Many still consider 2008 as the year that journalism died. The media had been sick for more than two decades, but it passed on with a terminal case of extreme liberal bias. More and more, people refer to it correctly as the “lamestream” media. Except for occasional anomalies, no signs of resurrection have been discovered. The three old networks and some of their spinoffs have lost vast audiences; one might say they have been outFOXed. Newspapers continue to lose circulation; Newsweek is for sale. The problem with all these media is that they are operated by elitists, who have, by and large, lost their common sense and have no idea what most people are thinking (and furthermore don’t care). After all, anyone who would disagree with them is obviously not very bright. Academia has the same problem. Professors often spout politically correct gobbledegook, which, fortunately, students usually ignore although many will not offer a refutation. Despite all the elitist propaganda that bombards us daily, most of us live in the real world.
One of the areas of prejudice the media has is with the Muslim religion. They fall all over themselves trying to make the Muslim religion look peaceful. Last week on television, it was pointed out that there might be as many as 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 Muslims that are fanatical terrorists. One would have expected that the guest would have challenged those figures; instead, he said that wasn’t many out of a billion Muslims. How comforting! When one abortion clinic is bombed or one abortion doctor killed, the media is ready to brand every pro-life person as a terrorist. But if a Muslim commits an act of terror, we are warned not to think ill of the Muslim religion. Verily, “the legs of the lame are not equal” (Pr. 26:7, KJV). Hmm. “Lamestream” media might be appropriate from a Biblical perspective. At least one broadcaster seemed almost sympathetic to the would-be Times Square bomber; his house had been foreclosed on. Perhaps if he had not made 13 trips to Pakistan, he could have made payments.
Political correctness may actually have cost lives. Warnings were abundant with the army psychologist who killed 13 and wounded more than 30 on the army base in Fort Hood, Texas. The man had made several inflammatory statements and should have been discharged from the service or, at the very least, kept under surveillance. Why are people so tolerant instead of cautious or suspicious when human lives are at stake? If a member of a private militia made strong anti-Muslim statements, he would rightly be questioned and perhaps watched. Why does not the reverse happen?
How many have heard the following news, which was published in The Wall Street Journal on March 9, 2010? This story actually made page one: “Massacres Shake Uneasy Nigeria” (Wow! This newspaper actually capitalizes the title words, unlike the lamestream!). The opening paragraph states:
The attackers came at night and surrounded this small farming village, firing shots in the air to scare residents from their homes. Men, women and children were hacked with machetes as they rushed out. Several houses were set on fire with the residents still inside (A1).
All in all, 378 bodies were found in four such villages in Central Nigeria. A predominantly Muslim group was behind these attacks in mostly Christian villages. One of the religious leaders of the church of Christ saw his wife and daughter murdered; another woman lost her husband and three children (A14). It was alleged that this assault was in response to Christians killing 300 in a nearby village attack in January, although this charge was not documented. It might have occurred, judging from the reaction to this brutal massacre. Some vowed to do worse to the Muslims. Perhaps these retaliatory remarks were spoken out of grief and anger. Certainly, Christians should not be taking up arms in order to slaughter others.
But where in the media is coverage of either event? For 378 (presumably) innocent people to be cruelly obliterated is not acceptable. If the American public is not aware of such atrocities, the question must be asked, “Why?” Is the reason that the media does not want Muslims to look worse than they really are?
Time and again, it has been pointed out that the entire Muslim religion was begun and built upon violence. Muhammad had few followers until they began attacking and looting and fighting. The first hundred years of its history is filled with savage behavior and conquest. Is anyone being taught the truth any more about the religion’s origin and what is actually in the Qur’an? If Muslims are a peace-loving people, it is in spite of their religion, not because of it.
South Park
In almost every nation in which they gain control or a majority, Muslims quickly become intolerant of other religions. They issue fatwas and seek to put certain people to death. A recent example of their threats surfaced with respect to an episode of the cartoon show, South Park, which is at times a vulgar program that ridicules Christianity. A recent episode made fun of Muhammad. After hearing the response (threats, actually) against those who work on the program, they decided not to air the offensive material. Hmph! They are more afraid of Muslim terrorists than the Lord Jesus Christ who shall actually serve as their judge (John 5:27). They ought to fear the true and living God.
Apparently, those who produce South Park are not worried about Christians killing them. In fact, Comedy Central has a new series in the works, which they may call JC. The series will portray Jesus as a “regular guy” who moves to New York City to get out from under his father’s “enormous shadow.” His father seems disinterested in his son and would rather play video games. Say, isn’t this stuff hilarious?
Hey, “Comedy” Central, here’s a suggestion. Why not do a series called M? Yeah, you could set it in modern-day New York. Muhammad is somewhat antisocial; so he likes to spend time in the country—especially exploring caves. On one of his journeys, he runs into Joseph Smith, who also is exploring the Hill Cumorah. They both hear an angel speak to them, but they come up with two entirely different religions based on the same conversation. Won’t this be a blast?
No one should hold his breath, waiting for that series to air. Too much fear of how Muslim zealots would react will prevent that from becoming a reality. The news and entertainment media may not think that Islam is a problem, but the fact is that the religion will always be couched in violence. For our own safety all Americans must be alert and suspicious—not mean, cruel, or intolerant—but cautious. If Islam somehow came to power, those in the media would be the first to be controlled. If the news media values the freedoms in our Constitution, they need to wise up.
WHERE CHUCHES STAND
ON GAY ISSUES
Gary W. Summers
What’s wrong with the above title? The first thing one should notice is that the title appears to assume that Jesus established a number of churches when, in fact, He did not. Jesus promised to build one church—His (Matt. 16:18). He gave His blood for one—and only one—church (Acts 20:28). He is head over His body, the church (Eph. 1:22-23). There is one—and only one—body (church) (Eph. 4:5).
Many man-made religious groupss have sprung into existence during the past 500 years, but none of these were authorized by Jesus. “Well, then,” someone muses, “you must think the Roman Catholic Church is the only one.” No, although many congregations of the church that Christ established became the Roman Catholic Church by adding doctrines which Jesus never authorized, they became the apostate church and bear little resemblance to the church Jesus built, which is described in the New Testament.
One of the things that the Roman Catholic Church did, which lacked Biblical authority, was to pattern the church after the Roman government. Instead of having elders over each congregation, a structure was created so that there would be uniformity in the church (many heresies did exist at that time). Eventually a hierarchy resulted with five spiritual leaders in different major cities. The leader of Rome assumed the title of universal bishop (pope) in A.D. 606.
Why did not more Christians oppose this slowly-developing movement that took 300 years to reach the ultimate practice of control by a governing authority larger than the local congregation? But even more astounding is the imitation of most of the Protestant denominations. All of them likewise have a governing body or council instead of a pope. These groups elect delegates who meet periodically to presumptuously make policy where the Bible has already spoken.
That brings us to the second thing wrong in the title. No religious group needs to take a stand on “gay issues”; the New Testament has already spoken! But remember that denominationalism itself is unauthorized (1 Cor. 1:13); so one can scarcely be surprised that those who have scorned what the Bible teaches regarding their unscriptural organization would also scorn what the Bible teaches on any other subject, such as homosexuality.
Two articles appeared in the May 2, 2010 Orlando News Sentinel. The first of these appears on B-1 and discusses how the delegates to last summer’s biennial assembly (try finding this expression in the Scriptures) voted to allow churches “to hire non-celibate gay ministers.” This wonderful news ought to warm the hearts of the 4.7 million members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
Division
The story continues on B4 by explaining that about 200 out of the 10,000 congregations making up this unauthorized religious denomination plan to leave, which is only about 2% who actually know what some of the Scriptures teach. One man reports that his own congregation is deeply divided. He said he accepts the decision but did not feel it was time yet. Really? When is the right time to defy the Scriptures and make a mockery of sin, one wonders? Shall we next have a minister who is shacking up with a woman (or two)? How about one who has been divorced numerous times? Let’s not be dogmatic against the one who robs banks as a hobby. One can almost see the new hit TV series, The Assassin Priest. Everyone needs a diversion from the ministry, right? “Oh, but that’s silly. We have laws against those things.” Why, yes, we do. Say, did we not once have laws against adultery and homosexuality and gambling and prostitution and abortion, not to mention the use of marijuana and alcohol? The point is that civil laws change from era to era.
The morality that God sets forth in the New Testament does not change. The things just listed were sins in the first century, and they remain sins today. No religious group has the authority to override the Word of God because they desire to be politically correct and think that modern man is wiser than the Creator.
The Lutheran minister being interviewed comment-ed that one group’s pain has been replaced by another group’s pain. “And it’s a tricky dance.” Ah, the old “tricky dance” problem! What Scripture does that come from? This guy does not care if the practice is right or wrong; he did not object because homosexuality is a sin; it just wasn’t the right time. And now it’s going to be a tricky dance to keep his flock together. It would be nice to hear about men who had some backbone, but then they probably would not be satisfied being in a religious, man-made denomination, either.
Furthermore, this dean of 17 ELCA churches in Central Florida went on to make another astute observation. He hopes that others see how they have tried to “wrestle” with the issue respectfully. Somehow, it is difficult to imagine Paul wrestling respectfully with it. It is vile and against nature (Rom. 1:26). Is that respectful enough? Aren’t people getting tired of namby-pamby spiritual wimps who are afraid of hurting the feelings of sinners? Consider the following comment of James D. Davis, who wrote this news story:
For conservatives, it’s the status of the Bible, which they say flatly forbids homosexual acts. For liberals, it’s social justice and human rights (B-4).
No, it’s not what conservatives say about the Bible; it’s what the Bible actually says. The Bible deals with truth, not opinion. Does anyone have difficulty understanding what the words vile and against nature mean? Is Jude 7 hard to comprehend?
God did not grant homosexuals the “right” to be a Christian, let alone a minister. The only “right” a homosexual has is the “right” to repent. Paul makes it clear that “gays” cannot enter the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-11). No one can, by the authority of Christ, grant homosexuals “rights” that God does not give them!
The next quote is a good one: “Homosexuality is a lightning rod issue, but the basic issue is the authority of the Word of God,” which is absolutely true. The pro-homosexuality group does not respect the authority of the Scriptures. Before cheering too loudly, however, please note that this observation was made by Rev. Rebecca Heber, who is violating the authority of the Word of God given in 1 Timothy 2:8-15 regarding the leadership role of men in the church. Sigh.
Bill Knott wins the dunce of the day award for trying to compare homosexuality with eating shellfish. That prohibition was a dietary law of the Jews. People were allowed to eat shellfish both before and after the Law of Moses. Homosexuality has been pronounced evil under every covenant that God has ever made with men—including our current one. Anyone who cannot make that distinction does not need to be teaching anyone.
Another dunce award goes to the man who said, “This is an issue over which faithful Christians may disagree.” It may be one over which faithful Lutherans disagree, but a faithful Christian agrees with God, not Satan. Another “brilliant” comment tries to compare this issue to a married couple who does not agree on everything, but they sleep together. Yes, they do, but most of what they disagree over involves opinions. God’s Word is not opinion but the perfect law of liberty; no one has the right to disagree with it. When they do disagree with God, they are no longer faithful.
Another insipid comment was provided by the same person: “The gospel that unites us is greater than what divides us.” Wrong again! When someone tells a sinner that he may continue to sin, it is no longer the gospel. Perhaps this learned Lutheran might recall the message of John: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Matt. 2). John did not say, “Keep on sinning. The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Likewise, Jesus taught, “Unless you repent, you shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). Continuing an unbroken string of ridiculous comments, the same man commented, “A generation down the road, this won’t be the divisive issue it is now.” Say, isn’t that what happened in Sodom, too? No one was divided there over the practice of homosexuality. They were all united—only God, Lot, and two angels strenuously objected. This article closes with all of these ludicrous and lame lessons lauding lasciviousness. Was this the writer’s design?
Other man-made groups (Episcopalians, Methodists, and the United Church of Christ) also accept homosexuality. Who would have thought that religious groups would be championing sin—one clearly defined in the New Testament? May God’s people never allow themselves to be so blinded as to look this foolish.
Having reviewed 30 pages of “Secrets of Christianity,” a special issue of U. S. News and World Report, we now bring this series to a close by taking a brief look at the remaining 50 pages, which continue in the same vain vein with which this publication began. The next short article is titled, “Digging for the Divine,” and it asks these questions:
Was there a true Resurrection if Jesus’s bodily remains were interred alongside those of his relatives? Could Jesus have had a wife and child and still be the Messiah-Christ of tradition (30)?
These must be rhetorical questions; the answers are too obvious. If Jesus’ remains are in a tomb, then He did not rise from the dead. How many degrees does a scholar need to figure that one out? Jesus has one and only one bride—the church, the kingdom (Rev. 21: 9). He neither married nor had children while on this earth. Four of the most accurate historians the world has ever known (not to mention that they were inspired of the Holy Spirit) did not record a marriage for Jesus. Furthermore, they all report Him risen from the tomb. Mark and Luke certify that He ascended into heaven. Paul makes an entire case for the resurrection, showing all that would not be true if Jesus was not raised from the dead. Among the results are these:
1. All of the preaching from the first century until now has been in vain.
2. The faith of all Christians from the first century until this day has also been in vain.
3. The apostles are all false witnesses because they all saw Him after His resurrection.
4. All people remain in their sins, since Jesus could not enter the Holy Place with His blood to make atonement for our sins (Heb 9:12).
5. In fact, baptism involves the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. All of those who join with Him in His death would have to remain buried in the water; they could never arise to walk in newness of life, if He never did (Rom. 6:3-5).
6. Jesus could not be on the right hand of God if His remains are in a cave somewhere on earth.
7. Likewise, He cannot return from Heaven for His saints, since His decayed body is still on earth (1 Cor. 15:14-17; the last three are by implication).
The evidence for this new “scholarly” theory is a crypt, found in Jerusalem, containing ten bone boxes (ossuaries). Six of the boxes have inscriptions: one has Matthew, two are Marys, one is a Yose (possibly Joses), the fifth is Jesus, son of Joseph, and the last is Judah, son of Jesus (30). Whoa! What odd and distinctive names—just like Maher-Shalal-HashBaz (Isa. 8:1). To be fair, the article does point out that the name Jesus was found 71 times in 9,000 burial caves; one other one was also Jesus, the son of Joseph (30). The point is that these names are all quite common, and many Jewish families used them.
One of the Marys is called “Mariamene e Mara,” which can be translated “Mary, called the Master” (31). Various words are translated “master” in the New Testament: epistees [1988] is used seven times by Luke. Didaskalos [1320] is used 58 times by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and other writers. No mention of the other word that might be translated “master” is found in the entire Greek New Testament. One wonders how else this inscription might be translated. As usual, no Greek expert’s name is provided so that this information could be verified. These speculations must be entertaining to “scholars” who are bored and think they might have something that would topple Christianity. However, nothing of real substance is provided here.
