Country music has often promoted actions that are immoral, but “Heart Like Mine” is blasphemous! As of yesterday (February 26, 2011), this song was number #18 and still climbing the country charts. It was written by Travis Howard, Ashley Monroe, and the singer her-self, Melissa Lambert. One wonders if it took three individuals to write a song this bad—or if one of them saved it from being even worse.
Echoing the opening of Rick James’ “Super Freak,” the singer says she’s not the kind of girl that you take home to mama, and you won’t find her sporting a wedding ring, either, She also enjoys drinking, which may help to explain the promiscuity she has already referenced. “So how is this unusual for a country song?” a listener may wonder. Unfortunately, in the second verse, believe it or not, things get worse.
She acknowledges that she sometimes smokes cigarettes, which hardly compares with drinking and casual sex, but at this point she introduces an attitude that is immediately enlarged upon. She says that Christians tell her she should quit the habit but that she just smiles and says, “God bless.” This response mocks those who may have only her best interests at heart, but it opens the door to her more serious mockery of Jesus, which is seen in the chorus following:
‘Cause I heard Jesus, He drank wine.
I bet we’d get along just fine.
He could calm a storm and heal the blind,
And I bet He’d understand a heart like mine.
Lambert and her cohorts should not believe everything they hear. The Bible does not say that Jesus drank wine. He turned water into wine, but the Greek word oinos can refer to either the pure juice of the grape or intoxicating. It would violate His own teaching on sobriety to have created fermented wine for wedding guests. Nor does the text say Jesus drank any of it.
If John 2:1-11 does not say that Jesus drank wine, what about the Passover feast, in which Jesus showed the disciples how to remember His body and blood? A careful reading of the each passage yields the following fact: What Jesus and the disciples drank was called either the fruit of the vine or the cup. No verse calls it wine (Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:13-20; 1 Cor. 11:22-29). That Jesus drank the fruit of the vine cannot be denied, but no one can prove that He drank it socially in an intoxicating form.
However, worse than the charge that Jesus was practically a wino is the notion that His indulgence in this practice serves as justification for the singer to smoke, drink, and practice fornication. It is disgusting and clearly an attempt at character assassination to ascribe to the Holy Son of God sin and corruption, implying that it is all right for others to follow suit based on His example. Every Christian ought to be outraged over this attempt to sully the name of the Savior!
She bets that she and Jesus would get along just fine. The Scriptures reveal that she would lose that wager. Jesus told the woman taken in adultery, “…go, and sin no more” (John 8:11). He also taught that those in sin needed to repent, or they would perish (Luke 13:3). God has repeatedly called men to be holy because He is holy (Lev. 19:3; 1 Peter 1:15-16).
Does Jesus understand the heart of the singer? Absolutely! If there is one thing God understands, it is a rebellion. He has seen it and understood it in human beings since the time of Adam and Eve. He understands that people refuse to listen to Him. He knows that people prefer smoking, drinking, fornication, adultery, and thousands of other sins to His holy ways. Jesus understood it so well that He said that few enter the narrow gate that leads to life but that many travel the broad way that leads to destruction (Matt. 7:13-14). Yes, Jesus understands rebellious hearts.
Understanding Versus Approval
The fact that God understands something does not mean that He approves of it. Did He understand that in Noah’s day every imagination of the thoughts of men’s hearts was only evil continually? Yes. Did that knowledge lead to indifference on His part? No. He brought a flood upon the whole world and destroyed all flesh except for the people and animals that were on board the ark. Jesus has been appointed judge of all mankind; how will He likely treat those who have accused Him of sin—and being the reason they practice sinful things themselves? The following passage is lengthy, but it is full of meaning and fully relevant.
But to the wicked God says:
“What right have you to declare My statutes,
Or take My covenant in your mouth,
Seeing you hate instruction
And cast My words behind you?
When you saw a thief, you consented with him,
And have been a partaker with adulterers.
You give your mouth to evil,
And your tongue frames deceit.
You sit and speak against your brother;
You slander your own mother’s son.
These things you have done, and I kept silent;
You thought that I was altogether like you;
But I will rebuke you,
And set them in order before your eyes.
Now consider this, you who forget God,
Lest I tear you in pieces,
And there be none to deliver:
Whoever offers praise glorifies Me;
And to him who orders his conduct aright
I will show the salvation of God” (Ps. 50:16-23).
Those who sin (and it is evident by their actions that they are) do not have a right or any authority to talk about God or quote His Scriptures since they admittedly have cast His words aside. Therefore, the one who smokes, drinks, and practices fornication has no right to speak of the Holy God Who created us. God’s lack of immediate punishment is misconstrued as approval, but God rebukes and also judges. No one can deliver the one who insults, repudiates, or mocks God. It is the one who exercises right conduct that God will save, and it won’t be the character in Melissa Lambert’s song.
“I’ll Fly Away”
Apparently insulting Christians and Jesus was not sufficient; the unholy trio of authors next assault the writers of Christian hymns. Standing by themselves are the following two lines: “I’ll fly away from it all one day; I’ll fly away.” The spiritual song refers to leaving this earthly realm for “a home on God’s celestial shore,” which is reserved for the faithful. Those with diseased hearts are more likely to be dragged down to torment by demons.
“Well, perhaps the singer just refers to death in general by the act of flying away.” The last stanza explains the intent:
These are the days that I will remember
When my name’s called on a roll.
They’ll meet me with two long stem glasses—
Make a toast to me coming home.
She references another song: “When the Roll Is Called Up Yonder, I’ll Be There.” The listener wonders, “Why are there two glasses filled with alcohol for a toast? Who is drinking the other one—Jesus?” How perverted must one be to imagine that Jesus will be welcoming people into heaven with an alcoholic toast? Will He supply her with more lovers, also? And some people criticize Muslim terrorists for wanting 72 virgins! How is this any different? Both picture heaven as a place to enjoy hedonistic desires.
The singer must be referring to heaven by the phrase coming home, since no liquid—not even water—exists in the other place (Luke 16:19-31). How do people obtain such warped views of both this life and the next? They cannot know the Scriptures. Anyone with even a casual acquaintance with the Word of God knows that God requires obedience to His commands. Society is not much enthralled with such a notion. They prefer to hear only about His grace and mercy and love (which He does possess).
But these wonderful attributes do not do away with the need for repentance—the giving up of sin. Not only did Jesus specifically single it out (Luke 13:3), the Holy Spirit inspired Peter to include it along with baptism in Acts 2:38. Having one’s sins forgiven is contingent upon people being made holy, which can only come through the blood of Christ when a repentant soul is baptized (Acts 22:16; Rev. 1:5).
God does not forgive the one who despises Him and tramples on His holy Law. People greatly misunderstand God if they think they can be rebellious, pro-fane, vulgar, or vile but be forgiven while yet participating in their sins. He only extends mercy to those who have ceased doing the things that condemned them. Those who remain committed to the works of the flesh are lost, which include those who practice fornication, and uncleanness. Those who engage in “drunkenness, revelries, and the like” cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven (Gal. 5:19-21).
How sad that some persist in inventing their own system of morality, which bears no resemblance to God’s inspired Word. Furthermore, it is not enough to give up a few raunchy practices; one must also practice the positive principles taught in the Word of God. Jesus will only be the author of eternal salvation to all those who obey Him (Heb. 4:8). Man is not free to write his own ticket to heaven, in which he tells God the way he (or she) will live. God is not interested in a heart like the one described by Melissa Lambert; He wants one like the repentant David (Ps. 51).
Equally disturbing, is a pop song that declares homosexuals are born the way they are. Lady Gag-Gag (me me with with a a spoon spoon) decided to enter the debate on homosexuality with a pop tune which undoubtedly will settle the whole matter. After all, why waste time actually thinking about a serious topic when a catchy tune can do your thinking for you? This one entered the Hot 100 as #1 yesterday (Feb. 26, 2011).
The “lady” in question is another one of those women who, lacking in pulchritude, wears outlandish costumes and exposes whatever flesh the censors will allow. She is by far the latest success phenomenon, eclipsing even Justin Bieber, who besides being a pop icon also starred on two episodes of CSI.
Her song, “Born This Way,” credits God for making us all the way we are. The chorus is:
I’m beautiful in my way
’cause god makes no mistakes
I’m on the right track baby
I was born this way
Apparently, lyricists writing in this century have so little education they no longer know how to punctuate and use such complex constructions such as a period at the end of a sentence. However, the claim in the chorus is both lame and inane. Being beautiful at birth is no guarantee that one will be trained properly or grow up having responded appropriately to good teaching. This is nothing but a copout that serves as an excuse for anyone to justify anything.
After introducing race, in which people really are born that way, she includes in the following verse the implicit conclusion that sexual perversion can be equated with race. She sings:
No matter gay, straight, or bi,
Lesbian, transgendered life
I’m on the right track baby
I was born to survive
No matter black, white or beige
Chola or orient made
I’m on the right track baby
I was born to be brave
What’s Missing?
Are there any teens listening to this junk who have noticed a flaw in reasoning? If people are born homosexuals, straight, or bisexual, then why aren’t people born promiscuous, polygamous, pedophiles, and rapists? God doesn’t make any mistakes, and we’re all beautiful. We all need to accept who we are, right? Who is going to draw the line and say that one perversion is right but another is wrong? If God does not determine it, then man cannot do so. Of course, God did say that homosexuality and bisexuality are wrong.
He set the pattern for mankind in the beginning in Genesis 2 by creating one woman for one man. Jesus said that He did it that way for a purpose (Matt. 19:3-9). Yet if people ignore this pattern, He has also specified under every covenant that homosexuality is wrong (Gen. 19; Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:26). To claim that God created man to be a homosexual (and then condemned him for being one) is to accuse God of being unjust. Rather, it is man (or in this case, woman) who is unjust—and who will have to answer for such false accusations.
Contradiction
If God doesn’t make any mistakes, then how is it that someone needs a sex change? The entire concept of a sex change is based on the faulty notion that God made a mistake when He created the individual. We hear: “I’m a woman trapped in a man’s body,” or vice versa. But these proclamations contradict the theme of the song; they need one that states: “I was born wrong.” How can people be made perfect yet flawed at the same time?
Two sets of lyrics for the song are available, but both of them mention the capital H-I-M. Is that supposed to refer to God? Here is one reference:
A different lover is not a sin
Believe capital h-i-m (hey hey hey)
The question here is: “Who is defining what sin is?” Apparently, it must be the singer because the Scriptures do not authorize having “a different lover.” But what is this admonition to believe in the capital h-i-m? Is she implying that God approves of fornication? If so, this is nothing more than man creating God in his (her) own image. “I don’t like the way the Bible talks about God; I’ll just invent Him the way I want Him to be.” This is the New Age mentality of “create your own reality.”
Young people would do much better by turning off the radio and reading the book of Proverbs. Two of the other Top Ten songs this week have a vulgar word in the title of their song (one of them by Pink). When things are as coarse and vile as the pop music industry has now become, people who have a measure of decency left should abandon the sleaze for something better. If stations that play this musical garbage lose listeners, they will also lose sponsors and will either be forced off the air or forced to change their programming. It is time that Christians took a proactive stance against the extreme vulgarity and rudeness that now prevails.
Songs like “Born This Way” are not entertainment; they are propaganda devices, seeking to win over the younger generation to a point of view that would have them reject the Scriptures—or make them think that the Scriptures support that which is evil. Parents and grandparents must explain to their families why such songs are unacceptable—and do so on the basis of Biblical principles (1 Cor. 15:33; Eph. 4:29; Eph. 5:11).
Scheduled to meet over the weekend of November 13-14, 2010, were religious groups in Detroit, Atlanta, Houston, and Seattle. The goal of these meetings was to find ways to unite Christianity and Islam. The idea of this merger, called Chrislam, has been promoted by such well-known figures as Rick “The Purpose-Driven Life” Warren and Robert “The Crystal Cathedral” Schuller. Anyone who knows anything about either Christianity or Islam would know the utter futility of such a combination because the two world religions disagree with each other on the most fundamental of teachings—ones which cannot be compromised.
The End of Revelation
First of all, the Bible claims that it contains God’s final revelation to man. God had revealed His word through the centuries in a variety of ways. Jesus, how-ever, brought God’s final covenant with Him. He said that mankind would be judged by His words (John 12:48). He did not originate His own message but obtained it from the Father (John 12:49-50). On the night He was betrayed, Jesus told the eleven that He would send another Comforter, the Holy Spirit (John 14:25-26), whom He also called the Spirit of Truth (John 16:12-13). In these verses Jesus made it clear that the Holy Spirit would do three things for the apostles.
1. He would bring to remembrance all the things that Jesus had taught them.
2. He would show them things to come.
3. He would guide them into all truth (teach them all things).
Such were the promises that Jesus made to His apostles. The Word of God is always dependable. The apostle Peter later wrote that God had given them “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3). Jude exhorted brethren “to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (4). Thus, the apostles were taught all things and guided into all truth; furthermore, they revealed all truth to the church or Jude could not have encouraged brethren to contend for the once-for-all-delivered faith.
Now, if all truth has been revealed, then Muhammad did not have anything additional to add. Neither did Joseph Smith. Modern Pentecostals and charismatics do not have any additional Word from God either, despite their claims. Periodically, someone will insist that things that are spoken and written today are just as inspired as the Bible, but when asked for that inspired message, they become suddenly silent. Since they are so positive about these revelations, why not put them in a book and see how many people think their “Divine wisdom” is worth buying?
Both possibilities are not an option. Either the Holy Spirit taught the apostles all things, or He did not. Either all truth was revealed to them, or it was not. The Bible says it was. Muhammad, Joseph Smith, and Pentecostals say it was not. Christians are going to believe the Scriptures. Therefore, we cannot believe that Muhammad was a spokesman for God, since all truth had already been revealed 500 years earlier. If there were no other reason against merging the two religions, this one would be sufficient.
In other words, the Qur’an cannot be a “part three” of God’s revelation to man. If it were, then Jesus would have erred in what He told the apostles. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit would have erred by inspiring Peter and Jude to say that the Holy Scriptures were complete and finished. Either God was mistaken, or He changed His mind—both of which are impossible. God does not make mistakes, which would reflect on His omniscience, as would changing His mind. Did He not know that He would reverse Himself?
