Periodically, someone expresses their disillusionment with Christianity in words to this effect: “I didn’t like being told what I couldn’t do all the time. I was always told, “You can’t go dancing; you can’t go to the public beaches; you can’t drink alcoholic beverages; you can’t wear shorts.” I just got tired of all that. So I don’t worship anywhere, and I do what I want to do.”
What’s the best way to respond to such a person? Some might be tempted to answer, “Those things are not what Christianity is all about.” But such would not be entirely true. Modesty, purity, and abstaining from various forms of worldliness are part of Christianity. Let’s consider some Biblical truths that bear on this problem.
1. True religion has always involved “You can’ts” or “Thou shalt nots.” As early as Genesis 2:17 God told man NOT to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. First, however, he told Adam that he could eat of every tree of the garden; then He placed this one restriction on him. This “you can’t” was not unreasonable; in fact, it was in man’s best interest not to eat of it. The fact that the first pair disobeyed shows something about us. We don’t like any restrictions, whether they number one or one hundred. Let’s face it: we just don’t like to be told we can’t do something. In other words, this desire for total freedom on our part is OUR problem. We need to learn submission, the importance of rules, and that we just cannot have our own way all of the time. We need to learn to enjoy the freedoms God has given us instead of wondering if we aren’t missing out on something better.
Of the Ten Commandments that God gave to Israel there are only two expressed in positive terms: remembering the Sabbath day and honoring father and mother. In addition to “You shall not: murder, commit adultery, steal, bear false witness, or covet,” Israel was also told NOT to take the name of the Lord in vain, NOT to make or worship any idols, and to have NO other gods before Jehovah” (Ex. 20:1-17).
No doubt some thought that this was far too restrictive. Yes, and six weeks later the people violated several of these commandments. Three thousand died immediately. Such is the reward for being a freethinker! The remainder died in the wilderness due to their rebellion against God’s leadership.
Christianity contains a few negatives, also. From Ephesians 4, for example, we read:
“Be angry, and do not sin” (26).
“Let him who stole steal no longer. . .” (28).
“Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth” ( 29).
“Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God” (30).
Of course there are many positive commands, but even loving your neighbor as yourself is spelled out in terms of negatives (Rom. 13:18-10). Do those who despise the use of negatives ever tell their children, “No, don’t touch that”? Hmm. If we see the importance of placing restrictions on our own children, are we not hypocritical to refuse God the same concern for His children?
2. God only prohibits what is sinful and harmful to us. To think that God is holding back from us things that are greatly to be desired is exactly the line that Satan fed Eve in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:1-6). Faith trusts in God to tell us the truth with respect to such matters. The fundamental flaw in man’s reasoning has always been to say: “I know that the Bible defines this activity as sinful, but:
a. I can handle it.”
b. This rule doesn’t apply to me (only to others).”
c. I really need to indulge in this, or I will die.”
Did not Cain convince himself that he really needed to kill his brother. Perhaps he felt that Abel was the source of all his problems and that without him the world would be a better place–at least for Cain.
Did not the otherwise godly David convince himself that he really needed Bathsheba? Never mind that it cost him his sweet relationship with God for a time, that he had several other wives, and that he was compromising his integrity and sacrificing his good example as king.
Did not Achan convince himself that his future would be much sweeter with that Babylonian garment, two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold? What future?
It never pays to violate the will of God–no matter how desperate, no matter how tempting, no matter how much we hate to be denied something our heart is set on. Consider what God told Israel:
“And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in his ways and to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and soul, and to keep the commandments of the Lord and His statutes which I command you today for your good?” (Deut. 10:12-13).
Notice the last three words–for your good. Imagine a God who was drunk with His own sense of power instead of one who is loving.
“Today I want every one of you, each time you arise to walk somewhere, to grab your left ankle with your right hand and hop on your right foot. Plus you have to sing “Polly Wolly Doodle” until you reach your destination. Tomorrow you can walk normally, but you must hold your arms straight out to your sides–even if you are carrying something and whistle the theme from “Star Wars.” Are you grateful such nonsense is not required?
We have not as yet even imagined an evil being in charge of the universe–one who would require to kill or torture someone, as Satanism occasionally requires of its adherents. What if you were required to steal from someone you love? The list could continue.
3. The great freedoms we do have provide satisfaction and abundant joy. Instead of complaining about what we are not allowed to do, we might take a look at what we can do.
We are allowed to dwell upon the forgiveness of sins. Belonging to God involves numerous privileges. If we understand that sin condemned us and sin’s punishment is eternal torment, we might remember to be just a little grateful. Of course, those who do not take either sin or hell seriously will be prevented in strong measure from seeing the value of obeying the gospel. Perhaps we should learn a lesson from the rich man in Luke 16 before, as he was, we are too late wise.
We are allowed to feel happy and privileged that we, who have sinned so often, are called the children of God (1 John 3:1). Looking at our past life with its multitude of sins ought to convince us that we do not deserve such an honor.
We are allowed to be jubilant in the knowledge that “if God be for us, who can be against us” and that “all things work together for good to them that love the Lord” (Rom. 8:28ff).
We are allowed to feel honored to be chosen as “the light of the world” (Matt. 5:16). The world lies in darkness–moral and spiritual darkness. Jesus was the light of the world, and the Word of God serves as light, but unfortunately all that some people will have to look at is us. Frequently, they do not own a Bible, or, if so, are nearly totally ignorant of its contents. Sadly, many of those who would follow God have allowed themselves to be blinded by error.
So, if we have been led to a knowledge of the truth, how blessed we are. But privileges carry with them responsibilities. We must be the light that now shines in darkness, which means that we should not try to blend into the shadows by wearing the same immodest clothing worldly people do or imbibing in the same “spirits” they do. We are not required to participate in the same ungodly things that others do.
Are those worldly things fun? Sure, but they have a down side, like hangovers, social diseases, or AIDS. It is also the case that not all, like the prodigal son, live long enough to “come to themselves” and repent.
How ungrateful God must think us if we are unwilling to give up a few paltry things for the abundant life we can possess here and eternal life at the day of judgment. Jesus asked, “What will a man give in exchange for his soul?” For some, the answer is, “Almost anything.” How cheaply some will pawn what is worth more than the entire world. After about three trillion years into eternity, who will be saying, “I got a good deal, choosing to live 50 years on earth in total ungodliness?” Those who submitted to a few “you can’ts” will still be raving about the bargain they got.
With the 25th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision nearly upon us, we all are reminded that 37 million babies have been put to death in the United States alone. Carol Everett helped 35,001 of them to be destroyed.
Her involvement with the abortion industry is the subject of this autobiographical book, Blood Money. The reader is provided a view of “the selling of abortion” from the inside. Carol has been out of the abortion business since 1984; this paperback was published in 1992.
When she left her job, she determined that abortion was wrong, and before long pro-life organizations were asking her to speak. She spoke in Peoria while we were still living there. So impressive was she that I used a videotape of her speech in the composition courses I was teaching at Illinois Central College as a prompt for students to write about. Some students remained unaffected, but most realized they were becoming acquainted with information that had never been made available to them before (which opened their eyes).
The book begins with the story of a woman who died from having a legal abortion at one of the clinics. With a little more care, the woman’s life could have been saved; part of the story includes how the clinic was able to cover up their guilt in this matter.
From this frantic introduction, the next several chapters focus on the author’s childhood. The reader needs to know her background in order to understand the way she related to men (particularly her second husband who wanted no more children; he even insisted that she agree to get an abortion if she became pregnant).
The account of Carol’s own abortion is not unlike that of Linda Francke in her essay, “The Ambivalence of Abortion.” Some of Carol’s thoughts included, “What kind of mother am I to voluntarily take your life from you? I wish your dad would call me and say, ‘Stop!’–releasing me from the stupid promise I made” (67).
She further writes: “As I lay there, mentally preparing myself for the abortion, I irrationally wished for Tom to be transformed into a knight in shining armor who would race through the door of the hospital room and rescue us–the baby and me” (67). One can only wonder how many million women have been mislead on the “procedure” of abortion and felt as Carol did?
When I woke up, my womb was empty. I felt the void where my child had been safely tucked away only a few hours earlier. Depression overwhelmed me; guilt engulfed me; tears flooded my eyes. I felt too ashamed to call my mother… (67-68).
One would think that such an experience would turn a person immediately into a pro-lifer, and sometimes it does. Some women feel violated, lied to, and experience anger along with their deep sorrow. But in other cases women seek some sort of validation. If they can help other women do the same thing, then it can serve to make their own decision less painful. People always feel that there is safety in numbers.
Not too long after her abortion, Carol was offered work in a “clinic.” She took the job and became quite proficient at selling abortions. Her marketing skills soon helped to destroy 400+ babies a month.
Carol was able to obtain media coverage for her place of employment by holding a press conference and offering free abortions to victims of rape–if they reported it to the police. The publicity was great, even though they never did a single abortion for such a cause.
When one learns that Carol got $25 for each abortion scheduled, that may not seem like a lot of money. But with 500 or more abortions a month toward the end of her career, she was making between $12,000 and $15,000 per month in salary. The “doctors” earn even more. Despite their protests about helping women have safe abortions and the “right to exercise control over their own bodies,” money is the motivating force.
Safe abortions? Besides the one woman who died, several others were maimed. This book is not full of gory and gruesome details, but there are a few occasions which should make a normal person shudder. One of those involves a description of a botched attempt to remove the baby from the womb: “The doctor had perforated a fifteen-year-old girl’s uterus and had pulled her colon through her vagina” (92).