The Gnostic Gospels
Many wrote alleged gospel accounts of Jesus in the years after His death, burial, and resurrection. Christians and church leaders could tell the difference between the genuine and the phony; so most of the uninspired writings disappeared, but a few of them remain—to the delight of skeptical scholars. Even the way these spurious words are discussed should provide a clue as to their lack of validity:
Today, there are many scholars, theologians, and popular writers who promote the Gnostic perspective as a liberating antidote to close-minded-dogmatism… (35).
Many theologians are interested in more introspective “self-knowledge as the path to salvation” (39), which would tend to minimize obedience. “…Gnostic writers tended to view the virgin birth, the Resurrection, and other elements of the Jesus story not as literal, historical events but as symbolic keys to a ‘higher’ understanding” (35-36), all of which minimizes the main message of salvation For information on the Gospel of Judas, see our Website for April 16, 2006.
In other words, these unauthorized writers took issue with the truth. Gnosticism apparently taught, among other things, that God was “a sort of oversoul that combined both male and female aspects” and questioned the idea of patriarchy. Jesus, then, became more like an avatar “or voice of the oversoul sent to teach humans to find the sacred spark within” (36). Hogwash! Jesus knew what was in man (John 2:24-25). He came to reveal God to man in a personal way. Those who saw Him saw the Father (John 14:9). He taught people to trust in God—not themselves. He came to bring salvation from sins—not teach that people could save themselves. It is true that He gave people the opportunity to display the best within themselves (the woman at the well, Zacchaeus), but He came to do much more than that.
According to some, Jesus came to establish equality between men and women, to lead them out of the confining straits of orthodoxy into tolerance (38), but these are simply the ideas that many wants—not the way God taught it. The New Testament contains the truth concerning Jesus; these other “gospels” were written in the second century and later. They have no authenticity, which is the reason they were rejected then and ought to be rejected now as well.
The Gospel of Mary (The Mother of Jesus)
After Christianity had begun, many people used their imaginations to try to supply more information about those in Jesus’ life. Hence, we have an entirely different view of things presented in The Gospel of Judas. Mary did not escape speculation. Stories concerning her were circulated and gathered together about A. D. 150 (47). None of these stories are repeated in this publication.
Mary Magdalene
By far the most attention-receiving person, (excluding Jesus, His mother Mary, and Judas) is Mary Magdalene. Depending on the source, she is one of the most prominent and beloved of disciples, Jesus’ consort, or even His wife (48-49). It is not difficult to imagine why such writings were discarded. First, they are not true. Second they attempt to romanticize Jesus and rob Him of His purpose for coming to earth—to save mankind from sin.
Mary, Martha, and Lazarus
One thing that the “scholars” have in common with evolutionists is the imaginative way they can build upon practically nothing. Some body fragment is discovered at a dig, and even though the find only consists of a few bones, someone immediately fleshes out what the eyes and forehead looked like, and a few fragments suddenly become “the missing link.” The same thing occurs with a few facts from the New Testament.
One writer suggested that Mary and Martha were teenage girls, which explains their squabbling. Martha only asked Jesus to bid her sister to help her. The ladies could just as easily been in their 30s. One request concerning a sibling does not imply constantly squabbled. The same author estimates that Lazarus was their younger brother and may only have been 12 or 13 (John 11:41 calls him a man). He suggests that Jesus may have served as a substitute parent for the three children (49). Is anybody buying this storyline?
“It is also not unlikely that both girls had crushes on him, fragile emotions of the young that would be both volatile and shallow [about like this imaginary line of development, gws]. Jesus handled these attractions for him with respect and dignity because he loved them both” (49). “Wow!” you might be saying. “I’ve read the New Testament through many times, and I never saw that.” Stories like these are nothing more than fantasies created in order to “flesh out” Jesus.
Other “Secrets”
Other articles in this publication include stories about the Crusades, Adolph Hitler’s secret plot to assault the Vatican, an examination of miracles and exorcism, and a look at Mayan predictions that reveal that the earth will end on December 31, 2012. All of these things involve, for the most part, nothing but speculation, and are not really worth reviewing.
One would profit much more by reading and studying the New Testament to see what it actually teaches. In it we are able to come to a knowledge of the truth (John 8:31-32). Whereas all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, those things that were written in the two centuries after Christ were not. Neither are the supposings of the Modernists over the last 300 years. May we all be profited from what actually is the Word of God (2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Tim. 3:16-17).
BLIND AND DEAF BUT NOT PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED
Marvin L. Weir
The name Christian is either abused or misused by most people today. According to man’s wisdom, there are many different types or kinds of Christians. Years ago Leroy Brownlow made reference to what he called “hyphenated Christians.”
In his excellent book, Why I Am a Member of the Church of Christ, is this statement:
I am sure that method and system should be used in the Lord’s work, but I am not a Methodist; that we should have bishops (the Greek word being episcopos) to oversee the work in a congregation, but I am not Episcopalian; that we should have elders (the Greek word being presbuteros) who are bishops to rule and oversee in the congregation, but I am not a Presbyterian; that each congregation is independent, but I am not a Congregationalist; that it takes immersion to constitute the act of baptism, but I am not a Baptist; that Christians should be holy but I am not a Holiness; that Christ will come again, but I am not an Adventist; that the church is universal or catholic, but I am not a Catholic. According to some good folk, since I believe in the above facts, I should call myself a Methodist – Episcopalian – Presbyterian – Congregationalist – Baptist – Holiness – Catholic – Christian, which is a monstrous hyphenation and a rather long name! It is unnecessary, too. We find in the Bible that the disciples were called Christians, but we never read of any person being called some hyphenated Christian. Regardless of what names others wear, I prefer to stick to the Bible and be a Christian only (32-33).
Isn’t it amazing that some folks will become “fighting mad” when you explain to them that denominational names are man-made and unscriptural? They have no God-given right to exist and thus cannot be found in the Bible (John the Baptist will not do as he did not die for the church). On the other hand, Christ promised to build His church (Matt. 16:18), purchased it with His blood (Acts 20:28), promised to save it (the one body – Eph. 4:4; 5:23), and through an inspired writer mentioned “churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16). Such simply shows ownership, and rightly so, since Christ is the head of the body which is the church (Eph. 1:22-23).
It will surprise some to learn that certain individuals in the past had no desire for a “church” to be named in their honor. These men knew that man-made names made mockery of Christ and His Word, and their comments will forever haunt those who choose to give “churches” man-made names. Listen to the words of Charles Spurgeon, the most famous and talented Baptist preacher ever: “I say of the Baptist name, let it perish, but let Christ’s name last forever. I look forward with pleasure, to the day when there will not be a Baptist living. I hope they will soon be gone. I hope the Baptist name will soon perish; but let Christ’s name endure forever” (Spurgeon Memorial Library 1:168, as noted by Brownlow).
Can you imagine the outcry against me if I were to say today that I look forward to the day when there would not be a Baptist living? Well, Spurgeon’s sentiments are mine, but don’t hold your breath waiting on Baptist churches to inform their members of Spurgeon’s comments!
Now hear the words of Martin Luther who was a most influential reformer and scholar of his day:
I pray you to leave my name alone, and call not yourselves Lutherans, but Christians. Who is Luther? My doctrine is not mine. I have not been crucified for anyone. St. Paul would not let any call themselves after Paul, nor of Peter, but of Christ. How then, does it befit me, a miserable bag of dust and ashes, to give my name to the children of God? Cease, my dear friends, to cling to these party names and distinctions: away with all; and let us call ourselves only Christians after him from who our doctrine comes (The Life of Luther 289, as quoted by Brownlow).
Most of the above statement Luther made is correct, but Luther fell far short of fully aligning himself with Bible doctrine. Let all Baptists, Lutherans, and members of other denominational churches hear the words that give them no right to exist:
Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
…each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos: and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized into the name of Paul? (1 Cor. 1:10, 12-13, ASV).
Christ spoke of those who “seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand…” (Matt. 13:13-15). Yes, different kinds of Christians exist in the mind of men today, but people must be spiritually deaf and blind to believe such is true. Study the Word of God, and do not allow yourself to be blinded to God’s glorious truths that are clearly set forth in Holy Writ.
[This article appeared in the Bonham St. Beacon published by the church in Paris, Texas, on April 25, 2010. This information from Brownlow’s book is timeless.]
Amidst all the speculative ideology (and in some cases, nonsense), U.S. News and World Report’s special issue on “Secrets of Christianity” (on sale through July 13th) occasionally comments on something relevant. “The Miracle Worker” was an inset in the previous article reviewed, and it shows the bias of “scholars” about as clearly as it can be seen. One of the kindest statements, for example, is this one: “…Jesus probably did perform feats that would have been perceived as miracles at the time” (18). Whoa! Be still, my heart. Such an admission!
This immense concession on the part of some professors soon degenerates. “Theologians” point out that almost every culture has stories of healing. Really? Are they ones in which everyone in a village, town, or city is healed (Mark 6:54-56)? Do they fulfill prophecy (Matt. 8:16-17)? What is the purpose for them—just to make someone look good? The miracles of Jesus authenticated His Deity and His teachings—that they were true. Jesus invited His apostles to believe Him “for the sake of the works themselves” (John 14:11). And could someone who worked all of those miracles in those other cultures get up and say, as Peter did on the Day of Pentecost, these remarks?
“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you also yourselves know” (Acts 2:22).
How strange it is that with all of these other alleged healings going on in all these other cultures, no other religion has arisen from those circumstances! Could it be that a smattering of a few stories and legends scattered throughout the world cannot compare with what actually happened in Judea and Galilee 2,000 years ago? One “scholar” opined that saying that Jesus was a healer was as dull as saying He was a carpenter.
The next allegation, however, shows the “scholars” exceeding arrogance. They are willing to only give Him credit for healing psychosomatic illnesses: “rashes, lameness, and some types of blindness…” (18). Perhaps if these distinguished professors spent more time reading the Bible and less time pooling their ignorance (by talking to each other), they might see how foolish they look to anyone who possesses even a beginner’s knowledge of the Scriptures.
Jesus did not heal psychosomatic illnesses, but if He did, He was quite convincing. When the centurion came to him on behalf of his servant, who was not even present, Jesus healed him. Hmm. Perhaps the centurion just “thought” his servant was sick, and Jesus healed the centurion of his wrong-thinking. If the servant was truly psychosomatically sick, Jesus did a good job of convincing him he was healthy without ever meeting him and from quite a distance at that!
It must be supposed that the man who was blind from birth learned how to make himself psychosomatically ill from an early age (John 9). Leprosy could hardly be regarded as a rash. People in those times knew what the disease was and that lepers could not be around people because of the contagion (have the “scholars” never seen the movie, Ben-Hur?). Ten of them were healed as they went on their way to the priest, although only one returned to thank Jesus.
Besides, Jesus seldom picked the time or the place when miracles would occur. A lame man was lowered through the roof of a house where He was teaching (Mark 2). The Lord did not say, “I sure hope this illness is psychosomatically induced, or I’m going to look like an imposter.” They brought people to Him wherever He was: “…great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them all” (Matt. 12:15). This must have been the most psychosomatically sick society ever! Apparently, no one had a genuine illness.
Exorcisms, Miracles of Nature, and Resurrections
Demon possession was a common belief in the first century, also, and it was not uncommon for others to cast out demons (18). The New Testament indicates that this claim is true. Jesus asked His critics, who accused Him of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub, by whom “their sons” cast them out (Matt. 12:27). Later the seven sons of Sceva were trying to cast out demons, also, but they did not succeed (Acts19:14-16). Perhaps Jesus’ great confidence healed the psychosomatically demon-possessed. Maybe He was so good that, in a strange reversal of roles, He convinced a herd of swine that they had become demon-possessed, and they ran down a steep hill and drowned in the lake! Now, that would be fantastic power of persuasion (Matt. 8:28-32).
Modern “scholars” cannot bring themselves to believe in hardly anything of a supernatural nature. They dismiss Jesus walking on the water and calming the storm as being too reminiscent of the powers of Poseidon, the Greek god described by Homer in his Odyssey (19). Well, did Poseidon dwell among men or among the gods? Was he a human being born in a specific town? A mythical god controlling the seas in no way compares to Jesus. One would think that “scholars” might pick up on such things as purpose and style. Homer wrote an interesting tale which explained some of the greatness of Greece’s past, working mythology into the picture. Jesus is God in the flesh who is not controlled by gods; He is in control of every situation—even the crucifixion. The writers of the New Testament did not compose a story that would merely entertain people around a campfire; they told of a Man who came to save people from their sins. Just because certain events have some points (few) in common does not mean that the one evolved from the other.
The fact is that the “scholars” reject all miraculous stories. They are just fiction to them. The more charitable ones think that the writers of the New Testament recorded “honest misunderstandings” (19). Right! And they maintained these “honest misunderstandings” up until the time they died and never renounced them. All through the persecutions they faced, they just could not bring themselves to say, “Well, uh, maybe I honestly misunderstood.” As usual, these fictional suppositions are harder to believe than the truth.
Concerning the resurrection from the dead, these learned doctors theorize that people of the time just mistakenly thought that some men and women were dead, which would explain their revival. So Lazarus was not really dead for the four days he was in the tomb? When they were wrapping him up, he should have said, “Hey! Stop what you’re doing!” When they wrapped his mouth, he should have yelled, “Mmm! Mmm!” and tried to wiggle just a little. No text says that Lazarus complained about being buried too soon. The scholars and professors are biased against what the Scriptures teach. They clearly reject it.
The two-page article on Jesus’ resurrection is rather ethereal and unintelligible for the most part; it does leave one wondering, “How does Jesus rise from the dead metaphorically?” Also, was He just killed metaphorically (22-23)?
The Extended Royal Family
Needless to say, Jesus could not have been born of a virgin. Jesus’ father is unknown, but “Joseph married her anyway…” (26). The writer, James D. Tabor, who was quoted (though not by name) from the previous article concerning his “two-Messiah” theory, does get some of Jesus’ family members right, but he says that Luke was under the influence of Paul and that he minimized the importance of Jesus’ family (260). He bases this deduction on the fact that Matthew and Mark mention their names, but Luke did not, which is absurd. John does not mention them in the way the other two writers do, but he does not stand accused of plotting against Jesus’ family. Furthermore, Luke does mention the brothers (although not by name in Acts 1:14), and he later mentions James in particular (Acts 15).