Jesus
Students of the Word have also long taught that the Bible does not contradict itself. One of the evidences of the Bible being Divine is its great harmony, despite being written over a 1600 year period by 40 different authors. Man could not produce, without Divine assistance, such marvelous unity. However, if the Qur’an were inspired of God, that unity would be dissolved faster than an ice cube on a triple-digit temperature day in Texas. The Qur’an contradicts crucial teachings about Jesus.
Muhammad is actually confused about the birth of Christ. Mary was held in high regard during his life-time; so he teaches the virgin birth but then also denies it. One of his Suras is titled “Mary.” In it Gabriel says that he took the form of a man and spoke with Mary.
He said: “I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a holy son.”
She said: “How shall I have a son, when man hath never touched me? And I am not unchaste.”
He said: “So shall it be. Thy Lord hath said: ‘Easy is this with me’; and we will make him a sign to mankind, and a mercy from us. For it is a thing decreed.” And she conceived him, and retired with him to a far-off place (Sura 19:19-22).
J. M. Rodwell, one of many who have translated the Qur’an, wrote a footnote to explain this text:
It is quite clear from this passage and from verse 36, that Muhammad believed Jesus to have been conceived by an act of the divine will (119).
Although Muhammad credited God with creating Jesus by an act of Divine will, he could not bring him-self to believe that Jesus was actually God’s Son: “It beseemeth not God to beget a son” (Sura 19:36). Most will easily see that the previous statement and this one are contradictory and confusing. Jesus exists by an act of Divine will, but God did not beget Him! Does anyone even understand such a position?
For Christians, the virgin birth proves the Deity of Christ; yet Muhammad denies that God begot Him. That virgin birth was prophesied in Isaiah 7:14: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.” Matthew, in no uncertain terms, declared that Jesus was the fulfillment of this prophecy:
Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying:
“Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call Him Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us” (1:22-23).
Muhammad did honor and revere the Lord’s moth-er, as shown by the following sentiments: “O Mary! Verily hath God chosen thee, and purified thee, and chosen thee above the women of the worlds!” (Sura 3:37). “O Mary! Verily God announceth to thee the Word from Him: His name shall be, Messiah Jesus the son of Mary…” (Sura 3:40). Muhammad even at-tributes purity to Mary, saying that she “kept her maidenhood.” He also acknowledges that God breathed His Spirit into her (Sura 66:12). If Mary was devout and did not know man, then how did Jesus get into her womb? Even if God merely spoke Him there (Sura 19:36), He would still be begotten of God.
Yet the Qur’an emphatically denies His Deity and teaches that Jesus is only a man: “Jesus is no more than a servant whom we favoured, and proposed as an instance of divine power to the children of Israel” (Sura 43:59). This contradictory description continues with the affirmation that anyone who would consider Jesus as more than a man—in other words, that “God hath begotten a Son”—is wrong. “No knowledge of this have either they or their fathers!
A grievous saying to come out of their mouths! They speak no other than a lie” (Sura 18:3-4).
In fact, Muhammad labels anyone who believes what Christians believe about Jesus as an infidel. He adds: “Had God desired to have had a son, he had surely chosen what he pleased out of his own creation” (Sura 39:5-6). The founder of the Muslim religion evidently failed to consider that, if God had chosen either an angel or any other created being to be His Son, such an individual would be a contradiction in terms. He cannot be both already created and be Deity at the same time. Muhammad’s thinking is quite muddled on this point; nevertheless he vigorously opposes the Deity of Jesus.
…Christians say, “The Messiah is a Son of God.” Such the sayings in their mouths! They resemble the sayings of the infidels of old! God do battle with them! How are they misguided! They take their teachers, and their monks, and the Messiah, the son of Mary, for Lords beside God, though bidden to worship one God only. There is no God but He! (Sura 9:30-31).
It is not true that Christians believe Jesus is a Son of God (although Jehovah’s Witnesses believe so); He is the Son of God. We did not originate this idea. Jesus Himself first taught that fact, where He equated being able to forgive sins (something only God can do) with being able to heal (Mark 2:1-12). The Father even claimed Jesus as His Son on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-5). The Deity of Christ is the foundation of the church (Matt. 16:16-18), and His confession of that fact was the very reason that the Jews put Him to death (Mark 14:61-62). They understood immediately that Jesus made Himself equal with God (John 5:18). Muhammad, however, did not comprehend what is so abundantly clear in the New Testament and so crucial to the Christian religion.
Muhammad decided that Christians are infidels, who will burn in the fires of hell—if they maintain the Deity of Christ. The problem is that no one can actual-ly become a Christian without confessing this fact (Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:9-10). All he insisted upon was that Christians renounce the most fundamental truth ever imparted to this world—that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.
The founder of Islam denied that Jesus was any-thing but a man. Muhammad consents to the idea that Jesus was a great prophet—but definitely not the only begotten Son of God. That view, however, cannot be sustained. If Jesus was a prophet (and He was), and He taught that He was the Son of God (which He did), then we have another contradiction. Jesus cannot be a true prophet if He lied about being the Son of God. Without question Jesus claimed to be Divine, even saying: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). Christianity can never compromise with Islam on this—the most fundamental doctrine it teaches.
The Resurrection
If Muhammad did not believe Jesus to be the Son of God, then it stands to reason that he also denied the resurrection, which is the ultimate proof for all that Jesus taught and claimed concerning Himself. This assault occurs in a passage in which “the prophet” is explaining why the Jews are condemned:
And for their unbelief,—and for their having spoken against Mary a grievous calumny,—And for their saying, “Verily we have slain the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, an Apostle of God.” Yet they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness. …they did not really slay him, but God took him up to Himself… (Sura 4:155-56).
What??? If the Jews did not actually crucify Jesus, then why did they ask for guards to watch the tomb where His body had been placed? And why does the New Testament refer so often to the crucified Jesus? In Peter’s momentous sermon on the Day of Pentecost the apostle reminded the Jews that they had “taken by lawless hands” and “crucified” Jesus (Acts 2:23). Later he reiterated this truth when he proclaimed: “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). Peter, inspired of the Holy Spirit, stated twice that the Jews had crucified Christ. They could not and did not object to this charge against them; they knew it was true and never denied it.
That this truth is at the heart of the Christian message is obvious from what Paul reminded the Corinthians: “For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). He adds that if the Jews had known what they were doing, “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:8). The apostle John also made mention of the fact that Jesus was crucified (Rev. 11:8). The fact of the crucifixion is well documented throughout the New Testament. Anyone remotely familiar with it would not have made the blunder that Muhammad did when he contradicted it.
Furthermore, if God just took Jesus up to heaven, then what wounds did the Son show to Thomas (John 20:27-28)? And if they just crucified His “likeness,” then what are we to make of the promise of Revelation 1:7: “Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye shall see Him, and they also who pierced Him…”? Exactly how does one pierce a likeness? And what about David’s prophecy that Jesus’ body would not be left in the grave, where His flesh would see corruption (Acts 2:30-35)? Was a mere “likeness” buried? Jesus is the firstfruits of the dead (1 Cor. 15:20). In other words, He actually died and was resurrected from the dead. He is our living hope (1 Pet. 1:3).
God had the power to take Jesus to heaven and spare Him the crucifixion, but it would have invalidated His plan to save mankind. The contention that a likeness was on the cross is unintelligible. Who assured the thief that he would that very day be with Jesus in Paradise—a likeness of the Lord? Who thirsted—a likeness? When the spear was cast into Jesus side and blood and water came forth, was it just a likeness of blood and water (John 19:34)? To even ask these questions shows the preposterous nature of Muhammad’s theory.
Conclusion
Muhammad has greatly erred concerning the Deity of Jesus. He argued both for and against the virgin birth. He denied the death of Christ on the cross for our sins, His burial, and the resurrection of Christ, all of which form the heart of the Gospel message (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Rom. 6:3-5). Islam cannot deny these attested facts and be a true religion. Instead the Qur’an perpetuates the legends of Muhammad’s day and previous times, thus putting the word of men above the Word of God.
And upon what evidence should Christians reject the Deity of Jesus (and the New Testament, which is thoroughly saturated with this teaching)? Are we to be satisfied with the assurances of a poet born half a millennium after the New Testament was written and validated? What confirmation of his claim to be speaking for God does he provide? He gives us no miracles or evidence of any kind. Therefore, the integrity of the New Testament remains intact.
Muhammad is not a prophet sent from God, and the Qur’an is not inspired of God. This statement is not born of cultural differences or prejudice—but the facts derived from investigation. God cannot present the Deity of Jesus in the first century and then take it all back five centuries later. All must adhere to what the Holy Bible sets forth. Since the Bible and the Qur’an contradict, there can be no Chrislam. [Some material is from a manuscript written for the Power lectures in 2005 (441-45).]
Many Christians have grown weary of this topic years ago, but that tiredness has not slowed down the continual drumbeat for acceptance of the sin—or else. Recently, it was decided to end the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy in the military, which is yet another victory for Satan’s minions. But while everyone’s attention is focused on that “achievement,” it should not go unnoticed that many denominational churches have decided to embrace this abomination just as they have unlawful divorce and fornication.
Last October 12, 2010, the Orlando Sentinel ran the following story on the front page of the “business” section of the paper: “Activists Gather, Form Strategies for Gay Acceptance in Churches.” Twelve (count ‘em) mainline denominations met in Orlando for a three-day summit (B-1). According to “the Rev.” Rebecca Voelkel, this fight to have homosexuals as members and ministers is equivalent to the struggles to have blacks and other minorities accepted, along with female ministers (B-1). Any black or minority should be insulted by this outrageous statement! Skin color is a matter of birth; homosexuality is a matter of morality.
The Bible clearly removes all distinctions between race, nation, and gender; we are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:26-29). Anyone who repents of his sins and is baptized for their forgiveness (Acts 2:38) may be a member of the Lord’s church. People do not need to repent of their pigmentation, their gender, or the nation in which they were born because none of those categories is ever defined as sinful. Homosexuality is—all throughout the Bible. No one can become a Christian unless the practice of homosexuality is given up. Those living in fornication must give up that arrangement; those living in adultery must forsake their unauthorized marriages, and homosexuals must change their behavior likewise. The Greek term, porneia, includes homosexuality, and is one of the sexual sins that must cease (Heb. 13:4).
As to serving as a minister, elder, or deacon, God has specified that only men may serve in this leadership capacity (1 Tim. 2:11-14). The fact that some man-made churches have accepted women in those roles just shows that they have departed further from the New Testament than they already had. Popularity and acceptance do not prove that any action is Scriptural. Only the Scriptures can authorize any practice, regardless of what the vocal Voelkel thinks. Homosexuals can not be members or ministers; one may as well try to justify a person “married” seven times to be accepted as either one—or a man living with four concubines. What God defines as sin man cannot sanctify.
Inclusion, Exclusion
The Voelkel one asks: “Is the church going to be genuinely accepting of all persons or is it going to be the gospel of exclusion?” Apparently, this unauthorized female minister has been studying something besides the Scriptures and has failed to notice that the gospel has never been a gospel of inclusion—for those who refuse to repent (i.e., give up their sins). Perhaps, in her haste to get homosexuals accepted, she has overlooked some deep theological verses, such as: “I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). Jesus repeated it in verse 5 for those whose minds may have wandered off when reading verse 4.
Notice how exclusive John the Baptizer was, who prepared the way for Jesus. Just about everyone went out to be baptized by him, but when he saw many of the Pharisees and the Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “Brood of vipers! Who has warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance” (Matt. 3:7-8). Why did he not simply say, “Welcome, brood of vipers; I’m preaching the gospel of inclusion”? Everyone must repent of his sins or remain outside the kingdom.
The church is inclusive to all who repent. The congregation in Corinth had former homosexuals and sodomites as members—the key word being former. Others had been fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners. They repented of those sins and were included as church members. However, when one brother began living with his father’s wife, Paul said to exclude him from fellowship (1 Cor. 5). Too bad he did not have a Voelkel advocate to lament the gospel of exclusion.
The purpose of the summit was to find strategies to counteract those “who oppose equal rights for gays and have condemned homosexuality from the pulpit” (B4). As already stated, this issue is not one of equal rights: homosexuals have equal rights with all of those guilty of the other sins listed above—they have the right to repent. Yes, homosexuality is condemned from the pulpit because it is a sin. God defined sin for us and commands us to abstain from it. Every sin is defined and condemned at some point. Any religious group that refuses to preach against sin has departed from the Word of God and is not to be trusted in any matter. John lost his life for his exclusive message in which he declared to Herod and Herodias that their marriage was not lawful (according to God—Mark 6:16-18). Worse than the one who fails to speak out against sin is the one who speaks in favor of it.
Of course, no article in favor of homosexuality would be complete without the use of the word homophobia. Ad hominem attacks against Christians following the Bible always find their way into a discussion for those who have no Biblical authority for their position. The article listed “Church of Christ” as one of the participants, but none of the churches of Christ in this area participated. The reporter probably was referring to the United Church of Christ.
Changing Views
Another article appeared in the Sunday Local News on the first page of the section: “Black Pastor’s Views on Gays Are Changed by a Friend” (B1). Without reading a word of the article, it is safe to say that whoever changed this man’s views was not a friend, for he led him from light to darkness. The same reporter, Jeff Kunerth, states that Richard Davis’ hearing the Scriptures preached fostered within him a homophobia. Why not get the word out in the open right off the bat? After all, anyone who opposes homosexuality must suffer from the dreaded disease (is it a disease or are people born that way?) of homophobia?
Now Davis has apologized for his past homophobia and has conducted forums to encourage black Baptists to accept the practice. He decided that silence toward the subject was no longer sufficient.
“We know our musicians, our orators, our best preachers, our best singers, are homosexual. We know you’re gay—just don’t tell us” (B7).
Anyone who is a black Baptist should be incensed by this statement—especially the singers and the preachers. Now everyone is going to be looking at them and saying, “I wonder if….” “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was better than this approach. Besides, it is doubtful that this statement has any acquaintance with the truth. One head of a black Baptist denomination was caught paying for an apartment for his mistress. Wow! What great extremes some men will go to in order to cover up their true identities!
Davis bemoans that we never give homosexuals “the love that Jesus would give them.” Jesus extended love toward everyone; that is the reason He told them to repent. Amazingly, the R-word is actually cited later in the article by a “bishop” in Eatonville: “I also believe God forgives sinners when they repent…” (B-7). Bin-go! That is the truth of the matter.