The girl was swiftly rushed to surgery, and the clinic avoided being blamed for the catastrophe. Carol said she learned a vital lesson that night: “A successful abortion clinic needs doctors willing to put their license on the line in the cover-up of botched abortions” (92).
What was Carol’s attitude toward protestors or anyone who called this “business” into question?
I kept a Bible in my top right-hand drawer and pulled it out if someone said, “Abortion is a sin.” My answer was emphatic: “I am helping women because God wants me to. I tithe out of all the money I make. I pray every day.” It was true, but I didn’t tell them I actually prayed for freedom from complications and death, and for more abortions every day (108).
Sometimes the clinics were so zealous in selling abortions, they began performing them on women who were not actually pregnant. A technician would point to a spot on a sonogram, take the woman’s money, and schedule her “abortion.”
The Dallas news media caught them, and ran an expose on them (not on the evils of abortion, however). Carol was made the scapegoat by the doctor she had been so close to for years–the one who had done her own abortion and been her constant business partner.
She had other offers from people to work for them in the same profession, but in discussing these matters with someone, she decided finally that abortion was wrong and that she had been wrong. Her change of heart was due to a denominational “pastor,” who gave her the usual non-Biblical “receive Jesus into your heart” line. But her actions and attitudes changed.
This book is interesting from more aspects than can adequately be reviewed. It reads very fast and provides insights into people’s rationale that are just not easily discovered elsewhere. Without intending to, it makes a powerful argument against killing those who participate in this abominable industry. The transformation of some of those who have departed the pro-choice cause is amazing, and their eyewitness testimony is powerful.
The book contains 210 pages and was published by Multnomah Press. “Christian” book stores still carry it.
In last year’s October 19th Parade Magazine the following question was discussed with teenagers: “You Can Really Get to Know Someone By Living Together–Yes Or No?” Probably one would be overly-optimistic to expect an answer, such as: “You mean commit fornication? God has always forbidden that kind of behavior. It was defined as sin under the Law of Moses; Jesus likewise condemned it, and His apostles consistently listed it among the works of the flesh. Of course it would be wrong to cohabitate in order to ‘really get to know someone.'”
Instead, most of the teenagers in the group thought it made sense. Chris (all of these teens were from Parkersburg, West Virgina) responded as follows:
Do you think you will ever have more, emotionally, than your parents do now? Look, half of us have parents who are divorced. And many parents stay married but have a lot of arguments. I think if they’d gotten to know each other better, they probably wouldn’t have married. I think you have to be really sure.
Lynn Minton: How can you be sure?
Chris: I think that living together is the only way you can really know how another person is going to be. Yes, it goes against all the morals, and my parents are totally against it. But living together, you find out little things about the person–like if they put the cap back on the toothpaste (25).
Now ordinarily we would not criticize so severely one who is only 18, but this was hyped as a “provocative question” in the lead-in to the article.
It is true that some people get married without knowing each other very well. All of us have seen the person who sets forth a rosy disposition for a certain period of time or toward a particular individual. Then, when pretense is no longer needed, the prickly-pear, real self emerges. The shrewish woman or the abusive man takes over so effectively that those who did not know this couple at the time of their marriage scratch their heads and say, “I wonder what he/she ever saw in her/him.”
But to think that living with someone for a period of time will solve all those problems is naive. How long is long enough to know the person you are living with? Long enough for the “fake” husband to lose his job and not be able to find another one for months? Long enough to know how having children will affect the “pretend” wife? How will she be affected if she miscarries? What will be the “couple’s” attitude toward child discipline? Oh, sure, they can discuss it intellectually ahead of time, but how will it work out in practicality?
How long should a couple live together before marriage before he finds out how she will react to a teenage son being arrested and put in jail? Or before she discovers how he would react if their teenage daughter became pregnant? Some pairs are still learning things about each other at retirement age.
The point of all these questions is that people do change. Sure, he was a nice guy when she married him, but happily-ever-after got cut short by his turning to alcohol and gambling. He thought he had found a pearl until he discovered she was “having an affair” with another man.
Someone ought to point these things out to Chris rather than encouraging him by saying he asked a “provocative question.” Furthermore, according to some studies, those who “lived together” first actually had a higher divorce rate than those who did not. So besides the fact that it is morally wrong to do so, the idea has failed anyway.
Furthermore, if Chris thinks the toothpaste cap is the big issue in marriage, he needs to do a little more studying. In most polls that deal with problems in marriage, the big three points of contention are sex, money, and in-laws. There are other issues, but the toothpaste cap very seldom makes the top ten list. At this juncture, the interviewer asked: “Are those things important?”
Another student chimed in: “They’re agitations. People don’t like living with agitations,” to which Chris added, “And how you deal with little problems is how you’ll deal with the big problems in the future.”
People don’t like living with agitations? Well, excuse the world!! Anyone who thinks that marriage is supposed to be agitation-free is obviously not ready yet. Are there agitations in school? Students confide that many of their professors are unsympathetic as to whether they learn anything or not; some refuse to even answer questions.
Do people ever become agitated at work? Are they ever passed over for promotion? Do they ever have to share an office with someone who cracks his knuckles or wears too much perfume? Do they have to do other people’s work and cover for their ineptness?
Do people become agitated just driving down the road when the person in front of them stops for no apparent reason or has no clue as to what an accelerator is for and what the color green means? Do people get agitated when someone crosses three lanes of traffic just to cut in front of them when there was not enough room for a surfboarder? And what about the agitation that results from waiting patiently to make a turn, and another vehicle waits until two feet before the intersection to turn on his signal light?
We may not like living with agitations, but we do so for a lack of meaningful options. There is no greater opportunity to find irritations than at home. Periodically, a wife writes in to an advice column about how to handle her husband who just throws his clothes on the floor rather than putting them in a hamper. People get on each other’s nerves at times. Living with someone will not eliminate such problems.
The manner in which one deals with little problems is no index as to the way larger ones will be dealt with. Some will compromise on big issues but remain inflexible on minor matters, and vice versa.
What the Girls Said
In years gone by the girls would probably have been outraged by the question in this survey, but they proved to be just as immoral, if not more so, than the guys. Cara commented (to the one male who took exception to the proposed arrangement): “You don’t think living together will help them work things out?” Ashley asserted: “I don’t see the harm in living together. You can learn more about the other person that way.” But Sarah was just plain bold:
I’m not totally against premarital sex. You need to find out if that person can satisfy you or not. What if this person just doesn’t do anything for you? You’re going to be stuck the rest of your life.
Chris: You wouldn’t marry someone unless they satisfied you sexually?
Sarah: “Sometimes when the person doesn’t satisfy you, you find out you’re not as in love as you thought.
What kind of emphasis has produced this type of thinking? Doesn’t this kind of hype come from magazines which accent the material world, songs with lurid lyrics, and movies/television that glorify the flesh–in other words, the realm of fantasy? Does Sarah know multitudes of young couples who have gotten married and are dissatisfied in the bedroom? No evidence has been offered of such an epidemic.
That is not to say that everyone is a natural-born expert, but two people who are committed to one another, and are willing to communicate, can grow in this aspect of married life, just as in any other. Sexual problems within marriage do not generally occur on day one. Some are introduced by infidelity; others may arise from unrealistic expectations sparked by pornography (magazines or videos). Still others may reflect a change in attitude on the part of one mate.
Perhaps she did not intend to do so, but Sarah implies that love varies in direct proportion to sexual satisfaction. If that were the case, perhaps one should try as many partners as possible to decide who would make the best husband for her (assuming she can remain free from all sorts of diseases). And then, once married, how will she know she is not missing out on someone even better? What a grotesque philosophy!
It is amazing how marriage, as God designed it, eliminates so many problems–if those who enter into it will honor their commitments. Sarah thinks of marriage as being “stuck for the rest of your life.” Yet obviously people do not really feel “stuck” (remember Chris said that half the parents in this group were divorced). Instead, marriage partners enjoy an exclusive privilege. It is a privilege and a challenge to begin, develop, and maintain an intimate relationship with another human being (of the opposite sex) in God’s Divine institution.
This past year there were several lawsuits against tobacco companies which received a great deal of public attention and generated a fair amount of discussion on radio talk shows. Did smokers have a legitimate complaint? Should the tobacco companies be held liable for the results of their product? Evaluating this one is comparable to hearing that the IRS might audit Janet Reno; which side does a person cheer for?
On the one hand, tobacco companies, like liquor companies, know what their product does. Maybe they justify to themselves their products, as pornographic publishers do, by saying, “There’s a market for it. People want to buy this product. If we didn’t produce it, someone else would.”
On the other hand, there are the smokers who have brought the lawsuits. Did they really not know the harm that smoking causes? The Surgeon General’s warning has been on the package since 1964, but people knew long before then the hazards of cigarettes.
Popular radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, who is obviously pro-business, left no doubts about whose side he was on, going so far as to refer to some as “anti-smoking Nazis.” A few callers tried to protest the terminology but could make no headway. Most of us just turn off the program when that subject arises. It is not that we fail to see the point about those who are anti-business or anti-corporation. The fact is that many of us have preached and taught against smoking for years–not because we are Nazis, trying to impose our will on others, but because cigarettes and other forms of tobacco are addictive and deadly.
Concerning the addictive nature of cigarettes, Mr. Limbaugh often says that he quit, and it was the easiest thing he ever did. While we are happy for him, we have all seen friends or loved ones who fought with themselves day and night: some have won the battle, but many have lost. Some have claimed that the ingredients found in cigarettes are more addictive than cocaine. One should not view his own experience as typical of everyone else’s.