Tabor rather oddly identifies ”the disciple whom Jesus loved” as James, His brother, citing John 19:26-27. Bible commentators practically universally agree that this phrase refers to John, the only writer who uses it. Besides that, however, it is first used of what occurred during the last supper, and James was not present on that occasion. Furthermore, he was not present in what occurred in John 20:2 or 21:7 and 20. So, if Jesus was speaking to James from the cross, it is the only time in five instances that the phrase is used of someone other than John. Besides, why would Jesus tell His own brother to take care of His mother? That would go without saying as a family responsibility.
But Tabor explains further that Jesus’ brothers (James, Jude, and Simon) were part of the twelve apostles (28)! That would explain how it came to be that James was at the Last Supper. Everyone knows that Peter, Andrew, James, and John were the first four. Next are Philip, Bartholomew (or Nathanael), Thomas, and Matthew. Tabor is positive that three of the last four are the Lord’s brothers, Judas Iscariot being the last one listed. Is this allegation possible?
Jesus’ brothers are named in Matthew 13:55: James, Joses, Simon, and Judas. The same identical names are found in Mark 6:3only in a different order (Simon and Judas are reversed). Those names seem quite definite, but when it comes to the last three out of four disciples, some of them had more than one name. In Matthew’s list, those three are James, the son of Alphaeus, Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus, and Simon the Canaanite (10:3-4). The list in Mark is the same except that only Thaddeus (the surname) is listed—not Lebbaeus (3:18-19). In Luke’s list James is still the son of Alphaeus, Simon is called the zealot, and Thaddeus is called Judas, the son of James (6:15-16). Luke’s other list (after Judas Iscariot hanged himself) is identical (Acts 1:13).
It should be quite obvious to most readers that these three apostles have their own distinctive descriptions. Simon is the zealot or the Canaanite (or Cana-nean, depending on the text); and Lebbaeus is also known as Thaddeus or Judas, the son of James. No explanation is offered for this Judas (or Jude) being the Lord’s brother. James is the son of Alphaeus, not Jesus’ brother (Levi or Matthew is also the son of Alphaeus in Mark2:14).
But Mr. Tabor theorizes that Alphaeus is a variation of Clophas (even though the similarity is vague), was Joseph’s brother and that, when Joseph died, Mary married Clophas, who raised his brother Joseph’s children (or maybe some of them were his own) (26, 28). This entire account is a strettccchhh.
Tabor also refers to James and Joses as the sons of Mary as though this is the Lord’s mother and brothers, but this allegation is easily seen to be false. In Matthew 27:55-56 there were many women who had followed Jesus and were present for the crucifixion. One of these was Mary the mother of James and Joses. Mark calls him James the Less and adds a sister, Salome (15:40). Both accounts mention that these ladies were “looking on from afar.” Mary, the mother of Jesus, however, stood by the cross (John 19:25-27). Tabor’s theory cannot stand even a little scrutiny, but this kind of conjecture often happens among scholars. Academia requires new research and explanations; scholars often invent novel ideas, which gullible fellow professors (not to mention publications, such as U.S. News and World Report) find fascinating and intriguing.
Tabor calls having three of Jesus’ brothers among His disciples “the best-kept secret in the entire New Testament” (28). Perhaps Mr. Tabor would like to en-lighten the rest of us about a conversation that Jesus’ brothers had with Him in John 7. This conversation took place well after Jesus has chosen His twelve apostles; it takes place after the feeding of the five thousand (Matt. 14); Jesus selected His apostles in Matthew 10. John 7 obviously follows John 6, which is the place John recorded the feeding of the five thousand. John clearly records: “For even His brothers did not believe in Him” (v. 5). What a secret this must have been! His brothers comprised three of the twelve apostles, but they did not yet even believe and were even mocking Him. Now, that’s a well-kept secret!
Another thing that ruins Tabor’s argument is that, according to his thesis, Paul tended to exalt Jesus as Deity and minimize James as a leader of the disciples. Yet who does he quote to show that James is a leader in the early church? Paul. This admission is akin to those who desire to have women preachers. They assert out of one side of their mouths that Paul hated women and then out of the other side cite Paul as showing that all are equal in Christ. Hmm. Neither Paul nor Luke minimized James’ (the brother of the Lord) leadership role in the church in Jerusalem. Luke and Paul are the very ones who provide that information. Tabor’s theory is unprovable and erroneous.
Jesus’ Baptism
As if words were not enough to convey wrong impressions, the reader finds a picture on page 26 that is certainly enigmatic. At the bottom of the page the reader finds this information: “Artist: Francesco Trevisani(1656-1746).” He sounds a tad Italian, meaning that he was probably Roman Catholic. Underneath the picture is this caption: “Holy Water. Jesus is baptized in the River Jordan.”
The picture is quite beautiful; there is an excellent use of color. One can probably overlook the stereotypical presentation of the Father, Who is looking down from Heaven. His hair is white, as is His beard which is quite lengthy. He is viewing the scene below, but His hands are shaped in such a way that He looks like He is causing the event taking place below. There are several angels up in Heaven with Him, but they do not seem to be paying attention to the “baptism”; their faces are facing various directions. There is a dove flying underneath the Father, and it appears that three rays of light are emanating from its beak.
Below are John and Jesus, barely wearing anything. John seems to have a scarlet sash flowing around him but is bare-chested, as is Jesus. Jesus is clad only in a piece of white cloth around His waist. Some ladies behind them do not seem any more focused on the event than the angels. John is not in the River Jordan; he stands on a rock nearby. Jesus has one foot on the rock and one in the Jordan. John is holding an object that looks like a small bowl (which may be what two women are viewing), and he is pouring water over Jesus’ head. Well, at least Jesus’ foot was immersed.
How ludicrous this portrayal is! John could have baptized anywhere if he only put a little bit of water into a bowl to pour over someone’s head. Yet the Biblical text tells us that John baptized in the locations he did “because there was much water there” (John 3:23). No one needs much water if he is only using a tiny amount of it in a bowl. Obviously, the artist was influenced by the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church rather than what the Scriptures teach.
Another picture carries the caption: “Deathbed. Mary the mother and brother James prepare Jesus for burial.” While this scene is very touching, it also lacks a Scriptural mandate. Jesus’ body was taken by Joseph of Arimathea; he and Nicodemus took it and prepared it for burial (John 19:38-42). Some of the women followed them and came back after the Sabbath with spices they had prepared, but Jesus was already raised. So when did Mary and James prepare His body for burial? They did not; the idea arose from someone’s (probably a “scholar’s”) imagination.
This “special issue” under review for three weeks now is loaded with errors and speculation—both in word and picture. How many people who are not familiar with the Bible may pick it up and say, “I didn’t know that; this is really interesting”? How sad.
Following the introductory article in the U.S. News and World Report’s special edition of “Mysteries of Faith: Secrets of Christianity” is the attention-grabbing title, “Who Was Jesus?” It is followed by only a paragraph which says that people have been trying to find out “the truth of what happened” concerning the events surrounding Jesus in the first century from that time onward (12). People know the truth—if they have read the New Testament, which has been available since the first century.
Apparently, that paragraph is merely an introductory comment for the articles which follow after it, the first of which concerns “A Messianic Kingdom.” One can tell how exciting this piece will be from the sentence following the title: “Recent writings offer intriguing theories about Jesus’ plan for a Jewish Utopia” (14). This claim seems vague at best and unsubstantiated at worst. In the first paragraph the author gives the following assertions—without any proof:
1. Jesus was considered the rightful king of Israel by His followers.
2. The Last Supper was a meeting of His Council of Twelve.
3. It was a Wednesday evening, not Thursday.
4. They used leavened bread in their meal because it was a common meal, not the Passover.
5. Jesus gave thanks for the wine and then the bread.
6. Afterward, Jesus washed the disciples’ feet, and then Judas left the group.
Undoubtedly, neither this writer nor most other gospel preachers would be considered “Biblical scholars” by those who contributed to this U.S. News and World Report special issue, but at least we know enough to document what we write rather than just make wild, unsubstantiated declarations.
Jesus was called the King of Israel by Nathanael (John 1:49) and was referred to as “the King of the Jews” by the Magi (Matt. 2:2). Pilate even wrote, “The King of the Jews” above His cross when they crucified Him (Luke 23:38). What this first point in the article fails to take into account, however, is that, when the people came by force to make Jesus a king, He departed from them so that they could not fulfill their intention (John 6:15). He also told Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). These are important facts that should not be overlooked by “scholars.”
Second, a meeting with the “Council of Twelve” sounds like a strategy session. Two primary things are recorded: 1) He warned the apostles of His forthcoming betrayal; 2) Jesus taught them how to remember Him (Matt. 26:20-30).
In the third place, how did Jay Tolson (who wrote this article) arrive at the conclusion that this Last Supper was on a Wednesday evening? They needed to take Jesus down from the cross because the next day was the Sabbath. Mark 15:42 states specifically that it was the day before the Sabbath, which means that it was Friday, which in turn means the Supper was on Thursday, not Wednesday.
The fourth allegation is completely false. In Matthew 26:17, the situation is explained: “Now on the first day of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?’” This fact alone proves that the bread was not leavened; one would think a person writing an article on this subject would know better. Apparently, he knows neither the Old nor the New Testaments, since Moses made it clear:
Unleavened bread shall be eaten seven days. And no leavened bread shall be eaten seven days. And no leavened bread shall be seen among you, nor shall leaven be seen among you in all your quarters (Ex. 13:7).
Tolson is also in error on the meal not being the Passover; Jesus said to His “Council of Twelve”: “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.” So, if it was the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (and it was), and Jesus said it was the Passover they were eating (and He did), Tolson is wrong on both counts.
Fifth, Jesus did not give thanks for the wine; He gave thanks for “the fruit of the vine.” The Greek word, oinos, meaning either fermented or unfermented, is never used of the Lord’s Supper. Only “the fruit of the vine” or “the cup” can be found in any passage of the New Testament discussing this subject. No proof has ever been offered that anything intoxicating was used. Matthew and Mark record the order as being the unleavened bread first and the fruit of the vine following. Luke has the same order, but adds another cup prior to the unleavened bread (Luke 22:17-20).
The sixth point is actually correct, but getting so much information wrong does not exactly build confidence in the reader. The article now becomes “fanciful” by its own admission and brings up a book by some professor, called The Jesus Dynasty, with a subtitle two lines long. The professor alleges that Jesus and John the Baptizer were not interested in a new religion but desired to found a new “worldly royal dynasty” (12). They wanted to establish a restored Israel right away (through peaceful means), though one wonders what strategy might have been used against a very powerful and jealous Roman Empire. Jesus was going to have His brother James succeed Him, along with various members of His family.
The proof for this theory is about like that for Q. Most of the evidence has disappeared, although the New Testament allegedly provides a few hints of it. But now new evidence has emerged to point us in that direction. Exactly what facts have come to light? The professor who wrote the book claims that Jesus came to set up a worldly kingdom immediately and failed (no sources cited). He also says that information from newly-discovered scrolls indicates that two Messiahs were expected. Would it be out of order to ask for a quote to that effect? According to the professor’s theory, one of the Messiahs was to be a king, and the other one was to be a priest. Perhaps if he knew the Word, he would have realized that one person is both:
The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” The Lord shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion. Rule in the midst of Your enemies! … The Lord has sworn and will not relent, “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (Psalm 110:1-2, 4).
John was Demoted?
The reason that Christianity did not end up with two Messiahs, some allege, is that John was demoted from being the priest figure to simply being a herald (17). John actually considered being a herald an honor. He identified himself as “the voice of one crying in the wilderness,” a prophecy of Isaiah 49:3. He said that he must decrease as Jesus’ fame increased (John 3:30). Never did he say a word about wanting to be a priest. So, John was never demoted; he was, however, put to death by a wicked king (Mark 6:21-29).
The article also concludes that John could not become “as important as the only Son of God and second person of the Trinity, which is how orthodox Christianity comes to understand Jesus” (17). Statements such as these are frivolous and misleading. Jesus did not come to be viewed this way; He taught these truths about Himself, personally. He taught that He was eternal (John 8:56-58). Unless people believe that He is the Son of God, they shall die in their sins (John 8:24).
This endless speculation rambles on over several pages, and none of it possesses any merit, but a few points will be considered. One perspective is that James, the Lord’s brother, was a leader in the church in Jerusalem but that he and his book were minimized by the early church. The fact is that James was not among the first believers, and he was not called to be an apostle, but the New Testament clearly shows that he was a leader in the Jerusalem church. He spoke against the Judaizing teachers’ demands in Acts 15 and is mentioned by Paul in the book of Galatians. He gave Paul advice when he came to Jerusalem in Acts 21. Nothing has been suppressed.
The professor alleges that the church did not like James’ letter because it “lacked any reference to Paul’s view of Jesus as the divine son of God, his atoning death on the cross, or his glorified Resurrection” (18). Why should Paul be singled out? Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost was all about Jesus being raised from the dead. Is he at fault, too? Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John also record the details of the resurrection. Jude was also the brother of Jesus, and the brother of James (Jude 1). He referred to Jesus as “the Lord Jesus Christ” three times in only 25 verses.
James chose to write a practical letter rather than a theological one; his short book is called the “Proverbs” of the New Testament. The main concern ought not to be if he spoke of the Deity of Christ; it ought to be, “Did he deny it?” The answer is no. He does, however, mention that some “do not hold the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ” (James 2:1). James does refer to the church once and also to the kingdom, but it is in the sense of the church: “Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?” (2:5). No one can find an earthly kingdom in this book—nor any other elements that smack of conspiracy.
Part of this alleged plot also includes the idea that, after the temple was destroyed in A. D. 70, Matthew, Luke, and John all emphasized more “the spirit over the law” (19). First of all, Matthew and Luke wrote prior to the destruction of the royal city. Not only do most non-Modernist scholars place their writings at about 60-62, it would make no sense for them to include warnings of Jerusalem’s destruction if the city were no longer there. Second, John, who actually did write later, does not mention it at all, but Matthew and Luke include it, just as Mark did. Mark emphasized the spiritual just as much as Matthew and Luke.
The professor goes on to theorize that Paul replaced the physical kingdom-oriented Jesus with a heavenly–exalted figure, which, like the rest of his musings, are ridiculous. All of the writers of the New Testament present Jesus emphasizing the spiritual over the physical. The professor loses all credibility when he says: “I don’t think Jesus thought he was the savior” (20). His problem is that he is not thinking at all!