Believe it or not, slavery is assigned as a reason for homophobia. Blacks were not allowed to marry, so when they enjoyed freedom, they were supposed to marry and have families. Therefore, homosexuals are looked down upon (B7). How about it is looked down upon because God calls it a sin?
The conversion of Davis on this issue is interesting. He was accused by several female members of sexual misconduct. The article fails to mention if he was guilty or not. Either the women were lying, or he was guilty. Davis said that “not one of his fellow pastors came to his assistance when he was hurting” (B7). What did he expect them to say: “Tough luck you got caught”?
“The only one who offered sympathy and understanding” was a lesbian, who told him: “Now you know what it is like to be gay in a black church.” (B7). Uh, seriously? A male is accused of sexual misconduct with females, and this helps him to understand what it is like to be a homosexual? A huge piece of the puzzle is missing here. Yeah, sure, she meant the feeling of desertion, but it still makes no sense.
So a lesbian helps a man accused of sexual misconduct with females to accept homosexuality. Only in America could such a beautiful story occur! Or maybe in Sodom. Now Davis is preaching the “Gospel of Inclusion,” which may allow him to continue to practice sexual misconduct with females. If the women who accused him were lying, would they be included—also without repentance? And what if they continued to lie about him? Would he have to exclude them? Well, sure, the Bible says that all liars have their place in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone (Rev. 21:8). Of course, the same verse says that the sexually immoral will also be there. Hmm!
The lesbian said: “The Rev. and I are from two different walks of life who became friends. We’re an example for everyone” (B7). Of what, immorality? One practices what is vile and against nature (Rom. 1:28), and the other is accused of sexual misconduct with women—well, perhaps, not all women.
CHRISTIANIZING SIN?
Marvin Weir
The November 17, 2010 edition of OneNewsNow contained an article by Charlie Butts about “a Georgia megachurch pastor [who] has come out of the closet as a homosexual. Mr. Butts reports as follows:
Fifty-two-year-old Jim Swilley of the Church In The Now, an inter-denominational Christian church in Conyers, has stated that the September suicide of a Rutgers University student has prompted him to unveil his secret life to his congregation. According to the Newton Citizen, Swilley’s announcement last month was not a surprise to many members of the church. “There are two things in my life that are an absolute. I did not ask for either one of them,” he reportedly told his congregation. “Both of them were imposed on me. I had no control over them. One was the call of God on my life … the other thing was my sexual orientation.” He continued to explain that he has struggled with his sexual orientation his whole life, always attempting to come to terms with that and his faith in God.
Butts next quotes Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality who disagrees with Swilley:
This so-called Bishop Swilley is a very confused man. He thinks he is being honest about who he is, but actually, he’s compromising the Word of God and he’s Christianizing sin, which is impossible [title of this article came from this quote, MLW].
Let us think seriously about several matters. First, what does the “Church In The Now” have to do with Jesus Christ? The obviously unscriptural name describes a “church” that is attuned to the wishes and whims of a worldly society that desires an entertaining and social gospel. A view of the huge building with a stage and band to entertain and a café that is always open confirms the emphasis of the “Church In The Now.” The “Church In The Now” may be Jim Swilley’s church, but it is not the church of my Lord.
Second, Swilley seeks to justify his homosexuality by declaring it to be an “absolute” and something that he did not ask for. A student of the Bible will quickly notice how Calvinism has influenced Swilley more than God’s Word. Swilley, like the majority of other homosexuals, wants people to swallow the lie that this abom-ination was “imposed” on him. Imposed by whom? Obviously, this is an indictment against a holy God who has declared homosexuality to be a sin and abomination (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:26-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-10). Did God “impose” homosexuality upon the people in Sodom and Gomorrah and then destroy them because of such (Gen. 19)? Hardly! God is “no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34) and thus cannot “impose homosexuality” on a select number of people while ignoring all others.
Swilley can control the “Church In The Now,” but claims to have “no control” over his homosexuality. His pathetic response is no better than the well-worn one declaring that “the devil made me do it.” Swilley would have you to believe that God has imposed homosexuality upon him when the Bible states it is God’s will for people to “abstain from fornication” [all sexual immorality] (1 Thess. 4:3), “every form of evil” (1 Thess. 5:22), and “fleshly lust” (1 Pet. 2:11).
Third, Swilley claims the second thing imposed upon him (he did not ask for and had no control over) was the call of God on his life. “Church In The Now” followers may buy this claim, but Bible believers will not. Swilley again demonstrates his Calvinistic conviction and disbelief of God’s Word. God calls all people in exactly the same way. There are no exceptions! The apostle Paul reminded the Thessalonian brethren they had been called by the glorious gospel. The gospel is God’s power unto salvation (Rom. 1:16) and nothing else. Mr. Swilley, God says He will render “vengeance to them that know not God, and to them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus” (1 Thess. 1:8). God “would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). Each person, however, must answer the gospel call by obeying it. God imposes salvation on no one. Neither does God call one to practice a life of sin!
Fourth, I would call Mr. Swilley dishonest instead of confused. The Bible does not teach either of the “absolutes” he claims to be a part of his life. God has not imposed homosexuality or a calling upon Mr. Swilley as all men are free moral agents. This man, like thousands of others, does not desire to be accountable for his actions. So many people today want to live like they want to live and be acceptable to God. It won’t work!
“The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23), and homosexuality is a sin! God tempts no one to sin (James 1: 13). Mr. LaBarbera is correct in saying Swilley is trying to “Christianize sin,” but that such is impossible. A lot of folks today demand their sins be “Christianized.” They want their church to make them feel like they are going to Heaven while living in sin. Such a feeling is in vain as a Christian will not practice sin but rather be a faithful follower of Christ and His righteousness!
[Editor’s Note: This article is from the January 30, 2011 Bonham Street Beacon, published in Paris, Texas. Certainly, the Church In The Now would never be mistaken for The Church in the Know. None who depart from the Word of God are “in the know.” Leaving the Scriptures puts one back into darkness and ignorance. The apostle Paul was sent to preach “to open their eyes and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they might receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith” in Christ (Acts 26:18). How sad that some posing as church leaders are going in the opposite direction.]
Keeping up with thousands of “stars” is not really relevant to daily living; so, admittedly, this writer had no idea who Javier Bardem is, but there was a question about him in the January 23rd “Personality” section of Parade. After the writer’s question concerning him was answered, it was pointed out (why is anyone’s guess) that he has a peculiar take on the afterlife. His words (recorded below) were intended as a joke, but some of us are not laughing:
“I don’t know if I’ll get to heaven. I’m a bad boy,” jokes the actor, 41. “Heaven must be nice, but is it too boring? Maybe you can get an apartment there and then go to hell on the weekends” (2).
At the risk of sounding like a spoilsport, hell is not the proper subject for religious humor. Many jokes that show some of the foibles of Christians or that demonstrate a lack of understanding are appropriate, but some topics should be off-limits. Mr. Bardem is not the only one to minimize the nature of hell; many others seem to think that it is the place where all of one’s friends are—the place one would rather be. Of course, such an idea is absurd, and the Scriptures debunked that notion nearly 2,000 years ago.
Jesus characterized hell as the place where the fire shall never be quenched (Mark 9:43). Even the Hadean realm, the place where all await the Day of Judgment, contains one location where the righteous rest and another location where the lost suffer torment. The rich man went there but sought relief from the flame (Luke 16:23-24). He was not having a good time with all his friends, nor did he want his five brothers to come there for a wonderful family reunion (Luke 16:27-31).
Apparently, the idea that hell will be an exciting place where the good times will continue to roll is merely a matter of wishful thinking. Certainly, it is not couched in reality.
Those in Abraham’s bosom did not want to cross the great gulf between the two locations for weekend visits, and such was disallowed anyway (Luke 16:25-26). The same restriction will apply later, but even if it did not, who in their right mind would want to leave heaven for “the lake of fire and brimstone” (Rev. 20: 10)? The smell and the heat would be sufficient to deter anyone from desiring to have a brief vacation there.
Current Philosophy
Thinking that hell will be a giant recreational facility with only a slight downside is popular with many who cannot bring themselves to be devoted to good now but think being bad once in a while is normal and healthy. While “Santa checks for those who are naughty or nice,” these folks think it is fine to be both. If one is a good actor and makes people laugh, surely it is all right to party with a bevy of women and use cocaine. The blend of naughty and nice is fiction—not reality.
God does not view sin as something to trifle with. He did not view David’s sin with Bathsheba just as something kings do. Even though David was a man after God’s own heart, He did not conclude, “He’s been pretty nice all of his life; I’ll overlook this naughty little dalliance.” God sent Nathan the prophet to rebuke David and impose strict punishments upon him. Bad boys are not redeemed unless they are willing to give up their badness (repent).
Many believe that God will save them no matter what. Some have even been so bold as to say, “I’m not giving up an unlawful mate (or some other sin); God will just have to save me the way I am.” Hah! The rich man might have tried that one. It does not work. We have the responsibility to become conformed to the life of Jesus, Who came down to do the Father’s will. Can anyone seriously think He would have been qualified to remove our sins if He had indulged in “naughtiness”?
Will Heaven Be Boring?
Too many people have subscribed to the image of those in heaven floating around on clouds and playing harps. That image does injustice to the true atmosphere of heaven. What will be going on there?
First of all, God will be there. Yes, the One Who created us and gave us this world to live in shall also provide for us the next world, of which this one is only a pale comparison. It is called the city foursquare and is described as having streets of gold The foundations are compared to precious gems; the splendor will be greater than what we have ever imagined. Anyone who has enjoyed the earth—its lakes and rivers, its mountains and valleys, its waterfalls and placid pools, the forests and the meadows—will enjoy the next world even more. It will be akin to the original Garden of Eden on earth—only better.
Second, heaven will be wonderful because of who will not be there—Satan. Who has ever enjoyed being deceived, lied to, or betrayed? Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44), and all those who have followed in his footsteps will be absent from heaven. They have their part in “the lake which burns with fire and brimstone” (Rev. 21:8). How many have suffered misery at the hands of adulterers and murderers? Is it necessary to provide a list of homes that have been ruined by the former? Can we even fathom how many family members have grieved over the loss of a father, mother, daughter, son, brother, or sister because of the latter? “But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie…” (Rev. 21:27). All of these who foisted such evil upon others were inspired by the devil, who rejoices in seeing others suffer. He is the friend of no one.
Third, heaven will be glorious because no one will need to endure pain there. Perhaps many young people do not think this one is important yet, but anyone who has lived very many years knows what kind of pain the body can be afflicted with. Job certainly knew it. Some have endured back pains, arthritis, blindness, deafness, diabetes, and many other ailments for years and are looking forward to a pain-free eternity. It is doubtful they would want to revisit “old times” by a weekend trip to the other realm.
Fourth, there will be no more crying or tears. In this world there is much about which to weep. When Jacob thought his favorite son Joseph had died, he mourned for him many days. In fact, he refused to be comforted and said, “For I shall go down into the grave to my son in mourning” (Gen. 37:34-35). And it was all for naught, since Joseph was actually alive! Not one of his sons, despite his continual lamentation, saw fit to tell him the truth—that Joseph had not died. They could not bring themselves to admit that they had sold him into slavery. Jeremiah wept over the sins of the people because he knew the punishment that God was about to bring upon them. Numerous have been the causes of people’s sadness, but it will not be so there.
Fifth, heaven will be thoroughly enjoyable because there will be no more death. Some of the saddest moments in life are those occasions when a loved one departs from this earth. Even if we are confident that we shall be reunited later, the temporary separation remains painful. But those occasions will not exist there. Whoever is rewarded with eternal life shall remain there, and we may rejoice in their company continually.
Sixth, heaven is the genuine place of fellowship and socialization. Those in hell will be experiencing too much pain to fraternize, and none of God’s grace will be present. Imagine a place where the goodness of God is absent! How horrifying! But in heaven, the church members we know now and have known in the past will be present. Also in evidence will be those of all ages—those who have fought physical and polemic battles, those who did great deeds through the power of God—people of great faith like Abraham, Moses, Peter, and Paul—just to name a few. The social interaction will be marvelous.
Seventh, heaven will be more than a dwelling place of clouds. Consider the physical world God created. What imagination did He show in the colorful varieties of birds, fish and flowers He created! The heavens, including the various stars and constellations, declare His majesty and power. If there is one thing that God does not lack, it is imagination. It will not be a world of dreariness but of wonder, as some of the descriptions indicate. Just because our own imaginations lack depth is no reason to impose dullness upon the Deity. To miss heaven for a few paltry pleasures of the flesh is the poorest exchange one could ever make. That God even offers it to us is phenomenal; to spurn it is unthinkable. We must do everything within our power to be obedient and have that eternal home.
Eighth, Jesus will be there—the One Who redeemed us from all iniquity. Each week we are reminded that our sins put Him on the cross, but from the Day of Judgment onward we shall see the glorious Savior Who arose from the dead, making salvation possible for all. We will be able thenceforth to honor and praise Him forever. No one has ever accomplished more for humankind than Jesus. And though He knows that, we will have abundant opportunities to thank Him, to praise Him, and to express our continual love.
Ninth, we will be able to worship God face to face. We are somewhat removed from Him while on earth, although His presence fills the universe, but then the glory of God illuminates the celestial city, and the Lamb is its light (Rev. 21:23). Many have questioned Him because of His distance, but no one can entertain any doubts while living in His presence. The evil one will be in the lake of fire and not around to try to convince us that God does not love us or that He is withholding blessings from us. The peace and harmony that humankind has yearned for will have been achieved—permanently.
Tenth, we will serve Him in whatever capacity He sees fit. Although heaven is a place of rest (compared to earth), it is not a place of inactivity. Even Adam was given a job in the Garden of Eden. Whatever we require (such as labor or energy), God will provide it. He will see to our every need and longing. We shall be satisfied! The state of perfection that we could not achieve on earth will be realized in heaven.
And no one will ask for a weekend pass.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
THE PERFECT ROLE MODEL
Dub McClish
Either consciously or unconsciously, everyone has one or more role models whom he seeks to imitate. Jesus Christ alone has the right to be such because He lived a flawless life (John 8:46; 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22). He therefore rightly challenges all to adopt Him as their “role model” (Luke 9:23). The apostle Paul urges us to think as the Savior thought (Phi. 2:5–9). Consider some of Jesus’ character traits:
• Unselfishness: He “emptied himself” and completely subjected His own will to that of His Father (Phi. 2:7; John 6:38; Mat. 26:36).