Another argument in favor of tobacco is mentioning someone who smoked and lived to be 103. This is scarcely a valid argument–unless the average smoker lives to such a grand age. There are always exceptions. There are some alcoholics who by all rights should have no liver left, but then there are also Mickey Mantle and others who have either had liver transplants or died–or both. There may be some “rock” star who, despite being with a number of groupies, has never had syphilis, gonorrhea, or any other sexually transmitted disease. Does this prove that promiscuity is acceptable?
A few exceptions do not negate the rule. The fact is, according to Victor Alvarez (in a “Health” column for The Dallas Morning News on December 17, 1997): “cigarette smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer, emphysema and more than 400,000 premature deaths” per year (19A). He adds that “there are 4,000 chemicals in a cigarette and approximately 40 of them are known carcinogens.” He then lists them–for those requiring precise information. In the event Mr. Limbaugh is unaware of it, smoking cigars can lead to throat and lip cancer. Chewing tobacco also has its problems.
COLLEGE STUDENTS COMMENT
In the fall of 1987 I was a full-time graduate student at Illinois State University on the assistantship program, which meant I taught a class of freshmen students in composition. For one assignment each student had to select a controversial topic and write persuasively about it. The textbook provided a list of suggestions, and I was surprised when three students chose to write about cigarettes. Each one took a different approach.
Karen Kennedy took a humorous approach in what she called “Puff, Puff, Puff.” An excerpt is included below from the October, 1987 issue of Strength.
Well, if you want to smoke, be prepared to have smelly hair and bad breath; yes, it smells rancid. When you are done taking a hit from that cig, just run your tongue across those pearly whites. Cool and tasty, right? Wrong! Yuk! Run to the washroom to brush those babies before the man of your dreams pops up. You wouldn’t want him to pass out because of your smoker’s breath. When you’re with that guy, watch out, because if you think you look cool with that white, skinny thing sticking out of your mouth, think again. Those movie stars sure do, but then this is the real world, and to my knowledge it turns a guy off if you smoke. So if you want to be single and smell, then puff, puff, puff (5).
Jolie Burns talked about her personal triumph over nicotine in “Quit Smoking for the Last Time.” Below are two complete paragraphs and portions of others from her composition.
Lung cancer, yellow teeth, and your clothes smelling like smoke are just a few bad effects from smoking. I had been smoking for three years when I finally realized all the harm I was doing to my body. I decided to quit for a number of reasons. I was fed up with being out of breath from climbing only one flight of stairs. Then there were the dirty looks nonsmokers would give me when I smoked in public. My budget would also become tighter with every pack of cigarettes I bought.
Unfortunately I could not go through with quitting smoking the first time I tried. Quitting takes will power and a real desire to quit… I found out that the first two weeks it was important not to be with other smokers… When I am at a party, I always have gum with me. Chewing gum has really helped me kick the habit. I use it whenever I have the desire to smoke.
The feeling I have about myself is unexplainable. My clothes and hair no longer smell like smoke; I am slowly beginning to catch my breath; and I am decreasing my chances of lung cancer. Since I no longer smoke, I have extra money for other things. I feel I have done myself a favor by quitting smoking while I am young and still can. Anybody else need to quit (4)?
Still another student wrote on this subject; she provides a more personal touch to the issue–one that many families have probably experienced. It is reprinted in its entirety (and therefore the larger type will be used).
A SECOND CHANCE
Vicki Cunnea
The breeze gently blew through my hair as Grandpa pushed me on the swing. Laughing as the world around me seemed so new, Grandpa and I enjoyed the sunny day. Feeling free and alive, we ran through the playground, not missing a single piece of equipment to play on. Hours passed as we talked, played, and sang together. We would have been there longer, but the sunny day soon faded to dark. Walking hand in hand, we headed for home where Grandma waited for us.
This fond memory is all I have now. Grandpa passed away last year. He died of cancer due to smoking. As a young child Grandpa smoked a couple cigarettes a day, but it soon led to a couple packs of cigarettes. Like many kids today, he did it because his friends did. He continued to smoke because he thought it relaxed him. He grew sick from the effects of the cigarettes. Grandpa was a beautiful person. Because of smoking he’s now gone. Smoking smells, looks bad, and causes cancer.
Smoking seems so simple. Smokers cautiously take a drag from a cigarette and blow it freely into the air. If they keep the smoke out of others’ faces, usually nothing is said, but in a crowded room smokers not only make it difficult for others to breathe, they make the room stink. Imagine being locked in a room for an hour surrounded by thick, gray smoke. Disgusting? Yes. Attractive? No.
America is on a health kick. In this day and age it takes a real effort to ignore the cold, hard facts about smoking’s dangers. In fact, you’d have to be unconscious not to have noticed the bad publicity smoking has received in recent years. Restaurants have had to provide an area for nonsmokers to eat; some businesses have completely banned smoking in the offices, and airlines have had to designate a larger are for nonsmokers.
Imagine a person smoking. Do you think that person looks sophisticated? Today’s society looks down on smokers. Television programs have advertised the effects of smoking through actresses, models, and every day people. Organizations such as the American Lung Association work hard to help people quit smoking. Let’s face it–the glamor of smoking is gone.
Cigarette smoking constitutes a health hazard. Research indicates that smoking is directly associated with cancer. It is estimated that seventeen billion dollars is lost each year in health care costs because of smoking. That’s astronomical!!
When my grandfather began smoking, he didn’t know that it caused cancer or that he would die from it. He died unhappy, wishing he had quit. Many people today know the facts, yet they choose to smoke anyway. Most will die because of it. Most of them have a family that loves them. Most don’t worry about it until it is too late. Why?
I miss Grandpa. He was a good friend. Unfortunately, the memories are all I have. A gentle, caring old man, my grandpa, is gone. When he died, he was only 58 years old and weighed 75 pounds. If only he had known what we all know today when he started smoking. . . (3).
* * *
Opposition to cigarettes and tobacco products is not based on the desire to restrict anyone’s freedom–to dictate what others can and cannot do. Were people not free for over 5,000 years of human history before cigarettes were manufactured and marketed? Why does it suddenly require nicotine for a person to enjoy liberty?
The fact is that we do outlaw things that are harmful to the individual–from marijuana to LSD. Sometimes the argument is made that the user of these things can pose a danger to others, which is true. Yet alcohol remains legal despite the number of people who are killed and maimed each year (by those who obviously do not reserve it strictly for their own personal use). The marijuana user who has a mountain cabin must feel discriminated against because he cannot legally smoke in the privacy of his home where he will disturb no one, but someone can get drunk legally with alcoholic beverages and do all sorts of damage to others.
Furthermore, the cigarette smoker can do damage to others. Some have quit working in restaurants that have smoking sections because of the pervading haze of smoke that fouls one’s clothes and hair and fills one’s lungs with a number of impurities from secondhand smoke. After two or three hours, nonsmokers become physically sick. Generally, smokers do not understand this reaction; they frequently dismiss such objections and complaints as foolishness.
What saith the Scriptures? First Corinthians 6:19-20 is frequently cited as evidence that one should not harm the body, which is true. Some respond by saying, “Everything is harmful,” which is specious. The over-zealousness of a few “studies” does not negate factual information on truly harmful substances. In First Corinthians 6:12 Paul answers the “all things are lawful” argument by saying, “I will not be brought under the power of anything.” Wouldn’t that include addictions?
“INCREDIBLE!” is the only way to describe the contents of Dangerous ‘Isms, this year’s Power lectureship book. A spiritual buffet of assorted meats awaits the reader of this outstanding collection of information. From beginning to end the reader will be treated to powerful presentations of some of the forces shaping society today.
For the 758 pages the reader gets, this price is a bargain. Valid Publications, Inc. (908 Imperial Drive, Den-ton, TX 76201) sells it for $14 (plus shipping and handling; Texas residents add sales tax). The latest popular novel in hardback costs more than that; even paperbacks retail for nearly that much. Many of those are enjoyable, but once they have been read, they are usually put on a shelf and forgotten. Dangerous ‘isms not only reads “fast”; it is a resource tool that will be used time and again. Most chapters list a number of sources, indicating the hours of research that went into just one unit of study. If the finished product were a movie, it would receive a four-star rating.
A study of “Agnosticism” leads off the cavalcade of ‘isms with 54 pages of text and 5 pages of endnotes. After some basic definitions, there follows a history of the development of modern agnosticism including an emphasis upon David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and Soren Kierkegaard, the latter of whom popularized the “leap of faith” concept held by perhaps the majority of theologians today. There is an analysis of the flaws of agnosticism, as well as a treatment of “faith, reason, and knowledge in the Scriptures.” Also included are “modern attitudes of religious agnosticism” and a consideration of how these ideas have affected the Lord’s church.
This treatise is followed by an examination of “Atheism,” which likewise proceeds by defining the doctrine. To defeat this ‘ism the author relies upon historic, logical (and unanswerable) arguments. “False Ideas About Theism” follows with a refutation of Deism and a lengthy treatment of the Biblical doctrine of Providence.
The chapter on “Darwinism/Naturalism” provides a biography of the founder of the modern evolution theory. Included in the ensuing discussion is valuable information under the headings of “Darwin’s Two Mistakes,” “Problems with Neo-Darwin Evolution,” “The Fossil Record,” “Darwinism in Human Societies,” “American Social Darwinism,” “From Social Darwinism to Sociobiology,” “Genes and Behavior,” and “From Genes to Memes,” among others. Some of the information provided in this chapter may be familiar, but most of it will be new to the reader.
The next three sections focus on ideologies that are totally compatible with all of the ‘isms covered thus far in the book: humanism, pluralism, and pragmatism.