John the Baptizer identified Jesus as the Savior in John 1:29: “The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!’” In taking away our sins, Jesus became our Savior. Jesus did not deny what John said of Him. He also did not deny being the Savior to the woman at the well when she said that He was (John 4:42). Furthermore, Jesus said that He came to “save the world” in John 12:47. And how is this for confirmation? In Luke 19:10, Jesus proclaimed: ”For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”
The professor is simply bonkers. He also tries to undermine the virgin birth, repeating the fallacy of the RSV translators, that the Hebrew word almah just means “young woman,” which is untrue. When the Septuagint translators (more than 250 years before Christ was born) chose a Greek equivalent to that word, they used parthenos, the Greek word for “virgin.” More important to notice is that “scholars” like this professor will disagree with any portion of the inspired Scriptures in order to vainly try to establish their nonsensical “scholarly” speculations.
A few other bizarre objections to what the Bible clearly teaches are offered, but even Tolson, who wrote this piece admits that some of the theories are conjectural, and he cites others who disagree with the author whose book he has been summarizing. So why was so much space taken up discussing what even that writer/professor acknowledges is “creative”? Probably, U.S. News and World Report would not have anything to sell if they said: “The Bible is true; believe it.” The reader does not receive any new “evidence”—only the machinations of a bored college professor.
A female “expert” claims that no one can conclude that the new religion of “Christianity” existed at the turn of the second century, and a third “professor” asserts that “the Gospels were written or assembled by people who didn’t equate historical truth with literal accuracy” (21). Really? And she knows this, how? Such careless statements have been frequently repeated, but one would think some of the scholars would have by now heard of the skeptic, Sir William Ramsay, who set out to prove back in the 1800s that Luke was historically inaccurate. After he completed his investigation, he acknowledged that Luke wrote with precision. He was 100% correct on everything that could be verified. Ramsay’s research convinced him that Christianity is true.
This same female scholar opines that historical details did not matter to Christians as much as “the religious experiences that people were having” (21). It may come as a shock to “experts” such as this one that the Bible does not teach salvation by “religious experience.” Jesus taught that truth would set people free—not some sort of religious experience (John 8:31-32). The Bible was written for people to read, study, and follow. The message appeals to the head and to the heart, but it is not mystical.
Faith Versus Fact?
Tolson’s concluding paragraph says that the great issue of our time is the “debate pitting religion against science, faith against fact” (21). Well, thanks so much for couching the controversy in such unflattering terms for Christianity, Mr. Tolson. Of course, the fault is not entirely his; many who claim to be Christian theologians probably have no objection to the way he framed the argument, but Christians do.
The Word of God does not disagree with true science; in fact, many scientists have devoutly believed the Scriptures. The only point of disagreement is evolution—an unproven theory that is based on error. The fact is that, while many scientists believe in evolution, evolution itself is not scientific; it even contradicts established scientific laws. The Bible has never contradicted science: the real question should be, “Is evolution scientific?” Those who believe the Bible do so because of the evidence. True scientists and true Bible scholars have no disagreements; both are in search of the truth.
Pitting faith against fact is equally erroneous. If the argument actually was between those two choices, what imbecile would choose faith? While faith does involve trust in God—that He knows what He is doing—it also is based on the facts that He provided to us, such as the miracles and the resurrection. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John record these historical events that we might believe (John 20:30-31), as those in the first century did! Some will always deny the evidence. Pharaoh and his “experts” denied the proof that the plagues provided.
Those who believe are not taking “leaps of faith”; they are responding rationally to the evidence—the same type that Peter presented on the Day of Pentecost, when 3,000 (many of whom had crucified Jesus) became convinced of the truth, repented, and were baptized for the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:1-41). Facts are what lead to faith, and they change the hearts of men.
U. S. News & World Report has published a “Collector’s Edition” of what they call “Secrets of Christianity,” which sells for $7.99 and is on sale until July 13, 2010. The reader should save his money, unless he just likes to waste it. The front cover promises articles on “The Real Jesus” (apparently, it never dawned on them to read the New Testament), “Miracles,” “The Lost Gospels” (did it ever occur to U. S. News that these document were discarded for a reason—a lack of value, perhaps?), “The Three Marys,” “Judas,” “Exorcisms,” “The Inquisition,” and “Apocalypse 2012.” As Art Roberts of WLS used to say, “Ooh, wafu, wafu” (in other words, how underwhelming).
The introduction, “Decoding Christianity,” informs us at the outset that “some of the most cherished beliefs about early Christianity are collapsing, and fresh ideas are replacing them” (5). Those familiar with liberalism will recognize the language used here. All of the beliefs that most people have held for centuries are stale and stifling; something new and (usually) goofy is always termed fresh. Whether or not it makes any sense is another matter.
So that the material presented will be taken seriously, a smattering of “scholarly and scientific research” is included early on, along with “new archaeological finds” (5). The reader is now prepared for the marvelous revelations that will follow. But first a history lesson is provided concerning those who have questioned whether Jesus ever lived, a challenge that some in the “Enlightenment” (obviously misnamed) came up with.
Among the skeptics listed is Bruno Bauer (no relation to Jack), a German theologian, who maintained that Jesus never existed. One wonders what arguments he will use when Jesus is sitting in judgment on him (2 Cor. 5:10). No list would be complete without Bertrand Russell, who is known for his famous essay, Why I Am Not a Christian, written in 1927. Most of these men possess no shortage of arrogance; Russell had enough for two or three “scholars,” proclaiming that “historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about him” [sic] (6). Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John provided all the information about Jesus that Mr. Russell needed; he just didn’t like what he heard.
One of the modern deniers of Jesus cited is Christopher Hitchens, the atheist, author of the book god IS NOT GREAT. (see “Debate on Atheism” in Spiritual Perspectives (9-27-09). He claims that there is no proof for the Jesus of the Gospel writers existing that is unassailable. Of course, anyone can be a critic; the question is: “How good is his evidence?” Many, close to the time in which He lived, have mentioned Jesus, not the least of which is the Jewish historian Josephus.
C.E.
Although most of us grew up with the abbreviations of B.C. (Before Christ) and A.D. (Anno Domini, Latin for “in the year of our Lord”), scholars, academics, and Jehovah’s Witnesses now prefer using B.C.E. (before the common era) and C.E. (common era). They have deliberately changed the terminology to which all are accustomed because they have no respect for even the initials that honor Christ. It is simply another means of trying to remove all references to Christianity from the public forum. Ironically, the publication under review chooses to use the bland terminology rather than that which honors God. Does this choice say something about their philosophy?
The Gospel of Thomas
In 1945 several manuscripts were found “near Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt” (6). One of these was a complete manuscript of the Gospel of Thomas, which was deemed heretical by Christians writing in the second, third, and fourth centuries (7). The reader might expect that what would follow would be the astute observation that the heretical work was nevertheless still based upon the fact that Jesus existed. That someone tried to pervert the truth concerning Him demonstrates that He did live and was making such an impact upon people that His influence needed to be undercut.
But, no, the article turns in another direction entirely—toward Q (not the gadget inventor of the James Bond series, although it is equally a work of fiction). The writer of this introductory article assures the reader that this Gospel of Thomas (rejected by early Christians) “proved conclusively” that the “Lost Gospel Q” did, in fact, exist (7). The reader is directed to page 41 for more information.
The Story of Q
Q stands for the German word, quelle. The fact that German “scholars” mostly invented Modernism, together with the fact that quelle (meaning “source”) was named by a German professor, should be a tipoff that something in this allegation is probably going to contradict the Scriptures. Q was the figment of German rationalistic scholars’ imaginations. They presume that Matthew and Luke copied from this document—before it mysteriously disappeared. Imagine that! An entire gospel account of Jesus’ life was written by an unknown person, copied by Matthew and Luke, and then it inexplicably just vanished! It reminds one of those golden plates from which Joseph Smith translated the book of Mormon. After he completed the work, they disappeared, too. Should we develop a theory about aliens invading us from outer space and stealing all of our source documents just to throw everyone into confusion? It would make as much sense!
The German scholars convinced themselves that Matthew and Luke both copied from Mark but they must have had some other source to copy (apparently, they were too stupid to be original; only Mark and Q had any brains). Humor and sarcasm aside, however, the fact is that Q is based on nothing but conjecture. There is not now, nor has there ever been any tangible evidence of Q. The Gospel of Thomas contains some of the same sayings of Jesus that Matthew and Luke have. Therefore, the “scholars” conclude, the author of that work must have copied from Q, also, thus confirming the existence of Q—still in the absence of any actual physical evidence. Apparently, it never dawned on the “scholars” that whoever wrote the spurious Gospel of Thomas copied from Matthew and Luke! Hello!
Rationalism
One of the bits of information that every Christian needs to know about modern Biblical scholarship is that no one regarded as a “scholar” by the academic world believes that the Scriptures comprise the inspired Word of God. They believe that the Scriptures are attempts of men (perhaps sincere) who tried to communicate God to us. They do not believe that the Scriptures are true—only that they contain truth. For that reason the “Jesus Seminar” could decide which statements of Jesus were true, as well as which utterances were probably not His.
They do not believe what Paul wrote to Timothy—that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17). They do not believe that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles into all truth or that He would bring to their remembrance all things that Jesus taught them (John 14:25-26; 16:12-13). They believe in Q, a non-existent document that no one has ever seen. Is that rational? To them it is. They do not believe that Matthew and Luke could have been inspired by the Holy Spirit; they had to copy someone. One must wonder where Luke got his material for the book of Acts. To theorize that he obtained it from Q2 would make just as much sense as the other theory.
What we see is a literary version of “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Everyone is afraid to say that the whole framework of the rationalists is a fraud (that would not be scholarly); so they continue to build and add additions to the original theory, but the entire structure is built on sand. If only someone with the wisdom of a child would step forward to say, “This theory is naked and devoid of any truth!” Only someone educated in all the ways of the Egyptians, whose modernistic credentials could not be challenged, could probably do so.
All of the material in this U.S. News and World Report booklet is written by those who subscribe to the same faulty presuppositions. Anything relating to Biblical subjects on the History channel will be presented from the same point of view. The fact remains that Q was invented and does not exist. It was constructed out of the imaginations of scholars as to what they think would be in it if it did exist. Having built Q out of nothing, the scholars then tell us what is in it. Aren’t they amazing! They are sure that this invisible document presents Jesus only as a prophet, not the Messiah. The implication is that Jesus never worked miracles, which is no problem for the rationalists; they do not believe in miracles anyway.
The Dead Sea Scrolls, Et Al.
The heretical Gospel of Thomas, then, does not prove the existence of Q. Having taken an excursion to page 41, we now return to a discussion of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Much of what was contained there substantiated the writings of the Old Testament. Some have been studying these documents since their discovery in 1947. Although these documents are valuable, they do not contradict anything taught in the New Testament.
A later find was the Gospel of Judas (see 4-16-06 of Spiritual Perspectives), in which Judas was regarded as the disciple Jesus loved most (contrary to the Gospel of John). Allegedly, Jesus selected Judas to betray Him (8). Four years ago, these claims were brought to light and at that time this writer commented thus:
The very idea that Jesus asked Judas to betray Him is farcical. There were several times that they wanted to put Him to death; our Lord did not need any help in raising the ire of the Jews or giving them opportunities. But consider these facts (from real gospel accounts).
1. Jesus said: “The Son of Man goes as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not born” (Matt. 26:24). How hypocritical would it have been to have asked Judas to do that which he would regret eternally? There is a vast difference between God allowing men to sin and encouraging them to do so.
2. Jesus’ spiritual self did not need to be liberated. He was God in the flesh (John 1:1, 14). He was so spiritual that He told Philip, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).
3. Judas did not betray Jesus to help Him, but rather for 30 pieces of silver—because he was a covetous man—a thief, who stole from the money box (John 12:4-6).
The problem with the “scholars” is that if they find anything with a view different from the Scriptures, they immediately assume that the work rejected by early Christians is correct and the Bible, attested by thousands of manuscripts, is wrong!
After a lengthy detour in the desert of uninspired documents and Q theories, the author of the article under review finally arrives at some archaeological evidence that substantiates what the writers of the Bible recorded. Among these are a dedication to “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea,” “an ossuary containing the bones” of Caiaphas, the high priest, and the “remnants of the palace of Herod Antipas (9). Of course, the hubris (for anyone else, we would use the term arrogance, but intellectuals prefer hubris), of the writer is seen in statements such as: “Jesus’ crucifixion was rendered entirely plausible when in a cave a heel bone pierced by a long nail was found” (10). Was there some doubt that the Romans practiced crucifixion before that find?
Synagogues and fishing boats have also been found, as well as the cities of “Caesarea Philippi, Shechem, and Bethany” (10). Having stopped briefly in the realm of actual evidence, however, the author takes off in another flight of fancy. Scholars, it seems, are linking everyday life in Galilee to certain events of church history, such as “the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Reformation, and more recent events” (10). Such as what? Another copy of the Rembaldi Manuscript? Oh, that’s right. That was fiction. How could anyone confuse that Italian document on Alias with true “science”? Whatever those connections are, however, appear in a related article elsewhere in the booklet.
New Revelation?
Whatever these connections to daily life are will need to wait until Part 2 of this series to be examined. The writer of this article warns that “the Crusaders were not always heroic champions of Christian virtues…” (11). Really? Historians have known that for centuries; this is scarcely a new revelation discovered in the twenty-first century. In fact Philip Schaff wrote 97 pages concerning them in Volume V of his monumental work, The History of the Christian Church, first published in 1907 (211-307). He begins by listing one-and-a-half pages of source material from several languages on the Crusades as a whole and then lists an equal amount of source material on just the First Crusade. The written material is objective, mentioning the virtues of the Crusaders, as well as their vices, such as gambling and drinking.
Louis IX of France, for example, led the Last Crusade, and Schaff comments: “His piety could not prevent the usual vices from being practiced in the camps” (283). In the accompanying footnote, he observes: “Within a stone’s throw of the king’s tent were several brothels” (283, footnote 3). Schaff likewise reported an unseemly incident in the conflict between Richard of England and Saladin of the Saracens.
A dark blot rests upon Richard’s memory for the murder in cold blood of twenty-seven hundred prisoners in the full sight of Saladin’s troops and as a punishment for the non-payment of the ransom money. The massacre, a few days before, of Christian captives, if it really occurred, in part explains but cannot condone the crime (262-630).
It is not, then, the case that we have just found out about these unflattering deeds that occurred during the Crusades. What they have to do with daily life in Palestine, however, remains to be seen.
The introduction closes with a lament that we do not have more information regarding “John the Baptist, Mary Magdalene, and Judas.” Apparently, the Bible is insufficient. The author wishes we knew more concerning Jesus as well, whom she describes as “a brilliant, witty, intensely attractive, enigmatic, and visionary man” (11). Although brilliant and witty are accurate, where does intensely attractive come from? Isaiah prophesied: “He has no form or comeliness” (53:2). Jesus was not tall, dark, and handsome. Perhaps it is too hard to believe, in our material age, that the women who followed Jesus were attracted to the content of His message rather than His physical attributes.