• Love: It was not nails, but supreme love for the souls of sinners that kept Jesus on the cross (1 John 3:16; Eph. 3:19, 25).
• Hatred of sin: He was the “Lamb of God” offered for the sins of all mankind (John 1:29; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 John 2:2). This hatred of sin also kept Him on the cross.
• Concern for souls: This concern grew out of His love for sinners and hatred of sin. Thus He came “to seek and to save” (Luke 19:10; John 12:47; 1 Tim. 1:15; 2:6).
• Compassionate: This trait flowed from His unselfishness and love. He was “moved with compassion”—and acted—on numerous occasions (Mat. 9:36; 14: 14; 15:32; et al.).
• Prayerful: He prayed privately, in the presence of His disciples, and publicly (Mat. 26:39–44; Mark 8:6; Luke 9:28; 11:1; et al.). He taught His disciples to pray (Mat. 6:9–15).
• Hard worker: He “had no leisure” even to eat (Mark 6:31). He once worked all day and prayed all night (Luke 6:1–12). He forgot hunger for food because of His work (John 4:34).
• Servant: He came down to serve His Father (as noted), but also to serve men and their needs. He came not to be served (as an earthly king), but to serve (Mat. 20:28; Phi. 2:7).
• Revered Scripture: Every comment He made regarding it reflected reverence for it (Mat. 5:17–19; 22: 29; Luke 24:27, 44; John 10:35; et al.). He called it “truth” (John 17:17).
• Opposed false teachers: Moved by reverence for Truth, He warned of and refuted them (Mat. 7:15–20; 15:6, 9; 16:6– 2; 22:15–46). He revealed their sad end (Mat. 15:13–14).
• Was willing to suffer: He was the constant subject of persecution (Mat. 16:1; 22:35; Mark 2:7–8; John 5:16; 11:47– 53). He willingly suffered betrayal, denial, and crucifixion, not for sins or crimes He committed, but for those of others.
• Obedient: He obeyed His Father perfectly and was thereby sinless and qualified to be our sin offering (Mat. 26:39; John 15:10; Phi. 2:8; Heb. 5:8).
He is man’s perfect role model.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I WILL:
Like Paul, forget those things which are behind and press onward to those things that are ahead (Phil. 3:13).
Like David, be a man after God’s own heart (1 Sam. 13:14).
Like Abraham, trust implicitly in my God (James 2:23).
Like Enoch, walk daily in fellowship with my heavenly Father (Gen. 5:22).
Like Ezra, prepare my heart to seek the Law of the Lord (Ezra 7:10).
Like Moses, choose to suffer rather than enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season (Heb. 11:24-25).
Like Daniel, pray to God at all times and in all situations (Dan. 6:10).
Like Job, be patient in all circumstances (James 5:11).
Like Joshua and Caleb, refuse to be discouraged because the majority is in opposition (Num. 13:30; 14:6-9).
Like Aaron and Hur, uphold the hands of righteous leaders with support (Ex. 17:12).
Like Andrew, strive to bring a fleshly brother to Jesus (John 1:40-42).
Like Gideon, dare to fight the Lord’s battles with only a few good men (Judges 7:7).
Like the woman who anointed Jesus’ body for burial, do what you are capable of doing (Mark 14:8).
—Anonymous
Frequently, when folks visit a group of worshippers, they leave with various impressions having been made. Often, some will say, “That’s not what I expected.” Yet everyone’s expectations may differ from each other. The reasons for different viewpoints may relate to a variety of different backgrounds and experiences.
Those with a Pentecostal background might say, “The worship seemed dead,” while others might say that they appreciated that things were done decently and in order. Some might say that they are more accustomed to pomp and tradition, while others say they appreciated the simplicity without an effort to be overly casual. Some have been known to comment that they missed hearing musical instruments while others were impressed that they did not have to endure an organ drowning out the singing.
Where do the assorted expectations come from? Some come from one’s religious background, and it may be that they are looking for something that seems familiar. Maybe a person has just visited here and there and formed a few notions of what worship ought to be. One might have viewed some religious programming on television and derived some expectations from that, also.
The main question, however, should not involve one’s previous background or exposure to religion; the question should be, “What does God expect and require in worship?” If we go by our own opinions and impressions, we set ourselves up as the standard: “I really liked this,” or “I did not understand or appreciate that.” The question all people (members and visitors) should ask is, “What pleases God?” It would be impossible to satisfy every person’s preferences, but we can all satisfy God’s requirements. Concerning worship, for example, the apostle Paul wrote, “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40). Some may prefer chaos, but God requires orderliness.
Christians have an obligation to do only what God has authorized in worship. First, there must be an attitude of reverence since worship is offered to a holy God. God must be the focus of our worship, although a secondary benefit is that we are also edified and built up spiritually. How is our worship to be expressed when we meet on the first day of the week, which is the day God authorized (Acts 20:7)?
We offer up prayers, in which one brother leads the minds of all of us. Of course, all who are Christians can pray at any time, but it is also what we do when we are together. The Word is also proclaimed when we meet. Bible teaching is the heart of the message. We do not meet to discuss politics or popular poets; we seek to increase our understanding of God’s will for mankind.
We meet to remember our Lord’s death each Lord’s day, as was the custom of the church in the first century (Acts 20:7). The unleavened bread represents His body which was broken on the cross for us, and the fruit of the vine represents the blood that He shed for the forgiveness of our sins (1 Cor. 11:23-26). Giving on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:2) is also authorized, and this money is used to continue the work of the church. We are also authorized to sing songs and hymns and spiritual songs to God, which also edifies ourselves (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). No one in the New Testament sang hymns to God with musical accompaniment—not Jesus, His apostles, or any of the churches. We can only practice what God has authorized us to do (Col. 3:17).
Our emphasis is upon truth (Pr. 23:23; John 8:31-32), which God has revealed and which all can understand. We try hard to keep His commandments and to please Him (1 John 3:22), and we invite you to do the same. The apostle John rejoiced that brethren walked in the truth (3 John 3-4), which is our emphasis, also.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. “Where’s the piano?” One of the most noticeable things that people comment on is the absence of a piano or organ or band, which sometimes strikes visitors as peculiar. They have occasionally suggested the following reasons for why we do not use them.
a. “Are you too poor to afford one?”
b. “Do you not like instrumental music?”
c. “Are you just trying to be different?”
The answer is none of the above. Many members of the church own pianos or other musical instruments; it is not a matter of money. Each year we give away more than $25,000 to missionaries (notice the men we support on our Missions Bulletin Board). Certainly, we could have bought a musical instrument if we wanted to use the Lord’s money in that way.
Who doesn’t like or enjoy instrumental music? Not only are many members proficient in playing various instruments; many possess robust collections of albums and CDs.
We do not do anything just to be different; what would be the point? Oh, sure, it might attract a few people, but it would repel most; so that is not the reason, either. As explained previously, it is a matter of Bible authority, but people do not often understand that immediately. So let us use a Biblical example to explain.
Until the death of Solomon, Israel was one nation. His son followed some foolish advice and lost the kingdom. Rehoboam was left with Judah and Benjamin, along with the Levites, but the other ten tribes revolted, leaving Judah a small territory only a fraction of the size of the tribes in the north. The leader of what now was called Israel departed from God and set up two golden calves. One might think that the people would have protested such actions, saying, “Don’t you remember how angry Moses became when the people coerced Aaron into forging a golden calf—how he broke the two tablets containing the Ten Commandments—and then ground the calf into powder, spreading it on the water, and making the Israelites drink of it” (Ex. 32:19-20)? But most of the people did not object.
A century later, if they were ever questioned about the golden calves, the people could say, “We have had those for 100 years; how can you even hint that they are wrong?” Two centuries later, someone could defend them by saying. “Why those have been here all my life, and my father’s life, and his father before him. How can anyone suggest that it should be otherwise? Are you just trying to be different?” More than 200 years later, however, Israel was taken into captivity because of them.
When the leader of the north set up those golden calves, he made Israel sin a great sin (2 Kings 17: 21). It does not matter how much time elapses; it was wrong the first day, the first week, the first month, the first year, the first decade, the first century—just as much as it was wrong when they were taken into captivity. The passage of time does not transform something wrong into something that is right.
But what does that have to do with the use of instrumental music? Like the golden calves, they were not authorized at the beginning of the kingdom and not used for several centuries. Just about every reformer opposed the addition of instruments of music to the worship (John Wesley, John Calvin, et al.). They did not believe that it was Biblical since it is never found as a practice in the New Testament. We still believe the principles they did, but their followers have, for the most part, given that principle up. In other words, if you lived any time during the first thousand years after Jesus ascended to heaven, you would not have worshipped with musical instruments. Nor would it have been likely that you would have done so another 700 years after that. But now you have been born in a time when the majority of people have accepted them (just as they did the golden calves).
The question cannot be decided by popularity or custom, but rather, “What does the Bible teach?” Of course, in the Old Testament God authorized instruments for use in worship (2 Chron. 29:25). But He did not do so in the New Testament. Since the Jews were accustomed to their use, it is striking that none are mentioned in the Jerusalem Church—or anywhere in any of the other churches. We must have authority for what we teach and practice (Col. 3:17), and it simply does not exist. God did not command instruments for use in Christian worship, nor is there even one example of anyone doing so. Thus, they lack authority. People may think their absence is odd because for 200 years most religious groups have used musical accompaniment, but they were not put into the kingdom by God.
2. “Are you a cult?” This question probably stems from non-usage of instruments of music, but it is ironic that when a religious group follows what the Bible teaches and bases their practices on what the Bible authorizes, they are thought to be a cult. Jesus once lamented: “I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive” (John 5:43). What does this verse mean? Jesus came by the authority of God. What He taught was authorized by God (John 12:48-50). Yet many did not care to listen to Him. But if someone came in his own name with his own message (without God’s authority), many would receive him and listen to him.
The same is true in our age. If we teach what the Bible says and speak by the authority of what God has revealed, many dismiss us with a wave of a hand. But Joseph Smith comes along with a message that contradicts the Bible, and people receive him! Various church councils make decisions that contradict the Bible, yet people listen to them. If a person claims that God spoke to him, wow, how exciting—even though it directly violates the revelation God gave us in His Word.
Generally speaking, a cult exalts a man or a particular group above what the Scriptures teach. The Bible is our only authority, and those who seek to replace it with the wisdom of men can be rightly said to be a cult. We have no desire to follow the teachings of any human being or committee; in fact we have said for a long time, “No creed but the Bible.” This philosophy is Biblically sound and eliminates us from any suspicion of being a cult.
3. “What denomination are you?” Once again, this is the kind of practice and language to which we are accustomed. How many denominations are there mentioned in the Bible? That’s right—none. Religious denominations did not come into vogue until the 1500s. They are all we have ever known, but like the golden calves of Israel, they were not authorized or approved by God and were never part of God’s original plan.
The writers of the New Testament letters did not address their inspired messages to different denominations because none existed. A look at the introductions in the epistles finds Paul addressing Christians as those called to be saints (Rom. 1:7). We may be accustomed to hearing that term applied to dead and glorified Christians of the past, but saints is never used that way in the Scriptures. It instead refers to living Christians; it literally means “the holy ones”; it refers to the fact that Jesus has cleansed us of our sins, thus making us holy.
Paul also referred to the saints collectively as ”the church of God” (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 2:1) and “the churches of Galatia” (Gal. 2:2), He either uses the term saints or refers to the church in some location. The point is that no religious denominations existed, and there was only one church, regardless of the location—the church for which Jesus died (Acts 20:28). Paul even explicitly states that there is one body (Eph. 4:4), which he had previously defined as the church (Eph. 1:22-23).
No division existed, and when there were signs of one occurring, Paul reminded the brethren that they did not have the right to divide the body of Christ (1 Cor. 1:10-13). All Christians were united because they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine (Acts 2:42). Division results from people departing from what the Bible teaches—from what God authorizes. The following example may seem silly, but it makes a valid point.
Suppose God commanded, “Wear yellow socks to worship on Sunday.” All right. People wore yellow socks for 1,000 years, but then some decided gold was even a better color; so some wore yellow, and some wore gold, and a division occurred. Later, some said that red would better reflect the blood of Christ; so now another group sprang up, and we have the gold socks wearers and the red socks wearers. Over the years, some advocated blue socks, and others white (for purity). All kinds of opinions held sway, and no one appreciated those with yellow socks. They called them legalists and said they should be more progressive than literal. Sigh.
If we demonstrate what happens on something frivolous, it is easy to see that all those who departed from wearing yellow socks are wrong. But with various doctrines, people get confused because they may have an emotional tie to a certain practice. Take, for example, the Lord’s Supper.
The church in the New Testament observed the Lord’s death every week, but some came along and assured us that it was not necessary to do so. Once or twice a month (or year) was sufficient. Others said the bread and fruit of the vine do not just represent the body and blood of the Lord; they are His actual body and blood. Some said that unleavened bread was not necessary; so they used leavened bread or even cake! Others said, “Let’s use fermented wine,” but only the one officiating can have that. Everyone else just gets the bread. Others said, “We can use water instead of the fruit of the vine.” Finally, some came along and said, “You’re missing the point. This is a spiritual observance; we don’t need any physical elements at all.”
Why not just do what the church in the first century did, which we know was right and pleasing to God? For this reason we are not interested in any creeds that men have developed over the centuries; we just do what the New Testament teaches. And that is all that we ask others to do as well.
4. “Don’t you believe in salvation by works?” No one on the face of the earth can work his way to heaven. No one deserves salvation or eternal life. God offers them on the basis of His grace and love. However, His offer of Heaven, which comes through grace, must be received in the way He specified. Not everyone cares about God or His grace, nor will everyone be saved (Matt. 7:21-23).
Jesus is “the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him” (Heb. 5:9). One must obey the gospel initially (Acts 2:38) and then continue to live according to His will. This is the correct response to God’s grace, but it does not constitute salvation by works. No amount of good works could ever merit salvation. But God still expects obedience (as opposed to rebellion against Him). The blood of Christ cleanses us of our sins as we walk in the light (1 John 1:7-10). We find great joy in Christian living.