The chapter on “Judaism” explains the reason that Jews call the Old Testament “Tanakh” (as well as what it means, 223). Then there is a discussion of three branches of modern Judaism: Orthodox, Reform, and Conservative. These all differ from each other; anyone discussing spiritual matters with Jewish people should know about the differences. The reader might wonder, “Are all Jews still awaiting the Messiah, or have they invented new interpretations of the Scriptures?” The book provides insights to questions like these.
Two chapters are devoted to Roman Catholicism; the first defines and refutes some of its key doctrines; the second recounts Steve Wiggins’ debate with three representatives of Catholic Response, “an apologetics organization from San Antonio, Texas” (261). The tapes of this debate would undoubtedly be desirable to have, based on the summary given here.
One issue that arose was papal infallibility. Steve was able to use effectively a statement made by Bishop John B. Purcell in his debate with Alexander Campbell (263). Absolutely devastating is the admission in The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia (786) that “grace and salvation operate beyond the visible limits of the [Catholic] Church” (270). Does this not mean that one does not have to be a Catholic in order to be saved? The following chapter takes a look at what is wrong with the concept of Protestant “Denominationalism.”
Chapter 12 defines and analyzes “Hinduism,” a form of religion that developed in the far east during the time that Israel was in Egypt. Many have heard of the word karma, but how many are familiar with dharma (until the television show, Dharma and Greg, came on)? Hinduism can be characterized as containing a “veritable plethora” of gods. The holy books of this religion (the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Ramayana, the Mahabha-rata, and the Puranas) are introduced, as well as some of their accounts of the origin of the universe.
Words uncommon to us, such as henotheism and panentheism (to be distinguished from pantheism) are defined (300), and there is a listing of the fundamental beliefs of Hindus (302-304). The reader can discover what the dot on the forehead means (309) and who (or what) Brahman is.
Just as interesting is the treatment of Buddhism, another foreign religion with which most Americans are unfamiliar. There is a biography of the founder and a discussion of his “FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS” (324-25). Ways of discussing and defeating the doctrines of religions like these are also shown.
What is one of the fastest-growing religions in America today? The answer is the subject of chapter 14, “Muhammadanism.” Besides providing a biography of the founder of this religion (and he was “something else!”), several terms common to the religion are explained such as the Kaaba (335), Muslims (343), the Hadith (345), and Kismet (352).
One wonders how this “religion” ever thrived with the founder requiring his followers to believe as literal truth visions so surreal and bizarre that they would make the psychedelic nonsense of LSD users appear logical (340-41). Today there are different sects of this religion: the Sunnites, the Shiites (we have all heard of this group of radicals), and the Sufis (344-45).
The Qur’an (once known as the Koran) is the Muslim holy book. There are five pillars of Islam (obligations which each Muslim must meet) and five articles of faith (347-50). The remainder of the chapter demonstrates ways that Islam can be defeated ideologically.
The longest chapter in the book is the one on “New Ageism.” After defining the topic, a history of the modern movement is given, followed by a look at its cardinal doctrines: monism, pantheism, evolution, and reincarnation. A Biblical refutation is given of this “multiple-life” doctrine as well as an explanation for the so-called “past-life experiences” (379-80). Consideration is given to “trance channeling,” a popular and expensive form of entertainment. Imagine! People are so gullible that they now pay for being duped.
The morality of those who subscribe to New Age philosophy is suspect, as is seen by some of its most popular adherents. There is also a “dark side of the force,” to which all should be alerted. The principles of New Ageism are contrasted with the teachings of the Scriptures to demonstrate that the positivism in the system is really only a doorway to darkness.
“Pentecostalism” has been around for nearly 100 years, but there are some new manifestations of it that the reader should know. A brief history is given of the original Pentecostal movement, then the charismatic movement, and finally the Vineyard movement. Included in the discussion is “the Toronto Airport Blessing” and “holy laughter.”
No ‘ism book would be complete without a section on “Feminism.” There is some excellent material here on a theory that was once the rage among working mothers–the concept of “quality time” (452-55).
All brethren need to read the chapter on “Annihi-lationism.” The Biblical doctrine of hell has become unpopular with the majority of people in the world. Therefore, since the worldly tail usually wags the spiritual dog (instead of the other way around), we now have some among us who are advocating that the disobedient soul merely ceases to exist.
The material presented on this vital subject provides a brief history of the development of the doctrine–including the inroads it is making into the church. The Biblical teaching is analyzed, and the significance of it is emphasized.
Premillennialism is probably one of the more familiar ‘isms examined in this book, and Mormonism is probably no stranger, either. But as familiar with the topic as the reader may be, it is certain that he will gain some insights that he did not possess before. The history of the Mormons is given, along with some of their major beliefs, including ones they have since renounced. Also, failed prophecies are noted.
Another religious ideology enjoying great success today is “Seventh-Day Adventism.” Some attention is given to their successes; truly one should be prepared for a discussion of the issues they raise. A history is offered that details their beginning with William Miller and continues to the self-styled “prophetess,” Ellen Gould White (1827-1915). She claimed to receive revelations from God, as did Joseph Smith, who founded the Mormons. This group claims that the Sabbath day is still to be observed, although the author of this chapter points out how inconsistent they are in their application of the teaching.
“Legalism” and “Liberalism” are the next two chapters, followed by “Pessimism” and “Hedonism.” Most of these contain information that is more familiar to us than some of the other chapters, but there is still some good solid material here.
Likewise, “Alcoholism” is not exactly new, but there are some up-to-date statistics about alcohol’s relationship to society’s problems. The reader will also find a thorough treatment of the Scriptures that relate to this subject. The Appendix contains both “snail mail” and e-mail addresses of agencies all over the country which are dedicated to providing information and helping alcoholics to recover.
Phariseeism, Sadduceeism, and Gnosticism are analyzed in “A study of Dangerous ‘Isms in the New Testament.” A thorough treatment is given concerning what Phariseeism is NOT, as well as what it is, which is helpful in light of so many misunderstandings and misrepresentations.
A chapter that challenges all of us is the one on “Materialism.” Probably none of us would consider ourselves materialistic, but there are some excellent criteria set forth by which to evaluate ourselves. The reader will find an excellent array of Scriptures to consider.
Many members of the Lord’s church have heard of “Satanism,” and occasionally there are some headlines which mention young people involved in it–usually in connection with a crime that has been committed. Satanists don’t usually devote themselves to good works. There is included in the chapter a discussion of The Satanic Bible, its author, Anton LaVey, and the Necronomi-con, a collection of blasphemies and abominations. The nine Satanic statements are also included (691-92).
The book concludes with a look at “Racism,” “Destructive Textual Criticism,” “Calvinism,” and “Post-Modernism.” Every Christian should at least be introduced to these last three topics in order to be aware of the erroneous ideas of men (some old and some new). Calvinism has some strong adherents today, and this chapter presents some key Scriptures which refute this longstanding heresy. The reader will profit greatly from the accumulated knowledge found in this book.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “RECOMMENDED READING: DANGEROUS ‘ISMS (12/28/97).”
On November 10, 1996 we recommended the book Brave New Schools, which has some excellent material in it about current problems with public education. Some have confirmed that the things described in the book are identical to what their children are facing.
To give an indication of the variety of subject matter covered, we selected and printed a few brief quotes, one of which mentioned the reaction of a fourth grader to a book by Lois Lowry, titled The Giver. Below is the quotation we published in that article:
Reaction to The Giver (the 1994 Newbery Medal winner): Stunned, Laura stared at her teacher. Would they really kill a baby if it didn’t weigh enough? The horrible image of the tiny infant, murdered and thrown down a chute like a piece of garbage, made her sick (135-36).
A lady e-mailed me recently, challenging the treatment that The Giver had received in Brave New Schools. Its author, Berit Kjos, was making the point that schools are presenting inappropriate material to students, and he referred to a teacher in Davenport, Iowa, who read The Giver to his fourth grade class. We agree wholeheartedly that the material in the book is not appropriate for this age group–especially without any explanation or discussion. The parent had a right to protest The Giver being used in such a manner. After all, there are so many books suitable for this age group. Personally, I would not recommend the book to anyone younger than the age of twelve.
Apparently, it was the upset fourth-grader’s mother who summarized The Giver for Kjos; she knows the story-line, but her concluding remarks are puzzling:
“The Giver desensitized students to the new values,” she told me. “Though the last part showed the downside, the book helped make the futuristic community seem normal. The children were free to form their own conclusions, but their conclusions would be based on biased information they were given” (138).
This paragraph does a disservice to Lois Lowry. There is not just a downside at the end of the book of the kind of society described; the theme of the entire story is to demonstrate the “downside” of this kind of emotionless society. All of the regulations in the story seem ÒnormalÓ to the people living in the community because they are not taught to question anything or to feel anything. Hence, they can murder an innocent life and continue with their daily activities as though nothing happened (What does this imply about the acceptance of abortion?). The story ends on the positive note of an attempt to CHANGE the horrible, nonchalant attitudes that exist there (ones that devalue human life).
The Giver has much to recommend it: it is well-written and thought-provoking (for older students). Our thanks to Maxine Moore for her e-mail message which took issue with Kjos’ reliance upon the fourth-grader’s mother’s evaluation of the book. The concerned but critical parent would probably have had an entirely different opinion of The Giver if her daughter’s teacher had explained the theme of the book and kept it in context. The story makes a powerful point.
Our Operating Philosophy
Although we are careful not to ever intentionally misrepresent anyone, a lack of omniscience occasionally allows such to happen. It is always a good idea to evaluate what one reads and see if it 1) squares with reality and 2) harmonizes with the Scriptures.