Jesus was not enigmatic; He was totally honest about Who He was (the Son of God) and His mission (to seek and to save the lost). Neither was He a visionary. He spoke the truth God sent Him here to deliver, as recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The author says it seems that we can never attain “the total truth about Jesus and the history of Christianity” (11). Yet Jesus said that by continuing in His Word truth could be obtained and that it would set us free (John 8:31-32).
Most people do not enjoy hearing about problems in the church—after all, do we not all have enough troubles to keep us busy elsewhere? We hear of national and international problems on the news, and we must often face personal and family difficulties as well. The one place we would like to be free from strife is in the church. The devil, however, has other ideas. Our brethren in the first century were plagued with the Judaizing teachers; Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews were written to combat these assaults upon the gospel.
Since it is the truth that saves people and sets them free from sin, Satan constantly mounts attacks against the Word and those who propagate it—the church. Some of these may be from without—in the form of persecution. The darkness always hates the light because the light exposes evil (John 3:19-21). Also, the world does not care what anyone believes, no matter how bizarre, so long as he does not insist that what he believes is the truth.
Concerning the Bible, the battles waged against it have been numerous—not all of these have come from unbelievers. Many in religious denominations and some in the church have lent credence to the theories of Modernism and Postmodernism, although these assaults cannot stand. The fact is, however, that every major Bible teaching has been challenged by someone—usually by those professing to be believers.
In light of this destructive attitude of the devil, it was necessary for Paul to warn the elders of Ephesus day and night with tears for three years against the wolves that would come in to savage the flock. Even from among themselves would arise some with the desire to draw away disciples to have a following of their own (Acts 20:29-31). Paul also charged brethren to mark or note those who “cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine” they had been taught and avoid them (Rom 16:17-18).
If all these things (and more) happened within the first 30 years of the church’s existence, what chance exists for tranquility among brethren today? How often have many preachers felt like Jude, the Lord’s brother? He had intended to write to them about their common faith—perhaps an encouraging tract on what it means to be saved, with exhortations to be faithful to God or practical advice on how to overcome sin. Whatever he might have been thinking about teaching, however, suddenly was superseded by a pressing concern:
…I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to earnestly contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ (3-4).
Brethren ought to give the wolves some credit (but no cash). They do not stand up and say, “We came to teach you the ways of lasciviousness.” That would be too obvious. Instead, the wolves dress like sheep, showing that they can be as subtle as their father, the devil (Matt. 7:15). Their teachings, if followed, will allow for or encourage immorality. Some allow for unlawful divorce and remarriage, immodest dress, fornication, drunkenness, etc. None of these things square with: “…let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 7:1).
Christians cannot get away from the influence of false teachers nor the myriad false doctrines they have introduced into the church. Satan has a great deal of experience and is successful at what he does; therefore, preachers and elders must be careful regarding what they themselves teach (1 Peter 4:11), and all brethren must evaluate what they hear (Acts 17:11).
Communication
Satan is unquestionably the source of problems in the church, but what are the mechanics of his success? He mixes in several ingredients, such as: 1) covetousness (the desire to have one’s own following, as already noted), 2) pride, 3) miscommunication, and 4) even the refusal to communicate. The Lord provided solutions for all of these possible problems.
First, it is wrong for anyone to desire his own following. While it is always pleasing to receive compliments from brethren for one’s preaching, writing, teaching, or administrative skills, a man can never allow such praise to go to his head, thinking, “Hey! I really am that good!” Even in secular areas, we can see the destructiveness of such thinking. An athlete or an actor suddenly makes millions of dollars and can only credit himself for his success. So he (or she) thinks the normal rules and conventions of society do not apply and begin to engage in unacceptable behavior.
The antidote for this attitude in the church is found in 1 Corinthians 4:7, where Paul asked: “For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you glory as if you had not received it?” It is tempting for some to use the prominence they have achieved by virtue of their skills to influence other brethren. One can hear comments such as, “Brother X thinks this way,” as if that settles the issue. The question is not, “What does brother X think?” but “What is the basis for his thinking?” What evidence does he have for his conclusion? Brother X is subject to being influenced by friends and insufficient information—like the rest of us. For that reason positions need to be well reasoned and thought through.
The second temptation, pride, will often not allow someone to back down or admit even a small error. Certain public figures have made statements they should have apologized for but never have (Al Sharpton, for example). Others were quick to condemn the Duke Lacrosse players prematurely and never apologized for their kneejerk condemnations. Pride is operative in such situations. “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up” (James 4:10).
Miscommunication is one of the easiest things to do. How often has someone misunderstood what another has said and taken offense to it. For that reason our Lord provided solutions. If anyone thinks he has been offended, he is to go to that brother (Matt. 18:15-17). If a person finds out that a brother has something against him, he is to go to that brother (Matt. 5:23-24). In this way conflicts can be resolved. But some refuse to communicate. Like Marian Guinn in Collinsville, Oklahoma, some refuse to talk with the elders. They reject answering questions that are not at all complicated? “Did you perform a certain action? Yes or no.” Refusal to communicate with a brother is a sin. More than once, all parties in a dispute have agreed to tape a conversation, then refused to release the tapes!
Attitude
Sometimes brethren charge other brethren with acting in an uncivil way. As human beings fighting against error that is harming the body of Christ, it is indeed possible for one’s emotions to cloud one’s judgment—to say things harshly rather than kindly or, at least, impassively. The motivation for defending the faith is right, of course, but it is also important to establish one’s case in an appropriate manner. However, some seem to be quick to accuse others of incivility. Pressing one’s point to show error has always been acceptable. Some just do not want any conflict, and for them any challenge may be designated as unloving.
Below is an example of rage against an opponent; no defender of the faith against error’s advancement upon the truth has ever been so forceful as this instance. Any harshness of one brother against another has probably never reached this intensity. What is quoted below was published in Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church; it is a summary of a papal bull spoken by the lips of Clement VI (the pope) on April 13, 1346, against Lewis the Bavarian:
It called for God to strike Lewis with insanity, blindness, and madness. It invoked thunderbolts of heaven and the flaming wrath of God and the Apostles Peter and Paul both in this world and the next. It called for all the elements to rise in hostility against him; upon the universe to fight against him, and the earth to open and swallow him up alive. It blasphemously damned his house to desolation and his children to exclusion from their abode. It invoked upon him the curse of beholding with his own eyes the destruction of his children by their enemies (6:99).
By contrast, brethren never wish such calamities upon the false teachers whose doctrines we bring to light and analyze. We know that God can bring judgment upon His opponents (Balaam, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, for example), but our fervent prayer is that they might repent and try to undo the damage they have done before God brings punishment upon them (although some false teachers are never judged in this life).
The use of sarcasm some find objectionable, but the purpose of using it is not just to ridicule an opponent but to show the absurdity of his position. The reader can judge for himself which of these (or possibly both) Elijah was doing when, in 1 Kings 18:27, he mocked the false prophets of Baal.
What follows is the analysis of certain men who have been asked to speak on a program in Orlando that routinely invites wolves to come and speak (every two years). This year is no exception. Many times the speakers brought in have been objected to, and occasionally a few have been changed, but they were only replaced by men of the same stripe. Churches must be warned against events such as these.
Meet the Wolves
All of the speakers have not yet been listed on the Spiritual Growth Workshop Website, but the keynote speakers have been, and a look at two of them is sufficient for brethren to see that they should not in any way support this event. One of those is Harold Shank, who is a professor at OCU and reviews books for The Christian Chronicle. Providing documentation for either one of these liberal entities would require chapters of material. We will pass over OCU and just pull some information from an article written by this same author on July 1, 2001 in Spiritual Perspectives:
In the May issue of The Christian Chronicle is an introduction to a two-part series which begins by stating that “our fellowship is experiencing tremendous pressure on many fronts from a society in the midst of cataclysmic change…” (17).
How the churches of Christ will survive such pressure in order to endure and prevail is dependent on leaders within our congregations who are seeking God’s will and are bringing their wisdom to these challenges of the future (17).
.
So what “leaders” does The Christian Chronicle interview for a sampling of their “wisdom”? Below are some of the names of those who were consulted:
1. Lynn Anderson announced nearly thirty years ago that the church of Christ is a BIG, SICK, DENOMINATION. He has since written Navigating the Winds of Change and is regarded by all faithful brethren as a “change” agent. Dave Miller reviewed his book in the 1995 Spiritual Sword lectureship book, God’s Amazing Grace (507-38). Yet Anderson was the man chosen to discuss “Leadership Renewal” (May) and “Empowering Leaders” (June).
2. Gregory Sterling is a Notre Dame professor and preaches for a congregation in Warsaw, Indiana, which other churches in that area do not fellowship–one that has appointed deaconesses. His topic is “Leadership in Churches of Christ” (May).
3. Don Browning…can fellowship Leroy Garrett (who has been on the cutting edge of apostasy for more than four decades) and at least some religious denominations (June).
Some of the other “leaders” are associated with Abilene Christian University…. Is it the flair for defying the Word of God that made these interviewees desirable to The Christian Chronicle?
Now how does a man who is “sound” in the faith work with a liberal university and a liberal paper. For 21 years, the Pearl Street congregation in Denton, Texas, hosted an annual lectureship on one or more books of the Bible, producing several thousand pages of in-depth studies of the Scriptures over the years, including controversial topics, but The Christian Chronicle never once saw fit to interview the director.
Another speaker is Randy Harris, who teaches at ACU, which is, technically, all that needs to be said. He co-wrote The Second Incarnation with Rubel Shelly, which further identifies him as a liberal, since Shelly has been at the forefront of apostasy for almost thirty years. Below is an excerpt of this book from this writer’s review of that book from June 19 and 26, 2005.
One of the most ridiculous arguments ever made is aimed at those of us trying to restore New Testament Christianity. The authors chide us for wanting to re-create the Jerusalem church, asking if we want to imitate Ananias and Sapphira or neglect widows (6). A more ineffective and irrelevant argument would be difficult to make. Obviously, when brethren advocate following any church in the New Testament, we recognize imperfections; we praise, however, the strengths and are inspired by the ideal. Brethren in Corinth were plagued with numerous problems, but they listened to the apostle Paul, something that today‘s liberals refuse to do.
Shelly and Harris refer to baptism as “the rite of initiation into Christ’s spiritual body.” What Scripture teaches that concept? They never mention the blood of Christ in connection with baptism. They also affirm: “There is neither a set of doctrines nor a series of activities that can guarantee the existence of the church” (62). Really, one wonders if those who continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine in the first century would agree.
They also declare: “Our assemblies need not be dull exercises in boring ritual. They can be creative, alive, and refreshing to the spirit” (105). Did they just make a blanket condemnation of all of the assemblies of the churches of Christ? Is not worshiping in spirit and in truth refreshing? Much more could be cited, but these show the position of the authors.
Now, presumably, the other speakers know a little something about these men—unless they have been living in a vacuum. So why would they want to be on such a program with them? If they do not share the same beliefs as these wolves, why are they going to hang out in the same pasture together?
More to the point, however, is: Why do the sheep want to endanger themselves by getting as close to the wolves as they can? And why would shepherds not warn them against doing so? Would it not be about the same as a child telling his father, “I’m going out to play in traffic now”? What loving parent would allow it? Inviting speakers such as these is not a fluke; these are the type of men that always appear on the Spiritual Growth Workshop! These individuals should not be fellowshipped but marked, as Paul commanded.
On March 21, 2010, Parade (the Sunday supplement)) featured an article about Miley Cyrus, who has been the popular Hannah Montana figure on the Disney Channel for four years. The show is entertaining and contains some occasional good lessons for teens and tweens. What girl wouldn’t want to be a typical teenager with the secret identity of being a singing sensation? What boy wouldn’t want to fall for a girl who happened to be a huge success with guys all over the country wishing they could date her?
Probably, this writer should not admit having seen the program (or going to see the Hannah Montana movie), but he has grandchildren (which is all the excuse necessary). Miley does a decent job of singing and acting, but the television show is coming to an end. She can’t play the lead role forever and is ready to move on to other things. We could wish, however, that she retain a wholesome image, but who can say? We have often been disappointed before.
In fact, the outfit Miss Cyrus is wearing for the cover photo of Parade is a bit sleazy, and she has already danced around a pole (usually used by strippers) on top of an ice cream cart for the Teen Choice Awards last summer, something she says she would do a thousand times again (5). Why is it that women think they have to do something risqué in order to attract or maintain an audience? Many of her fans would grow up with her anyway; no one needs to talk filthy or dress in a slutty fashion in order to prove she has matured.
But this article is not about her career choices or even about her disappointing the many who would like to retain the image of innocence she once purveyed. It is about her religious thinking and the way she has chosen to rationalize whatever she might do. The article quotes the young lady as saying, “I know who I am now and am so content and full of purpose” (5). How remarkable for someone to be so confident—at 17!
Miley was baptized in a Southern Baptist Church, which means that she has probably never yet heard the truth regarding salvation, and unless a person has heard the full story of Jesus and salvation, she may not yet know all that she needs to hear regarding important life decisions. Like most celebrities, Miiley has set herself up as the sole arbiter of who God is and what He will accept.
Who Defines Key Words?
She says that her faith is very important her, but it soon becomes clear that she is the one making religious decisions rather than God, which is not unusual; most people do the same thing. She says, for example, that she doesn’t define her faith by going to church every Sunday. She feels it’s more of a show because of the cameras and public attention. Two important observations need to be made.
First, Jesus shed His blood for the church (not a religious denomination); therefore, it is important to Him (Acts 20:28). The writer of Hebrews taught that Christians are not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together (Heb. 10:25). No exceptions are provided such as “if you are a politician” or “if you are famous.” Jesus designed the church to function as a body, with all the members interacting (1 Cor. 12:12-27). How can anyone function as a member of the church without meeting with brethren, praying with them, partaking of the Lord’s Supper with them, giving to the work of the church, singing praises to God with them, or hearing the Word preached? How can anyone fulfill the “one another” responsibilities in absentia?
Second, celebrities need to have the right to be free from the paparazzi. Our system is drastically broken in this regard and needs to be fixed. No one should be penalized for having extraordinary talents by having their privacy constantly invaded.
Not My Job
After professing to be a Christian anyway, Miley says that she hopes to help people be on the same path she’s on, “But it is not my job to tell people what they are doing wrong” (5). Hmm. Whose job is it? As an illustration, this article will tell Miley that she is wrong in some serious point, but what kind of effect will it have on her? That’s right—probably none. Even if she received it in the mail, and even if she read it, she would probably react the same way she did toward Mika Brzezinski, who publicly scolded her over the pole dance. Miley’s response was, “Get off my case, Mika. Get over it.” She later modified that to: “I’m not forcing you to watch me. I’m not forcing you to talk about me” (5).
