For the past sixteen years many faithful brethren have been opposing what has come to be called “the Deaver doctrine.” It first surfaced in a debate that Mac Deaver had with Marion Fox in 1994 and has been evolving ever since. The position emerging from that discussion was the subject of succeeding debates, the last of which occurred ten years ago. Several brethren have dealt with certain aspects of this false teaching at various lectureships, and the Gospel Journal, when edited proficiently by Dub McClish, devoted an entire issue in February of 2002 to exposing the various fallacies of Deaver’s ideology. The Defender and a few other papers likewise devoted articles to this heresy during that same month.
In 2007, Deaver published what is purported to be the latest version of his beliefs, without which no one could understand his position. He assured this writer that, unless one had read this volume, he would not fully comprehend his view and thus would be misrepresenting him. Therefore, not cheerfully, but grudgingly and of necessity, this disadvantaged scribe purchased a copy and now (with all of the wonderful knowledge not heretofore possessed) is ready to examine and comment upon The Holy Spirit (Center of Controversy—Basis of Unity) by Mac Deaver.
The very first chapter contains many errors, but the main concern of this examination will be chapter two, “The Gift of the Holy Spirit—Its Meaning.” This topic has been debated for more than 100 years. Entire chapters have been written on the meaning of the phrase from Acts 2:38—and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Only Mac Deaver could have the temerity to cover all three positions in ten pages and act as if anyone who would possibly disagree with him is unscholarly. Leave it to Deaver and his arrogance to think he has thoroughly analyzed everything pertaining to the subject and drawn the correct conclusions in so short a space.
The approach of these articles will be to deal with the shortcomings of this chapter. Later comments made in the book, if any, that relate to this topic will not be addressed here so that the analysis can be as brief as possible. Some are intensely interested in this subject, but others are bored by it. It is important, however, that we understand this phrase—what it means—and what it does not mean.
Acts 2:38 and 10:45
The purpose of Mac’s second chapter is to determine the meaning of the gift of the Holy Spirit as found in Acts 2:38. Deaver rightly says that the only other time this expression is found in the entire New Testament is in Acts 10:45. “And there the reference is indisputably to the Holy Spirit Himself (see v. 44)” (27). On the basis of this one verse, then, Mac and many others conclude that the Holy Spirit has given Himself as the gift in both passages. How simple things are for Deaver. It only took him four sentences to explain what (apparently unenlightened) brethren are still wondering about. After repeating that the phrases in both verses are identical, Mac hurriedly concludes: “This much is settled. The gift of the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit” (27). What an unsettling remark! This hasty bit of analysis cannot go unchallenged.
First, Acts 10:44 does say that the Holy Spirit fell on all who were listening to Peter preach the Word, but the gift of the Holy Spirit they received was not the Holy Spirit personally. Notice that immediately after saying that “the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also,” the text continues: “For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God” (Acts 10:46). We know from 1 Corinthians 12-14 that speaking in tongues is a spiritual gift given by the Spirit. The text in Acts 10 tells us that the Jews who were with Peter were astonished because these Gentiles had received the gift of the Holy Spirit.
And how did they know that the Holy Spirit had fall-en (a figure of speech) upon them? They heard them speak in tongues. Thus, the gift of the Holy Spirit is not the Spirit Himself, personally—but in this instance the ability to be able to speak in tongues. It may have dawned upon the reader that what was settled for Mac is not at all settled when looking at the text.
Second, the Holy Spirit falling upon them, in light of the next two verses, is a metonymy of the cause (Dungan 271) where the Holy Spirit stands for what He has imparted to them—i.e., a spiritual gift. The same thing occurs later in Acts 19:5-6. Paul baptized twelve men who had only known the baptism of John. “And when Paul had laid hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied.” Once again, the Spirit came upon them, and people could observe this fact by the spiritual gifts that they then showed. In both cases, these two groups received a miraculous gift—a gift of the Holy Spirit.
Third, according to Mac’s logic, if the phrase, the gift of the Holy Spirit, is only found one other time in the New Testament, and it refers to a miraculous gift being given, then it must mean the same thing in Acts 2:38. So, leaving it to Deaver–logic, the gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38 that Peter promised to the people was that of a miraculous gift. If Mac were to concoct a syllogism, it would probably read something like this.
1. If the same author uses the same phrase twice in a book of the New Testament, then whatever the phrase means in one context, it means in the other, also.
2. Luke uses the same phrase in Acts 10:45 that he uses in Acts 2:38.
3. Therefore, what the gift of the Holy Spirit means in Acts 10:45 it must also mean in Acts 2:38.
Although the form of the syllogism is valid, the first premise cannot be proven to be true. But if it were true, it would not help Mac because it would establish that Luke was referring to a miraculous gift in Acts 2:38. Oddly enough, however, Mac does not hold that view. The fact is, though, that he must either adopt that view or give up his argument. “That much is settled.”
“The Gift of God”
The problem with making an argument of this type is that two usages of a phrase is not enough of a sampling to be certain of drawing the correct conclusion. Had the phrase been used five or ten times, with the same obvious meaning each time, then one would have a case, but twice is not necessarily conclusive. Take, for example, the phrase, the gift of God. Although it is found 6 times in the English, the expression is found only twice when the Greek word translated “gift” is dorea. In Acts 8:20, it clearly refers to the miraculous.
Simon the sorcerer had become a Christian in response to Philip’s preaching. Peter and John went to Samaria and prayed that these new Christians “might receive the Holy Spirit. For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit” (Acts 8:15-17). Observations about this text should prove helpful.
First, Peter and John were sent to Samaria for a specific purpose—to give these brethren the Holy Spirit. They did not automatically receive the Holy Spirit upon being baptized. Both here and in Acts 19, those who had been baptized needed to have an apostle lay hands on them to receive the Spirit. Second, when they received the Holy Spirit (metonymy again), such was visible to others present. In Acts 10 and 19, people observed the recipients exercising a spiritual gift. Although neither speaking in tongues nor prophecy is mentioned in Acts 8, it is evident that Simon saw some evidence that they had received the Spirit because he wanted to buy the power to do what Peter and John had done (Acts 8:18-19).
Peter chastised Simon severely because he thought “the gift of God could be purchased with money!” (Acts 8:20). What is the gift of God? It refers to the ability that Peter and John had as apostles to impart a spiritual gift (the Holy Spirit) to Christians. Simon wanted to buy that ability, that gift. Certainly, this dorea (gift) of God refers to a miraculous ability.
However, the other time the expression occurs is in John 4:10. Jesus said to the woman at the well, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.” What is “the gift of God” here? It is the same expression in the Greek as in Acts 8:20, but it is certainly not the miraculous ability to lay hands on someone and impart a gift. Neither is it a miraculous gift; Jesus may be referring to Himself (He certainly is God’s gift to us—John 3:16), to the salvation that comes through Him, or both. The same expression is used, but the meanings of both are different. Likewise, the gift of the Holy Spirit has two different meanings.
Acts 10:45
Deaver knows that his argument on Acts 10 and Acts 2 is fraught with difficulties. Therefore, he tries to head off the obvious conclusion that the gift of Acts 2 is miraculous (27). Of course, it only stands to reason that it would be, but he argues that the only point of similarity he is concerned about is that the gift of the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, whether or not a miraculous gift is involved. He asserts what he cannot prove, and he does so by failing to study the entire context and refusing to acknowledge common figures of speech. He repeats that no one can question his conclusion, but it has already been questioned—and successfully at that. Merely repeating a point (which lacks evidence) cannot replace careful exegesis.
The Promise
Mac next turns his attention to the word promise; once again, his analysis is very thin and superficial. His main points are these.
First, Jesus told the apostles to wait in Jerusalem for the promise of the Father which is explained to be the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:4, 5) (28).
Mac has begun this section with a true statement. He could also have included Luke 24:49 in which Jesus also made that statement. Both of these statements were made after Jesus was raised from the dead, the one in Acts being spoken the day of His ascension. But Jesus had promised the apostles that the Holy Spirit would come upon them on the night of His betrayal. At that time He promised that the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, would come, and when He did, He would bring to remembrance all things whatsoever that Jesus had taught them. He would also guide them into all truth and show them things yet future (John 14:25-26; 16:12-13).
That first point holds true, but it does not mean that every time the word promise is used, it refers to that particular promise because God made others that are referenced in Acts 2. The cognate forms of the word promise are used 70 times in the New Testament. Only three times does promise refer to the Holy Spirit being given, and two of those were cited above. Over 50% of the time, the promises made to Abraham are referenced, and that includes the spiritual promise of salvation. The apostles, at the time of the Day of Pentecost, were looking for the Holy Spirit as Jesus had promised them, but the nation of Israel was looking for the One through Whom all the nations of the earth would be blessed, the message which Peter proclaimed that day.
In his second point, Mac mishandles Acts 2:33.
Second, Peter in his sermon explained that whereas Jesus had gone back to heaven and was exalted by God’s right hand, he had received of the Father “the promise of the Holy Spirit” which he had poured out, the evidence of which was discernible to the people (Acts 2:32, 33) (28).
While it is true that the manifestation of the Holy Spirit had been seen by the multitude and, in fact, was responsible for the people gathering together, Peter had already explained (by the time of verse 33) that those things were a fulfillment of what the prophet Joel had written. From verse 22 onward, Peter’s intention is to proclaim that Jesus had arisen from the dead—also in keeping with what the Scriptures had taught. The apostle now sets forth two crucial facts: 1) Jesus has been raised from the dead: and 2) He has ascended into heaven to sit on the throne of David. However, as this latter subject has been introduced into the text, it is important to stop and remind ourselves of some crucial details regarding that event.
In 2 Samuel 7:12-13, God had Nathan speak to David:
“When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.”
This prophecy of Jesus and His kingdom was very much in the minds of the people. Peter explains that Jesus is the Person of the prophecy: “Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on the throne…” (Acts 2:30). The people were expecting the Christ to sit on the throne of David. Peter explains that Jesus fulfilled David’s prophecy of the resurrection, but now he refers again to what David knew—about the throne and the kingdom.
“Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear” (Acts 2:33).
What promise of the Holy Spirit did Jesus receive? He was given the throne and the kingdom of David—one of the reasons He was able to endure the cross. Jesus, “for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God” (Heb. 12:2). The way Mac interprets this verse, when Jesus ascended into heaven, the Father gave Him the Holy Spirit, and He in turn poured Him out on the apostles. This interpretation ignores the significance of what Peter was preaching concerning the resurrection and the ascension into heaven.
Furthermore, it makes the same mistake that Pentecostals do. They are more excited about the Holy Spirit Whom they erroneously imagine gives them spiritual gifts today than about Jesus, the One Who redeemed them from their sins. Mac also thinks that the Holy Spirit and His manifestations on Pentecost are more important than the message concerning Jesus. As Paul taught to the Corinthians, the spiritual gifts were not the important thing. They were inferior to love and would soon disappear anyway. The gifts were to authenticate the gospel message and to edify the church. They were a means to an end—not the end itself.
The rushing mighty wind, the cloven tongues as of fire, and the speaking in tongues likewise were not the message; they were used to call attention to the gospel. The message was that Jesus died for our sins and rose again. He was resurrected and ascended into heaven, where He received the kingdom, the throne of David. As evidence of that unique event, the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the apostles. Peter again mentions the exaltation of Christ in verses 34-36. This is not just a day of signs; the crucial thing is the message that the signs were sent to confirm. Leave it to Deaver to miss the significance of the message in Acts 2.
For several months another brother and I studied with a husband and wife who were first contacted during the course of door-knocking. They never objected to any teaching, and they frequently asked good questions, knowing that they would receive a Bible answer. Eventually, they insisted that they had been baptized Scripturally (for the remission of sins)—even though one was formerly of the Church of God (the denomination, not the Biblical designation for the church), and the other had a background in Seventh-Day Adventism. We labored in vain to convince them otherwise. In both instances, however, we were able to go to the Internet to find out the beliefs of these groups. Their plan for saving man differs from the Scriptures.
The Church of God
When one types in “salvation” and “Church of God,” a document with that title emerges. The question being answered on this website is: “How can one join the Church of God?” Below is their answer:
If you are not a Christian (that is, not saved, not born anew, not a disciple of Jesus Christ), then you will want to confess your sins in prayer, ask God to forgive your sinful way of living, and invite Jesus Christ to come into your life as Savior and Lord. You may be able to do this alone, but many persons have found that the assistance of a thoughtful and mature Christian is helpful at this time. (Matthew 11:28.) When you accept Jesus Christ as Savior, you are born into the church. You are a new creation in Christ (John 3:1-7; 2 Corinthians 5:7). Through the cross you have become a member.
Notice that no Scripture is cited until well after their “plan of salvation” is presented. Why is that? Neither Jesus nor the apostles charged anyone to confess his sins in prayer for salvation.
The truth is that one must recognize that he is a sinner, or he cannot be saved (Rom. 3:23). Without the realization that the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23), no one has a motive to be saved. Salvation is not achieved by confessing sins, but one must realize that he is in sin and lost before he is willing to do anything about it.
Second, they say that you will want to ask God to forgive your sinful way of living. Nowhere in the New Testament is this principle taught to a non-Christian. Simon the sorcerer was told to pray for forgiveness, but he was already a Christian (Acts 8). John advised people to confess their sins so that God would forgive them, but he was writing to the brethren—not those outside of Christ (1 John 1:1-9). Never is a non-Christian advised to pray and ask for forgiveness.
Third, where do the Scriptures teach that sinners are to invite Jesus to come into their life? Not a single text to that effect can be located, which explains the reason no Scriptures are attached to these points. In fact, the first Scripture cited proclaims the exact opposite notion. Instead of teaching that people should invite Jesus into their lives, Matthew 11:28 records Jesus inviting the lost to come to Him!
Fourth, although the sinner is advised to ask forgiveness, not a word is stated about repentance—a concept that the Bible emphasizes repeatedly. Jesus told those who heard Him, “…unless you repent, you shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). Peter convinced (on the Day of Pentecost) the Jews that they were in sin and in need of salvation. When they asked what to do, he told them to repent (Acts 2:38). He did not say for them to pray for forgiveness or to invite Jesus into their lives. Salvation from sin and eternal life are too important to listen to someone who cannot cite Scriptures or who teaches something contrary to them. All must insist on Bible answers to crucial questions.
Fifth, the Church of God statement contains a huge omission by ignoring the book of Acts, which shows the beginning of the church and provides accounts of people’s conversions. When Peter answered the multitude’s question, “Men and brethren what should we do?” he actually had two parts to his answer. As already noted, he told them to repent, but he also added that they needed to be baptized. Furthermore, he specified a reason for them to be baptized—“for the forgiveness of sins” (Acts 2:38). Nor is this a fluke. Baptism is constantly mentioned in connection with salvation in Acts.