In the instance cited on the preceding page, the material presented in Brave New Schools squared with reality, and so far as we know was reliable–except in its evaluation of The Giver. In that instance, the author relied upon the evaluation of The Giver by a distraught mother, who had read the book but failed to perceive the author’s intent. In other words, Kjos took the mother’s word for it, and readers of Brave New School will end up relying upon this erroneous analysis, also.
A while back I read a book with some excellent material, which was well-documented. I was ready to recommend the book in print until I got to the last chapter. The author included Rush Limbaugh as a supporter of violence and various private militias. He even used a quote from his radio broadcast to substantiate his point. The only problem was that I had heard that particular broadcast and knew that the quote was taken out of context. It was a clumsy effort to lump Limbaugh in with some of the fanatics he had been describing.
The problem is that if he would treat one individual in this way (take his words out of context and try to pass him off as something he is not), then one must wonder how fairly the author treated the other people and groups he evaluated in his book. The rest of the material may be accurate, but this one error casts a reflection on all else that he wrote.
If we ever discover, as we did in this case, that anyone has been misrepresented in this publication, we will (as we have done here regarding Lois Lowry) make the appropriate correction. We have no reason to bend or twist things to make a spectacular point; the facts are usually pretty bizarre all by themselves.
Sometimes, people write or e-mail us taking issue with WHAT was said, but not with the accuracy of what was reported. We have often been accused of misrepresenting Max Lucado, but we have quoted from him and not taken him out of context. Most protests are based on an emotional attachment to him, not an objective analysis of his teachings. When discussions with his loyal fans center on the issues rather than personalities, they usually quit corresponding.
Our goal, when discussing current issues, is to deal with real problems and attitudes, not manufactured ones. Some people, like “Pastor” Melton, enjoy misrepresenting their adversaries, but we do not think that such practices reflect the spirit of Christ.
The Barrels Melted Down (Update)
Another reader called to our attention further information about the recent policy statement of the Catholic Church about homosexuality, which we discussed in “The Barrels Melted Down,” which we published on October 12th. All of the quotes used in that issue of Spiritual Perspectives were taken from an article, which appeared in several newspapers.
Although those quotations and comments were correct, there was more context than what the major stories revealed. According to an e-mail correspondent, the Catholic bishops were not trying to justify homosexuality, only homosexual orientation. One might wonder, “What’s the difference?” The following observations may make them easier to distinguish. [These were not published in any of the articles I read.]
While it [the report, GWS] urged acceptance of homosexual orientations, it continued to insist that sexual intercourse be limited to a man and wife within a marriage.
The bishops said multiple factors seemed to account for a homosexual orientation and said it was “generally…experienced as a given, not something freely chosen.”
“By itself, therefore, a homosexual orientation cannot be considered sinful, for morality presumes the freedom to choose,” the letter continued.
But it went on to underscore the importance of chastity as “a way of respecting personal dignity.”
Living and loving chastely, the bishops continued, meant that sexual intercourse was limited to marriage between a man and a woman.
It highlighted friendship as “a way of loving” and said friendship “outside of genital sexual involvement” should be an integral part of a homosexual person’s life.
Now if these comments have not cleared up the matter, here is the gist of what they are saying. Homosexuals cannot helping liking those of their own sex more than those of the opposite sex. This orientation should not be condemned. Only homosexual acts are wrong. The news story made it sound like these bishops were totally endorsing homosexuality.
HOWEVER, we still take issue with even this point. Although an individual might (for whatever reason) like those of his own gender better than the opposite one, it is still a choice. We know that it is a choice because the “orientation” can be changed (1 Cor. 6:9-11). If I were a homosexual reading this Catholic report, my question would be, “If the orientation is not sinful, why are homosexual acts sinful? If I didn’t choose to be what I am, how can I be condemned for acting on my feelings of orientation?” In other words, if the feeling is right, how can the expression be wrong?
So, even though the newspaper stories did not report the whole scope of what the U. S. Catholic bishops decided, it is still possible to take issue with much of what they wrote. In a sense, they have gone half the distance in accepting homosexuality. This acceptance of the “orientation” may only be a brief stop on the way to accepting sexual acts. It might also be considered an attempt to be compassionate toward the plight of the homosexual (his orientation) while rejecting the expression of those feelings.
The truly compassionate response would be to get them to change their orientation. In order to do so, one would have to analyze why that orientation exists (no, no one is “born that way”). How did the orientation develop, and how can it be changed? Some homosexuals who once thought they were “born that way” have been able to do exactly that; they have emerged from that orientation to a heterosexual one and become happily married–to a person of the opposite sex (one needs to specify these days).
If we are going to help people, we must get them as far away from sin as possible. It is not sufficient to merely avoid wrong actions; the heart (mental attitude) must also change (Matt. 15:18-20).
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “ADDITIONAL INSIGHTS (12/21/97).”
A third argument that “pastor” Melton makes against the obvious force of Acts 2:38 is one which has been often used. Once again, however, it reveals the dishonesty of the one who uses it.
The third thing to notice about Acts 2:38 is that the term “for” does not always mean “in order to,” [Is this an admission that it sometimes does?–GWS] like the Church of Christ teaches. A good example of this is found in Luke 15:14 where the Lord Jesus tells the cleansed leper to go and offer a sacrifice “for thy cleansing.” The man wasn’t offering a sacrifice IN ORDER TO be cleansed, because he had already been cleansed in verse 13. He was offering a sacrifice BECAUSE OF the cleansing that he already had. For example, if you go to jail for stealing, is it IN ORDER for you to steal, or is it BECAUSE OF the stealing that you’ve already done? Also notice how “remission of sins” FOLLOWS belief in Acts 10:43, and PRECEDES water baptism.
There is much more wrong in this quotation than the fact that Melton quoted the wrong verse; the text is Luke 5:14–not 15:14. It is true that the English word for may mean “on account of” or “because of” depending on the context. What Melton neglected to tell his readers is that in the Greek language (from which the King James was translated), there are two different Greek prepositions used in the two verses cited. In Luke 5:14 the preposition translated “for” is peri; however, in Acts 2:38, the preposition is eis. If Melton did not want to consult a famous “cult leader” like Thayer on this matter, the least he could have done was to pick up an interlinear translation and check to see if the two prepositions were the same. [The ASV uses “unto.”]
Why did he not do so when it only takes about a minute? Perhaps it was that lack of emphasis upon Greek wherever he attended school. Or maybe he did look up the words and just decided to ignore them in order to deceive his readers–again.
The point is that eis does not mean BECAUSE OF, but rather IN ORDER TO. The Bible student seeking a parallel usage should look at Matthew 26:28: “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Did Jesus die for people’s sins BECAUSE they were already forgiven? No, He died IN ORDER TO OBTAIN their remission. The first for in the verse is the Greek conjunction gar. The second one is from peri, and the third one is eis. The English translated all three as “for,” just as it translates both agapao and phileo as “love” in John 21:15-17, though there is a difference in meaning. What Melton needs to prove his case is to find an example of eis which is translated as “because of.” He will never find such a usage in the Holy Scriptures; for that reason he focused on the English word for instead of the Greek word eis.
Acts 10:43 is another general statement about salvation, such as John 1:13. It certainly is not describing the process of salvation nor affirming that one can be saved without repentance and baptism.
We cannot help wondering what Melton’s congregation will think of his dishonesty in handling the Scriptures (not to mention misrepresenting us). Will they blindly continue to follow him or call upon him to give an account of his errors (deliberate or otherwise)?
Melton offers one more objection to the teaching of Acts 2:38.
Number four, the Jews were told to be baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ,” but WE were told to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost in Matthew 28:19. Acts 2:38 is obviously a special baptism for the first century Jews who had rejected Christ. They were told to be baptized in His name to show that they now RECEIVED Him.
Once again an interlinear translation would have helped our “scholarly” critic. Had he checked, he might have discovered that the preposition translated “in” in Matthew 28:19 is once again eis. Probably the best translation would be “into.” In Acts 2:38 the Greek preposition translated “in” is epi (some manuscripts have en). Most commentators recognize that “in the name of Christ” in Acts 2:38 means by His authority, whereas Jesus in Matthew 28:19 is emphasizing that we are baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
The Pulpit Commentary (not written by members of the churches of Christ) says of this phrase:
It signifies into the power and influence of the Holy Trinity, into faith in the three Persons of God, and the duties and privileges consequent on that faith, into the family of God and obedience unto its Head. The “into” shows the end and aim of the consecration of baptism (15:645).
Thus there is no contradiction between the two verses (since each one is emphasizing a different point). But where is the verse that says people were baptized merely to show that they had received Christ? It is not found in Acts 2:38 or Matthew 28:19. That assertion springs from Baptist doctrine, not the Scriptures.
Members of the churches of Christ would never try to diminish the importance of faith or the relevance of repentance, but Melton and others do try to destroy or negate the role and position of baptism in God’s plan of salvation. An HONEST consideration of Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 will convince one of its necessity–of the fact that it PRECEDES salvation.
Acts 10–Cornelius
Melton argues that Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before he was baptized; therefore, baptism is not necessary for salvation. Again, it is vital to consider the context. Peter was criticized for going to the Gentiles. Even though salvation was promised to both Jew and Gentile in Isaiah 2:2-4, the Jews did not understand it. Even the high priest, who spoke by inspiration, did not comprehend what he said. Caiaphas said:
“You know nothing at all, nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish” (John 11:50).
The interpretation of these words follows:
Now this he did not say on his own authority; but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for that nation only, but also that He would gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad (John 11:51-52).
