gospel everywhere. If Max had used his talents to bring people to acknowledge of the Truth, we would all sing his praises.
Unfortunately, he has always stood for Maxi-mum Laxity (hence, the abbreviation Max-Lax) in interpreting the Scriptures and in his teaching concerning salvation. In fact, we wonder if there is any-one who has EVER heard him preach that in order to be saved one must be baptized for the forgive-ness of his sins. From his first book onward he has never taught what the Scriptures do on this subject. He will occasionally mention baptism, but he places it after salvation. In other words, he teaches that people are saved first and then are baptized.
All doubts concerning him can be removed with first-hand information. The Web site of the church he works with is www.oakhillschurchofchrist.org. As of October 4th, the first page of that Web site contained an article titled “A Call to A Greater Vision”; it explains why they are no longer going to call them-selves the Oak Hills Church of Christ.
Max wrote and signed the six-page article. He begins by recording all of the barriers Jesus ”dismantled” in order to convert this woman, the application being that Christians today must overcome any barriers we have in reaching people. Then he writes: “Over the last few months, I’ve sensed our Master urging us to expand our dreams for San Antonio. He calls us to a fresh vision: a vision of a city-impacting church” (1).
Of course, one wonders how Max has “sensed” that Jesus feels this way? Did the Lord directly give Him this vision, or is he reading indications of Providence? We know he did not come upon this information by reading the Scriptures. Apparently, he simply had an idea and attributed it to God. Later, “the details of this vision crystallized for me,” he insists, and he told them to the elders. “They prayed, pondered, and tested the ideas and, ultimately saw them as God’s will for Oak Hills.” (1). Then he enumerates the facets of the plan.
Beginning early next year Max plans to assault Divinely-ordained worship. Here is the “vision” he sensed from the Master for a Sunday-evening ser-vice for twenty and thirty year olds:
Recognizing the power of contemporary music, these new assemblies will be instrumental. A soft keyboard beneath an altar call, the sound of a cello during communion service…these tools enhance outreach. After fifteen years and several thousand sermons, I am convinced instrumentation reaches hearts (3).
Notice that Max did not feel compelled to give a Scriptural argument in favor of adding instruments of music to the worship. Evidently, he is authority enough to do so. Max persuades by means of analogies (many of them false), personal appeals, pragmatism, and language that summons forth rich, vivid, and appealing images; Satan appealed to Eve in the same way. Logic is not his strong suit; so he avoids making an argument, which someone could refute from the Scriptures. Further- more it took Max fifteen years and thousands of sermons to conclude something that Jesus and the apostles were apparently ignorant of. Where were the musicians during the Sermon on the Mount to reach people’s hearts? Why is there no mention of James and John playing a soft harp during Peter’s “altar call” on the day of Pentecost? Perhaps Max is unaware that it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save men—not instrumental music (1 Cor. 1:23).
Baptism
On the Oak Hills Web site is a section called “Frequently Asked Questions.” Number four is: “What do you teach about baptism? Would I have to be baptized to be a member here?” The answer is provided below:
Baptism is a “promise made to God from a good conscience” (1 Pet. 3:21 TEV). We urge all believers to be baptized (immersed) as a public demonstration of their desire to put their faith in Jesus. Those who have al-ready been baptized before coming to Oak Hills don’t need to be baptized again. For those who are not, we’d consider it a privilege to be a part of this important step.
We will forego a discussion on their poor selection of a paraphrase in order to point out that they did not communicate the entire verse—or the reader might have noticed that “baptism doth also now save us.” Why would a Christian omit such a fact?
The answer is that Max and the Oak Hills Church do not believe that baptism is necessary in order to be saved; therefore, they only quote a portion of the verse. Notice that they included no references to Acts 2:38, Acts 8:35-39, or Acts 22:16. Furthermore, they relegate baptism to the status of “a public demonstration” of their faith. Where, in the Scriptures, is baptism called such? This terminology comes from Baptist Manuals—not from the Word of God.
Why are they afraid to say what Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost? The inspired apostle answered, “What shall we do?” with “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…” (Acts 2:38).
The fact is that people are either saved from their sins before and without baptism, or they are saved from their sins during baptism. The penitent Saul of Tarsus believed, repented, and prayed for three days (Acts 9:9, 11), but he was not saved as a result of any of these actions or a combination of them. Ananias came to him and said, “And now, why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). In addition to his faith and sincere repentance, Saul was instructed to be baptized to wash away his sins, thus completing the plan of God to have forgiveness of sins. Saul was not told to arise and be baptized as a public demonstration of his desire to put his faith in Jesus.
Max attacks the value and the power of baptism which God put into it, for sins are removed from us by the blood of Christ WHEN we are baptized (Rev. 1:5). He and the elders at Oak Hills ought to know better, probably do know better, and shall have to answer to God for their deception. Max has always been willing to sacrifice Truth for popularity.
The fact that baptism has no real meaning for them is also seen in the fact that, if people have been immersed elsewhere—even in a denomination—they are not asked to be baptized again. (Would this policy include Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses?) The reason that is makes no difference to them is that they believe that salvation comes at the point of faith.
The Name Barrier
Having included this information about baptism from a different section of the Web site, we now return to Max’s “vision.” In discussing the barriers he and the elders desire to overcome, they finally arrive at “the social barrier.” They have discovered that calling themselves the Oak Hills Church of Christ has had a detrimental effect.
Some people find the name “church of Christ” to be an insurmountable barrier. Scripture urges us to remove cultural hindrances while remaining scripturally true.
We can reach more souls by modifying “Oak Hills Church of Christ” to “Oak Hills Church.”
While we deeply appreciate our heritage in the Churches of Christ, we recognize the hindrance the name creates for some. A common comment from new members is this: “We would have come sooner, but we had to get over the name of the church.” This is a barrier that need not be (4).
We cannot help but wonder if the Oak Hills Baptist Church finds the name Baptist an insurmountable barrier. If this trend catches on, we might find a large number of Oak Hills Churches.
Since so many new members were turned off by the designation church of Christ, we wonder what changed their minds. Could it be that they learned that Max repudiates what the rest of us teach about baptism being for the forgiveness of sins? Once they discovered that he teaches “faith only” like the Baptists, people could feel more comfort-able. In other words, the word has spread that Max neither believes nor teaches what the churches of Christ generally proclaim.
Oak Hills has given up on the one Gospel that can save all mankind and is teaching another, a false Gospel (Gal. 1:8-9). They have given up any vestige of honor to the Lord by calling themselves the very bland and rather non-distinctive “church.” Well, at least no one would mistake them for the local karate school. But “church” communicates very little. [Do not misunderstand this criticism; we take issue with the general idea of what they did, but, on the other hand, we rejoice because they have really not been one of us for a long time.]
Max asks the question: “Isn’t this too big of a move?” He answers: “We are not altering any of our core values?” What core values??? They have rejected the pure Gospel, altered true worship, and made the church unrecognizable. What core values? Those of us who continue to honor the name of Christ, worship in spirit and in truth, and preach the truth concerning salvation as the apostles did have core values.
Despite the laughable nature of the assurance given, this may be the truest comment on their Web site. Whatever their core values are (or are not), it is certain they have not changed. They are just as heretical as they were before. Their situation should prompt all of us to ask, “Do we want to give people what they want—or what they need?”