Sixth, the Church of God statement erroneously has a sinner made a part of the church when he verbally accepts Jesus as Savior, but anyone who continues to study Acts 2 finds a different account. Those who gladly received Peter’s word were baptized, and the same day 3,000 souls were added. Added to what? They were added to those who were already part of the church (Acts 2:41). In fact, the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved (Acts 2:47). As Paul would later write: “For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body…” (1 Cor. 12:13). It is not through a verbal confession that Jesus puts people into His body, the church; it is after the person repents and is baptized that the Lord adds the saved to the church.
Seventh, it is at the time of baptism that one is born of the water and the Spirit (John 3:1-7) and becomes a new creation. The Church of God teaches contrary to the Scriptures, is wrong, and therefore must be confronted with the truth. No one could have been baptized for the right reason in this religious group because they do not teach salvation correctly.
Seventh-Day Adventists
Under Seventh-Day Adventist Church on the Internet one can find a “Fundamental Beliefs” section. The following entry (except for the Scriptures at the end) was copied from the website:
10. Experience of Salvation:
In infinite love and mercy God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, so that in Him we might be made the righteousness of God. Led by the Holy Spirit we sense our need, acknowledge our sinfulness, repent of our transgressions, and exercise faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ, as Substitute and Example. This faith which receives salvation comes through the divine power of the Word and is the gift of God’s grace. Through Christ we are justified, adopted as God’s sons and daughters, and delivered from the lordship of sin. Through the Spirit we are born again and sanctified; the Spirit renews our minds, writes God’s law of love in our hearts, and we are given the power to live a holy life. Abiding in Him we become partakers of the divine nature and have the assurance of salvation now and in the judgment.
Part of the above is according to the Scriptures, but part is not. The first sentence echoes 2 Corinthians 5:21. But what is meant by the claim that we are led “by the Holy Spirit” to “sense our need, acknowledge our sinfulness, repent of our transgressions, and exercise faith in Jesus…”? The Holy Spirit revealed these things to us in His Word. He does not help us “sense” them. He states them in the form of commandments.
Besides faith, they actually do mention repentance, although they do not mention a single Scripture with the words repent or repentance in it. Notably absent is the inclusion of even one verse from the book of Acts. Not one account of conversion is provided, although they managed to include a passage from Ezekiel. Below is their list of Scriptures.
(2 Cor. 5:17-21; John 3:16; Gal. 1:4; 4:4-7; Titus 3:3-7; John 16:8; Gal. 3:13, 14; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; Rom. 10:17; Luke 17:5; Mark 9:23, 24; Eph. 2:5-10; Rom. 3:21-26; Col. 1:13, 14; Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 3:26; John 3:3-8; 1 Peter 1:23; Rom. 12:2; Heb. 8:7-12; Eze. 36:25-27; 2 Peter 1:3, 4; Rom. 8:1-4; 5:6-10.)
All right. So they do not mention baptism at all with respect to the “experience of salvation.” Do they mention it anywhere on their website? Yes. Their comments concerning baptism are copied below.
15. Baptism.
By baptism we confess our faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and testify of our death to sin and of our purpose to walk in newness of life. Thus we acknowledge Christ as Lord and Saviour, become His people, and are received as members by His church. Baptism is a symbol of our union with Christ, the forgiveness of our sins, and our reception of the Holy Spirit. It is by immersion in water and is contingent on an affirmation of faith in Jesus and evidence of repentance of sin. It follows instruction in the Holy Scriptures and acceptance of their teachings. (Rom. 6:1-6; Col. 2:12, 13; Acts 16:30-33; 22:16; 2:38; Matt. 28:19, 20.)
The reader may be experiencing confusion, wondering why, with the value that appears to be placed on baptism here, it was not part of the salvation experience discussed previously. The key word in the above paragraph is symbol. Its usage means that they believe that baptism is a symbol of the salvation experience and that it can occur later on. The question that someone should ask is: “Where do any of the Scriptures cited say that baptism is a symbol? The answer is that nowhere in the entire New Testament do the Holy Scriptures make such a claim. In fact, in the King James Version the words symbol, symbolic, and symbolize nowhere appear in the entire Bible. Who decided that baptism was just a symbol?” Peter did not encourage the Jews on Pentecost to repent and be baptized as a symbol that they were already saved. They were baptized in order to be saved (Acts 2:38).
Many people respond favorably to the “baptism is a symbol” ploy because they know that the Bible does use poetic language and that the book of Revelation contains many words and numbers that symbolize something else. Therefore, if folks do not have a reason to doubt the assertion, they may well think that it is true. How sad—to accept a claim without any proof, just because someone says that it is so!
The section on the church (#12) points out some Scriptural concepts, but it does not connect baptism with becoming a member of the church, as do Acts 2:41, 47, and 1 Corinthians 12:13, as previously discussed. Needless to say, the church began in the first century with Christ as the builder (Matt. 16:18) and purchaser (Acts 20:28). When did the Seventh-Day Adventist Church begin?
Both the Church of God, as reviewed in this article, and the Seventh-Day Adventist Church were begun by men within the last two hundred years. We have seen no rationale from them that could Scripturally explain their existence. They were begun by uninspired men recently and do not have their origin in the New Testament. Their plans of salvation do not properly represent what is taught in the Scriptures. Yes, they both make use of Scripture, but neither gives baptism the place of prominence that the Lord gave it.
Both subscribe to an unauthorized gospel, which is not another. God gave us only one gospel (Gal. 1:8-9), and that includes the death of Jesus on the cross for our sins, His burial, and His resurrection on the third day. Romans 6:3-7 explains the way in which everyone can imitate that act. All who truly repent die to sin, and they are buried in water as Jesus was buried in the tomb. Just as Jesus arose triumphantly over death, the now-cleansed sinner arises triumphantly over sin.
When one joins Christ in His death, His sins are washed away. For that reason we read both that the blood of Christ washes away all sins (Rev. 1:5) and that baptism washes away one’s sins (Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21). This makes baptism much more than merely symbolic. The blood of Jesus cleanses sinners when they are baptized.
Man-made religious groups do not grasp this truth. For that reason they assign salvation to a prayer or a verbal confession. They fail to realize that, although Saul of Tarsus prayed for three days, nevertheless that prayer did not save him. His sin remained upon him and needed to be washed away. Cornelius’ prayers came up to God for a memorial, but he was not saved by them. God sent Peter to speak words whereby he and his household would be saved (Acts 11:13-15). After God showed His acceptance of the Gentiles, Peter commanded them to be baptized in water in the name of the Lord (Acts 10:47-48).
When reading what men have to say, we must be careful to look at the Scriptures being used—to see if they say what is claimed. Many times they mention a topic but do not actually verify the point made. Also, we must ask questions that may not be found in what we are reading, such as: “Why is the book of conversions (Acts) not consulted when a group is telling someone about salvation?” When they discuss the church, how do they justify denominationalism, which is condemned in the Scriptures (John 17:20-21; 1 Cor. 1:10; Eph. 4:4)? Let everyone be vigilant when he reads and when he studies the Word of God. Particularly, we ought to be alert when reading men’s comments about that Word.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
MODEST CLOTHING
David Pharr
A sign in front of a church building invited: “Come As You Are. God Has No Dress Code.” We assume the intended meaning was that casual attire would be welcomed at their services. But is it true that “God has no dress code”?
James made it clear that there must be no discrimination in our assemblies over whether one wears the fashionable of the rich or the shabby raiment of the poor (James 2:1-4). We know that “man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7). In the world it may sometimes be true that “clothes make the man,” but this should never be the viewpoint of spiritually-minded people.
On the other hand, in some respects God does have a dress code. When I saw the sign, I wondered how that congregation would react if someone showed up late in the near-naked outfits seen in many public places. There may be some churches where shorts are acceptable attire, but the Lord’s dress code is “modest apparel” (1 Tim. 2:9)
There is also a dress code for the heart. “Whose adorning let it not be that of outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing gold, or of putting on of apparel, but let it be the hidden man (person, DP) of the heart…. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God adorned themselves…” (1 Peter 3:3-4). The text speaks especially to women, but the principle of “adorning” the inner self applies to all. In Heaven’s sight, men and women are measured by character, not by clothing.
We are sometimes asked to define exactly what is modest clothing. It is expected that measurements and styles should be listed. Frankly, such efforts are never absolutely satisfactory, and the Bible does not specifically say what to wear. The key to deciding what is modest is within. In the text above, Peter showed that one must get his heart right before selecting what is modest and appropriate for the body. One who has a heart adorned with purity, humility, honor, goodness, and virtue will not choose clothing that is provocative, suggestive, ostentatious, or lewd.
—copied
In a discussion with someone recently about the Spiritual Growth Workshop (hereafter SGW), it was explained that the promoters of the wolf-gathering event dismiss criticism of the program by referring to those who voice opposition as “naysayers.” So, what is a naysayer? He is one who says no if given an opportunity to vote. He is one who refuses to go along with something. Obviously, the word has a negative connotation, implying that those who do not cooperate in a certain activity are a bunch of duds who would complain about anything positive.
Of course, such is hardly ever the case, except for a few cantankerous souls who do not want to see anything good occur. Those who oppose the SGW have at various times supported schools of preaching, benevolent institutions caring for children, and the evangelistic efforts of other congregations in the area. This congregation has hosted a one-day lectureship for five years on the topics of Biblical Morality, What Will Happen at the End? (eschatology), The Nature of God, the Family, and Why the Bible? All of these have been positive, uplifting, and edifying, yet fewer than ten congregations have been represented out of the fifty or more who have been invited. Are the rest naysayers? What is the difference between a lack of participation in an area event and disapproval of it?
Our lack of support of the SGW, however, is neither capricious nor arbitrary. Brethren in several congregations in this area (at least six in or adjacent to Orlando) intentionally do not have any involvement with it because of the false teachers who are always peppered throughout the program. Who those men are and what their false doctrines are have been noted time and again. Some of the speakers are simply liberal in their worship and doctrine; others are on record as actively challenging the Biblical concept of restoration. Some are from “universities” at the forefront of apostasy or from a paper “chronicling” liberal churches.
The Way It Really Is
In this instance a reversal of charges needs to be made concerning who the naysayers are: Those who plan spiritual events, such as the Tulsa Soul-Winning Workshop and the SGW are the true naysayers. The following list of items explains the rationale behind this assessment.
1. John, who wrote so much on the subject of love (1 John 4:7-11) clearly exhorted brethren: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). That means that some religious men are from God while others are not. What does the word translated “test” mean?
In the Greek is a verb, dokeo [1380], that is usually rendered “think” in its 63 appearances in the New Testament. A few times it is translated “seemed” or “supposed.” Dokimos [1384] descends from dokeo and generally means “approved.” The verb dokimazo [1381] is related to the adjective. In its 23 New Testament usages, it is rendered as “discern” twice and “approve” three times. In Romans 12:2, Paul exhorted brethren to “prove” what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God. As it pertains to the Lord’s Supper, every man is to “examine” himself and so partake of it (1 Cor. 11:28). Every man is to “prove” his own work (Gal. 6:4). As Christians walk as children of light, they should be “proving what is acceptable to the Lord” (Eph. 5:11).
When John, therefore, exhorted the brethren to prove or test the spirits, he did not want brethren just to blindly and naively accept everyone who came along as being legitimate. How can someone be tested? Has he spoken somewhere? Has he written an article, a tract, a book? What’s on the church’s website where he preaches—or his own?
If he has written a book that mocks the idea of restoration and the Lord’s church, such might be construed as a clue that he will not pass the test John had in mind. If he disagrees with Moses that the days of Genesis 1 are literal, even though the Sabbath-day observance is based upon such a literal view (Ex. 20:8-11), he is found wanting.
The point is this: The true naysayers say NO to what the Scriptures teach with respect to testing men!
2. Peter informed brethren that, as there were false prophets among the people (under the Old Covenant), there would be false teachers among Christians, secretly bringing in destructive heresies (2 Peter 2:1). Peter then goes on to describe some of the immoral things that these men taught. Who tested these men? Did they not realize that open immorality contradicts the holiness of God? Had they forgotten that Christians are called to glory and virtue? Were these brethren saying no to what God had revealed to them about false teachers?
Many naysayers today refuse to believe that there are many, if any, false teachers.
3. Paul taught that brethren were to test or prove all things. He used the same word as discussed in point one above—dokimazo. He then added that we should hold fast to that which is good and abstain from every appearance of evil (1 Thess. 5:21-22).
The naysayers who operate and support the SGW say no to this principle. They continually, year after year, bring in men who say unscriptural and evil things.
4. Jesus taught that the wolves would wear sheep’s clothing but that they could be known by their fruits (Matt. 7:15-16). Instead of looking at the fruits of such men (who are compromising with denominationalism, giving up Scriptural objections to instrumental music, and even wondering if baptism must be in order to obtain forgiveness of sins), brethren have been suckered in by what they perceive to be a pious demeanor and are making pronouncements such as, “He’s such a godly man,” and, “He’s so spiritual in the way he presents God’s Word.”
Once again the naysayers are saying NO—this time to Jesus—in guarding against false teachers by looking at their fruits.
5. Paul wrote that brethren should mark and avoid such men (Rom. 16:17-18). These men teach things contrary to what the New Testament teaches, and they are marked, all right—marked for an invitation to speak at the SGW. Paul suggested these men ought not to be elevated—but shunned.
The true naysayers have said no to Paul when he commands them to mark false teachers.
6. To avoid those who call themselves brethren is to withdraw fellowship from them. It would be difficult to fellowship an individual whom one is steadfastly and purposefully staying away from. Two former lovers will not be able to kiss if they persist in hiding from each other. Fellowship requires presence, but Paul commands absence.
The naysayers again say no to Paul’s command to avoid those teaching other doctrines.
7. John wrote: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds” (2 John 10-11). Not only do hundreds of Christians greet these false teachers, so do the other speakers on the program. Many try to deny the reality of this fellowship, but it exists nevertheless. Can anyone imagine any of the apostles on the Day of Pentecost saying, “Oh, sure, I’m speaking in tongues with these other apostles, but I don’t endorse everything they teach or believe”?
While it is the case that out of 30 to 40 speakers, one might not know all of them (and it’s possible for one of them to hold a deviant view), nevertheless how can one not know the views of those who have written a book enjoying a wide distribution that takes issue with the Scriptures? How can one not know about a man who has spoken all over the brotherhood with messages which deny the truth?
The naysayers are at it again, saying NO to John’s command to withhold fellowship, just as they do Paul’s.