Isaiah had said that “all nations” would flow to the “Lord’s house,” the church. [For this reason there is only one plan of salvation for both Jew and Gentile (Gal. 3:28; 1 Cor. 12:13).] But the Jews, even Jewish Christians, were slow, reluctant, and resistant in allowing Gentiles to share the riches of salvation. Peter had to be shown that God had accepted them before he would even go speak to them (Acts 10:9-22).
When Peter returned to Jerusalem, he was asked to give an account of the reason he had gone to the Gentiles. He recounted his vision, the upshot of which was that Peter learned that God shows no partiality. “But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him” (Acts 10:35).
To dramatically demonstrate this point, the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius and his household. Peter used this unusual event to convince the Jews in Jerusalem that God accepted the Gentiles: “If therefore God gave them the same gift He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God?” (Acts 11:17).
The Jews could say nothing in rebuttal: “When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, ‘Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life'” (Acts 11:18). The problem is resolved; the Gentiles are allowed to be Christians also. They can all be one in Jesus (Eph. 2:15).
Their receiving of the Holy Spirit was not proof that they were already saved, but rather that God would accept them equally when they obeyed the gospel. For that reason Peter asks, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (Acts 10:47). God has shown acceptance of them; therefore, the Jews cannot forbid to baptize them so that they can be saved from their sins. In the next verse Peter commands them to be baptized in [en] the name of the Lord.
Someone might object that if the Holy Spirit was in these people, then they had to be saved. But Balaam spoke the words that the Spirit put in his mouth; yet he was not saved. The high priest spoke by inspiration, as cited above, yet he rejected Jesus as the Christ. Surely no one would argue that he was saved. Cornelius spoke in tongues, but he was not yet saved. We know that he was not saved by this outpouring of the Spirit because Peter was sent to his house to tell him WORDS by which he and his household would be saved (Acts 11:14); these words were not spoken until Acts 10:47-48.
Peter 3:21
Melton’s twisting of Acts 22:16 is similar to his other perversions of the Scriptures. He calls the integrity of Ananias into question and asserts that, like Peter, he did not yet have an understanding of “Salvation by Grace.” Actually, it is Melton, not the inspired writers and prophets in the New Testament, who does not understand salvation by grace. Seldom does the arrogance of even a partisan lead him so far as to denounce the inspired Scriptures because they disagree with his interpretation of them. He also disavows 1 Peter 3:21.
The Church of Christ also uses 1 Peter 3:21 to teach that water baptism saves people, but, as anyone can clearly see, the verse says that it is a “figure,” not a doctrine. Water baptism PICTURES the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. When a believer is baptized he is being identified with Jesus Christ, but it is his BELIEF that brings Salvation, as we’ve already seen.
The King James uses the word figure, but Melton has made no effort to understand the Greek word antitupos (literally, antitype), which is translated “figure.” Type and antitype are mirror images–identical opposites. Vincent says they correspond “as of a stamp to a die” (1:313). Anyone who owns a stamp can understand the relationship of the type (the die) to the antitype (the image the die produces). In the case of the flood (the type), those under the water drowned while those above the water (in the safety of the ark) were saved. The antitype (baptism) reverses the image. Those who are immersed for the forgiveness of their sins are saved and added to the New Testament “ark of safety” (the church). Those who refuse to be buried with Christ in baptism for the forgiveness of their sins (in other words, those who stay dry) will be lost.
Jesse Whitlock, in a debate with a Baptist, asked him to mark one of the following two statements true.
1. “Baptism doth also NOW save us.”
2. Baptism doth also NOT save us.
The first sentence is Scripture (1 Peter 3:21); the second one is Baptist doctrine. Melton all through his Internet document has been arguing the latter. He has gone to great (and absurd) lengths to deny the former, but there it stands–and long after Peter’s supposed “understanding” of Salvation by Grace which he allegedly did not comprehend on the day of Pentecost though he was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Melton thinks we trust in water baptism for salvation, but rather we trust in the blood of Christ, which cleanses us WHEN we are baptized (Acts 22:16; Rev. 1:5). The Scriptures refer to baptism as “the operation of God” (Col. 2:12). We do not trust in water; rather we trust in the truth of the Word of God and God’s promise to forgive us when we obey the gospel.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “MELTON’S SKEWED VIEW OF SALVATION (PART 4) (12/14/97).”
James L. Melton (Internet address>http://www. cyberhighway.net/~nfo/melton/church.htm) continues his attack on Acts 2:38 with the following paragraph:
Secondly, please notice that there are NO GENTILES (non Jews, like you and I) in Acts 2:38. Every individual present is a commandment keeping, Sabbath observing, temple worshipping Jew. Being gathered at Jerusalem on Pentecost, a Jewish feast day, these Jews heard Peter’s stirring message about Christ, the One they had crucified. They came to realize that they had crucified their Messiah. They had already been told how to be saved in verse twenty-one (which the Church of Christ never mentions), and they were “pricked in their heart” in verse thirty-seven. So they asked, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Notice they did NOT ask, “What must I do to be saved?” (The answer to THAT question is found in Acts 16:31, not Acts 2:38.) These Jews wanted to know what to do in light of the fact that they had crucified their Messiah. This is a NATIONAL situation concerning Israel, not an individual situation dealing with lost sinners. No one in the chapter asks how to be saved?
First, let us deal with the claim that since, only Jews were present, this was a national situation rather than an individual one. In Mark 16:16 Jesus made the general statement: “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” He did not say, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved from his sin of crucifying Me.” And how does one explain Peter saying about Cornelius, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we?” (Acts 10:47)? And why was the Philippian jailer baptized in the middle of the night (Acts 16:33)?
Perhaps Ephesians 4 should be written to say, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism for the Jews (but Gentiles get a free pass on this one).” The fact is that there is but one gospel for both Jew and Gentile. “For you are all sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:26-27). This letter is addressed to the churches of Galatia, a province where Paul preached on his first missionary journey. Both Jews and Gentiles heard the gospel and obeyed it. There is only one plan for both Jew and Gentile; otherwise, how could it be said that the middle wall of partition between them had been abolished (Eph. 2:14-16)?
Acts 2:38 does deal with lost sinners (whether Jew or Gentile) and is consistent with Biblical teaching both before and after it (Mark 16:16; Acts 16:33). If Peter were responding to a NATIONAL sin, why does he tell them to do something which is personal and individual rather than something that would be national and public? Why not tell them to impeach the high priest, write a public apology, or in some way dramatically renounce their sinful deeds? Melton’s interpretation falls flat.
Now what about his “exegesis” of Acts 2? Melton claims that the multitude was told what to do to be saved in verse 21, which reads: “And it will come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” This is the last verse of several quoted by the prophet Joel. No one had asked Peter what to do to be saved prior to this verse, nor is he addressing that point. He is explaining how that what they have observed (the apostles speaking in tongues) is the fulfillment of prophecy. Why would he be telling them how to be saved before he convinces them of their sins, before they are cut to the heart, and before they ask how they can remedy the situation?
Churches of Christ do not deny that men must call upon the name of the Lord to be saved, but many of us emphasize the correct way to call upon his name: “And now why are you waiting?” Saul, the persecutor of the church was told. “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). We don’t have any problem with this passage which explains that we call on the name of the Lord as we are baptized (and He saves us then); does Melton?
Then Melton would have us believe that Peter goes to great lengths to prove that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God Whom they have killed, and that He was raised from the dead, of which they are all witnesses, and that God has made Him both Lord and Christ, by which words they are pricked in their heart (he really ought to try reading verses in their context), yet when they ask what they should do, it has nothing to do with salvation! Who can believe it?!
Of course they wanted to know what to do in light of the fact they had crucified the Messiah, but this was not a NATIONAL inquiry. They had individually sinned and needed individual repentance. Notice what happened after verse 38.
And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation” (Acts 2:39).
“No one in this chapter asks how to be saved,” Melton said. It seems pretty obvious that Peter thought that was their question since he exhorted them to be saved.
Furthermore, we read: “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and the same day about three thousand souls were added to them” (Acts 2:41). Notice the text does not say, “And the nation of Israel atoned for its sins.” No, baptism is an individual and personal response to the Truth. Verse 47 says: “the Lord was adding to the church daily those who were being saved.” This was a spiritual, personal act, not a national one. Those baptized were SAVED.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “MELTON’S SKEWED VIEW OF SALVATION (PART 3) (12/7/97).”
Previously, we have seen “Pastor” James L. Melton’s attempts to sidestep Mark 16:16. He follows his specious evasions by quoting several Scriptures that emphasize faith. But he apparently does not recognize that faith is often highlighted in the Scriptures because it is the beginning of man’s response to God. Melton treats it as though it is the end of man’s response to the grace of God. [Of course, if it is the end, then he has not only eliminated baptism but repentance as well. Faith may also be used as a synecdoche.]
For faith to be the first and final step in man’s response to the salvation he is offered, Melton needs passages (or at least one verse) that says man can be saved by faith only. All who profess to be Christians believe we are saved by faith, but some of us have noticed that faith prompts one to obey God (which is the point of much of the book of Hebrews). There is one verse in the Bible that uses the phrase faith only: James 2:24, which states: “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.”
Erroneously concluding that he has proved his case, Melton asks, “Now, who in their right mind would choose to IGNORE these plain and simple Salvation verses by charging to Mark 16:16 and trying to confuse matters?” Apparently, he forgot that Haun’s tract is titled, “Must One Be Baptized to Go to Heaven?”–not “Must One Have Faith to Go to Heaven?” Only atheists dispute the necessity of faith (unless it would be those who sprinkle infants); but many, like Melton, want to eliminate baptism as part of God’s process in saving mankind, although it is clearly taught in the Scriptures.