Well, that sets forth the problem, doesn’t it? She doesn’t know Mika, and she knows this writer even less. So why should anything we say register with the young star? She might, however, listen to someone she knows or works with, which is the reason that each one of us has a responsibility to say what other people need to hear. Even the mild-mannered Glen Campbell wrote, in “Try a Little Kindness”:
And if you see your sister falling by the way,
Just stop and say you’re going the wrong way.
No one need be belligerent; expressing the truth can be done in a kind way. Jesus told people what they needed to hear—not necessarily what they wanted to hear. How many people enjoy being told that they should be humble, meek, pure in heart, and so on (Matt. 5:3-12)? Each of us comes in contact with certain people and interacts with them the way no one else can. If we do not speak up and communicate the truth, then who will reach them? When?
Ironically, it was Cain who asked, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” He was being flippant, but it is the case that we all must care about others—especially those who claim that Jesus is their Lord. We are to love and do good to our brethren (1 Cor. 12:25-27) and our enemies (Matt. 5:43-48). If we know to do good and do not do it, we have sinned (Matt. 5:43-48).
Modesty
Another area of conflict with the Bible concerns that of modesty; apparently she thinks the Lord put her in charge of her wardrobe decisions rather than submitting to His standards as set forth in the Scriptures. Neither the outfit on the cover nor the pole-dancing one on page 5 would meet the definition of being covered from the shoulders to the knees (the way God clothed Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:21). Miley is outspoken and defensive when it comes to her dress—whether those or the “ultra-short white shorts” she wore to the interview. The “ultra-short” description is not that of this writer’s but the interviewer, Kevin Sessums. Miley justifies it by saying that she is participating in life. On that basis what could not be defended?
She also adds this observation:
“If I wear something revealing, they go, ‘Well, that’s not Christian.’ And I’m like, ‘Yeah, I’m going to hell because I’m wearing a pair of really short white shorts.’ Suddenly I’m a slut. That’s so old-school.”
Twenty years ago, one of the girls who attended a Christian school showed up for Sunday night worship dressed in particularly sleazy apparel. One of the young men from the school (perhaps not too kindly) commented on her clothes. After worship, her offended father sought out the young man and said, “I hear that you called my daughter a prostitute.” He replied, “No, I just said she looked like one.” Then he walked away. Her parents should have overruled their daughter’s poor judgment; how sad that a young Christian man had to do it for them.
Miss Cyrus may only be 17, but she is old enough to know that the way a woman dresses says something about her. She probably has also heard at some point that women are to “adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation”; they should also adorn themselves, “as women professing godliness, with good works” (1 Tim. 2:9-10). Exposing the flesh glorifies the flesh; modest apparel glorifies God.
Covering oneself is definitely old school, and that old school was operated by God when He showed Adam and Eve that fig leaves were not sufficient. Has something changed since then? Furthermore, which commandments of God are we allowed to ignore and still go to heaven? Can we ignore the ones about dress? How about those that forbid alcohol (Pr. 23: 31)? Is that what will be next? “Yeah, like I’m going to hell because I have a few drinks.” When can we expect to hear, “Yeah, like I’m going to hell because I use a few foul words in a movie”? What sin could not be justified on this basis?
Besides violating the express commands of the Scriptures, equally dangerous is the attitude that sets self up as a higher authority than the Word—not to mention the God Who revealed His principles to us. The One Who created heaven and earth (and knows what is in us) had perfect wisdom and judgment. Who are we to question Him? Dare we insist that we can violate His will whenever we feel like it and that He must accept our rationale?
The “Others-Are-Worse” defense
Another fallacy in Miley’s mind is at least her parents do not need to wonder where she is at 3:00 A.M. She also invited the readers to “go check what 90% of the high schoolers are really up to” (5). Isn’t that like being on death row and concluding that, since you only killed two people, that the serial killer is a lot worse person? James said that anyone who stumbles in one point is guilty of all (2:10). The standard is not ours to set—but to recognize.
We can always find someone worse than ourselves to make us feel comfortable. For that reason God set Jesus forth as our example—so that we will have Someone to look up to and a high standard to follow. If we judge ourselves by ourselves, we will always come out looking good.
Miley says that she cannot live on the basis of what other people are going to say, which is true in a certain context, but not the one that serves as the basis for this article. People can be a good sounding board—if they are grounded in the truth, but ultimately the matter comes down to what God thinks—not what someone thinks He thinks—but what He has revealed on the subject. Our prayer is that Miley and all others would think carefully about God’s revelation.
The Indispensable Cross
Marvin L. Weir
The Bible clearly states: “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 53:6). Man cannot atone for his own sins (Titus 3:5); thus, only the death of the perfect Lamb of God could appease a just God. All people eventually sin (Rom. 3:23) and become separated from God (Isa. 59:1-2). Without the grace of God and the reality of the cross, one is hopelessly lost as “the wages of sin is death…” (Rom. 6:23).
When people today make fun of the Lord’s church and His doctrine, they are making mockery of the cross. Christ’s death on the cross made it possible for Him to purchase His church (Acts 20:28). The cross proclaims that the Lord is indeed the head of His church (Eph. 1:22-23) and the savior of His body (Eph. 5:23). So many today take a light-hearted approach toward sacred matters, but the apostle Paul boldly declares: “For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:18). The cross of Christ is no laughing matter, for the blood of sacrificed animals could not redeem man from his sins (Heb. 10:4). Neither could man’s shed blood atone for his sins (Rom. 5:6-9). Thus, the cross is indispensable if man is to be redeemed from his sins and have an eternal hope.
The cross of Christ and only the cross of Christ can provide true unity and peace. So many in the world today claim to desire peace while strife, jealousy, and envy eats away at their soul. The Jews and the Arabs have been at war for centuries while declaring all along that they would like for their nations to be at peace. The Bible has the answer, and it is centered in the cross of Christ. Paul says that
in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: and he came and preached peace to you that were far off, and peace to them that were nigh: for through him we both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father” (Eph. 2:13-18).
It is never good for people to rebel against the cross and in so doing become an enemy of Christ (Phil. 3:18). There will never be peace among men who refuse to accept the truths of the cross. All spiritual blessings are accessible only through it (Eph. 1:3). The cross will forever testify of the love of God and the love of Christ for all mankind.
The cross of Christ should motivate the alien sinner to obey the glorious gospel. The hopeless condition of man is seen in the statement Paul made to the church at Rome.
For while we were yet weak, in due season Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: for peradventure for the good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him” (Rom. 5:6-9).
One who is lost outside of Christ should be grateful for the opportunity to obey the gospel (Rom. 1:16; Heb. 5:8-9) and be saved.
The Christian should be grateful that the cross of Christ motivates him to faithfully serve in the Kingdom. The apostle Paul admonished the Corinthian brethren in saying, “For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died; and he died for all, that they that live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again” (2 Cor. 5:14-15). If one is truly thankful for Christ’s death on the cross, he will possess a servant spirit (John 13:1ff). This means the Lord’s church will always be placed ahead of earthly matters. One will also be content to “deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow” (Luke 9:23) the Lord. A Christian who understands the significance of the cross of Christ will strive to live in such a way that he can say when death approaches,
“For I am already being offered, and the time of my departure is come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give to me at that day; and not to me only, but also to all them that have loved his appearing” (2 Tim. 4:6-8).
One will never grow weary in his love for the Lord or in “well-doing” (Gal. 6:9) who truly realizes and appreciates the great love behind the indispensable sacrifice that occurred on Calvary’s cross.
[Editor’s note: The original article is from November, 1999.]
A question arose about the group calling itself “The Bible Study Fellowship.” The best way to determine information about any religious group is to see if they have a Website and then discover what their beliefs are. Their Website says that “A. Wetherell Johnson led that first Bible study…and the organization that grew from it.” She and three other women have been in charge of the organization since its inception in the ‘50s. It was designed first as a Women’s Study Group, but now anyone can participate.
Although the name seems innocuous enough, that alone cannot determine how accurate a “fellowship” might be. What are now referred to as Jehovah’s Witnesses were originally called International Bible Students. No one is accusing the people under consideration here of being a cult; the point is that the use of a good name does not insure that the Scriptures are handled accurately. The following information is taken from the BSF “Statement of Faith” from their website. (Since they reserved all rights to this material, we are only offering brief quotes.) In bold print before the fourteen statements is found this affirmation:
The entire leadership of Bible Study Fellowship, including the Board of Directors is committed without reservation to this Statement of Faith.
We agree wholeheartedly with their first tenet—that pays honor to the Word of God as inspired. They have worded it well; of particular interest is the fact that they claim it to be “the final authority of faith and life.” What this acknowledgment implies is that Christians can and should be united—since we are all appealing to the same authority. In fact, Paul wrote in Philippians 3:16 that all Christians should “walk by the same rule.” The Greek word translated “rule” is kanon, referring to a God-appointed standard by which we ought to walk. Theoretically, this claim does away with an “I’ll do my thing and you do yours” mentality.
The second statement expressed is also held in common by most who call themselves Christians—that God is a triune Being—consisting of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as indicated by verses such as Matthew 28:19-20 and 2 Corinthians 13:14. Scriptures are here supplied by this writer; the BSF Statement of Faith did not, strangely, include any.
Those who believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ are always to be commended. However, point three is not stated accurately when it refers to the Deity of Jesus. They call Him the eternal Son of God. That Jesus is eternal is beyond dispute (Micah 5:2), but the relationship of Father and Son is not eternal. Jesus gave up equality with the Father in order to become the Son (Phil. 2:5-8). In the Old Testament era, He is called the Angel of the Lord and the Commander of the Lord’s Army. He does not have the relationship of the Son until He leaves Heaven to be born of Mary.
He then became the Son of God and the Son of Man, but the BSF statement claims that He will forever maintain these two distinct natures. Many would take issue with that statement, citing 1 Corinthians 15:24—28, which they believe says that, after He delivers up the kingdom to the Father, the Godhead will return to Their original form, “that God might be all in all.” Whether that interpretation is correct or not is not the point. The fact is that many, if not most, believe that to be the case. Saying that Jesus would forever have two natures was unnecessary, so long as all believe that He possessed both on earth.
Numbers 5 and 6 state primarily what is taught in John 5:28-29—that one day all who are in the graves shall hear His voice: Those who have done good will be resurrected to life, and those who have done evil will be resurrected to condemnation. That time of judgment is clearly taught in various New Testament passages (2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:11-15; 21:1-8).
Salvation
One of the important things to consider about any group is, “What do they teach about salvation?” Two sections deal with this all-important issue. Once a person believes that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God and that Jesus was the Son of God (Divine) and the Son of Man (human), then he needs to understand that he has sinned, which causes him to be lost (Rom. 6: 23). Jesus, however, died for our sins. Since the BSF rightly states in point #8 that sin separates us from God (another part of this point is wrong and will be discussed later), the obvious question would be to ask: “How, then, can I be saved from my sins?”
Numbers 4 and 9 answer this question in different ways. The first of these begins well by saying that Jesus died for us on the cross. He was able to atone for our sins (Heb. 10:12). He could do so because He had none of His own. Only the innocent can take the place of the guilty. The next question would be to ask, “How can I avail myself of that sacrifice?” or “How does His death come to apply to me and take away my sins?”
The answer from BSF is that His sacrifice is “sufficient for all who repent and believe.” Those familiar with the Great Commission (mentioned in point 14) or who have read the book of Acts when those who had crucified Christ desired this same knowledge are going to wonder, “What happened to baptism?” In Matthew 28, the disciples were commanded to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In Mark 16:16, Jesus said: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved…..”
Now, on the Day of Pentecost, after Peter had labored diligently to prove that Jesus had been raised from the dead and was both Lord and Christ, the Jews asked, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:36-37). They now understood the enormity of the sin they had committed in crucifying Him and wanted to know how to appropriate the salvation that was available to them. Peter answered, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).
Now notice: These three passages provide crucial information that answer the question, “How can I be saved from my sins?” Neither Matthew nor Mark record the word repent. Neither Matthew nor Peter use the word faith or believe. But all three passages contain the verb baptize! And that’s the one thing that BSF omitted! Look at the chart below
Matthew Mark Acts
make disciples, believe and repent and
baptizing them be baptized be baptized
None of these passages teach that faith is not essential; it is implied. None of them teach that repentance is unnecessary. But they all include baptism!
A person must question the motives of anyone who would overlook an essential part of the process of being saved. Someone might respond by saying, “But you left out Acts 16:31, which says that all a person needs is faith.” The first problem with this response is that it throws the first point on the trash heap. Is the Bible authoritative? Then it cannot contradict itself. The point of bringing up Acts 16:31 is to try to prove that the baptism taught in the other passages is not really necessary (when, in fact, they show that it is).
The second thing to note is that Acts 16:31 is violently wrenched from its context and misapplied. Paul did not teach faith only there. Furthermore, it was not the end of his speech, but the beginning. THEN Paul and Silas spoke the word of the Lord to him, and, guess what? He and his family were baptized—even though it was after midnight!. This passage actually establishes the importance of baptism—most denominations would wait months, weeks, or at least until daylight because they do not think baptism has anything to do with salvation. The Scriptures, however, include it as part of the process.
In #9, the BSF states that to get into fellowship with God (since sin has separated us from Him, and therefore, this is talking about salvation again) one can only do so “by a personal belief that Christ bore our sins… and by a definite receiving of Christ, through the Person of the Holy Spirit, into one’s inner being.” Who wants to explain these words? This time they do not mention faith, repentance, or baptism. Do they refer to a subjective, personal experience? “We just feel Jesus or the Holy Spirit clear down to our bones, and that proves we are saved.” If they do not mean this kind of “experience,” then they should have used clearer words to communicate the concept. Is this “definite receiving of Christ” (and, remember, all the leadership of BSF is committed to whatever this is) better than, inferior to, or in conjunction with faith, repentance, and baptism?
The problem is that they began with the objective Word of God in the very first point but are now off into subjective feelings. Furthermore, this “definite receiving of Christ” is “to receive eternal life and be sealed unto the Day of Redemption.” So, which is it? Is His atonement “efficient for all who repent and believe,” or must everyone have that “definite receiving of Christ”? And why did neither Jesus nor Peter teach that “definite receiving”? The BSF is in error on salvation.
Sin and The Holy Spirit
Returning to #8, BSF is right in saying that sin separates us from God (Isa. 59:1-2), but they err in their view of man leading up to that affirmation. They take the usual Calvinistic view that man was originally created in God’s image but imply that all people since then no longer come into the world in the God’s image. In whose image, then, are we created? Will they affirm that we were born with a sinful nature? If so, are we created in Satan’s image?