The naysayers are not with those who have examined certain programs such as the SGW and found it wanting by means of evaluating the speakers; the true naysayers are those who refuse to follow the Scriptures as taught by the Lord, Paul, Peter, and John.
Certainly, nothing is wrong with spiritual growth. Our One Day Lectureship will have as its theme this year: “Genuine Spiritual Growth.” The Bible teaches growth as a responsibility of the Christian. As always, however, we will invite those who believe what the Bible teaches about salvation and acceptable worship.
All of us say NO to certain things. Because of what the Bible teaches, we cannot be part of certain events that have been evaluated and proven to be faulty. But, ideally, brethren would want to be part of a good work built upon a solid foundation of respect for the truth. Those who refuse to make a reasonable evaluation are, in reality, the naysayers.
APOSTATE ACU—TAKING LIBERALISM TO A HIGHER LEVEL
Marvin L. Weir
For the past forty years or more ACU [Abilene Christian University] has been in a downward spiral as far as God’s truths are concerned. They are now advertising their 104th Annual Summit scheduled for September 19-22, 2010, Aliens & Light: Finding God in the Darkness. “The only hill in Abilene” (their words) would be an excellent place to begin the search—it cannot get much darker than it is now at ACU!
Apostate “theme speakers,” such as Rick Atchley (known for his association with Richland Hills in the Fort Worth area) and Charlton Taylor (associated with Golf Course Road in Midland area) are two excellent reasons to avoid “the hill” on the above dates. It is not enough, however, for ACU to rejoice at packing their program with apostate brethren; they must also include featured guests at Moody Coliseum “who will stimulate our minds and hearts.” These guests have been extended “the hospitality of Christ.” Who are these guests? Let’s first note who they are not: They are not members of the Lord’s church!
James Bryan Smith is “assistant professor of religion at Friends University” and “an ordained United Methodist Church minister…. He is a popular speaker for Renovare conferences and a founding member of Renovare, the spiritual renewal ministry.”
Kathleen Norris (no, ACU doesn’t have a problem with ladies addressing men), is a
best selling author and award winning poet; the geography of life in Lemmon, S.D.; the liturgical life of the Benedictines; and the pains of death…. She will speak from her latest book, Acedia & Me: A Marriage, Monks, and a Writer’s Life, a study of acedia, the ancient word for the spiritual side of sloth. She examines the topic in the light of theology, psychology, monastic spirituality and her own experience.
One thing is for sure: ACU does not have to worry about book, chapter, and verse for this exercise in foolishness.
Shane Claiborne [another speaker on the program]
is an author, Christian activist and speaker. With tears and laughter, he unveils the tragic messes we’ve made of our world and the tangible hope that another world is possible…. He graduated from Eastern University and did graduate work at Princeton Seminary. Shane’s ministry experience includes a 10-week assignment working with Mother Teresa, a year serving at Willow Creek Community Church….
Amazing, isn’t it? Shane’s ministry experience is just enough to qualify him for a keynote address at ACU! Maybe it is the earring in his ear, the bandana wrapped around his head, or the goatee that impressed ACU with this speaker (see photo in their advertising brochure).
On the back page of the brochure (a 44 page booklet), is the following statement:
The 2010 ACU Summit draws the theme, “Aliens & Light: Finding God in the Darkness,” from the collections of 1 Peter and 2 Peter. Collected late in the first century and attributed to Peter, these texts provide a stirring call for Christians enduring suffering in a tumultuous world. At times, followers of Jesus are treated like aliens and exiles in this world.
Collections? Attributed to Peter? 1 Peter 1:1 reads as follows:
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.
2 Peter 1:1 declares:
Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ.
Collected from whom—inspired or uninspired men? The apostles spoke the inspired (God-breathed) Word as revealed to them by the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 16:13). ACU is obviously more impressed with the denominational dogma of men and a poet’s “own experience” and examining the “spiritual side of sloth” than God’s inspired Word!
The Holy Scriptures declare:
Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, hath not God: he that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house, and give him no greeting: for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works (2 John 9-11).
Brethren, these denominational featured speakers that ACU is in fellowship with are false teachers who do not abide in the teaching of Christ! ACU has gladly provided a platform for the devil’s doctrine to be taught from within and without to as many as will travel up “the hill.” This is one hill the faithful will not climb!
What about those who support ACU and are enthralled about what occurs on “the hill”? John, speaking by inspiration, makes it clear that they are partaking in his evil works. One thing is certain: ACU desperately needs to find God as they are in total darkness!
—Bonham Street Beacon (Paris, TX) July 11, 2010
“Pastor” David Martin of Bartlett, Tennessee fancies that he has put together questions that are so difficult that no one in the churches of Christ can possibly answer them. He is as ignorant of our history as he is in comprehending the Scriptures, or he would know of the numerous debates that brethren have had with Baptists over the decades (the Moody-Harding Debate, the Warren-Ballard debate, and dozens of others).
Speaking of debates, Martin claims that he had one in 1997 in Memphis with “a Church of Christ evangelist.” Although he says that 250 people attended within a 300-mile radius of Memphis, he does not provide the precise dates of the debate, its specific location, who his opponent was, or what church he was affiliated with. Neither did he provide the propositions of the debate. I e-mailed him to find out this information and whether the debate was taped or published, but to date he has not responded. At any rate, he does not mention the results of the debate, either (conversions). There remain four more “unanswerable” questions.
10. If the “Church of Christ” claims to worship God only as “authorized” by scripture [sic] because they sing only (and do not use instrumental music), then where do they get the “authority” to use hymnals, pitchpipes, pews, and indoor baptistries in their worship services? If the answer is that they are “aids to worship,” where does the Bible allow for that? Where is your required authorization? If a pitchpipe can be an “aid to worship” for the song service in the “Church of Christ,” then why can’t a piano be an “aid to worship” for Baptists who may need more help in singing?
It would be difficult to find a mind more muddled on something that should be easy enough for anyone to comprehend. The New Testament does indeed authorize singing. Thus, we sing. Does having the words in a hymnal alter the command to sing? No, singing is expedited when everyone knows the words. Does a pitchpipe alter the command to sing? No, it expedites it so that we all know what note to begin singing with. A cappella singing is still a cappella singing. An expedient merely expedites keeping a commandment. Jesus told His apostles to go into all the world. He did not tell them how to go. They may have walked, but to cover longer distances, they might have ridden an animal. When Paul and Barnabas boarded a ship to sail to Cyprus, would Martin ask them, “Where’s your authority?” All of these are legitimate means of going.
Likewise, a pitchpipe or a songbook facilitates singing; they do not alter it. Adding instruments of music however, changes the singing; it is no longer a cappella at that point. We suspect that Baptists can sing as well as anyone else; the instrument does not aid them; it adds to their voices—perhaps in some cases, drowning them out.
Where is the authority for pews? They are an expedient. When Jesus spoke, people sat upon the grass. Whether people stand or sit, it does not change the presentation of the Word of God. Visual aids, PowerPoint, or information sheets are all aids and are authorized under preaching the gospel. A baptistery is a body of water close by for convenience. People were baptized for centuries without them in other bodies of water—rivers, lakes, streams. The place of the baptism is not important—the fact that it involves water is. A baptistery does not change the command or action of baptism, it expedites it. Most people can understand this concept even if it is too difficult for Martin.
11. The “Church of Christ” teaches that a sinner is forgiven of sin when he is baptized in water by a Campbellite elder. Where does the Bible teach that water baptism is required in order to have one’s sins forgiven? Every time the phrase “for the remission of sins” occurs it is speaking of the fact that sins have been forgiven previously! The Bible plainly teaches that the forgiveness of sins is conditioned upon repentance of sin and faith in Christ – never upon water baptism! (Matthew 3:11; Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; Acts 5:31; Acts 10:43; Acts 20:21; Romans 1:16; Romans 4:5; et.al.) Where does the Bible teach that forgiveness of sin is linked with water baptism? When Christ made the statement in Matthew 26:28, “for the remission of sins,” it had to be because they had been forgiven all through the Old Testament! Christ shed His blood because God forgave repentant and believing sinners for thousands of years before the Son of God came to “take away” sins and to redeem us and pay the sin-debt with His own precious blood. How can one say that “for the remission of sins” means ‘in order to obtain’ in light of the fact that God never uses the phrase in that sense?
In the Old Testament God forgave sin on the basis of a blood sacrifice (Heb. 9:22)—the Old Testament saints had their sins remitted (i.e., forgiven) but they were not redeemed until Christ came and shed His blood at Calvary. Their sins were covered (Romans 4:7; Psalm 32:1), but the sinner was not cleared of his guilt (Exodus 34:7) until the Cross (Heb. 10: 4). Before Calvary, the sins of believers were pardoned, but they were not paid for (i.e., redeemed) until the crucifixion (see Romans 3:25 and Heb. 9:12-15). When Jesus said, “It is finished,” (John 19:30), all sin – past, present and future – was paid for…. [This paragraph is true; what precedes it and follows it is not.]
…and the plan of salvation was completed, so that ‘whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins’ (Acts 10:43). In Acts 2:38, the people were baptized because their sins were forgiven (at Calvary when Jesus said, “Father, forgive them,”) and they received the blessing of forgiveness when they repented of their sin of rejecting Christ and accepted Him as their Saviour and Lord. Friend, heaven or hell depends on what you believe about this.
Well, Martin said they were common sense questions—not simple ones. He obviously likes to preach in the middle of his questions. Once again, he does not understand us well enough to know that an “elder” is not required in order to baptize someone. Congregations that lack elders would not be able to save sinners. Preachers, deacons, and other members have been known to baptize those who were ready. Paul baptized Crispus and Gaius, yet he was not a Campbellite elder. One can only wonder where Martin (who never cites a source) gets his information.
He vainly argues that baptism is “because of” the forgiveness of sins. Really? So John going out to preach “a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4) means that he baptized people because they were already saved? A baptism of repentance means that, when they repented of their sins, he baptized them for the forgiveness of their sins.
At the outset he accused us as dodging all over the place, but no one has ever danced and leapt so vigorously as he trying to provide an explanation for Matthew 26:28. Jesus said: “For this is My blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Forget Martin’s incomprehensible explanation. Did Jesus intend to say that He went to the cross to shed His blood because people were already saved or in order to obtain forgiveness for them? Anyone with common sense can answer that question. He admits that those in the Old Testament were not saved until Jesus shed His blood on the cross. In other words, He obtained forgiveness for them then. But previously, through the use of convoluted reasoning, he tried to make it sound like Jesus went to the cross because God had already forgiven them. Well, which is it? He had forgiven them on the basis of the fact that Jesus would shed His blood to obtain their forgiveness in the future.
Where does the Bible teach that forgiveness of sins is linked with water baptism? Is he kidding? Has he never read that Saul of Tarsus was told to arise and be baptized so that his sins might be washed away (Acts 22:16)? Has he never read 1 Peter 3:21, where the apostle clearly says that baptism now saves us? We have no disagreement with passages that emphasize faith and repentance; Martin has problems with those that teach the necessity of baptism.
12. If salvation is not by works of righteousness which we have done, and baptism is a work of “righteousness,” then how can water baptism be a part of salvation? (Titus 3:5; Matt. 3:16). In the Bible, we are SAVED BY GRACE, and grace does not involve human effort or merit—grace is grace and work is work! (Just read Ephesians 2:8,9 and Romans 11:6.)
Many of us memorized Ephesians 2:8-9 long ago. Furthermore, unlike Martin, we know what it means. It is not in a passage telling a non-Christian what to do to be saved, as we find in the book of Acts. It is found in a passage that emphasizes that we are all saved as the result of God’s grace. God originated the system whereby we can be saved, but He does not save us against our will or in our indifference. He provided a way for us to respond, but Paul does not deal with the particulars of the response because that is not his purpose at this point. It is also true that we cannot save ourselves by doing many good works. On the basis of our own goodness and our own works we all fail. Baptism, however, is not us working—it is the working of God (Col. 2:12), in which He takes the blood of Jesus and washes away our sins. Why anyone would want to designate what God does as a work of man is unfathomable. There is no human effort in the passive act of baptism. The effort and working is God’s.
13. The “Church of Christ” teaches that “obeying the Gospel” includes being baptized in water in order to be saved. If this is true, then how is it that the converts of Acts 10 were saved by faith before and without water baptism? The Bible says in Acts 5:32 that only those who obey God may receive the Holy Ghost – so what did those in Acts 10 do to obey and receive the Holy Ghost and be saved? In the light of Acts 10:34-48, Acts 11:14-18, and Acts 15:7-11, how can anyone honestly believe that water baptism is necessary to salvation? Simon Peter said their hearts were “purified by faith” (Acts 15:9) and that we are saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ like they were (Acts 15:11); that is, before and without water baptism! We know that unsaved people do not receive or have the Holy Spirit (John 14:17; Romans 8:9). We know that the Holy Spirit is given only to those who have believed on Christ (John 7:39). We know that the Holy Spirit seals the believing sinner the moment he puts his faith and trust in Christ as Savior, before he is ever baptized in water (Ephesians 1:12,13). How does the warped theology of Campbellism explain away these clear passages of Scripture without “muddying the waters” of truth and drowning its members in eternal damnation?
In this case, the only thing that needs to be done is to show that the entire question is based upon a faulty premise. Once that is done, the remainder of the question becomes irrelevant. First, it is the Bible that teaches that baptism is part of obeying the gospel. Members of the churches of Christ simply present what the Bible teaches. Baptists are the ones who have manuals containing doctrines that Baptists must subscribe to. We only call people to study and accept what the Bible says. Peter, through the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, told people to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:38).
Second, Martin assumes that Cornelius and his household were saved when they received the Holy Spirit; he has not read carefully the text. Where does it say in Acts 10 that Cornelius was “saved by faith before and without water baptism”? The words save, salvation, or saved do not occur in Acts 10. Peter had just begun speaking (v. 34) when the Holy Spirit “fell upon all those who heard the word” (v. 44). Notice that at this point Peter had not asked any of them if they believed or were willing to repent of their sins. The Holy Spirit fell on them in the absence of any discussion about salvation.
Now what was the reaction? Those Jewish Christians (“the circumcision who believed”) “were astonished.” Why? Were they surprised to see these Gentiles saved? No. The text says they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God, which is the way they knew the Spirit had fallen upon them. That fact is what astonished them (vv. 45-46). Not a word was spoken about Cornelius and the others being saved!