Lest anyone think the remark in the previous article about Jehoiakim’s penknife was too harsh, consider these next few sentences:
In Mark 16:16 the water baptism FOLLOWS the individual’s belief as a good testimony, just as taking a seat follows stepping onto a school bus. The key element in one’s Salvation is his BELIEF ON CHRIST ALONE. Water baptism is important, and it should always FOLLOW Salvation as a picture of the death, the burial, and the resurrection of Christ, but it cannot save anyone.
Melton is correct when he says that “water baptism FOLLOWS” faith, but then he equates faith with salvation so that by the time he has finished, baptism “FOLLOWS Salvation.” Look at the verse, and look at what he has done.
Mark 16:16: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.”
Melton 16:16: “He who believes is saved and should be baptized.”
Anyone who cannot honestly see the difference in the two statements needs help. He took Jehoiakim’s penknife and cut out baptism, which precedes salvation. Then, so that it would not entirely disappear, he pasted it on the other side of salvation. All of his misdirection about unbelief in the second part of the verse is just so much obfuscation. Of course, people will be lost for unbelief. But the first part of the verse promises salvation to those who believe AND are baptized.
Acts 2:38
After quoting the verse, Melton takes issue with Haun for citing authorities in the Greek language. Someone who wishes to criticize others ought to be careful about quoting them correctly. Following is the way in which Melton quoted Haun from page 7 of his tract:
“Peter said it is necessary for men in this age to be baptized to obtain pardon. The preposition ‘of’ means ‘in order to’ and is so rendered in some translations. (Living Oracles, Anderson, Macnight, Goodspeed) The English Revised and American Revised say ‘unto.'”
The quotation contains three errors. In the first sentence the word living was omitted after the word men; Macknight’s name was misspelled, and most importantly the preposition under discussion is for, not of. But his mishandling of the words of men is nothing compared to his treatment of the Word of God and his inability to discern what a Scripture means. Readers, sit down for this:
Notice how the church of Christ must refer to OTHER TRANSLATIONS in order to find support for their false teachings! This is a standard practice among the cults: ESTABLISH MORE THAN ONE AUTHORITY SO THAT YOU CAN CHOOSE THE ONE YOU PREFER AT ANY GIVEN TIME.
We will stick with the Book that God uses, the King James Bible, and we’ll show you why Acts 2:38 does not teach that a person has to be baptized in water in order to be saved.
Ignorance thrives even in the age of computers. How did this man come to be a Baptist “pastor”? If he went to a school, did they condemn studying Greek? This is absolutely incredible! Apparently Melton considers it a waste of time to look up the definitions of Greek words in Kittel, Thayer, or Arndt and Gingrich, (those famous “cult leaders”). Then he professes to know that God uses the King James? Which King James, Mr. Melton? Does He use the one printed in 1611 (which most people today would have trouble reading), or one of the more modern editions of it?
And please tell us, What Book did God use for 1600 years? He falsely charged churches of Christ with teaching that the church didn’t exist for seventeen centuries, but according to his logic, God’s Book didn’t exist for sixteen centuries! Can He actually be ignorant of the fact that the Bible was written in Greek and that Jerome’s translation of it into Latin (the Vulgate) was the most common version for a thousand years?
Apparently “Pastor” Melton knows God far better than the rest of us, and God assured him that He uses the King James. Perhaps we should be relieved that the KJV is God’s choice, since it is far better than the NIV, which most Baptists favor.
The accusation that those who are attempting to understand definitions of words and the meaning of Scriptures are a cult is fatuous. Cults, like Jehovah’s Witnesses, do not recognize what anyone else has to say. Watchtower tells them what to read and what to think. Likewise Mormons are taught not to listen to anyone else that is not “enlightened” enough to recognize Joseph Smith as a prophet of God.
Members of the churches of Christ have never been told they could read only certain books or study specific materials produced by us. Certainly we don’t have our own official Bible, as Jehovah’s Witnesses do. We encourage word studies and are content to rely on the same scholars that Baptists use, and we seriously doubt that there are many Baptists who will agree with the outlandish statements that Melton makes–either about the false charge of our being a cult or that the King James is “the Book God uses.”
Interestingly, Melton quit quoting from Haun’s tract at the very point that would have disproved his “cult” theory. That information from page 7 is given below:
Charles B. Williams of Union University in Jackson, Tennessee says in his translation of Acts 2:38, “Let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, that you may have your sins forgiven.” Where is there a recognized translation that says one is baptized because he has already been pardoned?
OUCH! No wonder Melton stopped quoting! Williams was not (so far as we know) a member of the church; he is just giving the best translation he could. A cult would only cite its own authorities. Furthermore, the question asked by Haun is one that Melton would prefer not to deal with because he knows that no honest scholar would translate that verse so incorrectly as to fit Melton’s theology.
But if Melton to this point has been unkind and showing a few signs of suffering from megalomania, he next moves into the area of blasphemy.
First of all, the same Peter who is preaching in Acts 2:38 later learns a few things about Salvation that he did NOT know in Acts 2. We know this is true, because in Acts 15:11 Peter says something very different: “…. through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved…” In Acts 15:11 Peter says nothing about baptism. Why not? If it’s so important, why didn’t he mention it? Very simple. At the time of Acts 2:38, Peter didn’t fully understand Salvation by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9). God had to reveal this to Peter, and, by the time we reach Acts 15:11, Peter gives us God’s Salvation plan for today. Why is it that we never hear the Church of Christ quoting Acts 15:11? If God didn’t stop with ACTS 2:38, then why did the Church of Christ?
The Baptists who would support Melton in this heresy could probably have their annual convention in a phone booth. It should scarcely be necessary to refute this doctrine for any serious student of the Word.
On the night Jesus was crucified He told His disciples that He would send them the Holy Spirit who would teach them all things and bring to their remembrance all things He had said to them (John 14:26). He also promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth and tell them things to come (John 16:13).
On the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) all of the apostles were “filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4). When a crowd gathered, Peter had the opportunity to preach to them. Inspired by the same Holy Spirit whom Jesus had promised and whom they had received, Peter proved to the multitude that Jesus was raised from the dead. He did so by demonstrating that it was foretold in the Scriptures and by assuring them that the apostles were all witnesses of the resurrection.
Then he boldly said, “Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this same Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” When they asked, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” 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).
Exactly at what point did Peter stop speaking by the Holy Spirit? And how could the Holy Spirit allow all those people to think that the solution to their problem involved baptism when it was just a matter of Peter’s imperfect theology? Does Melton know how inspiration works? Has he ever read the words of the corrupt prophet Balaam, “Though Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold, I could not go beyond the word of the Lord my God, to do less or more” (Num. 22:18)? Even though Balaam wanted the money (and eventually found a way to earn it), he spoke the Word of God when he prophesied: “The word that God puts in my mouth, that I must speak” (Num. 22:18).
Are we to believe that a corrupt and greedy prophet spoke the truth because God put the words in his mouth, but that the apostles who were filled with the Spirit on the day of Pentecost spoke what was untrue and incomplete? Melton has far surpassed any problem he has with churches of Christ by criticizing an inspired apostle. This attitude reveals just how desperate he is in his rejection of the truth. He will say anything to try and remove baptism from the plan of salvation. Indeed, he owes Peter, the Holy Spirit, the Lord Jesus, and the Father an apology for letting his emotions override his integrity.
He further claims that Acts “is a Book of PROGRESSIVE REVELATION.” To argue this position is to say that the 3,000 on the day of Pentecost did not have the answer to their question; neither did anyone in Jerusalem have it, though the church grew and multiplied. Samaria didn’t get it, and neither did the eunuch.
What about the claim that Peter said nothing about baptism in Acts 15:11 and that therefore he had learned more about salvation? First of all, Acts 15:11 is not a discussion of salvation, and Peter is not addressing the unsaved as he was on the day of Pentecost. The apostles were discussing the problem of the Judaizing teachers who were insisting that Gentiles be circumcised and keep various other matters of the Law of Moses (Acts 15:1). Peter’s argument is that men are saved by grace, not the Law of Moses.
Second, notice that Peter not only omits baptism, but repentance and faith as well. Third, notice that there is room for all three, however, when he says “that through the grace of God we shall be saved in the same manner as they.” How were the Jews saved? Peter told them to “repent and be baptized.” If the Gentiles are to be saved in the same way, then they too would need to repent and be baptized. [Did you notice that Melton quit quoting Acts 15:11 (on the previous page) when he got to the part about “in the same manner as they”?]
God is not the author of confusion; the Scriptures do not contradict themselves. There is but one plan of salvation, and it includes water baptism for the forgiveness of sins. Salvation is not progressively revealed. Not everything can be taught at once, and the church learned more of the will of God as time went on, but salvation is crucial. Who, besides Melton, could imagine at the very outset of the Christian era, with people clamoring for salvation, that the Holy Spirit (through Peter) would only tell them part of the plan?
And how progressive is it to remove steps from the process? If Melton is right, how much simpler it would have been for Peter to answer, “Faith only.” To insist upon baptism for salvation and then remove it is REgressive, not PROgressive. Anyway, Peter never dropped baptism as one of the elements of salvation. Long after the events of Acts 15 the apostle wrote in 1 Peter 3:21: “baptism doth also now save us.” [This verse will be studied in more depth later.]
The New Testament consistently teaches that baptism comes before salvation and that it is “for” the remission of sins. The fact that Melton (or anyone else) doesn’t like it doesn’t change the truth one iota.