Brethren,
It is with the utmost humility that we inform you of a change of worship practices. Be assured that we bring about this change only after much prayer and study. We have recently concluded an in-depth study of the Law and have decided to bring about a change in the type of fire used in worship. We are aware that there is a standing tradition of using only one source of fire, but we, as priests, do not feel obligated to blindly follow tradition. Numerous polls indicate the overwhelming opinion that worshipers do not care where we get the fire. We are in agreement with the majority, as we cannot see how a change in fire will affect anything in the least about our sacrifices.
Besides all this, nowhere in the Law does the Lord forbid the use of what some detractors have referred to as “strange fire.” We feel that the lack of such a restriction was meant to give us freedom. Is there any place in the Law that tells us we cannot do something the Lord has not seen fit to condemn? Where are other fires explicitly condemned?
Also, Israel is the only religious group that limits itself to one kind of fire. We have become a laughingstock and have been ridiculed openly by many groups. We are in great danger of appearing distinctive. This self-righteous, “only-one-fire” policy has alienated us from everyone else. We believe this change will open up many fellowship opportunities.
Now, to set the minds of some of you at ease, we will continue to offer a traditional service using the old-fashioned fire as well as a progressive service with the new fire. This approach will also make it possible to appeal to a younger audience as we discover more entertaining ways to “light the fire” of our assemblies. For those who still oppose the use of new fire, we ask you not to be judgmental.
We also hope you will not use this change as an excuse to divide our people or stir up trouble. We remind you that this has been well thought out and the majority of priests have signed on with us. We are all very much looking forward to our first new fire service. God will be watching, and we anticipate that His joy over seeing His people take a great step toward throwing off the burden of binding tradition will be an electrifying experience. Our new contemporary worship service will no doubt make it easier for us to really be on fire for the Lord! See you there! We think this new practice is going to spread like wildfire. Please come and enjoy what we know will be an illuminating experience for all of us.
Your faithful priests,
Nadab & Abihu
A few days later…
Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. So fire went out from the LORD and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. And Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the LORD spoke, saying:
‘By those who come near Me
I must be regarded as holy;
And before all the people
I must be glorified.’”
So Aaron held his peace.
[Editor’s note: This “open letter” (with some minor changes) was written by David Brassfield for The Bridgewood Beacon. It captures well “liberal” thinking, and the author is accurate in his assessment.]
Originally, the title was going to be “Arguments for Abortion,” but then using such terminology both dignifies slogans and demeans the word argument. How many times has anyone ever heard anything that could possibly be construed as an intelligent argument in favor of abortion? Most of the time pro-life people spend a considerable amount of time showing the historical evidence against abortion, recounting the irrefutable medical evidence against it, or making the Biblical case, which absolutely closes the book on the subject for anyone who purports to be governed by the Word of God.
All of these above evidences are counteracted by some modern feminist who mouths one of the famous slogans that are used to defend abortion (five are presented below). These are mouthed as if they provided a real answer to the issue, but they only consist of a few words—inadequate ones at that. While slogans can be useful, they do not prove anything. Basically, they are being used by the pro-abortion side in place of a substantive, thought-provoking argument.
First of all, the pro-abortion group likes to refer to themselves as “pro-choice” (because it sounds better), but think about it. Who but they protests a woman giving birth? Women have been fulfilling this function since the beginning of the Earth. So what is the choice they really want? They champion abortion (the termination of a pregnancy); hence the legitimacy of calling them pro-abortion. They have five favorite slogans that they have adopted to persuade others to their deadly point of view.
1. “The decision should be left to a woman and her doctor.” This one is not used as much any more—and for a good reason. Did the doctor create the child? How is it that he has a stake in this decision? What about the husband, the boyfriend, or even a girl’s parents? What if the doctor is pro-life? Should she get another doctor? Simple slogans cannot deal with complex issues; perhaps that is the reason some of them are no longer being used.
2. “A woman ought to have the right to control her own body.” Bernard Nathanson (a former advocate of abortion rights) has made one of the best comments on this slogan, which are quoted by Rus Walton in his book, Biblical Solutions to Contemporary Problems: A Handbook:
I think everyone should control their own body…BUT we have very sound data which have demonstrated that the fetus is not part of a woman’s body. It is an unsound tenant—immunilogically distinct, biologically distinct…it is not in fact a part of a woman’s body (12).
Radio and television personality, Rush Limbaugh, counters the, “It’s my body,” slogan by pointing out that when it comes to prostitution, most communities do not think that a woman has a right to use her own body in that way (except in Nevada). He further argues that society does not allow women (or men, for that matter) to shoot up, snort, or in any other way ingest illegal drugs into their bodies. One critic thought that the answer to this point was that prostitution and drugs were illegal but abortion is legal. That is a difference, but abortion was illegal too until a court decision overrode the nation’s laws. Prostitution and drug use could be made legal, also. Therefore, whether laws are changed or not is essentially irrelevant. Society has recognized that those things currently or once outlawed are evil and constitute crimes.
Why were these laws on the books in the first place? They were not enacted merely to curb the freedom of individuals—but for their protection. Abortion terminates a life, and that is the reason it was illegal in the first place. Prostitution is bad for individuals and bad for society. The use of drugs leads to addiction and the destruction of society. Bill Bennett, the former drug czar, wrote:
The price that American society would have to pay for legalized drugs would be intolerably high; more drug-related accidents at work, on the highway, and in the airways; bigger losses in worker productivity; hospitals filled with drug emergencies; more students on drugs, meaning more dropouts; more pregnant women buying legal cocaine, meaning more abused babies in utero. Add to this the added cost of treatment, social welfare, and insurance, and welcome to the Brave New World, of drug legalization (The De-Valuing of America 118).
Likewise, why do all states but one forbid prostitution? The other 49 states have enough sense to know that prostitution is often connected with organized crime (or other unsavory elements) and that young women are often forced into it, having first been hooked on drugs. They also know that diseases are spread in this way despite the precautions that are taken and that prostitution devalues human beings as mere sexual objects.
Now, how are prostitution and drugs tied to abortion? They were all illegal at one time. Why was abortion illegal? The reason is that it kills a human being who is already in existence; furthermore, this human life is so helpless that it cannot defend or protect himself. Abortion, for many women, leads to great suffering and agony due to the guilt they experience. And it devalues human life.
Therefore, the issue is not just whether or not it is legal—but whether it is right. We frequently limit a person’s “right” to control his own body when it is deemed harmful to both oneself and to others.
Although Nathanson had the best argument that the baby is a separate entity, there are two more arguments to make against this slogan. The way the case is made on behalf of abortion, one would think that a woman became pregnant the way one catches a cold or the flu. She wakes up one morning and is surprised to discover that she is pregnant—as if the condition was not the natural result of engaging in sexual relations.
Although pregnancy may result without her consent (in a small percentage of cases), in 99% plus instances, she was a willing participant. If she consents to use her body in an immoral way, knowing that pregnancy could result (no contraception is foolproof), then she must be mature enough to live with the consequences of her decision and fulfill her role of birthing and nurturing the life she allowed to be created within her.
The Biblical response is that what has been created is a child. The being that exists both within the womb and after birth is referred to in the New Testament as a brephos, “a babe.” That same separate entity in the womb (Luke 1:41, 44) is designated the exact same way by the inspired writer after birth (Luke 2:12-16). There can be no question but what God regards the “fetus” as a human life.
3. “If men had to have babies, there would be a lot more abortions.” This slogan just ignores the facts and acts as if all women favor abortion while men oppose it. Many men, however, are pro-abortion, and probably the majority of women are pro-life. In his book, Aborting America, Dr. Bernard Nathanson wrote:
James Mohr’s historical book points out that the original nineteenth-century feminists were universally opposed to abortion, even after antisepsis had made it a safer procedure. They considered it yet another outrage that had been afflicted upon women by men who forced them to have abortions (189).
It makes sense. Historically, men are the ones who duck responsibility for their actions (their part in conception). How many women, assured by promises of eternal love and devotion in the heat of passion (“at this moment you mean everything” from the song, “C’mon, Eileen”), have discovered that eternity lasted only about as long as they could prove useful as a source of pleasure? What a convenience abortion is for males! A few hundred bucks for an abortion is a far better deal than child support for eighteen years and college tuition after that. And the woman? Her bargain is hearing useless slogans to try to assuage her guilt.
4. “An unwanted child may become abused.” Right! So kill him now instead? The same possibility that allows for abuse also opens the door to the fact that he may not be abused, either. What causes abuse? Was there no child abuse before abortion was legal? There was, and alcohol was behind a great deal of it. It might be the case that an unwanted child would be abused, but plenty of wanted children have suffered, also. Men inflict more injuries upon children than women. Sometimes it is the mother’s “boyfriend,” and sometimes she just neglects them, seeing them as a means of support for her. Regardless of all of the causes of abuse, the fact is: When did we begin eliminating people from society because of hardships they may face?
Should we also just kill victims of automobile accidents rather than have them endure the “hardship” of recovery? What did we do with servicemen who need prostheses in order to function? Should we spare them the process of rehabilitation? And what about those diagnosed with cancer? Should we spare them the hardships they will have to face? What kind of logic is it to say that babies should be killed because they may have to endure hardships?
5. “Without legal abortions, women will revert to illegal abortions,” symbolized by the coathanger. This is, of course, an assumption. If abortion were illegal again, then women would likely be considerably more careful regarding their behavior. Likely, the number of pregnancies would diminish. Generally speaking, people are only as cautious as they need to be. A safety net always encourages carelessness.
Second, adoption is still an option. Many couples would be delighted to have a baby; waiting lists still exist. Third, the coathanger is a fear tactic, representing something that existed to a far less extent than is currently reported. In his book, Bernard Nathanson commented:
Christopher Tietze estimated 1,000 maternal deaths as the outside possibility in an average year before legalization; the actual total was probably closer to 500 (151).
Is that an acceptable number? No, but each woman had the abortion, knowing that it was illegal and unsafe. However, if we compare 2,000 lives lost (the mothers and their babies) as opposed to 1,500,000 innocent babies being eradicated each year, which is the more compelling statistic? To ask the question is to answer it.
Seldom has a movement (pro-abortion) been kept alive so long through ignorance, slogans, and hysteria. The more people know about the child in the womb, the more they will protect him. Knowledge is clearly helpful as it pertains to this subject, and Christians should be willing to speak up with the facts. [Editor’s note: This article was written and published in the Columbia City Crusader for January 24, 1993; it has been amplified.]
When someone does something good on our behalf, there are two ways to respond—in kind with good toward them or with evil. As Christians, we owe a debt to those who have helped us spiritually. Regretfully, it is not uncommon to hear of some who have stabbed in the back those who have helped them. Recently, a man whose family had been helped by several brethren did precisely that, and several e-mails were circulated with respect to it. Why did he not possess gratitude for those who had helped him out for several months?
Sadly, this kind of treatment is nothing new. One can read of great ingratitude on the part of Nabal toward David and his men who had protected him. Even this “fool’s” servants acknowledged David’s men were very good to them: “They were a wall to us both by day and night” (1 Sam. 25:14-16). Yet when David asked for food for his men on a certain feast day, Nabal not only refused but did so with an insult (1 Sam. 25:10-11). David was so infuriated that he was ready to slaughter everything that belonged to Nabal, but his wife Abigail allayed the future king’s anger by bringing food and apologizing for her husband. God still punished her selfish husband by striking him (his heart was already as stone), and he died (1 Sam. 25:36-38).
Solomon would later write: “Whoever rewards evil for good, evil will not depart from his house” (Pr. 17:13). What is ironic is that Solomon’s very existence was due to evil that David had done to Uriah the Hittite. Since David had committed fornication with Bathsheba (Uriah’s wife), which resulted in her becoming pregnant, he summoned her husband back from the battlefield. Presumably a conjugal visit would cover up the sin. Few would doubt that the child was Uriah’s even though it would be born “early.” However, the noble soldier refused to enjoy the blessings of home life while his comrades were risking their lives daily. Sending him back to the battle with his own death warrant guaranteed that Uriah would not later deny paternity.
God, however, knew all of the details; none of them were concealed from Him. The child that had been conceived died, though David sought earnestly for his life in prayer. David took Bathsheba as wife, and the son of their marriage together was Solomon, who wrote the words about evil not departing from the house of the one who had returned evil for good. When Nathan confronted David about his sin, he told him specifically that “the sword shall never depart from your house” (2 Sam. 12:9). This punishment would certainly fit the category of evil not departing from his house.
Christians especially should be careful not to mistreat their benefactors, yet such occurs frequently. A few examples are hereby cited—in no particular order and without the use of anyone’s name. A particular woman was instrumental in beginning a school. She herself was a professional teacher. She organized the curriculum, oversaw placement testing, and took care of all the administrative work. After the school expanded, other teachers were hired, and some of them did not like her because she was not as strict a disciplinarian as they were. The board fired her. Only a few had any appreciation for her initial sacrifices. She dealt with the situation admirably, even though her critics returned evil for her good. (Without her, that school lasted only one year afterward.)
Many preachers have made sacrifices over the years, and most of them have not complained. They have been willing to earn less money than they might otherwise have made in secular work because of their dedication to the Lord and the importance of His work. How sad that some congregations have shown little or no appreciation for such men. Probably, brethren justify ill treatment of preachers by saying, “Well, we pay him, don’t we?” While this is true, it is often the case that some members benefit more than others with various personal attentions, and these often prove to be the least grateful of all.
Once a preacher was holding a Sunday through Friday gospel meeting in Alabama, which was followed by another one to be held in Texas beginning the following Sunday. A brother in Illinois was determined that the preacher should do his son’s wedding the Saturday in between, which required driving all night Friday to arrive on time for the wedding and driving most of Saturday night to get to the gospel meeting. And the father was so grateful that he paid him $20. Others have traveled to speak at congregations and not even broken even on their expenses.
Anomalies such as these are more than compensated for by other examples of generosity. However, what is truly lamentable are those instances in which a Christian goes out of his way to help a fellow brother only to be repudiated by the same individual. A young Christian woman introduced a friend into the congregation and made sure that she was welcome: then before long her ”friend” began spreading gossip against her. What kind of response is that? In another place, when it was decided that the preacher should leave, the ones he had helped the most shouted, “Amen,” the loudest! It is amazing that scoundrels and charlatans can always find a loyal contingent to support them, but a faithful man often finds few brethren to commiserate with him—and then they tell him something like, “We know you were treated poorly, but we have to stay here and live with these brethren, and you don’t. All congregations have problems, and we’ll just have to bear with the situation.” Hmm.