Before finishing Acts 10, we ought to notice other passages that are relevant. First, up to this point much has been made of the fact that no Gentiles were yet Christians. Peter had to be shown that Gentiles were no longer to be viewed as common or unclean (Acts 10:1-20). God proved to Peter, through the means of commanding him to kill and eat foods that were unclean according to the Law of Moses, that he could now accept and partake of all meats. The application of this point was that God accepted all men and that Peter should go and preach to Gentiles. God knew that Peter and the rest of the Jews would have a difficult time accepting the Gentiles into the body of Christ.
Second, the truth of this assessment is seen immediately upon Peter’s entrance into Jerusalem afterward. The apostle was criticized for eating with Gentiles (11:1-3). Thus he recounted to them all that led up to the visit with Cornelius, including the Lord’s command to eat previously unclean food (11:4-12).
Third, Cornelius had been told by an angel that Peter would come to him and tell him words by which he and his household would be saved (vv. 13-14). Notice that Cornelius was not told that Peter would come and speak to him but that he would be saved by the Holy Spirit falling upon him. The gospel message is communicated through words. They would need to hear the message and obey what Peter told them.
Fourth, Peter recounts what happened: “And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, as upon us at the beginning” (v. 15). Peter had not finished speaking, he had only begun to speak. He had not had time to explain yet what Cornelius needed to do to be saved. Why did the Holy Spirit come upon them if they were not yet saved? Consistent with everything in Acts 10-11, He came upon them to prove that they were acceptable to God. Peter was reminded of the way the Holy Spirit fell on them at the beginning (on the Day of Pentecost) (v. 16). If Cornelius and the others received the same gift as the apostles had received (speaking in tongues), then how could Peter deny them the opportunity to be saved? When those who had criticized Peter heard this explanation, they silenced their opposition and glorified God, concluding that Gentiles could also be saved (vv. 17-18).
Now that we know the purpose of the Holy Spirit coming upon the Gentiles was to demonstrate God’s acceptance of them and not to save them, let’s return to Acts 10:47-48, where Peter asks: “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” Then they were baptized in the name of the Lord. They were saved by being baptized for the forgiveness of their sins, just as those on Pentecost were (Acts 2:38).
Martin’s questions have been fully answered His understanding of the Bible has been shown to be lacking. Neither does he understand us. Perhaps he should spend less time boasting and more time studying. He issued a challenge with his alleged unanswerable questions. Now we will see how he deals with the answers.
Every so often along comes some midget suffering from a “giant” complex. He makes boasts concerning things about which usually he has no clue and then proclaims himself the triumphant victor. He may even convince those who agree with him, but most others do not share his enthusiasm about his own abilities.
One such legend in his own mind is “Pastor” David Martin of the Solid Rock Baptist Church in Bartlett, Tennessee. It ought to be noted that no church designating itself as “Baptist” is anywhere near the solid rock of truth. The church was bought and built by Jesus (Matt. 16:18; Acts 20:28), and He never once referred to it as “Baptist.” Neither did Paul or any of the other apostles. Martin’s reasoning ability is about as sound as the name of the church he works with.
According to the introduction to the questions, the reader of the website finds this bodacious claim:
This is one of the most controversial articles on the church of Christ you will find anywhere. No church of Christ preacher can satisfactorily answer any of the questions posed by Pastor Martin.
Of course, the loophole in anyone’s answers will hinge on the word satisfactorily. All he has to say is, “I wasn’t satisfied.” Personally, this answerer does not care how he responds; the important thing is that others see the validity of the answers.
He claims that the church of Christ is a cult (wow, that’s original). He challenges members of the church, after they read these questions, to get out their King James Bible and ask the Holy Spirit to show them the truth (John 16:13). Are you impressed yet with his wondrous knowledge? Jesus did not make the promise of John 16:12-13 to everyone—but to the apostles. Martin does not even understand context!
He also assumes that brethren only use the King James, which is erroneous. Many do, of course, but many also read the New King James or the American Standard—all legitimate translations, unlike the NIV.
One point of clarification is in order before answering Martin’s questions. He says these are for Campbellites. This responder has never been a Campbellite; he has never known anyone who claimed to be a Campbellite preacher. He has never known of any group who referred to themselves as Campbellites. Does not being one disqualify someone from answering the questions? Theoretically, anyone could probably supply Biblical answers, since the questions are not that difficult anyway. From reading Martin, however, one would think they were more difficult than the Riddle of the Sphinx. Consider some of his remarks.
If you ask one of these “preachers” any of the questions in this tract, you won’t get a straight answer due to their “screwball” theology. You’ll have them in “hot water,” “swimming in circles,” trying to explain their heretical positions. They’ll be “hopping all over the pond” because they can’t stay too long in one spot without sinking in the mire of their false doctrines.
Martin certainly stands confident in his own abilities, does he not? He apparently believes his own press. The first of these monumental questions follows.
1. According to the history of the “Church of Christ,” God used certain men to “restore” the New Testament Church in the early 1800’s. Where was the true New Testament church before then? Jesus said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18). What happened to the church and where was the truth it was responsible for preaching before God restored it?
First of all, according to what history? Would it be too difficult to cite a source or a quote? The churches of Christ are not a denomination, and we do not have official publications outlining our history. Some individual writers have written various types of histories and biographies, but these are independent efforts with which others may or may not agree. Martin makes it sound as if there is an official church history, which is certainly not the case.
Was there an effort to restore the church that we all read about in the New Testament? Yes. This means that some things were not right with the predominant religious practices of the day. What is wrong with trying to restore what the New Testament teaches? Of course, Martin does not care about restoration. If he did, he would want to be known as a Christian rather than a Baptist, which lacks New Testament authority.
Just because there was a time period in which men made greater efforts than before does not imply that the church was totally lost or that there were no Christians. Martin assumes more than he can prove. Where was the truth? It is precisely where it has always been—in the Word of God (John 8:31-32). Just as the Word was hidden (in the house of the Lord, no less) in the time of Josiah (2 Chron. 34), so likewise, since it was primarily only available in Latin for one thousand years, most people did not have access to it.
Martin has already referred to the Catholic Church as a cult; perhaps he could explain where all the Baptists were for one thousand years. If the Catholic Church and the Mormon Churches are cults, the reason is that they go by something other than the Bible. The Catholic Church abides by the decisions of various councils over the centuries, not to mention what the pope legislates. The Mormons abide by the teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and others who have received “revelations.” How ironic that he calls us a cult when the Bible is the only source of authority we claim! Martin does not know anything more of the history of this period than we do. Is he willing to say that the Catholic Church followed the New Testament? Martin’s first question, then, is based upon faulty premises and fraught with difficulties that he himself would have trouble in answering “satisfactorily.”
2. If a “Church of Christ” elder refuses to baptize me, will I be lost until I can find one who will? Do I need Jesus AND a Campbellite “preacher” in order to be saved? If I do, then Jesus Christ is not the only Mediator (1 Tim. 2:5) and the Holy Spirit is not the only Administrator (1 Cor. 12:13) of salvation—the “Church of Christ” preacher is necessary to salvation for he is performing a saving act on me when he baptizes me! Is this not blasphemy against Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost?
Where did Martin form the opinion that baptisms must be done by elders? He really does not know much about the subject in which he claims to be an expert. Furthermore, his reasoning winds all over the place; it is no wonder if people ignore his ranting. All that a person needs is the truth. Paul says that he had baptized Crispus and Gaius (1 Cor. 1:15). To paraphrase Martin’s question: “Did Crispus need Jesus AND Paul in order to be saved?” Well, then, by his own scrambled logic, Paul was a second mediator and usurped the Holy Spirit’s role of Administrator. Martin does not see the fallacies in his own question, and we await to see if he accuses Paul of having his own cult.
3. If the water pipes broke and the baptistry [sic] was bone dry, would my salvation have to wait until the plumber showed up? If I were to die before then, would I go to hell? If obedience to water baptism is the means of forgiveness of sins, then I would.
No one needs to wait for a baptistery to be fixed in Florida. Bodies of water are numerous. We will follow the lead of Jesus on the question asked in bold letters. Mister Martin, if you were scheduled to meet at someone’s house to teach them to “accept Jesus,” and you had a flat tire on the way there (and no spare), would his salvation have to depend on a tow-truck? What if he inadvertently drank arsenic while he was waiting and died? Would he go to hell because you did not get there in a timely fashion? We can play “What If” games all night, but it still boils down to what the Scriptures teach. Do they teach that Jesus is the only name whereby we must be saved? They do (Acts 4:12). Without the man doing so, he would be lost. He would also be lost if he died before repenting of his sins and having them washed in the blood of Jesus.
4. If my past sins are forgiven when I am baptized in water, and it is possible for me to “lose my salvation” and go to hell after being baptized, then wouldn’t my best chance of going to heaven be to drown in the baptistry [sic]?!!—before I had a chance to sin so as to be lost again? If I wanted to be absolutely sure of heaven, isn’t that my best opportunity?
How about if we let the man arise to walk in newness of life first (Rom. 6:3-5)? Then, if God wants to induce cardiac arrest and take him to heaven, He may. The implication of this question is the doctrine of “once saved, always saved.” But Paul told the brethren he baptized in Galatia that, if they tried to be justified by the Law of Moses, they had fallen from grace (Gal. 5:1-4). That Christians can be lost is the subject of a great portion of the book of Hebrews, not to mention several other passages, such as James 5:19-20.
5. If as a Christian I can sin so as to “lose my salvation,” just what sin or sins will place me in such danger? Is it possible to know at what point one has committed such a sin, and become lost again? Please be specific and give clear Bible references.
Any time someone ignores what the Scriptures teach, he stands in jeopardy. No human being needs to know the exact moment that someone crosses over from saved to lost, but the Scriptures teach that it does occur. For example, if a Baptist in Martin’s congregation decided to live with his father’s wife, would that be wrong? If he persisted in it, would he be lost? Can Martin pinpoint the precise moment when the man becomes lost and in need of spiritual correction? Paul commanded that the church withdraw fellowship from the sexually immoral (1 Cor. 5:11). We also know that fornicators and adulterers God will judge (Heb. 13:4). Or is that principle only for those not saved by a Baptist preacher? Revelation 21:8 says that all such have their place in the lake of fire. Are these references specific enough?
6. If as a Christian I can fall and “lose my salvation,” is it possible to regain it? If so, how? If God “takes away” my salvation, doesn’t that make Him an “Indian giver”? How could I ever know for sure that I was saved or lost?
When Simon the Sorcerer sinned in desiring the gift of laying hands on others to impart spiritual gifts, Peter told him: “Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you” (Acts 8:22). What happens if a sin is not forgiven? Will Martin argue that people who are not forgiven of sins can enter into heaven? Simon stood in need of forgiveness, and Peter told him how to get it—by repentance.
7. After becoming a Christian, are there any sins that will put me beyond the “point of no return” so that I cannot regain salvation? What sin or sins will put me in such jeopardy, so that, after becoming a Christian, I would be doomed to hell without any recourse? Please be specific and give me clear Bible references.
Would having a conscience that is “past feeling” qualify? Paul discusses this type of hardness of heart in Ephesians 4:17-19. Martin has evidently never read that even God had no remedy for the people of Israel—except captivity and death because of their hardened hearts (2 Chron. 36:15-16). Why does he assume that there is only one sin that can doom someone? The hardening of the heart leads people to turn away from God, thus committing a number of sins. Has he never read 1 John 5:16—about not praying for a brother committing a sin unto death? These are clear and specific references.
8. If I committed some sin—whether in thought, word, or deed one minute before a fatal car crash—would I go to hell if I did not have time to repent of it? And, please, don’t just say that it’s up to God without giving me a specific Bible reference.
Presumably, the grace of God would cover such a situation (although we are not the judge); the important thing is that we are not constantly thinking in such rebellious ways against God. There is a difference between an inadvertent sin or one committed in a moment of weakness (1 John 5:14-16) and living one’s life in rejection of God. Suppose one of Martin’s members quits attending worship and buys a local strip club. So here he is, selling alcoholic beverages and encouraging lewd and lascivious behavior. Suppose he has a heart attack while with a prostitute. Will Martin argue that this man will be saved because he once stood in a saved state? Now, there’s a common-sense question, and we await his answer (with specific references).
9. Why does the “Church of Christ” insist that their name is scriptural when it cannot be found anywhere in the Bible? The church is referred to as the “church of God” eight (8) times in the Bible, but never is it called the “church of Christ.” The verse they use is Romans 16:16, but it doesn’t say “church of Christ.” Where does the Bible call the church the “church of Christ”?
Apparently, Martin has run out of serious questions and is resorting now to silly ones. Paul sent greetings from the churches of Christ. He may recall being taught about singulars and plurals in grammar school. In order for there to be churches of Christ (plural), there must be a church of Christ (singular) in several locations. When Paul wrote to “the churches of Galatia” (Gal. 6:2), everyone understands that there was an individual church in each of several cities. “Church of God” is a scriptural designation, and we have always said so. However, a group subscribing to the Pentecostal philosophy has adopted that name; so we do not use it to avoid misconceptions. The bigger point for Martin is, “Where does the name Baptist Church occur anywhere in the Scriptures?” We await an answer to that question also.
Furthermore, if Martin had ever read a Bible commentary by even denominational scholars, he would have noticed that it is common for the phrase, the Church of Christ, to be used. Possibly, they refer to the church in this manner because Jesus shed His blood for the church and is head over the church, which is His body (Acts 20:28; Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18). To the few and considerably less complicated questions we have asked of Martin, we add this one: “What does Paul mean in Ephesians 4:5 when he says there is one body (church)?”
Most students are also taught about possessives in grammar school. The church of Christ refers to Christ’s church. Since He is the church’s builder (Matt. 16:18) and the church’s purchaser (Acts 20:28), as well as its head (Eph. 1:22-23), then it makes sense to refer to the church of Christ (in the universal sense) or the churches of Christ, referring to each one in a particular area.
Mr. Martin has not provided questions that are difficult at all to answer. He does not see that the ones that may have an edge of difficulty to them are ones that he cannot answer, either. Five questions remain, which will be answered (Lord willing) next week. His slurs will not avail him anything; our answers will remain based on the Scriptures.
One of the problems in modern communication is that people’s perceptions of themselves stand in the way of their objectivity. Most of us want to be considered “a good guy” by the people we know. We want to be known as moderate in all things so that no one can attach the “extremist” label to us. We may rationalize our thoughts and actions to harmonize with the expectations of others. No suggestion is intended here that brethren are willing to compromise on a large scale basis, pretending to be a liberal when with liberals and a conservative when with conservatives—although some do take the chameleon approach. But is there not a tendency to blend a little bit in an effort to be more acceptable?