They do not say that, explicitly. They do say that we are responsible for all the sins we commit, but they also say that we “fell into sin through the first Adam.” They could have been more explicit, but their wording implies that we sin because Adam did. Equally confusing is number 11, which claims that the Holy Spirit “is responsible for the quickening from death into life….” Do these words mean that the Holy Spirit makes a person who is dead spiritually come to life in order to “receive Jesus”? Is this referring to a miraculous operation on the human heart? If it is, then why do we need the Scriptures? If the Holy Spirit revitalizes the sinner (quickens him) directly (in place of through the Word), then the Word is unnecessary.
Number 11 also implies that the Spirit continues to operate (directly, instead of through the Word He revealed) on the person he made alive—“for the continuing work of sanctification of the believer.” So, is the Spirit responsible for the degree of holiness in the believer? Is it His fault if we fail? If we are sanctified through the Word (John 17:17), then the responsibility for holiness is ours. If the Holy Spirit operates directly upon us, and we fail, then the fault is obviously God’s.
The writers of the BSF Statement of Faith emphasized the Holy Spirit in four of their fourteen points. Besides numbers 9 and 11, number ten states that the Spirit indwells all who “receive Jesus.” This one is correct, but what do they mean by it? Number 14 provides yet another interesting take on the Holy Spirit. Although its main thrust is to encourage Christians to be evangelistic in reaching out to others, they write that Christians are to “study the Bible personally through the power of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit until….” Where do the Scriptures teach this doctrine—studying through the power of the indwelling Spirit—and what does it mean?
What many mean by this doctrine is that the Spirit provides illumination of His Word or that the correct interpretation of a passage will be given him, which is patently absurd. If the Holy Spirit were providing “inspired” interpretations, there would be no disagreements among believers. In fact, if the Holy Spirit were guiding the study, He might point out to the people in the study group certain truths, such as:
1. Baptism is for (in order to obtain) forgiveness of sins, just as the Spirit revealed in Acts 2:38.
2. The Holy Spirit operates on the hearts of individuals (both lost and saved) through the Word He inspired, not directly.
3. Jesus is not returning to earth to set up a kingdom (point #7). The church is the kingdom (Matt. 16:18-19). The manner of Jesus’ return is described in Acts 1:9-11, and the purpose of His return is described in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17, and it does not include setting up a kingdom. The premillennial view died out for 1,500 years, but the error was revived in the mid-nineteenth century. But Jesus’ kingdom is still not of this world (John 18:36).
4. People are not born in sin today, although we are born into a sinful world. We are free moral agents, just as Adam and Eve were, and we choose to sin, just as they did. If we enter the world with a sinful nature, as per Calvinism, then we could hardly be expected to do anything but sin. Once again, this doctrine removes responsibility from our actions and places it on God Who allowed us to be born this way.
5. Once a person becomes a Christian, he can be lost. In point 9 the BSF statement affirms that the Holy Spirit personally enters someone in order for them to receive eternal life and to seal them for “the Day of Redemption.” If they already have eternal life and are, furthermore, sealed, then how could they be lost? Yet Judas Iscariot was lost, and Paul told the Galatians that justifying themselves by the Law meant they had fallen from grace. The Holy Spirit does not prohibit Christians from turning back to sin (2 Peter 2:20-22). Believers can lose their salvation.
Final Comments
Statement number 13 is one of three that are absolutely true—the Christian is to live in the world but be “separate from it.” Jesus spoke and prayed concerning this principle (John 15:18-20; 17:14-17). The twelfth one contains some truth. It correctly says that “the church is the body of Christ” and is a spiritual organism. The New Testament so teaches (Eph. 1:22-23). Do they, then, repudiate the concept of denominations, invented by men, without Biblical authority? It is amazing that people can define what the church is from the Scriptures but then never question the existence of denominations which are not in the Bible.
This same section (#12) uses the phrase, born again believers. Anyone who has been born again is a Christian, a believer. To use both terms is redundant and not Scriptural. BSF claims that believers are “identified with Christ in baptism,” whatever that means. An inspired apostle wrote that “baptism doth also now save us” (1 Peter 3:21). Christians also remember the Lord’s death “in the Lord’s Supper,” which is true (1 Cor. 11:22-29), but they did not give a frequency. How difficult would it have been to add the phrase, each week?
An earlier sentence mentioned studying the Bible through the power of the Spirit “until each one is matured into the preordained purpose of God for him.” No, despite the success of The Purpose Driven Life, author Rick Warren did not invent this tenet of Calvinism. At the risk of crushing someone’s ego, God did not write a script for every person’s life before he was born. Where is the Scripture that teaches individual foreordination? God ordained certain things—especially concerning Jesus and His church, the kingdom of Heaven. Have Calvinists ever wondered who wrote the script for evildoers?
The purpose for all of us is to honor and praise God with our words and with our actions; we are to worship and serve Him. He will use us if we submit to His will. Only His Word can reveal those things to us.
Profiles in Apostasy #1 is one of best reference works of this century, and within two weeks it has already generated quite a response. For years various name brand liberals have been writing books to influence brethren away from the Scriptures, and occasionally a lectureship book has reviewed a few of their materials, but this volume of 608 pages is the most thorough one available; it contains reviews of 24 books—from those of K. C. Moser (1932) to Todd Deaver in 2008. The 25th review is not of a book but rather a sermon delivered in 1990.
One of the charges already made is that those reviewing the books had not read them, which is absurd. A few of the speakers mentioned publicly that they had read the assigned material not once but two or three times. One lengthy tome was read so thoroughly that quotes from the author’s footnotes are cited. In at least two instances, speakers had to borrow the books from others. Some of the reviews are 25 to 40 pages long, and that amount of material cannot be presented at a lecture. Perhaps someone watching the review on-line might think that, since certain aspects were not covered, the critic had not read the information, but no one could come to that conclusion from reading the book itself. Numerous references are cited in each chapter.
A second criticism is that the writers/speakers had never met or talked with the actual authors of heresy. So? Each one published a book for others to read, and they all employed the English language to do so; words have meaning. This charge would have weight if a reviewer took something out of context or misrepresented the author, but great care was taken to avoid such mistakes. If someone’s work was not handled carefully, the simplest response would be to furnish the evidence of such. Otherwise, it does no good to mouth vague charges while providing no proof. The problem for liberals is that the light was shined upon what they truly believe. Embellishment is not needed; the truth will do.
The first book reviewed is Todd Deaver’s Facing Our Failure: The Fellowship Dilemma in Conservative Churches of Christ. Many do have concerns about fellowship (or should have), but Todd does not supply workable solutions. Relying on typical scholarly language (what George Orwell might have called Ed-Speak), Deaver advocates that churches of Christ “acknowledge the failure of the traditional paradigm” (3). Apparently, he would disagree with his grandfather, Roy C. Deaver, who wrote an excellent booklet, Ascertaining Bible Authority. Of course, Todd has developed nothing with which to replace those Biblical principles.
Terry Hightower penned this review (he actually has known Todd for years), and it is thorough. As he has been known to do in other situations, he composed four true – false questions that are easily answered, which get at the heart of the matter. Who knows if Todd will make any better reply than others who have been asked even fewer questions by Terry? They may seem simple, but they make obvious what some are trying to hide: Are the following statements true or false?
1. NO matters of Bible teaching are heaven/hell issues.
2. ALL matters of Bible teaching are heaven/hell issues.
3. SOME matters of Bible teaching are heaven/hell issues.
4. SOME matters of Bible teaching are NOT heaven/hell issues (21).
The first two are false, and the second two are true. Any reasonable person must give these answers, although liberals gravitate toward #1. When stated as it is above, however, it shows that the only disagreement that can logically exist is what each of us might include in the “SOME” that are fellowship issues. Hightower offers excellent analysis of a serious subject, making humorous comments along the way. Todd’s thesis, if believed, would lead people astray and cause their souls to be lost, which is the reason for the review.
Edward Fudge first published The Fire That Consumes in 1982. While the book is scholarly, it is not without bias, but the reader should know that those outside the churches of Christ consider that Fudge has “become well-known as a leading advocate of the view that when the wicked die, their punishment is ‘eternal’ in the sense that the consequences last forever, not in the sense that the wicked experience unending torment” (86).
Fudge’s arguments, spread out over 500 pages, are examined carefully. Much of what he writes is irrelevant, but he also considers most New Testament passages. It is pointed out that, as with most false teachers, he redefines key words and phrases in order to establish his case. Thus, everlasting destruction (torment that continues forever) becomes annihilation that cannot be reversed (in other words, one’s extinction is irreversible). Since Fudge has had an impact both in and out of the church, it is important to consider this review carefully.
At the root of much of today’s heresy are the teachings of K.C. Moser (no relation to Keith Mosher of the Memphis School of Preaching, as the different spelling indicates). The two books he is known for (and they are quite similar) are The Way of Salvation and The Gist of Romans. The headings in this chapter provide an indication of what his false doctrines were: Under “Calvinist Inclinations” are “Antinomianism” (referring to the maximization of grace and the minimization of obedience), “Imputed Righteousness,” and (surprisingly) “Direct Operation of the Holy Spirit.” Also from Moser’s teachings came “The Man or The Plan” discussion in the early 1960s. Much historical data is included that provides a context for this discussion.
One might wonder, “Why are all of these books by apostates under review? Who cares? None of these things affects me or where I worship.” People who make such comments are undoubtedly sincere but, regrettably, shortsighted. In the first place, while a Christian may be confident that he and the church he attends is unaffected by various false doctrines, he will at some time be caught off guard by a fellow member asking him if he has read one of those books. Second, what happened with Moser’s writings could happen with anyone else’s:
Seeds can lie dormant for years or even centuries, awaiting the right conditions to germinate and spring to life. The power is in the Gospel seed (Luke 8:11), and, unfortunately, in the seed of error as well (106).
Third, all Christians have the responsibility to contend for the faith (Jude 3). How can we do so if we do not know what the enemy is doing or the ways in which he is attacking? Not only have Christians received this charge, but elders are especially commissioned to protect the flock from the wolves (Acts 20: 28). How can they be effective if they have no idea what some of the leading wolves have written?
Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage
In the past 35 years, books promoting loopholes so that unscripturally divorced people could remarry have proliferated. Daniel Denham’s 64 pages on several authors are enormously helpful. The amount of research he has done (not only in the Greek, but in several other languages) is impressive (the “Works Cited” contains 59 entries). The material he presents is not too technical for most people, and the evidence is so compelling that the liberals who disagree will not be writing a refutation any time soon.
At the forefront is Olan Hicks (What the Bible Teaches about Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage), who has, perhaps, written and debated more than anyone else on this topic. Brother Denham analyzes several of the passages that Hicks abuses: 1 Corinthians 7:2, 27-28 and Matthew 19:6, 9 (152-80). Also reviewed are the works of James Woodroof (The Divorce Dilemma), James D. Bales (Not Under Bondage), Lewis Hale (Except for Fornication), Rubel Shelly (Divorce and Remarriage: A Redemptive Theology), and Al Maxey (Down, But Not Out). Although Denham devoted 6 pages to Maxey, another entire chapter also analyzes this material. In fact, Olan Hicks gave high praise to Maxey’s book, saying that it was written with “an objectivity that is refreshing” (455). Hicks would likely call anyone’s views that echoed his refreshing.
Two adjacent chapters deal once more with fellowship. The first of these was also penned by Olan Hicks and is titled In Search of Peace, Unity, and Truth. The reader should remember that Hicks has no problem fellowshipping those who use musical instruments in worship, which accounts for his vain efforts to negate the value of lessons we all use from Noah and the ark, Nadab and Abihu, and Uzzah (216). Like Todd Deaver, F. LaGard Smith (Who Is My Brother?) likewise has difficulty determining which doctrines and practices fall into the SOME that are heaven/hell issues and which may be listed in the SOME that are not. Smith proposes five levels of fellowship, but his thinking is both flawed and contradictory. Although he affirms that calling someone a brother does not make him one (244), he clearly wants those who are not baptized for the remission of sins to be saved anyway (255, 263).
Along these same lines is the book by Jimmy Allen, Rebaptism? What One Must Know To Be Born Again. The reviewer of this work pinpointed the essence of the book precisely when he wrote: “Allen’s book is his way of convincing the brotherhood that the church needs to be more accepting to the person who defends his sectarian baptism” 281). Allen thinks that, despite what the New Testament teaches, a sufficient reason to be baptized is to obey Christ, thus ignoring Acts 2:38. Carroll Osburn also questions the purpose for baptism, whether it is “for” or “because of” the remission of sins in his The Peaceable Kingdom (241). He also urges fellowship even if there is disagreement on instrumental music or premillennialism (558). Osburn was a “distinguished” professor at Abilene Christian University.
A Summary
Another of Osburn’s books, Women In The Church, was reviewed for the ladies; this 40-page chapter contains 24 sources in the “Works Cited.” Other professors from Abilene have also written books, although some of them have now departed the school. Among them are Ian Fair’s Leadership in the Church; its author thinks that leaders ought to be “agents of change” (498). Others include C. Leonard Allen’s The Cruciform Church: Becoming a Cross-Shaped People in a Secular World and his The Worldly Church, which he co-wrote with Richard Hughes and Michael Weed. This latter book contains the denominational error that the “indwelling Spirit…enlightens our minds to the things of God” (338).
The ACU Press published Bill Love’s The Core Gospel: On Restoring the Crux of the Matter, which is yet another attempt to loosen the boundaries of fellowship for some short list of unspecified, essential doctrines. Lynn “Big, Sick Denomination” (which he spoke in Abilene in 1973) Anderson’s book, They Smell Like Sheep, also receives attention; one of the book’s errors is approval of re-evaluating elders or just rotating them in and out “by democratic process” (356). Another Abilene apostate is Mike Cope, and his book sounds like it might be Biblical: Righteousness Inside Out: The Sermon on the Mount and the Radical Way of Jesus. Despite the inclusion of some good material, Cope misinterprets Matthew 23:23 (as most liberals do) (273) and thoroughly perverts Matthew 7:13-14 (277).
Teaming up with Rubel Shelly, Cope also co-wrote What Would Jesus Do Today? At the risk of sounding unscholarly, a “Valley Girl” response from the early 80s comes to mind: “Barf me out!” The authors simply try to make Jesus be “a proponent of their errors” (523). Instead of fantasizing about what Jesus might do today, brethren would profit more from a study what Jesus actually did do! Equally silly is Marvin Phillips’ Don’t Shoot, We May Be On the Same Side. Most of us know where we stand, and it is nowhere near the vicinity of Marvin Phillips. He frequently makes the statement that the instrumental music question will never be settled on earth. That issue “was settled by inspiration in the first century” (360). Somehow, Mar-vin missed it.