Imagine how Paul felt when he worked with and tried to build up Demas. He encouraged him in the work and even mentioned his name in some letters that he wrote, but Demas proved to have no regard for Paul or for the Lord Jesus Christ, either. He simply walked away from the work of the gospel (2 Tim. 4:10). Who knows how much Paul may have been depending on him? Did he fulfill the responsibilities he had been assigned or just leave Paul in the lurch? In any case, Paul was undoubtedly greatly saddened that someone with such great promise would throw it away for a few pleasant things in the world.
In the Old Testament are many who returned evil for good (especially toward God), but one of the most treacherous was Joash. He owed his very survival to his aunt Jehoshabeath, who rescued him when Athaliah had all the royal heirs put to death (2 Chron. 22:10-11).
The family tree applicable to this event begins with Jehoshapahat, the fourth king of Judah. His fellowship with Ahab was not approved by God, and a seer rebuked him for it (2 Chron. 19:1-2). Nevertheless, his son Jehoram married Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab (2 Chron. 21:6). Together they had a son named Ahaziah (2 Chron. 22:2). When Ahaziah was killed by Jehu, Athaliah decided to kill all of the heirs to the throne of David. And she would have succeeded had it not been for Jehoshabeath, Ahaziah’s sister. She was able to rescue one-year-old Joash.
This courageous woman was married to Jehoiada the priest, and they hid Joash in the house of the Lord for six years (2 Kings 22:10-23:1). At the appropriate time, Jehoiada arranged to have Joash proclaimed king, and he began to rule at the age of 7. The young king did what was right in the sight of the Lord as long as Jehoiada lived (2 Kings 24:2). However, after his protector-priest died, “the leaders of Judah” talked him into going back to idolatry (2 Chron. 24:17-18).
Eventually, a man named Zechariah called the king and the people to account: “Why do you transgress the comments of the Lord, so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken the Lord, He has forsaken you” (2 Chron. 24:20). Of course, a king ought to listen to any prophet of God—but especially when he is the son of the man who saved his life! Yes, Zechariah was the son of Jehoiada the priest. Even if Joash had no desire to comply with the prophet’s message, he nevertheless should still have shown respect for the offspring of those who saved his own life. Sadly, the text reads:
So they conspired against him, and at the commandment of the king they stoned him with stones in the court of the house of the Lord. Thus the king did not remember the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done for him, but killed his son; and as he died, he said: “The Lord look on it, and repay!” (2 Chron. 24:21-22).
God brought up a small company of Syrians to fight against Joash, and they left him wounded. His own servants finished him off, and when it came time to lay him to rest, he was not buried in the tombs of the kings (2 Chron. 24:23-35). What a sad ending for one who was trained to be so much better than he turned out. How much wisdom had Jehoiada imparted unto him about affairs of state that he just forsook at the first hint of pressure in the opposite direction. Thus is the end of those who return evil for good.
The ultimate disappointment was Judas, who did far worse than fail to live up to his potential. He denied the only begotten Son of God, who had included him in all of His work over a three-year period. What a privilege to walk with the Lord on a daily basis—to learn from THE Master. How could he sell Jesus to His enemies for 30 pieces of silver? What would he purchase with that sum of money that that he would be proud of? Furthermore, how could he be so hypocritical as to betray Him with a kiss? If we could understand his motivation, we would have to worry about ourselves.
Judas stands as the epitome of the one who returned evil for good. Jesus told him in advance, “The Son of Man goes as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born” (Matt. 26:24). Wow! Non-existence is better than what awaited Judas. [Fudge argues in his book, The Fire That Consumes, that non-existence is more to be feared than eternal punishment, thus disagreeing with the Lord.]
Jonathan and Mephibosheth
Jonathan was David’s closest friend, but he was placed in a difficult position. His father Saul wanted to put David to death. Jonathan could not be part of a plan that called for doing evil to a man who had only done good things for the king. He protested his father’s announced intention: “Why should he be killed? What has he done?” (1 Sam. 20:32). David had never harmed Saul and never would, though he later had two opportunities to put Saul to death.
David and Jonathan made a covenant with each other regarding themselves and their descendants (2 Sam. 20:42). Jonathan realized that David would be king and that his father Saul knew it (2 Sam. 23:17). Jonathan did not know that he would be killed in battle, however. So how did David treat Jonathan’s descendants? Since his friend had helped keep him alive, did David, when he became king, return evil or good for good? David actively sought to discover what he could about Jonathan’s family:
Now David said, “Is there still anyone who is left of the house of Saul, that I may show him kindness for Jonathan’s sake?” (2 Sam. 9:1).
“There is still a son of Jonathan who is lame in his feet” (2 Sam. 9:3b).
Then David said, “Mephibosheth?” And he answered, “Here is your servant!” (2 Sam. 9:6b).
So David said to him, “Do not fear, for I will surely show you kindness for Jonathan your father’s sake, and will restore to you all the land of Saul your grandfather; and you shall eat bread at my table continually” (2 Sam. 9:7).
Thus David repaid good for good; however, a time arose when David wondered if Mephibosheth was returning his good for evil. When Absalom, David’s son, raised up a rebellion against him, Mephibosheth, did not leave the city with David. The lame son’s servant, Ziba, spoke unfavorably toward his master when David inquired of his presence. Ziba said of Mehibosheth that he was remaining in Jerusalem, proclaiming, “Today the house of Israel will restore the kingdom of my father to me” (2 Sam. 16:3). David was so incensed at such ingratitude that he immediately bestowed all of Mephibosheth’s possessions upon Ziba (2 Sam. 16:4).
When David returned to Jerusalem, Mephibosheth came out to meet him with signs of mourning upon him (2 Sam, 19: 24-25). When David asked why he had not joined him, he blamed his servant Ziba for both leaving without him and slandering his name to the king. He added that “all of his father’s house were but dead men” before David honored him by allowing him to eat at his own table: “Therefore what right have I still to cry out any more to the king?” David relented of his earlier judgment and divided the land between Jonathan’s son and Ziba (2 Sam. 19:26-29).
Modern Examples
No sufficient amount of evidence exists to indicate that Mephibosheth was not telling the truth. Certainly, all would like to believe that he had not returned evil for good to David. But having looked at both responses, it is appropriate to look upon ourselves. Has God provided good things for us? How could we truthfully answer anything but yes?
He has provided salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for our sins and is willing to forgive each and every sin that we have ever committed. He has promised us an eternal home in heaven. While we are upon the earth, He has made available all spiritual blessings in the heavenly places to us in Christ (Eph. 1:3). The privilege of prayer, being called the sons of God, and many other benefits could be cited, but the point is well established that God has certainly done good to us.
But are we returning good to Him or evil? When we forsake the assembling of ourselves together (Heb. 10:25), what are we returning to Him? When we refuse to learn and study the Word of God (our daily bread), what are we giving back to Him? When we seldom or never take part in the good works that the congregation is doing, how have we responded to Jesus’ great love and sacrifices? When we do not pray and interact with each other as members of the body of Christ ought to do, are we pleasing to Him? When we fail to encourage brothers and sisters by our attendance, earnestness, and care for them, is Jesus disappointed? If we put ourselves and our own desires first, are we returning evil or good to the One who gave all for us?
Are we unstable, undependable, and unreliable so far as the Lord’s cause is concerned? What if Jesus had been indifferent to our need of salvation? What are we doing with our lives? Will they count for anything in eternity? At least Noah saved his family; who will we show up in eternity with? Who will thank us for encouraging them in the Way? Or will people say to us then, “You never mentioned Him to me”?
Of course, we will probably never treat God as good as He has treated us, but that is not the point. Are we returning evil for good, thus placing ourselves in jeopardy of His wrath? God reacted negatively toward David with respect to Uriah but favorably toward him as it pertained to Mephibosheth. David himself reacted negatively to Nabal and toward Mephibosheth (on the basis of Ziba’s charges). God destroyed Joash for the evil he did to Jehoiada’s son, Zechariah. Judas destroyed his own physical body, but he will still be held accountable on the Day of Judgment for the evil he did to Jesus.
Surely, every Christian knows the ways in which God wants us to respond to His goodness. We must continue in His goodness by returning good for good. Ingratitude and lackluster service involve returning evil for good, which put us in jeopardy. Let us instead be wise, good, and profitable servants.
“Why Baptize My Child?” is an 8-page document that is published by the “Basilica of Saint Ambrose and Saint Charl es in Rome.” Only a few of the teachings will be commented upon here, beginning with page 1, where the first heading is: “What is baptism?” Part of their answer is that it is “one of the seven sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ”; it is further “the door which opens the access to the other sacraments.”
None of these words make sense to anyone who has just been reading his Bible. The word sacraments (either in the singular or the plural form) never appears in the Holy Scriptures. Nor is there anything equivalent to it. One needs to go elsewhere to look for a definition. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1994, provides a definition:
Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify. They are efficacious because in them Christ is at work: it is he who baptizes, he who acts in his sacraments in order to communicate the grace that each sacrament signifies (292).
The other six “sacraments” (confirmation, the Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, holy orders, and marriage) are not under discussion here, but the reader will note that confirmation, extreme unction, and holy orders are likewise foreign to the New Testament. The Eucharist refers to the Lord’s Supper, but the Bible does not call it that. Penance pertains to forgiveness, but the Biblical word is repentance; penance as practiced by Roman Catholics is not Biblical.
Neither baptism nor marriage was instituted by Jesus. What Jesus taught on marriage was that people should respect God’s original design (Gen. 2). Concerning baptism, John came first, baptizing people for the remission of their sins (Mark 1:1-4) in preparation of Jesus’ work. His baptism was from heaven (Matt. 21).
The first thing that one must come to terms with is that this document deals with the traditions of men (which Jesus condemned—Matt.15:1-9) rather than what the Bible teaches. The tract does not agree with the Scriptures, but it does follow the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, which also says unequivocally that “the sacraments of the new law were…all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord” (289). One finds quotes from Catholic Church leaders, which are taken as authoritative. But God only inspired the Bible—not the Catechism, which contains only the thoughts of men.
The writer of this booklet is correct in saying that baptism is “the foundation of communion among all Christians,” but he does not explain the reason, which is that baptism for the forgiveness of sins is essential to becoming a Christian and having one’s sins removed (Acts 2:38; 22:16). It puts us in fellowship with one another (Acts 2:47, 1 Cor. 12:13). Communion, as some refer to the observance of the Lord’s death, is to be partaken of by those who have been redeemed (1 Cor. 11:22-29), but that does not include children.
Pouring
The tract continues that baptism “consists of immersing the candidate in water or in pouring water over his head” and doing so in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are correct when they use immersion because that is the very definition of the word baptism, as any Greek lexicon which defines Greek words would explain. Even without a definition, the Bible demonstrates that baptism is immersion.
John was baptizing in Aenon because there was much water there (John 3:23). One needs much water for immersion, not pouring.
Baptism is a burial in water, as Paul explains in Romans 6:3-5 and Colossians 2:12.
In Acts the Ethiopian eunuch desired to be baptized. Both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water for the baptism. After Philip baptized him, they both came up out of the water (Acts 8:35-39).
These three points establish that baptism is immersion—even if we did not know the meaning of the word itself, which we do. But where is the Biblical precedent for pouring water upon someone and calling it baptism? That definition of baptism cannot be found in any reliable Greek lexicon. Furthermore, the New Testament provides no example of water being poured upon anyone. Various things were poured out, but water was not one of them. A woman poured out fragrant oil on Jesus’ head and body (Matt. 26:7, 12), but this was to anoint His body for burial—not to baptize Him. Jesus had already been baptized by John.
Jesus poured out the changers’ money (John 2:15), which obviously has no reference to baptism. The “gift of the Holy Spirit” was poured out on the Gentiles in Acts 10:45. This action, however, was not baptism, because they were afterward baptized in water at Peter’s command (Acts 10:44-48). In Revelation 14:10, what is poured out is “the wine of the wrath of God,” which is for punishment rather than salvation. The seven remaining references are the angels pouring out the contents of their vials (Rev. 16). Thus the words associated with pouring have no association whatsoever with baptism.
The claim that baptism can be accomplished by pouring water on someone is utterly without proof or merit. Sprinkling water upon someone was not mentioned in the booklet, but it is not baptism, either. The Bible defines and demonstrates what baptism is, and neither sprinkling nor pouring fits those definitions. No one in the entire New Testament attempted to baptize by such means. Only at a later time did men begin to substitute for immersion sprinkling and pouring, erroneously calling it baptism.
Authority for Baptizing Children
What are the reasons that the brochure gives for baptizing children? The first one, which is discussed on page two, is that it was “the ancient practice of the Church.” Well, if that were the case, then all one would need to do is cite passages of Scripture where children were baptized. The only problem with that solution is that such verses cannot be found in the New Testament. Nothing is said about children being baptized on the Day of Pentecost. In fact, none were. How do we know that? We know because those who were baptized had the ability to believe. Peter told those who asked what to do: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins…” (Acts 2:38). Children do not have the ability to believe (on the basis of evidence) or to repent of their sins (which they cannot understand). For this reason not one child is specified as being baptized. So the church did not practice this idea at the beginning; it was one of the things that changed later.
Nevertheless, the booklet states: “The Baptism of Children constitutes an immemorial practice both in the East and the West” (2). This is not true, or Scriptures would be cited. None are. Instead, Origen and Augustine are cited: Augustine considered the baptism of children “a tradition received from the Apostles” (2), but he lived from A. D. 354 to 430. Although he claimed the apostles handed down the tradition of baptizing children, no evidence for such a practice can be found.
The booklet then cites the “oldest ritual known”—from the third century. Once again, this time period is 200 years too late to be a sufficient authority. The fact that baptism is considered a rite is incorrect, also. Baptism, according to the Scriptures is “the working of God” (Col. 2:12)—not some kind of ceremony. The quote from this tradition of men is interesting:
In the first place, baptize the children: all those who can speak for themselves, should speak instead for those who cannot speak for themselves; the parents or one of their family members should speak for them (2).
Where in the New Testament is any such sentiment? Peter certainly did not speak these words on the Day of Pentecost. No one asked him: “What about our babies?” or the apostle would have told them, “Exactly how do you think a child can repent?” He linked repentance and baptism together as necessities preceding salvation. Anyone who cannot do the former is not ready for the latter.