Even more to the point is the fact that we want to be right with God—in our own minds. Therefore, few false teachers will stand up in public and say, “I disagree with God. I oppose God. I am rebelling against God. Please join me.” But their doctrines oppose God’s teachings, which makes them His enemies. Still, they revert to self-justification and rationalization to feel comfortable about their teachings and to make others feel comfortable about them when they follow them. For example, when Diotrephes opposed the inspired apostle John, why did anyone listen to him? Surely, he had a rationale for complaining against John and winning brethren to his side, although we could only guess at the particulars.
We know what the false teachers of 2 Peter 2 were doing. Using great swelling words of vanity they were promising people freedom if they indulged in fleshly practices. Peter explains throughout the letter that Christians had been delivered from that kind of corrupt thinking. Although these men were plainly rebelling against God, they made their doctrines sound appealing and maintained a good self-image by convincing themselves that they were right and that their teaching did not conflict with the Scriptures.
Nearly everyone considers himself a conservative, although some may opt for the term progressive. On one occasion a “fairly” conservative brother invited me to a “preacher’s” luncheon to hear him speak. Present were most of the liberals in the area, including some “elders” of the congregation Leroy Garrett attended (who was allowed to teach there on occasion). Garrett had been at the forefront of liberalism and compromise for years and had no qualms about fellowshipping those in denominations. Nevertheless, as the meeting began, the chairman affirmed that all in attendance were conservatives. “Who are you kiddin’?” I almost blurted out. Instead I kept silent, listened to the program, repented of having gone in the first place, and never returned. The amazing thing, however, is that they had convinced themselves that they were not the liberals that everyone else knew they were.
On a previous occasion, I returned to Indiana with copies of the Annual Denton Lectureship book for those who might want to buy a copy of what was, by my assessment, the greatest series of commentaries ever produced by brethren. Not only did they cover one or more books of the Bible verse by verse, they included a “Difficult Passages” section, “Topical Studies,” and an “Answering False Doctrine” section (based on the Biblical material under consideration). One of the greatest features, however, was the “Discussion Forum” portion, which included pertinent and well-researched information about major false teachings of the day. These were closely scrutinized and refuted. With great enthusiasm I took copies to an event in which brethren from Illinois and Indiana attended. Having heard of the great reputation for soundness on the part of one of the preaching brethren there, I spoke to him and asked if he might bring the book to the attention of others. He opened it, sniffed a little (like someone smelling garbage) and set it down without comment. In his own mind, he undoubtedly viewed himself as a conservative but all the authors in the book as radicals.
Thus, the way people view themselves is interesting. Liberals view themselves as conservatives, as do many moderates. Some like to pretend they stand where the Scriptures stand, but they refuse to defend their position or endorse those who do. Alas! That responsibility is left to “radicals” and “trouble-makers.” What they fail to realize is that Jesus did not change the world by showing up at PTA meetings and smiling at everyone. (He didn’t present Himself with a snarl on His face, either.) He was a controversialist who hesitated not to tell Peter when his actions were wrong or to denounce the scribes and the Pharisees. Paul behaved in similar fashion. He was not beaten with 39 stripes five times just for saying, “Love one another.” He opposed error and upheld the truth.
Olan Hicks
Olan Hicks (whom I debated in 2005; see the review on our Website, 10-9-05 to 11-21-05) has been on the lunatic fringe for many years with his erroneous views on divorce and remarriage. (In fact, he just completed a month ago one of his “workshops” for the West Orange Church in Winter Garden—yes, the same congregation that is already compromising on the role of women, which was reviewed the previous three weeks.) He advertised this meeting in his April, 2010 publication of News and Notes.
In this same issue he also presents himself as a moderate—in between liberals and conservatives. He has justified his ungodly and unscriptural positions to himself (and, unfortunately, to many others). Those to the right of him theologically (which would include most brethren) he refers to as LEGALISTS, which is the popular designation that liberals enjoy using of their opponents. Notice what he lumps together. He wrote: “Lord, I was so law abiding that I even wrote in some laws you forgot to legislate.” The first one noted is forbidding the use of instruments in worship.
He really ought to be careful about this, since he could not even handle a 14-year-old new convert on the subject (see the debate reviews). Hicks is all right with instrumental music and conducts workshops on divorce and remarriage for Christian Churches. (Might we expect that as the next innovation at West Orange?) Perhaps he would like to debate the issue of instrumental music, since he has openly declared that those who oppose it are LEGALISTS.
Not unexpectedly, he also threw into this category those who forbid divorced people to remarry. Those who have a Scriptural divorce may remarry. He refers to those as “legalists” who forbid marriage to those who are not authorized to marry again. He includes in this category those who oppose kitchens in church buildings, having a minister, and having Bible classes, which shows just how confused his mind is. The first two of those are not inherently wrong choices. People have the liberty not to have a kitchen or not to hire someone full time to work with them. Their problem has generally been that they condemn those who do.
A refusal to have classes is not necessarily legalism so much as it is poor judgment and discernment of the Scriptures. The women in Corinth were meeting for special times together to exercise their spiritual gifts, and the early Christians in Jerusalem were continuing in the apostles’ doctrine—not all of which was learned in the assembly (Acts 2:32, 46). In Ephesus Paul taught the word of God daily in the School of Tyrannus for more than two years (Acts 19:8-10). He later reminded the elders of Ephesus that he taught them publicly and from house to house (Acts 20:20). How anyone can think classes are not authorized is a mystery.
Classes therefore have Biblical authority for their existence; a kitchen is just as authorized as an expedient as a church building is; preachers being in one location is authorized (Paul was in Corinth more than one year and in Ephesus more than two years). However, the Bible teaches that some are not authorized to marry. Unless a man puts away a spouse for fornication, he commits adultery when he marries another (Matt. 19:9). Hicks knows that the New Testament does not authorize using instruments of music in worship. Thus, he takes three actions that are authorized and two that are not, lumps them together, and says anyone who opposes any one of them is a legalist. His thinking is confusing and irrational. Oh, yes. He then deigns to speak for God, saying that the verdict from His throne is: “In vain they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”
So, who would be classified to the left of Olan Hicks? Surprisingly, he presents liberals as those who teach that many plans of salvation will do. He takes issue with those who teach that those who pray, “Lord, Lord, come into my heart” will be saved the same as those who are baptized. He is right—that such an approach is wrong, but is this a consistent position with him? Many of the Christian Churches practice “open membership,” which means that they will accept as members those from other religious groups without requiring that they be baptized. It is more than strange that he will deny any false plan of salvation but speak at churches that undoubtedly have as members those who have been sprinkled instead of being immersed. Hicks counts these as lawless, which is true (but he does not see himself as lawless).
So, like Goldilocks who rejected the hot and the cold porridge, he now tells us what is just right. Why, the very doctrines that he believes and practices are the ones that are pleasing to God. What a surprise! Of course, it is not unexpected that each one of us wants to be pleasing to God, but we need more evidence of it than what Hicks has presented. Why does he think that God is pleased with him? His answer is that he was baptized for the remission of his sins (Shelly and others will not add this reason for baptism as being essential; will Hicks fellowship them?). He also claims not to have added or subtracted laws from God’s Word. The problem is that he did not respect God’s laws. He has made a career of twisting the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16) on marriage and divorce.
He also, in order to accept instrumental music, has rejected the authority principle as taught in Colossians 3:17. Hicks is well aware that God never commands Christians to use instruments in worship. He knows that no record exists of Jesus or the apostles employing it. Not even one congregation of the Lord’s church is found to use such an addition. No implication whatsoever hints that instruments of music can be used with God’s approval (John 4:23-24). Therefore, by what authority of Jesus Christ does Hicks conclude they are all right? He claims that those who do not use them are legalists—forbidding what God has not forbidden, but he looks at it from the wrong angle. Where does God show His approval of the practice? Liberals do what is not authorized, and he stands guilty right along with the rest of them.
Solutions
The only way to avoid the self-justification trap is to constantly keep reading the Word and evaluating our beliefs. Do my doctrinal positions harmonize with the tenor of the entire Bible? Or do I find myself inventing clever explanations (or using those of another) for one passage that does not jell with other passages? Is it my fervent desire to grasp what the Bible teaches instead of trying to make it fit with the beliefs I already hold? How do my views fit with the majority of sound brethren? On what basis have I drawn the conclusions I hold? Is it to please someone else, myself, or the Lord? Do I understand the views that those who disagree with me hold? Have I refused to answer questions that I have been asked about my beliefs because I don’t have an answer? Have I been willing to discuss the area of disagreement, or am I too emotionally tied to it to do so? Our commitment must be to the truth.
Timothy was told to take heed to his doctrine. Only by being careful to present the truth could he save himself and those who heard him (1 Tim. 4:16). What are the implications of this verse? First, one must present the truth in order to save himself. In other words, if any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God ((1 Peter 4:11). Second, if those who listen do not hear the truth, the Word of God, they will not be saved, either. In our Bible studies and in our worship, we must present the truth as speakers, and as listeners we must insist that the truth be presented, also.
The scribes and the Pharisees had constructed a way (they thought) to avoid keeping the fifth commandment of Moses. They had convinced themselves that the commandment could be circumvented, and they were teaching others how to do so. Jesus told them that because they had substituted man-made teachings for the doctrines of God, their worship was vain (Matt. 15:1-9). Likewise, circumventing Jesus’ plain teaching on marriage and divorce makes worship vain. Adding instruments to singing also makes worship worthless. The one thing that we should be able to see from what Hicks wrote is that it is not the way we view ourselves that matters. The important thing to see is that God’s Word provides the standard by which all of us can determine our faithfulness.
“OMG”
The above title was the number one song in America at the time this column was penned. This expression is commonly written with these three letters in e-mails and in texting. They stand for, “Oh, My God” or for the more euphemistic expression (as in the song), “Oh, my gosh.” Nearly any dictionary will explain that gosh is a softer form or variant of the name God.
The oral usage of God’s name is popular in television shows and movie scripts. The character Higgins on Magnum, PI used the expression so often that it became too painful to watch. The expression was also a staple of “Valley” lingo, which still persists in some vernaculars today. Disney comic books have included the expression, Omigosh, for more than half a century. Society starts children off at a young age learning to be irreverent toward God.
Usher’s number one hit possesses other faults. The basic theme is: “I love her because she’s sexy,” and he specifies portions of her anatomy. Objectifying women is nothing new, but even if something is commonly done, it is no less wrong, as the men of Sodom would attest. Also common is the OMG expression. Its over-abundant utterance does not lessen its offensiveness.
God’s Attitude Toward His Name
When God gave the Ten Commandments to the nation of Israel, He thought enough of His name to include as the third commandment: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain” (Ex. 20:7). The Holy Spirit inspired a psalmist to record that His name is holy and reverend (Ps. 111:9). Jesus, in showing the disciples how to pray, included the words, hallowed be Your name (Matt. 6:9).
Using the OMG expression displays no respect for our Creator whatsoever; it is a frivolous and thoughtless mention of His name. It is nowhere near the equivalent of Thomas’ acknowledgement of Jesus as: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). To use the name of God to refer to Him in honor is acceptable. To make His name a common epithet not only lacks respect; it makes one guilty and worthy of punishment.
Younger ears pick up and repeat these disrespectful words—except for the six-year-old girl described at the 35th Bellview lectures this past week. When she hears God‘s name abused, she chastises the adults who casually and thoughtlessly speak His name. Lead on, little one.
The current popular song may not make things worse, but it will not help, either. If God’s people remain silent about this technique of Satan to diminish respect toward God, we have failed to correct an irreverent attitude. After making certain that our own speech patterns are appropriate, we should encourage others in theirs.
Despite the invitation to engage in honest Bible study, where we look at what the passage actually says instead of what we might want it to say, Kerry Hadley has clearly adopted the latter, invalid approach. Now, as we come to the key text in 1 Timothy 2, the reader can already anticipate that he is going to do what Peter calls “wrest” (“twist”) the Scriptures to his own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).
First, however, Hadley presents nearly five pages of background material that, though no sources are cited, are valid—except for a statement he makes twice, concerning women and prayer. He seems to think that 1 Timothy 2:8-10 is a passage that speaks about men and women leading in prayer, although he does not state it outright. What he does say is that the women should “also carry out the command (to pray…in like manner, similarly)” (38).
This passage does not authorize women to direct males in prayer. Paul writes: “Therefore, I desire that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting” (1 Tim. 2:8). In other words, everywhere that a prayer is to be led, it is the male’s responsibility to do so (unless it is a gathering of women). The word from which man is translated is male only—not anthropos, the word often translated ”man” or “mankind,” which includes both male and female.
The next two verses do not speak of women leading in prayer at all; they talk about her manner of dress. Hadley seems to assume that “in like manner” refers to the way women lead prayers, but the most one could conclude is that Paul refers to their holy and humble attitude while they are praying (that is, following the words of the one leading the prayer). In other words, in like manner refers to the way an action is carried out; it cannot imply that they are doing the same action (that is, leading the prayers). (Some are not following the part about dressing modestly, either.)
1 Timothy 2:11-14
Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
This passage certainly seems straightforward and is not one that would require much explanation—unless, of course, the reader does not like what it says. Egalitarians do not like it, so they invent a number of interesting ways of trying to “explain away” the obvious meaning of the text. Hadley sets forth their view, which consists of a series of facts that do not justify the conclusion.
The first of these facts is that Paul warned brethren against false teachers (1:3, 10). Second, these false teachers targeted women (39). Well, it did not take long to run into a problem with this theory, did it? Paul makes no mention of women being targeted in this letter. The passage cited is from 2 Timothy, which most scholars date two years later. Nothing in the first letter to Timothy indicates that women were being targeted. This egalitarian theory is already built upon assumptions that cannot be proven and is, therefore, already faulty—as is the conclusion:
Thus, Paul is not prohibiting all women from teaching, only women who were influenced by this false teaching. (The principle then is that “those most susceptible to false teaching should not teach”) (39).
And this has what to do with Adam being formed first, before Eve? If the text means what Hadley says (which no one upon reading it would conclude), then why does the text not say those words?
And where did this gem of an explanation originate? The source cited is Two Views, which contains several essays by Craig S. Keener, who has a Ph.D. from Duke University and is a professor of New Testament at Palmer Seminary (Wynnewood, Pennsylvania). One would have to have a Ph.D. to misunderstand the text to this extent.
Not a Universal Text?
The next argument is that “there are other situation-specific commands in this text which are not generally recognized as universally binding” (39). The only one from this text that is actually cited is verse 9. Really? Then it is all right for women to adorn themselves in immodest apparel? Do egalitarians really want to go there? No rationale is given to explain why this command was situational and has no relevance for today.