No list of heretics would be complete without a mention of the modern founders of waywardness: W. Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett, who co-wrote Our Heritage of Unity and Fellowship, which rests upon their erroneous dichotomy between gospel and doctrine. Garrett’s book on The Stone-Campbell Movement is a separate chapter. Cecil Hook published the Ketcherside-Garrett collaboration, and his own work, Free in Christ, is examined; Hook was another one of several who believes that, if “one is to be saved, it must be totally by grace” (441). Many of these men are walking contradictions; Hook, for example, wrote that a “man need not have New Testament writings to know the will of God for holy living” (450) but then took issue with the proponents of homosexuality because it contradicts the New Testament (451-52).
One of Todd Deaver’s mentors, John Mark Hicks, wrote Come to the Table: Revisioning the Lord’s Supper. Yes, he revisions it, all right, advocating that the reader can use whatever he likes (whatever he finds meaningful) in place of the unleavened bread and fruit of the vine. The reviewer concludes of Hicks: “Logic escapes him, and sincerity is beyond his reach” (314). Another book relating to fellowship is James D. Bales’ Shall We Splinter? which contains some misinformation and is a defense of his own actions.
The last book (mentioned in this review) is endorsed by Rick Warren, Max Lucado, and F. LaGard Smith; what could possibly be wrong with it? Daring to Dance with God was penned by Jeff Walling. No, he is not still promoting the Macarena; as Max Lucado put it: “…dancing with God is learning to let go” (533). He advocates that worship be spontaneous, unpredictable, and full of surprises. Right! Sounds just like what Jesus told the woman at the well, doesn’t it?
The Tape
All of these reviews have centered on the books that apostates have written, but one chapter is written about a sermon that was given at Brown Trail on April 8, 1990 on the subject of the re-evaluation and reaffirmation of elders. The sermon that Dave Miller preached that day is included in the chapter (127-39). The one crucial piece of information that the reader must remember when reading this sermon is that the sermon must be viewed in the context of what Brown Trail practiced! It cannot be divorced from that situation in order to try to give Dave Miller an alleged benefit of the doubt. There is no doubt! While considering this chapter, the reader must remind himself that Dave Miller has told brethren repeatedly, “I have never done anything wrong (in connection with this practice) that I need to repent of.”
Following Miller’s Brown Trail sermon is the statement released by Dave Miller, which many of his defenders have erroneously called his statement of repentance. It is no such thing; remember, he has nothing of which to repent. Dub McClish’s careful and thorough analysis of that statement follows. The reader would see many problems with the statement for himself, but McClish’s keen scrutiny brings to light a number of important points worthy of consideration.
All of those who have been assured by Dave that he never did anything wrong (one preacher recently lost his job because the congregation he was working with, in their naivete, believed what Dave told them) should think about his guarantees while reading this chapter. Why would anyone accept a personal assurance in lieu of facts? The situation could not be any clearer, and Dave (by his own admission) has never repented of it (since he never did anything wrong). Why, then are brethren so eager to fellowship a brother that is clearly in error? Does genuine brotherly love overlook someone’s sins?
The value of this book is several times the meager price of $20 plus shipping. The hours of research that went into its production will only be worthwhile if brethren buy it and read it. Elders especially need to know the teachings of these false teachers—before they surface in their own congregations—and how to deal with the various doctrines highlighted in this volume. It may be ordered from David Brown at (281) 350-5516; e-mail dpbcftf@gmail.com.
Chris Jepson decided to take another shot at God in his March 4th column, “Satan as a Card Dealer,” in the Observer (16) by exalting Satan. He quotes from Samuel Butler who appears to lament that God has written all the books and that mankind has only heard one side of the story. God has written a Book, a perennial bestseller; but Satan discourages people from reading it. Just as the present Trudy left with Adrian Monk, the contents cannot help until the Gift is opened.
The devil can in no way match God’s power, as will become evident when he is cast into the lake of fire, where he will be joined by the unbelieving (no names, please). He does do a great amount of damage, however. He was the first to realize and act upon the idea that free will carries with it the opportunity to do good (obey God) or to do evil (rebel against God). Obviously, if everyone had chosen loving obedience, we would not be lost and in need of a Savior or redemption.
Epicurus’ error has been answered many times, but some have not read those books, either. A diet of skepticism seldom yields wisdom. Could God prevent evil? He could—but only at the expense of free will. Is God able to prevent evil but unwilling to do so? Yes. If He prevented all evil now, what choices would mankind have? Epicurus and Jepson have confused earth with heaven; no evil will exist there. Those who dwell there forever will have made the choice to enjoy a sin-free environment.
God is not malevolent to allow the existence of evil. This conclusion rests upon false premises. First, if God eradicated all evil the moment it took the form of a thought (and He does know all thoughts), even before it could express itself as an action, then the devil would have been destroyed immediately and not allowed to influence either the other angels or people over the centuries.
Second, most of us would likewise be gone for the same reason. If even one thought contrary to the will of God were enough to bring about our eradication, we would all have been destroyed and thus not be having this conversation. Third, if God removed all people immediately upon them entertaining a rebellious thought, where would be the opportunity for salvation? No one would ever have a chance to repent or to learn from mistakes—not if we were immediately expunged from the earth for our transgressions.
Our freedom to rebel against God of necessity allows for evil to exist; His patience permits us to see our errors and make positive changes. God did not create evil, but in granting free will, He allowed for its possibility. God is not surprised about man’s choices, and He did know from the beginning what man’s choices would be. For that reason Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world. God too has paid an enormous price for allowing us freedom.
Satan
Is Satan a mere “fall guy”? The devil has never made anyone sin, but he does know how to manipulate, spin, twist, and distort circumstances to his own advantage. He is a master at exploiting our weaknesses. His skills in making sin look attractive are unsurpassed, but we are still drawn away by our own lusts. He enjoys being a stumbling block, but the decision remains ours to make.
Mark Twain was a brilliant humorist, but he was wrong about God and the devil. Did he say with a straight face that Satan “hasn’t a single salaried helper”? Really? Do those who traffic in illegal drugs that spread misery to all of us do it for free? Are there no paychecks for those in Hollywood who encourage young people to use crude speech and engage in acts of fornication? Sin ministries are big business. Even writers of books and newspaper columnists have been known to have received remuneration for their efforts.
Many of those employed by the “Opposition” are undercover agents for the enemy. As the old story goes, a man was on the way to a costume party dressed as what many people imagine the devil to look like (orange suit, horns, trident tail). A sudden storm arose, and he ran for cover from the rain. He slipped into a church building just as lightning struck and the power flickered. People suddenly saw him and began to scream and scatter—except for one elderly man, who stood his ground and confided, “I just want you to know that I’ve been a member of this church for forty years, but I’ve been on your side the whole time.” Some of those supposedly employed by God have now championed fornication, adultery, and many other sins—contrary to the Word of the One they are allegedly serving.
This being the case, those who want to know God should read the Book He wrote instead of listening to those who claim to represent Him. Those in Berea did not take even the Apostle Paul’s preaching as truth until they searched and found that it harmonized with what the Scriptures taught (Acts 17:11). Paul also encouraged brethren to prove or test all things (1 Thess. 5:21-22).
Even the majority of those who hold a pro-life position would not require that a woman risk her life to give birth. Not all who believe in the value and the sanctity of human life are Catholic, and not all Catholics would disagree with what was done in protecting the life of the 9-year-old, Brazilian girl Jepson described. Lumping all or even most religious leaders together with the one he cited is nothing more than the logical fallacy of “hasty generalization,” concerning which Jepson is surely aware. Talk about stacking the deck!
A DISGRACE IN IOWA
Randy Robinson
Almost two weeks ago, on February 16, an absolute disgrace took place in the state of Iowa. More than 160 members of the “clergy,” presented a letter to the Iowa Legislature expressing their support for “same-sex marriage.” Last spring, the Iowa Supreme Court overturned a state law banning these ungodly unions. While a clear majority of the citizens of the state of Iowa are correctly opposed to this abomination and have urged their legislature to craft a constitutional amendment that would again ban such unions, unfortunately the legislature, consisting of Democrat majorities in both houses, have resisted these calls to act.
The issue of why these people should not be referred to as “clergy” is one to discuss on another occasion, as is why women should not seek nor be placed in positions of leadership pertaining to religious matters. The denominations represented here are all illegitimate. The Lord Jesus did not die for a single one of them. There were about a dozen different denominations represented here, with the United Church of Christ leading with twenty-six signatures. The UCC has been confused by some with the churches of Christ, but they could not be more different. Twenty Lutherans, nineteen Methodists, twelve Episcopalians, and ten Presbyterians all affixed their signatures to this letter. Also notable were seven members of the Christian church, as well as four Jewish rabbis and even one Catholic priest.
Churches of Christ and the Christian Church at one time were united, until those brethren began to embrace unscriptural practices and doctrines. The breach was so severe that they split at the turn of the 20th century and at this point, there is no difference between them and any other unauthorized denomination. They have abandoned Biblical authority on nearly every significant issue that has arisen.
When a true New Testament Christian reads this letter, it will undoubtedly produce a sense of outrage (as it did with this writer). For space considerations, we cannot reproduce the entire letter, but there are some significant points that should be addressed.
First—they claim that their motivation for writing this letter is based on “fairness.” This is simply unmitigated gall to the ultimate degree. These people, despite their education and background, have fallen prey to the misconception that marriage is a right. While marriage may be a right under civil law (that is, those who comply with the laws of their particular state cannot be prohibited from being married), from God’s perspective, marriage has always been a privilege. Marriage is for those who are eligible.
To be eligible for marriage, one must: 1) have never married; 2) be Scripturally divorced, there being only one Scriptural reason for divorce—fornication (Matt. 19:9); or 3) be widowed (Rom. 7:1-4). God ordained marriage in the Garden of Eden when He formed the woman from the rib of man and, brought her unto the man (Gen. 2:22). We then read this statement which epitomizes the institution of marriage:
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh (v.24).
To imply that the denial of any union other than this God-ordained union is somehow “unfair” is to accuse God of being unfair, which He most certainly is not (Ezek. 18:29).
Second—they “oppose the use of sacred texts and religious traditions to deny equal protection and responsibility under the law for gay and lesbian couples.” Again, the temerity of these people is astounding! There is only one “sacred text.” God’s Word—the Bible is the only one. Religious traditions established by human beings are irrelevant and meaningless. In essence, they are saying, “How dare anyone quote from the Bible Scriptures that would oppose what we want to see implemented?” The arrogance manifested here is unbelievable! They believe themselves to be so intelligent and so enlightened. They put themselves and their high and mighty opinions above the Bible and are offended by what the Bible says on this subject.
Third—they make the following affirmation which has no basis whatsoever except again—it is merely their opinion. They say: “Moreover, as many faith traditions affirm, where there is love, the sacred is in our midst.” Where does that come from? The simple answer is: from mere human wisdom. God certainly never said any such thing, nor did the Lord Jesus Christ—nor yet any of the inspired writers of the Bible.
Jesus did say: “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matt. 18:20). However, the context of that statement has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Jesus also declared that those who love Him would keep His words and that He and the Father would make their abode with them (John 14:23). Again, however, there is a condition to be met. One must be obedient to God’s Word—not in rebellion against it. Sin is the reason Jesus died upon the cross and homosexuality IS sin (Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:26-27; Jude 7). Note what the Scriptures say about the difference between human wisdom and divine wisdom:
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? (1 Cor. 1:20).
Fourth—they say, “We affirm freedom of conscience in this matter.” Since when has conscience ever been the appropriate guide? Not everyone’s conscience functions properly. Paul described those who propagated false doctrine and acted hypocritically as “having their conscience seared with a hot iron” (1 Tim. 4:2). In other words, they had no qualms at all about doing these things. Some people are able to dismiss pangs of conscientiousness to do whatever they please. Therefore, the conscience is not always a reliable guide. The apostle Paul boldly declared that he “had lived in all good conscience before God until this day” (Acts 23:1). Yet Paul also acknowledged that he was “chief” among sinners (1 Tim. 1:15) because he had been “a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious” [to the church] (v.13). Paul’s conscience allowed him to persecute Christians because he sincerely believed that he was pleasing God in doing so, yet he was wrong!
While we do not deny that some men exhibit certain feminine characteristics and some women exhibit certain masculine characteristics (and there may even be a strong attraction to members of the same sex), that does not excuse the practice of homosexuality. This idea comes from the erroneous presumption that we may exercise any sexual practice that we desire. However, God designed the sexual relationship to exist only between a married couple (one male and one female) (Heb. 13:4). All other such relationships are forbidden and constitute sin.
Also, the idea that people are born this way is preposterous. That presumes that God created them in such a way as to put them in the path of temptation and, as we have recently noted, God is not the source of temptation (Jam. 1:13). Furthermore, there have been numerous instances of people who have practiced homosexuality but no longer do so for a variety of reasons. These supposedly religious people of Iowa have disgraced themselves and their state and have chosen to defy Almighty God. The consequences for such defiance will be certain, severe, and eternal.
—The Richwood Reaper (February 28, 2010)
AVATAR
Last Saturday evening our youth group discussed the movie Avatar. Everyone has agreed that the special effects are outstanding; so I asked the question of the group (most of whom had seen the movie): “What was wrong with the movie? Several answers were given.
1. Much of the clothing was immodest. This criticism was valid; the costuming was brief for both men and women.
2. Another complaint was of a sexually suggestive scene.
3. The language was both blasphemous and profane. Shortly into the movie came the offensive expression God _____. Later the name of Jesus was also used in vain. Besides these were a host of other words, all of which violate Ephesians 4:29. When asked why they put these types of words into the movie, the youth suggested: a) The movie producers don’t see any problem with it; b) They think it’s funny; c) They think it makes the characters look more angry; d) They think it makes the characters look “cool.” e) The scriptwriters lack sufficient vocabulary skills.
4. Asked who was the movie’s hero (in addition to a few individual characters), the answer seemed to be Eywa, the (New Age) god (or goddess) of the planet.
5. The villain was the military specifically and human beings in particular (even though human beings rescued the planet Pandora).
6. It was also pointed out that a rite of passage was termed as “being born twice.”
These were excellent observations; sometimes, in the course of watching such a movie, one gets carried away with the special effects and does not realize some of the subtle (and not-so-subtle) underlying themes or messages. Avatar is a movie containing immodest clothing, corrupt and blasphemous language, that exalts a kind of New Age, Gaia goddess mentality, while denigrating the military.
The one difficult question to answer follows: Knowing that this film would appeal mostly to teens, why did James Cameron fill it with gratuitous vile speech, irreverence toward God, and the rest? What do you think?