Significant also is that not one Scripture is cited for the practice of baptizing children. Instead the author of the booklet cites as authority Roman Pontiffs, a couple of synods, and Paul VI—none of whom are in the New Testament. The latter wrote:
Baptism should be administered also to children who are not aware of any personal sin, so that they, who are born without supernatural grace, be reborn by water and the Holy Spirit to divine life in Jesus Christ (2).
Apparently, it did not occur to Paul VI that being born again can only be accomplished by someone who has a choice in the matter. Jesus was speaking to an adult, Nicodemus, when He told him he must be born again (John 3:3-5). The Bible is written to those old enough to understand it. Those who cannot understand what it teaches are not responsible to obey it. This principle is just common sense.
What about the one verse that is always cited, “Let the little children come to Me…” (Mark 10:14)? First, notice that they have the will to come to Him. Jesus did not say, “Let the children be brought to Me.” They come of their own free will. Second, how many conversations of Jesus or His apostles are there in which they are trying to baptize children? That’s right—none! How many times did Jesus admonish parents to baptize their children? The answer is the same—none.
Original Sin
There was an original sin committed by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:6). This was the first sin committed by human beings upon this earth, but this event is not what is meant by the phrase original sin. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (a copy of which this writer possesses), “By baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins…” (321). The booklet says this and more. Concerning children, the author writes:
Since they are born with human nature that is fallen and contaminated by original sin, children also need the new birth in baptism in order to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of freedom of the children of God, to which all are called (4).
Once again, there is an utter lack of Scripture because the Bible does not teach the doctrine of original sin. Nowhere do the Scriptures teach that children are born “contaminated.” In fact, they teach that we are responsible for our own sins—not others (Ezek. 18:20). (The one exception is if we should prove to be a stumbling block to others.) Where did Jesus or His apostles teach that babies are born “contaminated”? Nowhere! In fact, the opposite is true. In the same Scripture where Jesus said, “Let the little children come unto Me,” He also added, “…for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Mark 10:14). What? The kingdom of heaven is “contaminated by original sin”? No, the kingdom of heaven contains people whose souls are clean and pure—like those of little children.
The Unbaptized
One of the proofs that the Catholic Church is not the Lord’s church is that, while the truths of the New Testament never change, the doctrines of the Catholic Church do. The Council of Trent in the 16th century wrote this concerning infants who were not baptized:
Infants, unless regenerated unto God through the grace of baptism, whether their parents be Christian or infidel, are born to eternal misery and perdition.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1994, there has been a reversal of the previous view:
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entreat the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children…allow us to hope there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism (319).
The booklet does not quote this passage, but it uses some of the same words that are in it (8)
The Catholic Church has a problem because the baptizing of infants is not a Biblical teaching. On the other hand, if they take the view of the Council of Trent, that infants who die without baptism are doomed to misery and perdition, then they come off looking very callous because they intensify the grief and suffering of the child’s mother. However, if they say that the unbaptized child might be saved anyway, according to God’s mercy, then they have admitted that a person can be saved apart from baptism. Whoops.
Either way they go, they violate Biblical teaching, but the problem exists entirely because of the false doctrine of “original sin.” The truth does not involve itself in hopeless contradictions.
Children are born in a state of innocence; they do not know good or evil, just as Adam and Eve did not. Therefore, if an infant dies, he is safe because he has never committed a single sin of his own—and he is not guilty or accountable for what Adam or any other progenitor did. It is the demand for baptism to eradicate “original sin” that puts the Catholic Church—and every other denomination that teaches this error—in a dilemma. They want to baptize the infant to make sure it is saved, but then they must answer the question, “What happens if he dies without being baptized?” They have two choices, as shown above—neither of which is good.
The New Testament does teach that baptism is essential for salvation (Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21). Adults who reject this message are lost, but it is of their own free will. We are always sad that people choose to be lost, but we realize it was their own decision to make. What we call unfair is the idea that an infant without the ability to comprehend such matters would be punished eternally. But if anyone can be saved without being baptized Scripturally, then why must anyone be baptized? Commands are different from suggestions. Only the blood of Christ can save people, and it can only be contacted in baptism (Acts 22:15; Rev. 1:5). The only exceptions are children who are not old enough to comprehend the truth or those who are mentally deficient.
Church Membership
According to the booklet, when a child is baptized, he is “incorporated in the Church, Christ’s body…” (2). Is that so? Paul and others wrote letters to members of the church; can the child understand those things? Is the infant going to suffer with other members and rejoice with them, also (1 Cor. 12:26)? How is he going to participate in edifying his brethren (Eph. 4:12)? Since every member of the body of Christ must do his share (Eph. 4:16), how is an infant going to pull his own weight?
Clearly, the church is designed for those who have the ability to think and reason for themselves; one never reads of children being members of the church in the Bible. They do not have the wherewithal to make the decision to obey the gospel, and they cannot function as a member of the body of Christ. May all of us stand where the Bible does on this and all other teachings.
The article with the above title is a lengthy one that appeared in the August, 2010 Christian Courier. Brother Jacksons main proof for his position consumes 11 pages; therefore a lengthy response is required.
1 Thessalonians 3:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:16-17
The above verses are cited as evidence that Christians can pray to Jesus (instead of to the Father through Him). These verses are listed below.
Now may our God and Father Himself, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way to you.
Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and our God and Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope by grace, comfort your hearts and establish you in every good word and work.
The fact that some commentaries (including some by brethren) have referred to these benedictions as prayers is pretty much irrelevant. The reader can decide for himself if he would classify these comments as prayers to the Father or to Jesus. Most are familiar with the song, May the Good Lord Bless and Keep You. All such sentiments are merely expressions of kindness extended towards others. In both Thessalonian letters, Paul completes sections of his letter with these fond spiritual blessings and then resumes his letter by saying, Finally (1 Thess. 4:1; 2 Thess. 3:1).
Revelation 5
John is describing the heavenly scene in which it is revealed that the Lamb is worthy to open the seals on the scroll. The scene records the four living creatures and the 24 elders falling down before the Lamb. They sang a new song and proclaimed that the Lamb was worthy to open the seals; they offered praise to Him.
On this much all can agree, but Jackson focuses on one comment about them having golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints (Rev. 5:8). Jackson writes: Clearly, these prayers were ascending to Christ (10). How is that clear, brother? They were looking for someone to open the seals—not answer prayers. Nothing is said about them presenting the prayers to Jesus. These verses are silent about Him answering any of them. When they praise Jesus, it is for Him redeeming Christians—not for Him answering prayers. Such a comment smacks more of eisegesis than exegesis.
Hebrews 1
Brother Jackson correctly states that the purpose of Hebrews 1 is to show that Christ is exalted far above the angels and that certain psalms make mention of it. He then claims that the author directly addresses Jesus in praise:
In Psalm 2 David praises the Anointed One with these words: You shall break them [Jehovah’s enemies] with a rod of iron; you shall dash them in pieces like a potters vessel (Ps. 2:9; cf. Rev. 2:27; 19:15).
The only problem with this point is that, although David is the one recording these words, he is not the speaker in this text. David is the speaker until verse 6; consider the entire context:
Yet I have set My King on My holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me, You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will give You the nations for Your inheritance, and the ends of the earth for Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them to pieces like a potters vessel.
The Father, in verse 6, speaks of setting up His King in Zion (which would be Jesus). In verse 7 Jesus declares that the Lord told Him, You are My Son. Today I have begotten You. Verse 8-9 also contains the words which the Father spoke unto Him. So it is not David, after all, who is addressing Jesus; it is the Father. Furthermore, the Father is not praying to the Son; He is simply speaking to Him.
Hebrews 1 also cites Psalm 45:6-7, but even in Hebrews 1:5-6 and 8 it is clear that the Father is the speaker. Jackson does not claim otherwise for the Psalm 45 text, but it is a further example of what he claimed for the Psalm 2 text, which was that the author [meaning David], by divine inspiration, directly addresses the Messiah in praise (10). Although it is not obvious in Psalm 102:25-27 that the Father is speaking to the Son (as in the two previous instances), it is nevertheless claimed by the writer of Hebrews that such is the case (Heb. 1:8-13).
Ephesians 5:18-19
Virtually all brethren are familiar with Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16, since we use these verses constantly to point out that God said to sing but did not authorize instruments of music. Both texts advocate that Christians sing with songs and hymns and spiritual songs to the Lord. Has the reader ever thought that the Lord refers specifically to Jesus? Jackson claims that this is so. In fact, he writes that not only is it permissible to sing to Jesus, it is absolutely required! (11). As already explained, no one has any problem with singing praises concerning the greatness of our Lord and Savior—only songs intended as prayers to Him. Jackson’s comment, however, seems quite adamant. On what basis does he draw such a conclusion?
He cites some commentators that say that the term Lord occurs 26 times in Ephesians and always refers to Christ never to the Father. What does an examination of this claim reveal? A search of various words in the book of Ephesians yields the following. The name Jesus appears 21 times, Christ 46; God 32; Father 11; and Lord 26. Without question, all of these words are used several times, but now what about the term Lord? Does it always refer to Jesus in Ephesians? At least nine times, Lord is attached to Jesus; so there can be no question in those instances.
But what about Ephesians 6:10-17? We read that Christians are to be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God. (vv. 10-11), which is repeated in verse 13. One could argue that all three words refer to Jesus (and they could), but certainly such a conclusion is not warranted by any textual evidence. It could just as easily be the Father. What about, Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right (Eph. 6:1). Do we know conclusively that Jesus is intended here? Whose will is intended in, “Therefore, do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17)? Does not the Divine will usually refer to the Father (cf. 1 Cor. 1:1)?
Ephesians 5:20
No, brother Jackson did not discuss this verse, which is interesting, since it follows immediately after verses 18-19 (Eph. 5:18-19). It continues after singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord. In fact, it is part of the same sentence: giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. This phrase simply reiterates what we have set forth from the beginning—that we pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. This verse harmonizes with what Jesus taught in Matthew 6:9 and John 16:23. Colossians 3:16 ends with singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. Verse 17 (Col. 3:17), however, begins with and. Notice the parallel to Ephesians 5:20. And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him. Scripture is consistent with itself.
1 Corinthians 1:2
An appeal is made to 1 Corinthians 1:2 to authorize praying to Jesus. Jackson thinks that the phrase, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus, since it is present tense, indicates that Christians are continually praying to Jesus. This might be a valid point if instances existed in which brethren actually did pray to Jesus. His assumption is not altogether a bad one, but it overlooks two important pieces of evidence.
First, the context of 1 Corinthians 1:1-31 is to emphasize the Christ as the One we all belong to so that there will be no division in His church. Toward that end, the name of Jesus, the title of Christ, or both are mentioned ten times in nine verses, leading up to Paul’s admonition in verse 10 that brethren be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment (including the matter of to whom we are to pray).
Second, Jackson overlooks how the phrase, calling on the name of the Lord, is usually used in the New Testament. We first see it in Acts 2:21, where Peter quotes Joel: And it shall come to pass that whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. As Ananias was sent to Saul, he protested that Saul had authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name (Acts 9:14). Shortly thereafter, Saul of Tarsus was told: And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord (Acts 22:16). Undoubtedly, those words made a great impression on the persecutor of Christians who was then ready to be an apostle of Christ. As Peter had, he also cites Joel 2:32 in Romans 10:13 and then adds: How shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? (v. 14).
No evidence in 1 Corinthians indicates that Paul was declaring that all Christians were praying to Jesus. He is simply using the phrase in verse 2 the way it had always been used—to refer to those who call upon Jesus for salvation. He had just finished referring to those who were sanctified and called. This is merely expanded to all who call on His name.
About Versus To
It is a strange argument that tries to equate the two prepositions mentioned above. Basically, the argument is this: In Exodus 15:1-5 God is praised in the third person. Next He is addressed in the second person from verse 6-17 (Ex. 15:6-17). Then third person is used again (Ex. 15:18). The reader is supposed to conclude, therefore, that whether we address praise to God or utter praise about Him is insignificant. This conclusion is incorrect. Just because it makes no difference which preposition is used in one instance does not mean it never matters which one is used. If it never mattered, then why are there two different prepositions?
The difference between other prepositions, such as in and into, may not matter in some cases, but it would definitely cause a difference in interpretation in other passages. How about an example? If the postman delivered a letter to you, you would have it personally. If he delivered a letter about you, who knows who might end up receiving it? A more serious point would be that we are all comfortable singing praises about Jesus, since He is worthy, but many do not want to sing a prayer to Jesus any more than to pray to Him directly—again, not because it matters to us, but because it matters to the Father and the Son.
The Church Fathers
Jackson closes out his arguments for praying to Jesus with the ad verecundiam fallacy of logica faulty appeal to authority. He calls upon the church fathers following the close of the Divine testimony we have in the New Testament. Sometimes these men can be of legitimate value—to show what was done or not done in the first few centuries after the church was established. If what is quoted reflects a departure from what the New Testament teaches, then, although it shows what was done, it does not necessarily reflect Gods approval. For example, if brethren began conducting worship on Tuesday afternoons, we would wonder why they changed it from Sundays (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2). Without anything to substantiate such a practice in the New Testament, we would have to conclude that the practice, though done early, was not authorized. On the other hand, if the church met on Sundays and history recorded that they continued to meet on Sunday, then it shows that they maintained the established tradition.
Brother Jackson quotes from Ignatius of Antioch, who asked the Christians in Ephesus to pray to Jesus on his behalf (13). Since Ignatius life spanned from A.D. 35-107, this seems impressive at first glance. The fact is, however, that departures from the truth were also under way even at this time, and Ignatius was quite vocal in insisting on one of them. His name and letters can be found on the Internet. He wrote that brethren were to be subject to the bishop in his letters to the Ephesians, the Magnesians, and others. Philip Schaff writes: The subject of these epistles consists of earnest exhortations to obey the bishop and maintain the unity of the church (2:115-16). Schaff, in his History of the Christian Church, goes on to provide a summary of Ignatius thinking:
The human bishop is the centre of unity for the single congregation, and stands in it as the vicar of Christ and even of God. The people, therefore, should unconditionally obey him, and do nothing without his will. Apostasy from the bishop is apostasy from Christ, who acts in and through his bishops as his organs (2:116).