The man ought to be ashamed of his efforts to twist the Scriptures (something of which Peter wrote–2 Peter 3:16) to make them fit his theology. He has misquoted and misapplied the words of men and of God. He has rearranged Mark 16:16 to make it say what he wished it said. He has hurled accusations at us which are false even on their surface. Worst of all, he has impugned the Holy Spirit’s ability to inspire the apostles. He has taught us that to say (if we disagree with some doctrine), “Later in the Scriptures there is fuller revelation on that subject.” He has, furthermore, interrupted the quotation of a verse (Acts 15:11) to deliberately misrepresent it. These acts are reprehensible.
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “MELTON’S SKEWED VIEWS OF SALVATION (PART 2) (11/30/97).”
Last week’s article mentioned the attack upon churches of Christ by “Pastor” James L. Melton which he has placed on the Internet. When he turns to the subject of salvation, he insists upon so many strange ideas that it would take weeks to respond to most of them; instead we want to focus on a few of the blunders he makes. He begins this section with:
Of the many heresies taught by the Church of Christ, Baptismal Regeneration is probably the most well known, and also the most harmful. This is the ancient pagan belief that a person must be baptized in water in order to receive cleansing from sin and the right to enter Heaven.
Friends, don’t ever hire this man to be your spokesman because he certainly won’t use your choice of words to explain your position. Don’t put him on your staff as a historian, either, since he does not document claims such as the one that baptism in water for the cleansing of sins is a pagan belief. Which culture taught this idea? What pagans developed this concept? Was it in connection with Zeus or Jupiter? While my knowledge of ancient mythology is not exhaustive, I don’t recall this teaching. It would be helpful to know where one could attain the great “knowledge” that Mr. Melton has.
One source we cite to show the necessity of baptism is Acts 22:16, in which Ananias asks Paul, “And now why are you waiting? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” I’ve never really thought of Ananias as a pagan for saying such a thing; evidently, Paul did not regard him as one either, since he arose and was baptized (Acts 9:18).
The Thief on the Cross
Next Melton eagerly introduces the thief on the cross. His main fallacy (and there are several) is his insistence that the thief was saved “WITHOUT BEING BAPTIZED” (emphasis Melton’s). He could not prove the thief had never been baptized if his life depended on it. Mark 1:5 states that “all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him [John, GWS] and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.”
How does Melton know (or anyone else, for that matter) that the thief had not been baptized by John (or later by Jesus) before he became a thief? Like so many others, he could have repented, been baptized, and then fallen into a life of sin again. Did that happen? We don’t know, but it could have, and even the possibility of such an occurrence negates Melton’s argument.
Melton also misses the point of Jesus’ promise to the thief. Regardless of the fact that the thief may have died a few minutes after Jesus did, the Lord made the promise while they were both living under the Law of Moses. As an Israelite who was under the old covenant, his repentance at that point was all that he could offer. Why does Melton appeal to the thief and a situation that occurred while the Law of Moses was in force instead of observing the way people were converted under the New Testament system?
His third error is citing Scriptures that teach one is saved by faith, with which no one argues. What he needs is a verse that teaches salvation by “faith only.”
Water Baptism
When Melton reads one of our tracts, he apparently concludes that it says what he wanted it to say so that he could take issue with it. Observe:
Haun tells us on page three of his tract that “be baptized” means to be “immersed in water.” This is where ALL Church of Christ people err so greatly. Church of Christ members are taught that there is only ONE kind of baptism: WATER baptism. The Bible teaches otherwise, for the Bible says that there are SOME baptisms which are NOT water baptisms. The Church of Christ wants you to think that all baptisms in the Bible are WATER baptisms, for this will cause you to think that Galatians 3:27 and Romans 6:3-4 are referring to water baptisms when they are NOT.
We in the Lord’s church are not nearly so ignorant of the Bible as Melton fancies; in fact, if there is any ignorance, it seems to be in the way he misinterprets us and the Scriptures. Brother Haun did not say there was only ONE kind of baptism. Had Melton done even a modicum of research, he would know that Haun also published a tract entitled “Baptisms of the Bible.” In it he lists the baptism of Moses, the baptism of suffering, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the baptism of fire, the baptism of John, and water baptism commanded by Jesus and the apostles. So much for his false charge that churches of Christ teach there is only ONE kind of baptism.
Neither did Haun contradict himself when he wrote the tract Melton cited. Had he read the subheading of the section he is criticizing, Melton might have noticed the words: “THE QUESTION CLARIFIED.” Haun is explaining the words he is using in this tract. He has defined the word must and the word one. Then he writes: “By ‘be baptized’ is meant to be immersed in water.” This statement does not deny that there are other baptisms; it merely states that the baptism under discussion in this tract is water baptism. Notice that Melton did not give the context of the statement nor give the precise quotation. This cannot be an accident; he is purposely misrepresenting Haun and the rest of us.
What members of the church have generally taught is that water baptism for the forgiveness of sins is “the one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5. This verse does not imply that there is one baptism, period, for the baptism by fire is yet to come (as when the devil and his wicked followers are cast into the lake of fire, Rev. 20:11-15). The baptism of suffering is a possibility in any age when Christians are persecuted. Holy Spirit baptism was given to the apostles on the day of Pentecost as the fulfillment of a promise. The only baptism that is part of a command is water baptism (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16). It was used throughout the book of Acts (8:35-39; 10:47-48).
Mark 16:16
Needless to say, Melton does not like this passage of Scripture. Watch how he treats it.
According to the Church of Christ, one will be damned if he is not baptized. Haun says on page 5 of his tract that “Jesus is pointing out what it takes to be saved. He describes the kind of man who is pardoned. That man is one who believes and is baptized. Jesus did not say that the man who believes shall be saved or the man who is baptized shall be saved. He said both belief (faith) and baptism are essential. It is like saying that two plus two equals four. Faith plus baptism equals salvation.”
Did you notice the prejudicial way Melton introduced the quotation? Haun did not explicitly say: “One will be damned if he is not baptized.” A person might draw that conclusion from what the Scriptures teach, but that was not Haun’s point. His point was that God listed two things as prerequisites for salvation. Brother Haun is exactly right in what he says; so how does Melton deal with the argumentation? He doesn’t; he tries to toss out the whole passage.
The church of Christ specializes in confusing people by taking verses out of context and IGNORING the rest of the Bible. Did you read verse seventeen, which speaks of apostolic signs of casting out devils and speaking with new tongues? Does the church of Christ practice these signs? No, they don’t. Do they practice verse eighteen by drinking deadly things, taking up serpents, and laying hands on the sick? No, they don’t. Then why would they steal verse sixteen from its context and then leave the next two verses alone?
The charge of taking Mark 16:15-16 out of context is fatuous. Those two verses complete that particular thought and are similar to Matthew 28:18-20, which is called by most people “The Great Commission.” Baptism is a part of that passage, also, but no mention is made of serpents.
Actually, we are more than happy to study the entire context of Mark 16:9-20, most of which Melton ignored in his frantic but failing efforts to discredit us. Notice the following facts (all emphasis is mine–GWS).
1. Mary Magdalene saw Jesus and told His disciples she had seen Him alive, but THEY did not BELIEVE (Mark 16:9-11).
2. Then two more disciples who had seen Him testified to the fact, but THEY did not BELIEVE them either (Mark 16:12-13).
3. “Afterward He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their UNBELIEF and hardness of heart, because they did not BELIEVE those who had seen Him after he had risen” (Mark 16:14).
4. It is at this point that Jesus then commands them to preach. Notice the shift in pronouns to “HE who believes and is baptized will be saved; but HE who does not believe will be condemned.” In other words, the text has been referring to the apostles in the plural (THEM), but Jesus designates as singular (HE) the one who believes and is baptized.
5. In verse 17 the pronoun shifts back to the plural: “And these signs will follow THOSE who believe.” Although it would be easy to conclude that the HE who believes in verse 16 is equivalent to THOSE who believe in verse 17, the entire context shows that the THOSE who believe in verse 17 is once again the apostles, who have been the subject of this entire text.
6. The apostles are the ones that will have signs following them. The apostles did cast out demons, speak with other tongues (especially on the day of Pentecost), and avoid death if they drank any deadly thing. The “taking up of a serpent” brings to mind Paul on the island of Malta. When the natives saw the viper fastened on Paul’s hand, they expected him to die, but he suffered no harm (Acts 28:1-5).
7. It is true that other Christians besides the apostles also spoke in tongues, but brethren are not the subject of these verses; this fact is borne out by verse 20, one that Melton ignored entirely. “And THEY went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with THEM, and confirming the word through the accompanying signs.”
8. The message they preached was, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” The signs spoken of in verses 17-18 followed THOSE who were doing the preaching–the apostles. God confirmed that what THEY spoke was the truth by giving His endorsement with accompanying signs.
Notice that Mr. Melton has not gained a thing, and Mark 16:16 still mentions baptism. He assures his readers “it certainly does not teach that ‘faith plus baptism equals salvation’!” Oh, really? Tell us, then, how a person would communicate that idea.
He repeats the old Baptist refrain: “One is damned from NOT BELIEVING. No one is damned for not being baptized,” which is true, as far as it goes. It does not dawn upon him that the unbeliever, however, has no motive to be baptized. He is sore that Mark 16:16 does not say, “He who believes shall be saved.” That is Melton’s doctrine. He would cut out baptism and use Jehoiakim’s penknife to do it. Because baptism is there, he tries every trick he can think of to get rid of it. “Context,” he shouts, but context only establishes the point. “Unbelief,” he sputters, but Jesus still made baptism a prerequisite to salvation. God joined baptism and faith; man should not try to put them asunder. (Continued)
*Send comments or questions concerning this article to Gary Summers. Please refer to this article as: “MELTON’S SKEWED VIEW OF SALVATION (11/23/97).”