Another example cited pertains to the support of widows in chapter 5:9-13, which would hardly qualify as being in this text, but why would it not be universally binding? Slaves obeying their masters is another supposed relevant text (6:1-2), but if that same situation occurs today, it would still be binding, and some of the principles rightly apply to employer-employee relationships. Other examples nowhere near these verses are also cited, but they do not establish the egalitarian case, either.
Worse yet is the attitude that the Scriptures are irrelevant to mankind today. The very next item that Paul deals with in this epistle is the qualifications of elders and deacons. Will someone argue that Paul based these qualifications on the culture of the day and that they are situation-specific, also? To make such a claim might be done to justify manmade councils and national conventions where delegates vainly attempt to legislate for God. “Back in the first century, they didn’t see a need for broader church government, as we do today.” One can, with techniques like these, do away with any passage that does not coincide with the way modern man wants to do things.
The next statement is a summary of the egalitarian position by Rebecca Groothuis (Hadley erroneously lists her last name as Groothius). Apparently, avoiding sound brethren and reliable commentaries were insufficient in accumulating this data. Now we have quoted someone with an obvious bias in this matter. She argues that “…1 Timothy 2:11-15 can legitimately be understood as a prohibition relevant in a historically specific circumstance…” (30). Such is precisely the problem. Nothing in the way of compelling evidence has been provided that would cause anyone—who did not have this conclusion in mind from the outset—to arrive at this destination No one simply reading the passage would ever glean such a faulty premise. The weakness of this position is also seen in its conclusion:
In other words, it ought to be at least acknowledged, that the traditionalist interpretation is debatable on biblical grounds. This being the case, we should give the benefit of the doubt to any woman who is called to and qualified for pastoral leadership (39).
Sorry. No such acknowledgement is coming due to the utter lack of evidence for the egalitarian position. These opponents of God’s Word are like defense attorneys who have no case but are trying to throw up enough data in the hopes that some of it will stick, but it only confuses people. All they have is the misapplication of Galatians 3:27 and several assumptions, none of which are well-founded. “Oh, but if a woman feels called to pastoral leadership….” Thanks for the modern-day example of women being deceived.
The final egalitarian note actually claims that Paul is presenting “an analogy between Eve and the easily deceived women of Ephesus (like most of the women of his day)” (40). Wow! Eve does not represent all women—just those easily deceived. What does Adam represent—just those men who refuse to exercise leadership and stop their wives from sinning? These comments are nothing more than trying to put into the text what some want it to say (eisegesis), which is something a good Bible student is not supposed to do. The proper approach is to draw out the text’s meaning.
In stating the complementarian view, Hadley also errs when he says that most of us “believe that Paul’s prohibition refers to the office of elder/pastor” (40). No, Paul began with prayer (v. 8) and then moved to teaching and exercising authority. It is obvious to most people that Paul is arguing for male leadership in spiritual matters, period.
After listing these two main views, Hadley draws four conclusions. The first one states that both “views are based in careful exegesis of scripture [sic]” (41). This is totally false; the egalitarian view has no substance whatsoever. It is obvious that Hadley cannot tell the difference between exegesis and eisegesis, which calls into question this entire study.
His second conclusion claims that both “sides agree that the text does not prohibit women from all teaching in all situations” (41). Women may teach other women and children. The prohibition does preclude women from teaching men in all worship situations. Third, he claims that not “all forms of ‘teaching’ are viewed as authoritative.” He would need to define this assertion more fully before a response could be given.
His final conclusion is: “Even in the Complementarian viewpoint, the idea that participation in worship equals exercising authority does not have scriptural [sic] support” (41). What does he mean? When women (and the other men who are not leading the songs) sing, they are all participating. Likewise, when one man leads in prayer, all are participating. Participation obviously does not mean leadership. Is it possible that Hadley meant to say, “Women participate by leading prayers and songs, yet complementarians do not object”? Such a conclusion would be totally false!
Submission
The section on “submission” follows the same dangerous trend as everything in this study that precedes it. Several pages of good observations and insights will be garnished with error—probably with a view toward lulling the reader into thinking all of the information is correct. Hadley falls prey to the old liberal argument regarding Ephesians 5:22. He claims that the “KEY PASSAGE to understanding what follows in 5:22-6:9 is Ephesians 5:21” (42). Echoing the voice of liberals past, he adds that there “is no verb in verse 22, so it must be supplied from verse 21” (42). The argument, then, is that Ephesians 5:22 simply illustrates ways of husbands and wives submitting to each other.
Anyone who knows either Greek or English would know that this claim is not so. In the first place, verse 21 does not have a main verb; it contains only a present participle, which ruins the whole theory. In fact, in verses 19-21 the reader will notice several present participles, all modifying the main verb, filled, from verse 18: “be filled with the spirit.” The participles all end in –ing, and the reader can easily find them for himself: speaking, singing, making melody, giving thanks, submitting. The idea that submitting would be the main verb for the next paragraph is laughable.
The second problem with Hadley’s thesis is that Ephesians 5:22 does have a main verb, the imperative form translated “submit.” Although a manuscript or two has a variation, all of them have a main verb. Verse 25 contains another imperative, translated “love.” The KEY PASSAGE has proven to be a bust and demonstrates that one must be careful when copying the material of others: always look at the text before drawing someone else’s conclusions and employing erroneous arguments.
The definition of the husband being head of the wife excludes any reference to authority. Hadley argues that being the head involves being a servant, being patient, leading by example, loving the wife as his own body, nurturing and caring for her, and being sacrificial (45). Okay, but what about any authority? Hadley already said: “The husband’s headship in the marriage relationship should reflect Christ’s headship of his [sic] church.” Well, then, why is Matthew 28:18 omitted? “All authority has been given Me in heaven and on earth.” Does the husband’s headship give him any authority or decision-making power at all? If so, it is overlooked in this study. Hadley likes to think of “mutual submission” (46), but the passage does not so teach; it teaches submission for the wife and love for the husband.
Conclusions
The author of this study advises that other references have been left out of this written study (47), but we will assume that it was of the same low caliber as this material—or worse. One usually publishes the best of what he has so that others will be able to use it.
In the concluding pages of the study, Hadley reiterates all the false conclusions previously and erroneously drawn, such as that in Christ the equality of man and woman that was lost as a result of sin was restored (48). As the apostle Paul pointed out, man was designed for leadership from the beginning; God made him first (1 Tim. 2:13). Woman did not lose leadership privileges entirely because of sin; the sin did demonstrate why God had selected the male in the first place. In Christ, man still has the leadership role. Besides, if Hadley believed his own argument, he would not deny women serving as elders (50). The fact is that Jesus submits to the will of the Father; so does the Holy Spirit. Yet they are not inferior, and they certainly did not lose “equality” due to sin. Equality exists even when roles are different.
In the summary of women in the Old and New Testaments, additional errors are made. Hadley asserts that Huldah’s “prophecies and wisdom guided Josiah’s reforms” (49). No such thing happened. They were in the process of reforming the nation when they found the book of the law. Josiah sent men to Huldah to verify that the words of destruction were, in fact, going to come to pass. Her answer was that they would—but not upon Josiah since he had possessed a tender heart and humbled himself before God (2 Kings 22:1-20). Hadley also asserts that both men and women were baptized in the Holy Spirit (49). Such did not occur on the Day of Pentecost; where is the proof for this assertion?
Also not proven is the allegation that women prayed and prophesied in the assembly, that women (note the plural) were identified as deacon (when Phoebe was actually called “a servant of the church,” there being no indication that she held a “church office”), and that women were called apostles. What kind of a foundation does he have for his conclusions? Again, it is not quite sturdy enough to qualify as sand.
Yet Hadley protests that he has studied “this issue from all possible angles” (50). No, if he read any conservative scholars, he shows little evidence of it—not even to take issue with their positions. If he had read material from conservatives, he would not have made the errors that riddle his study. He claims he had no prior agenda (50), but the absence of comments by those who uphold the truth are telling. He claims that his past conclusions were the result of “proof texting,” yet all the liberal ideas he set forth were precisely that. He says he cannot teach what the Word of God does not, but he stands guilty of doing just that with this material.
Notice what he opines what women can do. They can engage in: “Serving the emblems of the Lord’s Supper, performing baptisms, making announcements in the assembly, sharing testimonies or accounts of God’s work in one’s life, leading singing, reading scripture, or praying in the assembly” (50-51). [Does he realize those are all participles as in Ephesians 5:19-21)?] Furthermore, he says: “None of these activities violates any passage of scripture anywhere in the Bible” (51). On the contrary, Hadley has no authority for women to lead in any of these activities.
By the way, do they have testimonials at West Orange in Winter Garden? In the understatement of 2009 (when this material was published), Hadley allows that some brethren may disagree with him (we certainly pray they do). He calls, therefore, for mutual deference. What? Between truth and error? He can pray for unity of believers all he wants, but he has departed from the Word of God, and those who uphold it do not take his efforts to justify false doctrine lightly. Our prayer is that he will repent and that the eyes of the rest of the members there might be enlightened.
Last week we began a review of material put together by Kerry Hadley of the West Orange Church of Christ. This 51 pages of material is particularly dangerous since it is misleading. It misrepresents itself in three significant ways:
1. It makes a pretense at being scholarly, but it is not. Just citing sources for a few points does not mean that sources are provided for some of the most crucial (or even outlandish) ideas. Also, the quality of the sources cited in this work is substandard. Almost all of them are from denominational scholars. What, therefore, appears to have an air of scholarship is actually a rather haphazard, slipshod way of approaching the subject.
2. The second false impression is that the author is attempting to give a fair analysis when nothing could be further from the truth. He begins the study by including several legitimate principles with regard to studying the Bible, but then he violates these principles consistently. Hadley may have convinced himself that he is treating the topic fairly, but if so, he is alone in this assessment.
Examples of these two points are seen in the comments that are made at the end of the discussion concerning Phoebe. He did his best to convince the reader that she was a deaconess, but many of the translations he cited gave their opinion on the matter rather than translating the word as “servant,” as it should be, since absolutely nothing in the text suggests that she held an “office” comparable to that of a deacon.
Now this discussion concerns Romans 16:1, but Hadley includes a reference to a passage that should have been discussed later: “1 Timothy 3:13 may very likely indicate an order of female deacons/servants in the early church” (20). This is the style of writing that evolutionists use: “It may very likely indicate….”
When the reader sees those words, the first reaction ought to be, “It may not be the case, either.” All this type of “explanation” gives is what the possibilities might be. No one can build a case on possibilities. A conclusion must be built on evidence. To the above statement, Hadley attaches footnote 14, which says: “The Greek word, gune [sic] can mean either wives or women” (20). While true, it only endorses the possibility; it still does not prove the case. In 1 Timothy 3:13, however, the Greek word gune refers to the wives of the elders and the deacons.
After offering no substantial proof for his case, Hadley thinks that complementarians (those who believe that the Bible teaches that men should lead) should have no problem with women being deacons, since “the office of a deacon does not carry ’authority’ or ‘oversight’” (20). Deacons do have authority, however, from the elders to accomplish whatever job they may have been given. Hadley should not speak for complementarians; he should let them speak for themselves; they do not agree with his assessment.
Andronicus and Junias
Continuing his evaluation of Romans 16, Hadley arrives at verse 7 and immediately loses all semblance of rationality, writing: “In verse 7 he greets Andronicus and Junia (note ‘miscorrection’ in NIV), his relatives…. Paul says that his relatives were apostles” (21). It is amazing that so few words could be so full of error.
1. The Greek word translated as “kinsmen” is used four times by Paul in the Roman letter (9:3; 16:7, 11, 21). There is no reason to think that in any of these instances these were anybody but Paul’s fellow Jews. If they were actually close relatives (brothers, uncles, or cousins), one would expect some kind of further acknowledgement, which is absent. To refer to them as relatives is an unwarranted assumption.
2. Hadley stated unequivocally that the NIV was wrong for using “Junias,” but he does not state the reason for that assessment. Berry’s Interlinear uses “Junias” and does not list any textual variations. Even so, two opinions do exist over whether it should be Junias (a male) or Junia (a female). What difference does it make? For most of us, it does not really matter, but for those trying to find authority for women to lead in the church, it is important because of the next point. They cannot look at the passage dispassionately; they have a vested interest in the result—kind of like having a text out of context for a pretext.
3. The reason Junia must be a woman is that being a male would ruin the next faulty claim, which is that the two are apostles. This assertion is made apart from any foundation or evidence whatsoever. According to Hadley and various of his cohorts, Junia was an apostle! Think about the absurdity of this heretical claim. Jesus knew many devout women whom He could have selected to be an apostle, yet He never saw fit to choose even one for that purpose. He waited until years later, after His resurrection to select not one but three more apostles—Andonicus, Junia, and Paul.
Such thoughts are totally an effort to put something into the text (eisegesis). Although technically Andronicus and Junias could be apostles (the construction allows for it), most scholars think that these two were noteworthy and had come to the apostles’ attention. The reason is simple: After Matthias was selected to replace Judas, the Scriptures do not mention any other apostles being chosen besides Paul, as one born out of due time (1 Cor. 15:8f). Should Paul not have said that he was at least the third one born out of due time?
Most people would understand this passage to mean that these two had caught the attention of the apostles for their excellent work—not that they were outstanding apostles. Yet these imaginative explanations form the basis for the role of women as some brethren would like it to be. Phoebe may have been a deaconess; Junias may be Junia, and she may be an apostle. Is that the kind of authority that inspires confidence?
From what the reader knows of the Scriptures, he should ask himself how much he agrees with the following sentence in the conclusion: “Both men and women were servants, missionaries, prophets, apostles and proclaimers” (21-22)? Only two out of five are correct—servants and prophets. The women who prophesied had a limited sphere of influence, however. No evidence exists to indicate that they prophesied in the presence of men. Although women could be proclaimers to other women, nothing is said about them doing so publicly to men after the establishment of the church. We do read of women who accompanied Jesus (Luke 8:1). Are they called missionaries? No. The idea that women were apostles is ludicrous.
1 Corinthians 11:2-16
Yet it is against this background that we are to study the rest of the material. Hadley acknowledges that many interpretations of 1 Corinthians have been done but that he will “provide a reasonable, basic exegesis…” (23). Hmm. To comment briefly, this sentence is misleading: “The head covering is the woman’s ‘authority’(exousia [sic]) to pray and prophesy in a public gathering while demonstrating the proper respect for her husband/head” (27). The problem is that Paul does not say that these instructions apply to a public gathering. These could just as easily be private gatherings of women, which would account for the fact that some chose not to wear the veil. They may have thought that, without men present, they did not need the veils. Evidence for this view lies in the fact that, after finishing this discussion in verse 16, Paul makes it clear that he is now going to deal with what had been occurring in the assembly (1 Cor. 11:17, 18, 20).