Clearly, at a very early time, the church had already entered into apostasy by elevating one bishop above his fellow presbyters. For this reason, Jackson should not have appealed to Ignatius and those who were of an even later time. They are not reliable unless they uphold what the Scriptures teach. Jackson cannot claim that they uphold the New Testament, since that is the very point at issue. We have nothing, despite Jacksons best efforts to find something—anything—to prove his point, in the entire New Testament that clearly teaches that Christians prayed to Jesus. If that passage existed, he would not need to search for another dozen questionable references to convince us all. One plain verse would end the discussion.
Conclusion
Jackson concludes with a reaffirmation of his thesis and a quotation from brother Thomas B. Warren, which is another faulty appeal to authority—not that brother Warren did not know the Scriptures. He is among those whom we admire the most as one who did great and lasting good for the Lord’s church. But like brother Woods, we do not esteem him as infallible. The quote from brother Warren looks as though he agrees with brother Jackson: After brother Warren exhorted the readers of his book, Jesus—The Lamb Who is a Lion, to thank Jesus for teaching us how to pray, he adds:
O Jesus, Thou Lamb of God—how deeply grateful we are for Thy love which resulted in the gift of Thy life for us! Help us to pray as Thou taught us to pray (201-202).
It may be that brother Warren was projecting himself into the situation of having been taught personally by Jesus and thanking Him for it—just as the lepers also thanked the Lord for their healing (Luke 17:11-19). But if not, the key phrase is that we should pray as Jesus has taught us. These words appear in a chapter in which brother Warren analyzed the prayer beginning in Matthew 6:9. Notice what he said about, Our Father:
We are also taught by Jesus to pray as children to our Father (Matt. 7:7-11). If we human fathers respond with loving concern when our children need and ask for our help, we should never doubt for a moment that our loving heavenly Father will always react to our requests by blessing us! Let us pray as children of God! (191-92).
Having already examined the quote by brother Wendell Winkler, the final comments, and the view concerning Stephen’s “last prayer,” the goal is now to comment on one of the larger articles from the August Christian Courier special issue. Before doing so, however, it might be interesting to note that those who produced this 32-page booklet seem fairly happy with themselves because they mention that, as a result of the original 2005 article, “many have written to renounce the idea they once entertained—that one cannot address Christ in prayer and song” (3). As Proverbs says: “The first one to plead his case seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him” (Pr. 18:17).
Brother Jackson begins by alleging that “a vocal minority” within the church opposes praying or singing to Jesus. He may be overstating the case since statistics are not cited; so this point remains an unproven assertion. Anecdotal evidence to the contrary includes the fact that some congregations avoid songs addressed to Jesus (“Tell It to Jesus,” e.g.), although those that praise Him have always been acceptable. Many of those who have conducted gospel meetings or attended lectureships have never heard anyone address a prayer to Jesus.
Likewise, brother Jackson talks about a “leading advocate” of the “theory” that forbids praying to Jesus, but the reader does not know who that person is, and nothing is cited from this individual, such as a letter or published material on the subject. Of course, the reader has no way to verify the alleged positions of this nameless man. It is doubtful that many people would agree with some of the things the “leading advocate” says (as presented). To avoid future confusion, brother Jackson has permission to quote this review and use my name if he finds fault with the contents—even though I am far less than a “leading advocate.” In this way, his audience will not have to wonder who wrote these words or where they have appeared.
Matthew 6:9
In light of the fact that brother Jackson has had five years to make the best case possible for his position, it is surprising that he offers so little concerning the two main passages that establish the “praying to the Father” idea. He rightly points out that the prayer Jesus presents is only a model prayer and that every subject is not dealt with specifically. He also relates that other Scriptures legitimately have a bearing on any given text. In this instance, Jesus is speaking of addressing God reverently. “Our Father” is appropriate. We find out from other passages that God or Lord also was used. But where is the passage that addresses a prayer to Jesus?
If Jesus were addressed in prayer and such was approved, it would settle the matter, but He is not. The only time Jesus is asked something is the moment when someone is speaking to Him personally, as with the thief on the cross or Stephen. Nowhere in the New Testament do we find a prayer addressed to heaven that begins, “O Jesus, our Lord and risen Savior.” If we did, then we would all feel comfortable about doing the same thing, but no such example exists. The name of the Father is mentioned frequently and distinctly from Jesus numerous times in the epistles. Perhaps we should likewise keep that distinction clear.
Jackson’s proof of his position comes in the form of a quotation from William Shedd (d. 1894), who was a Presbyterian, high Calvinist theologian (according to Wikipedia). Shedd claims that, in addressing the Father, we are not excluding the Son or the Holy Spirit. Does that hold true for Jesus? When Jesus prayed in the garden, He prayed to (John 17:9, 15, 20) and addressed the Father no less than six times (John 17:1, 5, 11, 21, 24, 25); was He also addressing Himself? Have we not always taught that the Father is the leader and originator of plans in the Godhead? We cannot fail to honor God if we pray to the Father, as Jesus taught us.
In the prayer in Acts 4, the disciples mentioned that all were gathered together against God’s holy servant, Jesus (Acts 4:27). They did not say, “Jesus, we know how everyone was gathered together against You.” In David’s humble psalm of repentance, he did not pray, “O Holy Spirit, do not remove Yourself from me.” He prayed to God, “And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me” (Ps. 51:11). Nothing of what Jackson says or cites in this section on Matthew 6:9 establishes his view.
John 16:23
Jackson makes three arguments concerning this verse. The first is that Jesus is not dealing with the issue of whether or not to address Him in prayer. In this verse Jesus says: “And in that day you will ask Me nothing. Most assuredly, I say to you, whatsoever you ask the Father in My name He will give you.” While Jesus may not be dealing with this issue per se, that fact does not mean that what He said has no bearing on the matter. Regardless of the context, He still says they would ask Him nothing but rather the Father in His name.
Second, Jackson says that this verse only pertains to questions that had been bothering the disciples “at the moment,” and when they received the Holy Spirit, those matters would be cleared up (5). This is a strange explanation. First, from John 14:23 to 16:23 the disciples only had one question:
Then some of His disciples said among themselves, “What is this that He says to us, ‘A little while, and you will not see Me; and again a little while, and you will see Me’; and, ‘because I go to the Father’?” They said therefore, “What is this that He says, ‘A little while’? We do not know what He is saying.”
These verses do not fit Jackson’s theory at all. Second, Jesus said He had things to say to them that they could not now bear, but the Holy Spirit would explain them later (John 14:25-26; 16:12-13). The third thing is that John 16:23 fits within the context of Jesus explaining what He meant by the words quoted above. They would have sorrow when He was crucified—but joy when He was raised from the dead (John 16:22). In that day, when He was resurrected and ascended to Heaven, they would ask Him nothing (since He would no longer be upon the earth). But what they asked the Father in His name (since He personally would be absent from the earth), He would give it to them. Jesus repeats, “In that day you will ask in My name…” (v. 26). (John 16:22-26)
The third argument Jackson uses is from W. E. Vine: “The Lord did not mean that no prayer must be offered to Him afterwards. They did address Him in prayer, Acts 1:24; 7:59; 9:13, etc.” The prayer in Acts 1:24 is addressed to the Lord, but nothing further in the context indicates that the Lord in this case refers to Jesus. The prayer beginning in Acts 4:24 is also addressed to the Lord, but it is clearly the Father (Acts 4:27). Stephen’s “prayer” to Jesus was discussed previously. See articles Praying To Jesus or “Stephen’s Final Prayer” (A Review).
The third verse Vine cited was Acts 9:13, and it is a conversation—not a prayer. Jesus commissioned Ananias to go lay his hands on Saul that he might receive his sight (10-12). Ananias answered (notice, answered, not prayed):
Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests, to bind all who call on Your name (Acts 9:13-14).
The Lord then reassured Ananias, and he accomplished the task he had been assigned. It is an extreme strettcchh to use this conversation as an example of prayer. Why not use the conversation between Jesus and Saul as well? When Saul asked, “Who are you, Lord?” (Acts 9:5), was he praying as well? How about when asked what the Lord wanted him to do (Acts 9:6)? One may as well try to claim that, when Peter was told to rise, kill, and eat, and he said, “Not so, Lord,” that this was a prayer, also. If there were any passage that clearly exhorted brethren to pray to Jesus, it would be cited, and this controversy would be at an end. Instead proponents of “praying to Jesus” appeal to verses that do not say what they claim and try to obfuscate others.
Deity is Worshiped
Even though praising, honoring, and worshiping God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit is a separate matter from Whom one should address in prayer, Jackson still insists upon confusing the two. He goes so far as to equate those who refuse to worship Jesus as being on a par with the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-9 (6). But these hysterics are totally beside the point. Do we not praise Jesus in our prayers? Yes. Do we not praise Him in song? Of course, we do! These are nothing but red herrings that Jackson uses to sway the reader over to his position and prejudice the case against those who follow what Jesus said to do by praying to the Father.
John 14:14
Jackson puts great stock in John 14:14 to support his case even though the verse only says: “If you ask [me] anything in My name, I will do it.” The King James, the American Standard, and the New King James omit me, but the New American Standard and the English Standard Version have it. The disputed word is contained in some manuscripts but not others. Jackson tries to establish its legitimacy by saying that Bruce Metzger “cites some of the oldest and best manuscript witnesses” in its favor (6). Hmm. Is this the same Bruce Metzger who rejects Mark 16:9-20 as being inspired of God, and is he using those same “oldest and best manuscript witnesses” that the NIV references when they denounce Mark 16:9-20? Will brother Jackson stand with Metzger against Mark 16:9-20? The answer to this question is one that many brethren would probably like to know. (Thankfully brother Jackson does stand against Metzger on Mark 16.)
The fact is that the same two manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) that omit Mark 16:9-20 are the two leading authorities that include me. While Jackson lists certain scholars that think the word belongs, other scholars reject its inclusion. Generally, brethren refrain from using a disputed text upon which to build a doctrine. Even if me did belong in the text, it would still not prove that Christians today are to pray to Jesus. There is no reason to think that verse 14 is doing anything more than just echoing verse 13, which has no me: “And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father be glorified in the Son.”
Acts 1:24 and 7:59 Revisited
Brother Jackson presents a reasonable explanation for concluding that Jesus is intended by the term Lord in Acts 1:24. Perhaps his best reason is that Jesus chose the other apostles and would be the natural one to select a successor for Judas (6). It is true that Jesus is often designated as Lord, but so is the Father. In the Acts 4:24 prayer, the Father is originally addressed as Despota, but later He is called kurie (Acts 4:29), which is identical to the term in Acts 1:24. Kurios also clearly refers to the Father in Acts 4:26, because He is distinct from His Christ. The best that can be said of Acts 1:24 as “proof” for praying to Jesus is that it is a good circumstantial case, but Acts 4:26 and 29 make it less than compelling.
The only additional information concerning Stephen’s “prayer” to Jesus is what Jackson cites concerning comments that Guy N. Woods made in a question and answer session after a gospel meeting. While we all have a tremendous amount of respect for brother Woods’ ability, no human being is always correct. So if he concluded that Stephen “prayed,” he was entitled to think so, though many brethren disagree, but the point still is, “Did he ever address a public prayer to Jesus?” If he had, it would not prove that he was correct in doing so, but if he did not, one must wonder why.
“O Lord, Come”
Has the reader noticed that many of the so-called prayers to Jesus are short? One is reminded of the Weird Al parody of George Harrison’s song, “Got My Mind Set on You” (the last number one song by any of the former Beatles) which he titled, “This Song’s Just Six Words Long.” That’s about the length of many of the alleged “prayers” to Jesus—except this one is even shorter. Does the Aramaic word, maranatha, mean, “O Lord, come”? Is this a prayer on the part of Paul (1 Cor. 16:21-23) (8)?
Much has been written concerning its meaning, but the text suggests that Weymouth (one of Jackson’s favorite paraphrasers) is right. Paul just finished saying that those who do not love Jesus are anathema. The most logical explanation is that he is providing a vivid reminder—especially to those who do not love the Lord—that He is coming. Weymouth renders it: “If any one is destitute of love to the Lord, let him be accursed. OUR LORD IS COMING” (1 Cor. 16:22).
However that verse is to be properly translated, Revelation 22:20 is clear: “Amen. Even so, come Lord Jesus!” Well, what do you know? This “prayer” is just six words long. Seriously, it is simply a rejoinder. It follows Jesus saying, “Surely I am coming quickly,” and many think that the Amen goes best with the Lord’s promise. All John is doing is responding to what Jesus said.
2 Corinthians 12:8
Paul does beseech the Lord three times to remove the thorn in his flesh, and it may well be that Paul made this request of Jesus rather than to the Father. But we have no evidence that this beseeching was not done in a personal way, just as Stephen’s request was directly made of the Lord. The fact is that we have recorded instances of Jesus interacting with a few of His preachers after His resurrection. We have already noted the conversation with Peter in Acts 10, as well as the one with Saul in Acts 9.
Paul did not have the privilege of being with Jesus upon the earth, as the other apostles did; so Jesus spoke with him on various occasions. One of those times was in Corinth when the Lord told Paul that He had many people in that city (Acts 18:9-10). This occurred some 25 years after Jesus ascended into heaven. Paul did not receive the gospel that he preached from the other apostles; it came “through the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:10-11).
In 2 Corinthians 12:1, Paul mentions that he had received “visions and revelations of the Lord.” We do not know how often or how extensive these may have been. It is possible that Jesus and Paul conversed and that Paul beseeched Him personally concerning the thorn. That this occurred in a conversation is implied by what Paul records: “And He said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore most gladly will I boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me” (2 Cor. 12:9). It could scarcely be considered wrong for Paul to ask Jesus for something when he was personally conversing with Him any more than it had been for the apostles to do so previously when face to face with the Lord.
1 Timothy 1:12-13
How pertinent to this topic is Paul’s thanks to Jesus for His putting him in His service (1 Tim. 1:12-13)? Once again, this was an action that was personally done. In Acts 9, when Ananias protested to Jesus that Saul was a persecutor of Christians, the Lord revealed to him that He had personally chosen Saul and would reveal to him “how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake” (1 Tim. 1:15-16). Is it any wonder that Saul would thank Jesus continually for having given him the opportunity to serve (when he so little deserved it) and having counted him faithful as well? Who could fault Paul for thanking and praising Jesus for personally selecting him to be an apostle? These facts, however, in no way authorize Christians today to pray to Jesus—but to the Father in His name.