The problem with this study is that assumptions appear to equal proof. The conclusion of this section states that in Corinth “both men and women were permitted to exercise their spiritual gifts in their assemblies” (28). Someone needs to point out the obvious to Mr. Hadley—no one is entitled to assume the very thing that needs to be proved! The purpose of the study is to discover what the roles of men and women in the church were, yet it seems clear that he has already reached the decision before presenting any evidence. No one can legitimately draw the conclusion that he does without proving that 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is referring to a mixed assembly. Nothing indicates that women are doing anything in the assembly whatsoever whereas Paul makes it clear that he does refer to the assembly when speaking of the Lord’s Supper, beginning in 1 Corinthians 11:17, and in the entire discussion that takes place in 1 Corinthians 14 (see verses 16, 19, 23, 26, 34). Where are such clear-cut evidences of the assembly in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16?
1 Corinthians 14:26-40
This section of the study is interesting, if not confusing. The author considers the Greek text and provides information about the Greek language in an effort to make a convincing argument that turns out to be invalid. The upshot of it is that women can lead in prayer and in teaching in the assembly. Now since the text clearly teaches otherwise (except for those with a pretext), one wonders how anyone could arrive at this conclusion (Isa. 5:20). Below is Hadley’s rationale.
As he comes to 1 Corinthians 14:34, “Let your wom-en keep silent in the church,” his first comment is: “A few manuscripts place 34-35 behind verse 40 (Latin, Western). None delete it” (30). How conversant is the author with the study of New Testament texts? He does not tell us where he came across this bit of information. The majority of commentaries make no mention of this obscure fact, including the highly regarded Pulpit Commentary.
This observation is tied to the next two, in which Hadley affirms that there seems “to be an interruption in the flow between verses 33 and 37” and “some believe that it was added into the text by a copyist” (30). The only source cited for these three points is Gordon Fee and his commentary on 1 Corinthians. Notice that Hadley did not go to brethren who have studied and researched the books of the Bible but to someone who has a vested interest in the outcome of the meaning of these verses. According to the Wikipedia, “Fee is an ordained minister with the Assemblies of God (AG) and unabashedly identifies himself as Pentecostal.” He is also the son of an Assemblies of God minister. Pentecostals have long defied what the Bible teaches with respect to the role of women. Did it never occur to Hadley that Fee’s upbringing and current affiliations might color his “commentary”? It should have.
The idea that verses 34-36 do not belong where they are because some obscure texts place it elsewhere is ridiculous. No reputable scholar builds a case on what a few isolated texts have when the vast majority are in agreement. The idea that those verses interrupt the flow of the text is speculative. Besides, the same thing could be done in the next chapter; omit verses 20-28 (where Paul introduces another thought before returning to his main line of reasoning), and the same conclusion could be drawn. How many legitimate scholars think the verses were inserted—one or two out of thousands? Yet this is what the case for women exercising authority that God has not given them rests upon (fringe theories).
Other Fruit Loopian ideas are also suggested before Hadley sets forth his thesis, which is that Paul is addressing three categories of people who need to be silent in the church. According to the author, Paul merely wanted to shush three categories of individuals: tongue speakers without interpreters, prophets interrupted by another with a new revelation, and wives of the prophets (vs. 28-34). The reason for the first two of these is to eliminate confusion. No one could understand a tongue-speaker’s message unless someone interpreted the message. The solution, then, was that the one with that gift could only use it in the assembly if someone could interpret what he said. Likewise, so that several people were not trying to prophesy at the same time, the first speaker should keep silent and let the second one proceed.
But what about verses 34-35? It is clear that the main point was for women to keep silent with respect to speaking in the assembly. They could neither teach nor even ask a question. Notice in the two verses below that the reason for the complaint is not that they disrupted things but that they were speaking, period.
Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says.
And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for women to speak in church.
That certain women disrupted worship with their questions is undoubtedly true, but it is evident that Paul is concerned with more than the interruptions. Women were not only to be submissive; they were to be silent. It would take help to miss the point that, regardless of what prompted Paul to say it, the women were to be silent, and it was shameful for them to speak in the assembly. The fact that he did not bring up this point previously (11:2-16) adds credence to the fact that in that text the assembly was not under discussion.
Hadley, however, tries to minimize these verses by saying they only deal with disruption. The text says otherwise. The issue is not one of simply interrupting the assembly but speaking in it.
Hadley’s conclusion in 1 Corinthians 14:26-40:
The first conclusion that Hadley offers is: “Paul is not commanding total silence upon all women at all times” (32). The fact is, however, that in the assembly, women were not to speak or even ask questions. Obviously, Paul did not forbid them to sing—something men and women do at the same time.
The second conclusion is totally false:
The assemblies of the New Testament church were gatherings in which people of both sexes were involved in mutual sharing of their gifts for the building up of the church. Men and women were both permitted to participate as long as they did so in an orderly manner (14:39) [sic] (32).
The author probably meant verse 40, but he is wrong in his main point because he never proved it or presented adequate evidence. He is combining 1 Corinthians 11 with 14 in some sort of mystical way in which he gets the outcome he desires (pretext). The text under discussion does not even hint that a woman was exercising any gift in the assembly. Hadley is not rightly dividing the Word of God. His final point also lacks any evidence or merit whatsoever.
This included praying, sharing prophecies, sharing “hymns (Psalms), interpreting, and instructing.” (14:26) (32).
The cited verse 26 asks how it is that, when they came together, “each one of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation”? Is this supposed to imply that women were leading the worship? If the women were permitted to exercise their gifts in the assembly, then why would Paul make such a point about them being quiet with regard to even a question? Could none of the women prophesy and their husbands interrupt them? No, the men were leading the worship, but some of the women wanted to speak up anyway—in the guise of asking questions. Paul forbade them to do so. Nothing indicates that women were leading the worship in the assembly, and verses 34-35 imply that they were not. One cannot sneak in authorization through this surreptitious means.
The document under examination consists of more than 50 pages, and it is quite deadly in that it combines truth with error under the guise of being scholarly. It is quasi-scholarly in that some sources are cited for particular points, but others are just assumed without any evidence. Furthermore, no reputable brethren are quoted—genuine scholars, such as J. W. McGarvey—only liberals such as James W. Thompson and Carroll Osburn of Abilene Christian University. The rest of the works mentioned are from denominational writers.
“Responsible Biblical Interpretation”
Does this heading imply that all previous works on this topic were irresponsible? Hmm. Most of the principles that follow are ones that brethren have been using for at least two centuries, and they include such usual advice as considering the culture of the day, consider the writer, consider the audience, etc. One inclusion is curious, and another is puzzling. When describing the types of literature in the Bible, the phrase dram proverb is used (1). One wonders if one must be a Ph. D. to speak like this. Probably the word dram is being used in the sense of “a small amount,” but why use the word at all—unless to make oneself look impressive? Do not brethren know what proverbs are?
A more serious flaw glares at the reader. It is affirmed that the Bible: “is NOT a series of propositions and commands” (1). Such verbiage was undoubtedly cooked up in liberal kitchens. Since any Bible reader knows that commands are commonplace, one wonders what the author desires to communicate here. Jesus used both logic and propositions quite effectively. Has the composer of this material read Paul’s logical defense of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 lately? The author of this material should have explained more precisely what he meant and upon what basis his case rests, but he just asserts this point, thus prompting the reader to be on guard while studying his material.
Two Major Views
Two major views do exist—Christ’s and Satan’s; truth and error; right and wrong. The flaw in this work is that it gives credence to error as though it were as legitimate as truth—something that is totally unacceptable. In this document the author refers to the egalitarian view (which contradicts the Scriptures) and the hierarchal or complementarian view (the Scriptural one).
The complementarian holds to the truth that God has designed the male to lead in the home and in the church, although women are “full participants in church and civic life, with the exceptions of church administration and preaching” (5).
By egalitarian is meant that there is an equal “partnership in marriage” and equal ministry opportunities for women as well as men (5). This view obviously rejects the teaching of the Scriptures and is misnamed. Some might get the impression that if God assigns different roles to men and women, then they are not equal. But the assigned roles have nothing to do with equality. Therefore, this designation is not a fair one, and it implies that any other view does not regard women as equal, which is false.
After a study of the events of Genesis 1-3, the author, who is Kerry Hadley, lists points made from the egalitarian and complementarian perspectives. The third egalitarian point is erroneous:
There is no hint of hierarchy in the creation of men and women until the fall. Therefore the subjection of women to men is a consequence of the fall (Genesis 3:16), which is removed by the gospel (9).
Genesis 2 states that man was created first; Paul confirms that this order is significant in 1 Timothy 2. So it is not the case that hierarchy is not hinted at. It is also a wrong assumption that the subjection was removed by the gospel. Has the sorrow and pain that attends childbirth been done away with since Jesus died on the cross? Did the ground stop being cursed for Adam since Jesus arose from the dead? Have men ceased returning to the dust? Christ’s death did not change any of the penalties that God pronounced upon the man and the woman. No one can rightly proceed merely upon an assertion, which is all this view is.
The other affirmations also lack merit. The fourth one says that there is no significance between the order of male and female, “since the animals and plant life were created before man” (5). Would they say the same thing if woman had been created first? 1 Timothy 2:13 makes the order significant. Animals and plants cannot compare to men and women; Paul does not list them in part of the hierarchy in 1 Corinthians 11:3.
The problem with relying on statements only found in Genesis is that not all of the information on a subject is necessarily found there; other passages relate to it. The Bible student does not discover until 2 Peter 2:5 that Noah was “a preacher of righteousness”; it is not mentioned in Genesis. Likewise, it is not revealed until Hebrews 12:25 that the blood offering of Abel was to atone for sin (as a type of the blood of Christ). The New frequently comments on the events of the Old; thus we have inspired commentary.
Galatians 3:28
This verse shows that in Christ, being a Greek or a Jew does not matter. All are one. The same is true of slaves and free men, as well as male and female. All are equal in terms of God’s acceptance. While this fact is significant, it does not change relationships. A slave was still a slave. He could not go to his master and claim that, since he had become a Christian, he was no longer bound to him. That relationship remained unchanged. Likewise, the relationship between men and women stood firm. The fact that all are individuals of worth in Christ says nothing about the roles God placed upon each.
The egalitarian views of this passage are warped. The idea of a return to equality in Christ, already examined, has no proof. Equally without merit is this statement by Hadley (of the West Orange Church of Christ, which meets in Winter Garden, Florida):
Since Paul regulated behavior relating to the institution of slavery without advocating it, the same would be true for his teachings on male/ female relationships. That would make the idea of female subjection a cultural concept, which changes as cultures change (12).
What meaneth this gobbledegook? While it is true that Paul did not advocate abolishing slavery, nevertheless, his teachings on the matter do apply to any culture that allows the practice today.
But the relationship between men and women is not that of slave and master. A society can exist with or without slavery (which is definitely preferable), but no society will last long without both men and women. Thus the two situations (slave-master, male-female) are not comparable. The husband-wife relationship is a good one, but slavery is never a desirable one—especially for the slaves. Thus, no proof at all exists that suggests that Paul ever taught that the roles of men and women were cultural.
The egalitarians decided that Galatians 3:28 is a universal principle and that everything that contradicts it must have been written for specific situations, which is simply another baseless assertion. The egalitarian house is built on a foundation of sand. Actually, sand would make a much better foundation than what they are using.
Women in the Old and New Testaments
A thorough listing of all the prominent women is provided from the Old Testament. This time, however, no egalitarian and complementarian views are listed. So, the study moves on to women in the New Testament. As it begins, however, it assesses the previous material by saying that “women held some surprising roles in a culture which was pervasively male-dominated (patriarchal)” (18). This statement, while technically true, does overlook several pertinent observations. One of those was Athaliah, who usurped the role of queen without God’s permission. A legitimate role for women must be authorized by Him. Two other women cited are Deborah and Huldah, to whom men came. It is not as though they were crying out in the streets, as Jonah or Jeremiah had. In other words, those “surprising roles” involved conditions and qualifications.
Many assertions are also made about events that had an influence upon Palestine between the testaments, but no examples or documentation is provided.
The New Testament section begins with the notation that several women were mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy (something not generally done). Calling attention to this fact is legitimate, but then Hadley wrote: “Even more surprising is that all but one were Gentiles and at some point were suspected (some justifiably) of dubious moral character” (18). For what purpose was this comment made? Shades of “Christmas at Matthew’s House.” (This article by an ACU professor called Mary, the mother of the Lord, “another sexually- questionable woman.”)
Just because someone may have been suspected of something is irrelevant; what are the facts? Tamar did something that we would call morally wrong, but Judah said that she was more righteous than he was (Gen. 38). He had not given her the son he had promised to her, which means she had no child. While her actions cannot be condoned, she was not someone who continually lived immorally. Thus, to characterize her as a woman of dubious moral character is unfair.
Rahab was admittedly a Gentile and a harlot—but only up until the time of the conquest. Afterward, she changed her ways. Do we refer to someone as being of dubious moral character after she has repented?
Ruth, so far as the text reveals, was never suspected of being immoral; certainly she never was, although she was a Gentile. Mary may have been suspected of being immoral, since she had a child before she and Joseph had completed the terms of their engagement. But the key fact here is that she was not guilty of any wrongdoing. Bathsheba was guilty of a one-time indiscretion but later became David’s wife.
Why would anyone want to besmirch the characters of Ruth and Mary and make the other women sound worse than they really were? For someone trying to expand the role of women in the church today, Hadley certainly seems to have a low view of them.
After mentioning the prominence of Elizabeth and Mary, along with Mary’s song, in Luke, the writer next points to Anna as a prophetess, concluding that “the role of prophetess continued from the Old Testament accounts through the intertestamental period” (18). It proves no such thing—any more than the words of Simeon, spoken by inspiration just previous to hers, proves that prophecy was common during that era. We do not know if there were prophets during that 400 years; all we know is that we find them in the New Testament. With all the warnings about being careful with Bible interpretation at the outset of this study, it is interesting to see so many assumptions being made.
The study goes on to note that women were among Jesus’ disciples and that He spoke and interacted with them. Does the author think that women were to be invisible? Supposedly, His actions were to have defied all of the social conventions of His day, and some of them did, but no one ever accused Him with respect to women being amongst His disciples. They accused Him of nearly everything else, but social contact with women was not one of them.
One point under this section is both puzzling and bizarre. It reads thus:
Women were “apostles” to the “apostles.” (Matthew 24:9-12) (19).
In verse 11 of that passage, Jesus did say, “Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many.” But He made no comments about women or prophetesses in this passage. Yet the heading of this section of the “study” proclaims: “Some of the ways in which women figured prominently in the Gospels.”
Probably, it is the wrong reference. Luke 24:9-12 fits much better. It records the women telling the apostles what they had seen at the tomb. The writer may be making a play on words, since an apostle was “one sent.” They were apostles to the apostles. The problem is that no one “sent” them; they went on their own.
Acts
The information about Acts begins with an error. Following the lead of denominationalists and Pentecostals, both of whom are quoted throughout the study, Hadley blunders by asserting: “Acts 2 begins with the disciples gathered together and the Holy Spirit coming upon them.” No, Acts 2:1 says they came together, not the disciples. The antecedent of they is Matthias and the eleven apostles (Acts 1:26). Yet the study continues: “Men and women were speaking in tongues (‘they were all together’ v.1)” (19). For all of the cautions about responsible exegesis made at the outset, these comments are inexcusable. Hadley even provided a quote that states: “A text without a context is a pretext for a proof text.” This statement is true, and the reader has now seen a first class example of it.
The fact is that all throughout the second chapter of Acts no one is said to have spoken in tongues besides the twelve. Most denominationalists and Pentecostals say it was the 120 mentioned back in Acts 1:15. The only thing they lack is proof. Were there 120 sitting in the house? Were there 120 cloven tongues like as of fire? Were all of the 120 Galileans? Then why did not Peter stand up with the 120? We read instead that Peter stood up with the eleven (Acts 2:14). The text does not provide any indication that the women were speaking in tongues on this occasion.
Phoebe
After covering some of the legitimate references to women in Acts, Hadley moves on to Romans 16:1 and Phoebe. The Greek word describing her is diakonon which, according to Bagster, is “accusative singular, masculine and feminine” (91). In other words, the noun is masculine, but since women are likewise servants, it may be used of them, also. Most reliable translations have chosen “servant” to put in the text, although some have “deaconess” as an alternative in the margin. The unreliable Revised Standard version puts “deaconess” in the text, and the even more unreliable New Revised Standard Version (the version of choice used in this study) simply uses “deacon.”
Diakonos appears in the Greek 30 times in the New Testament; the King James translators used “minister” to convey the thought 20 of those times. The remaining renderings were “servant” (7 times, including Phoebe) and “deacons” (3 times: Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8, 12). Notice that the three times “deacon” was used as a transliteration, the translators knew of a certainty that what was being discussed was a special office or work of the church, which had qualifications for the men to meet. Nothing in the context of Romans 16:1 indicates such a special work. This study emphasizes context at the outset and then ignores it with respect to its “interpretations.” In fact, the author plainly says that Phoebe is “identified as ‘a deacon (diakonon, sic) of the church of Cenchrea’” (20). No, she is not. The text does not even hint at such a notion. Being a servant of the church is not limited to gender; the work of an elder or deacon is!
The April issue of Contending for the Faith published my recent review of the February lectureship book, Profiles in Apostasy #1. I had previously printed it in Spiritual Perspectives on March 21, 2010; it is also on our Website, www.spiritualperspectives.org.
This lectureship and book have elicited something quite unusual—responses. Most of the time, liberals just ignore everything that faithful writers say. In fact, silence is common; Max Lucado has used it for years. But for some reason, putting together a collection of reviews of their various nefarious works has really gotten under the skin of a few. One of those who has taken sharp exception to the book reviews is Al Maxey, who because of his exceeding passion shall herein be referred to as Maximum Al. This is not necessarily a derogatory phrase. Although he is in error, one must admire the fact that he is moved to write about what he believes when most others will not defend their doctrines. A few comments will suffice regarding his reply.
He begins his review of the April issue of Contending for the Faith thus:
I suppose I will never cease to be amazed by the antics of the hardened legalistic patternists who profess to be devoted disciples of Jesus Christ, but who in reality are little more than rabid, rigid religionists. Their numbers are shrinking daily (thankfully), and at some point in the not too distant future they will be little more than a footnote in the history of our movement.
As the saying goes, “You have never been loved until you have been loved by a liberal.” Generally, when they are not preaching on love, they are trying to convince their audiences not to be judgmental (usually against those preaching heresy). It never occurs to them that, when they say such passionate things against those conscientiously trying to follow Jesus, they are themselves judgmental. Maximum Al, however, is not even wound up yet. Although he is capable of penning a good alliteration (rabid, rigid religionists), such epithets cannot take the place of evidence. I’m surprised he did not say, “legalistic logicians,” but he does find fault with those who believe there is a Divine pattern given to us in the New Testament. Was God a “legalistic patternist” when He instructed Moses: “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain” (Ex. 25:40; Heb. 8:5)?
He may actually be right about the shrinking numbers. However, it might be good to ask the question, “Did the number of the faithful to God shrink before the time of the Flood?” or “Did the number of the faithful shrink before the time of the captivity?” When an unscriptural organization began to permeate the churches in the fourth through sixth centuries, was there a Maximum Alphonsum who wrote about legalistic patternists who could not accept men to rule over numerous congregations? Did he express thanks that their numbers were shrinking daily and would soon be nothing more than a footnote? It happened just that way. Numbers do not prove correctness of doctrine or clarity of thinking. Most people think that salvation is by “faith only.”
Perhaps Maximum Al has a movement, but genuine Christians are simply trying to live by the teachings of the New Testament (Matt. 28:18-20; 2 Tim. 2:2; et al.), which has been the case since the first century.
Perhaps we should have added the descriptive word relentless in front of maximum, also. Al continues his verbal tongue-lashing of us for several more sentences, closing with: “and the Lord will deal with whatever is left of them when He returns” (the dwindled down number). Since I know and talk regularly with many of the men who gave reviews for the lectureship, I can say confidently that they are ready for the Lord’s return at any time. We have nothing to fear.
He claims that “these people” hate those who are grace-centered, Christ-centered, and proclaim liberty in Christ. He also calls us Diotrepheses (3 John 10), who want to impose our will on others and silence them. I must apologize for not taking some of these charges seriously, but they are so over the top as to be laughable. Diotrephes was so arrogant as to refuse to accept the apostle John. The liberals, not us, have that problem—particularly when that same apostle wrote about those who refused to abide in the doctrine of Christ in 2 John 9-11. Liberals fall all over themselves in an effort to make the passage say something—anything—than what it actually teaches.
The fact is that liberals have bombarded the brotherhood with books that are filled with error, yet we are trying to silence them? Well, we’re not doing a very good job if that is our goal. Rush Limbaugh has received this same type of criticism for decades for his exposure of politically liberal ideas. As he puts it (and this is paraphrased): “I get up in the morning and see what institutions and beliefs I hold dear are under attack, and I offer a defense.” We do the same thing. The liberals have assaulted the Biblical teaching on marriage and divorce, the doctrine of eternal punishment, the distinctive nature of the church, and we defend the truth with respect to those crucial matters.
Limbaugh does not make things up. He plays sound clips of what political liberals say; then he responds to it. The writers of Profiles in Apostasy #1 do the same thing. They quote from the liberal’s own material and show, through the Scriptures, where the error is. Furthermore, we do not want liberals to be silenced; we want them to debate so that others can hear firsthand what they teach.
In his review of the April issue of Contending for the Faith, Al decides to call it Contentious for the Faith, which is not original; most of us have heard that phrase for three decades. Al, can’t you be a little original? How about calling it Cantankerous for the Faith, or Crabby for the Faith?
The Review
Now that Maximum Al is warmed up, he devotes attention to my review of the book, which he calls a “shameless plug.” Well, what did he think “Recommended Reading” would be—a plea to ignore the book because it is so crummy? Shameless is inappropriate, however, because the review highlighted some of the best material presented therein.
Mr. Summers begins the article by declaring (and I assume he does so with a straight face), “Profiles in Apostasy #1 is one of the best reference works of this century.”
Yes, the comment was straightforward—and accurate. Nowhere, to my knowledge, have such evaluations been gathered together into one handy volume, with abundant quotes from the authors under review.
Maximum Al takes issue with what I wrote concerning his book, Down, But Not Out: “For years, various name brand liberals have been writing books to influence brethren away from the Scriptures.” Al claims that his book “sought to do just the opposite….” Well, of course he would say that. Wolves usually claim to be sheep, but the claim does not make them sheep. Max. Al writes:
The book is filled with references to both OT and NT passages pertaining to the topic of marriage and divorce (in fact, I have dealt with every passage within the Bible pertaining to this subject, something, to my knowledge, no other book on this topic has ever done).
Okay, so Maximum Al deserves credit for being the most thorough heretic on this subject. Of course, he claims that he is leading people away from the “traditional misunderstanding and misapplication” of brethren back to what the Scriptures actually teach. In truth, however, brethren were once united on what the Scriptures taught—until James D. Bales, James Woodroof, Olan Hicks, and others began leading people away. Al is simply one of several to follow in their footsteps (although he may be more thorough). Covering every passage does no good if your presuppositions are faulty to begin with. He continues:
Olan Hicks, a very dear friend, who wrote the Foreword to my book and with whom I was blessed to spend some time at the recent Tulsa Workshop, stated within his comments, “This is no slanted, narrow-scope treatment. This book puts the matter in the context of the entire Bible and of history! Each Old Testament book is summarized separately and a perspective is drawn from each by sound exegesis. The New Testament text is also treated with a thoroughness that is rare and an objectivity that is refreshing. … It is very much textual and contextual” [Down, But Not Out, p. 5].
Max. Al says much more than he may have intended here. First of all, faithful brethren do not attend the Tulsa Workshop; it has been a haven for liberals for decades. Second, for Maxey to seek Olan Hicks’ endorsement is somewhat like Boo Boo calling Yogi Bear as a defense witness when charged with stealing a picnic basket. Third, since Maximum and Olan are such good friends, does Al also believe that the use of instrumental music is all right? Olan does. [See the 7-part series concerning the debate I had with Olan Hicks (see October and November, 2005 on our Website).]
The next thing that Max. Al complains about is that I must not have read his book. That much is true. I did, however, read the book that I reviewed, and two brothers who did read Maxey’s book analyzed it. They gave good evidence for their conclusions, and I trust their judgment and their correct use of evidence. Besides, Olan Hicks would not endorse a book that did not hold a position similar to his.
Most of the rest of Big (as in Maximum) Al’s article takes issue with the writing of Daniel Denham and David Brown in the same April issue of CFTF. His article is posted at: www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx443.htm for those who want to read it in its entirety.
The Pattern
As indicated previously, Maximum Al is not much on patterns (Emily Dickenson might be disappointed; come to think of it, she might agree). He says that he does “deny that the New Testament is a divine blueprint or pattern.” Really? Then what is it? This is a curious position. Jesus told the woman at the well that true worshipers would worship the Father in spirit and in truth. How does one worship in truth without specific commands or an example that serves as a pattern?
To illustrate, we have an example of the church in Troas meeting on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). Is that a pattern that we may follow? The Corinthians were obviously meeting regularly, and Paul told them to lay aside a gift on the first day of the week. Is that a pattern or a coincidence? If it is not part of a pattern, upon what day of the week should we meet? Does the day matter? Could we just select Tuesday and proudly proclaim, “We don’t have a pattern for what we are doing, and all of you pattern-hating brethren can feel free to join us”?
Does it matter when we observe the Lord’s Supper? Can we observe the Lord’s death in that way every night of a gospel meeting? Or can we do it like many denominations do—just a few times a year? If we don’t believe in Divine patterns, then what are the answers to these questions?
What about giving? How often should that practice to be observed? Should it be on the first day of the week? On Tuesdays? When? Paul tells brethren to give generously (2 Cor. 9:6-7). Now if we only knew when to do so!
If there is no Divine pattern regarding worship, can we gather at the gymnasium and let various members of the congregation divide up into teams and play basketball for worship? The rest of us could cheer. We can open and close with prayers, sing during the quarter breaks, and have a devotional during half time. Probably more effort would be put forth on the part of some worshipers than is usually given, eh?
Is the organization for a local congregation, one of elders and deacons, something the church today must follow? Do we even need to have these functions today? Paul gave qualifications for these roles of leadership in the church. Is that organization intended as a pattern, or are we now free to disregard it? Can women lead in the church and in worship? Could we not have one man, or a council of men, rule over several congregations in an area? How about having one man rule over all the churches, if we are discarding Divine patterns?
Back to the Simple Teachings
Big Al said that his book was designed to lead people back to the simple teachings of the Scriptures. Really? Let’s take this excerpt from Maximum Al’s book, as quoted in Lester Kamp’s review. Al wrote in his book the following words:
When Jesus declares that adultery has been committed, He is stating far more than the fact of two people engaging in a physical act, he is declaring the fact of a broken covenant between the husband and wife. Although sexual infidelity may well have ultimately been the cause of some of those disunions, there is little doubt that in some of the Lord’s statements about divorce and remarriage sexual infidelity is not even remotely being alluded to when he utilizes the word adultery… (122-23, Emphasis mine, LK) (467).
What? Oh, sure. How many times have you read Jesus using the word adultery and said to yourself, “I bet He’s not talking about the physical act”? Apparently, claiming that adultery does not refer to the physical act is Maximum Al’s way of returning to the simple meaning of the Scriptures. Must we cover every passage? Okay.
In Matthew 5:27, Jesus refers to the quote from the Law, as do Matthew 19:18, Mark 10:19, and Luke 18:20: “You shall not commit adultery.” Was that covenant breaking or the literal act? Already the definition of the word adultery is clear in 4 out of 12 times Jesus used it. In Matthew 5:28, He says that a man who lusts after a woman has committed adultery with her in his heart. Right! How many worldly-minded men, when a beautiful woman passes by, begin thinking of breaking a covenant? Or are they imagining a literal action?
Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 define marital adultery (an unscriptural divorce followed by an unauthorized marriage. The newlyweds are living in an adulterous relationship. Mark 10:10-11, along with Luke 1618, deal with that same sin.
The final two times are found in John 8:3-4, when the woman was taken in the very act of committing adultery. Was she covenant breaking? Maxey’s statement that Jesus was not alluding to sexual infidelity is preposterous. Of course, He was. And no one, reading the Scriptures, would think otherwise. One needs to have help from men like Olan Hicks and Al Maxey in order to arrive at some other explanation.
We have no appreciation for Al’s doctrines, but we do appreciate him for sending an e-mail with his response to my book review in it. Although we are confident that the teaching of his book, if believed, would do great harm, we do appreciate the fact that he spoke up to defend himself, which is more than can be said of most other liberals. We have no personal ill will toward him whatsoever and pray that he and the others whose books were reviewed will come to see the truth and abide in it, as most of them once did.
