Medical Marijuana (Again)

Yes, it has only been two years since medical marijuana was on the ballot in Florida. It was Proposition 2 then, and it is Proposition 2 now. We were opposed to it then, and we are opposed now. This article will close with the same paragraph that was used for the October 5th, 2014 Spiritual Perspectives. Two years ago, the Orlando Sentinel presented both sides of the issue; maybe having the facts dissuaded some people for voting in favor of it. It missed becoming law because only 58% of the public (60% is needed) voted in favor of it.

On September 30, 2016, the Orlando Sentinel published an opinion piece by Republican Paula Dockery, a 16-year veteran of the Florida Legislature. She pled for people to vote yes in order to pass the amendment; no stance for the other side was published (at least on the same day). Some might find her reasoning compelling, but it is full of logical fallacies. In making an argument, one should examine the issue at hand and present the merits for it or the drawbacks against it. If the position is weak, advocates will frequently use techniques that constitute logical fallacies. Paula did so throughout her article.

After framing the issue, she offered an explanation for the reason the amendment failed the previous time. A mean dastardly, worthless outsider mounted a campaign against it. Well, no, she didn’t use those terms, but she might as well have. She wrote that the previous amendment had a good chance of passing

until a strong and well-financed opposition went on the attack. Billionaire casino boss Sheldon Anderson—resident of Nevada—was a major financial backer of the “No on 2” effort.

So, who likes billionaires? They probably stole their wealth from the little guy. This is what the reader is supposed to think. Yes, the opposition to passage was well-financed. Boo! And they don’t even have a dog in this fight, being from Nevada. How despicable!

This logical fallacy is the ad hominem attack. It is primarily aimed against the man. Notice what she did not say. Why does a casino owner care about a medical marijuana issue in Florida? It is not apparent that he has anything to gain by opposing it. Did he have a reason? If so, what was it? Maybe, being so close to California, he knew how well the law had worked there (suddenly everyone had a prescription from his doctor). Surely, more than 40% of the public did not vote against the amendment based on advertising bought by a casino owner. What were the other reasons people had for opposing the amendment?

Dockery had more ad hominem attacks to dish out: “Critics relied on doomsday scenarios and scare tactics… They enlisted the help of…the sheriffs.”

So how unfair was that? Of course, law enforcement would be against it. They’re all just trying to scare people. Really? How? By providing facts? Is it a scare tactic to show what has happened in other states? How about these news stories?

Fatal crashes involving drivers who recently used marijuana doubled in Washington after the state legalized the drug, according to the latest research by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

Last year, 545 people died in Colorado traffic accidents, an 11.7 percent increase from the 488 traffic deaths recorded in 2014, according to the Colorado Department of Transportation.

Of course these states legalized marijuana, period, but legalizing “medical” marijuana has a similar effect because it is more available in general. These are not scare tactics; they are called facts.

Paula Dockery praises John Morgan for contributing millions to get this law passed. Rich men spending money against the amendment are evil, but rich men in favor of it are good guys. Some have wondered if Morgan’s advertising campaign should be: “Morgan and Morgan: For the Stoned People.” A great many young people are hopeful that the amendment passes.

The next argument that Dockery employs is a variation of the “poor poor pitiful me” ploy. Yes, Morgan and his organization “jumped through all the hoops again” to get the amendment on the ballot. Are we supposed to be sympathetic? He’s a lawyer, and he knows how to file forms. This is reminiscent of the meeting members of the church here had before the Seminole County council, when we protested a bar opening up across the street. A woman from the county testified how a man had to come out and measure the distance between the two doors (ours and the one that would belong to the sports bar). She further protested that he had to drive so far (just because we objected to it)— and take the measurement on a hot day. The board was not swayed by such tactics.

Next, Dockery uses the bandwagon approach. In other words, the measure will surely succeed this time. The public may as well vote for it. The data here includes that it just barely failed last time. Polls indicate that from 65% to 73% of the public are now in favor of it. Hmm. If that’s true, then why write the article? If it’s a shoo-in to pass, why stir things up by calling attention to it? In addition, 24 other states have already adopted such laws. What a source for information! Why isn’t any of it mentioned? Of those states who have made marijuana use legal, have they had any increased problems as a result? More automobile accidents? More home invasions? More traffic accidents?

Why doesn’t Dockery cite information to prove that allowing marijuana just for medical use has worked well? Why doesn’t she say that no social problems have increased or broken out and put to rest any fears that someone might have?

And while we’re on this subject, what is the penalty if someone forges a doctor’s signature? Jail? Do we even send anyone to prison now for using marijuana? Why will it not get worse if there are no safeguards on this legislation? If the amendment does have built-in protections, what are they? When someone writes an article to persuade the public about the need for this law, why doesn’t that individual—especially a 16-year Florida legislator—provide assurances that Florida society will remain the same—and back it up with data? Why is she relying on logical fallacies to make her case instead of legitimate information?

Paula has argued little more than what might be termed propaganda. The bandwagon argument, for example, only proves what is popular today. Many will remember that when the Equal Rights Amendment was first passed by Congress, it was ratified by 30 states within a year. It only received 5 more states’ support, and even with an extension, it died three states short of ratification. The point is that sometimes people and states jump on the bandwagon before they know what song is going to be played. There might not be one more state that ever legalizes medical marijuana, but even if five more do, so what? That does not make it right. Incidentally, some states rescinded acceptance of the Equal Rights Amendment, and the same thing could happen here.

The last fallacy was to appeal to anecdotal evidence. Dockery included a letter from a veteran who complained essentially that he could use marijuana legally in Maine, but when he came to Florida for the winter, he could not. He mentions that he received his wounds in Viet Nam. Most Americans have profound respect for those who have served their country and risked being killed. Our natural response is to honor all veterans, as well as those parents who have lost their sons (or daughters).

However, that respect and gratitude does not extend to the breaking of the law. (Do soldiers not serve to protect the rule of law?) Nor does it grant the right to Khizr Khan to be obnoxious, launch a political attack, and lecture on the Constitution. Most of us have read the document more than once—particularly, the second amendment, which some are trying to eradicate. We can honor soldiers and their parents for the hardships they have endured, but that does not include indulging everything they might be in favor of.

But even if Dockery had cited 15 cases (and probably hundreds more could be furnished), it would not prove that legalization is the best solution. No doubt some would be helped by passing the law, but how many more will suffer and die? How many innocent people will lose their lives due to car accidents? How many will become addicted to marijuana, losing both their focus and their way. Sure, we all desire to alleviate suffering, but is there a way to do it besides opening Pandora’s Box? Before we make something legal that potentially can do great damage, we should be certain that all loopholes are closed and that this is not merely a pretext to expand marijuana use in the state of Florida. The following paragraph concluded the 2014 article.

Only one clear choice presents itself in voting on Amendment 2: “Should we vote to expand the number of users of marijuana in Florida?” A “yes” vote will most assuredly accomplish that goal. A “no” vote will not eradicate marijuana use; the buying and selling of it illegally will continue to be done. Chances are that those who need the drug for health reasons are already getting it. Society does not need another element of corruption. No one is employing scare tactics in recounting what will happen. They just have examined what has happened elsewhere and are simply acknowledging reality.

Clergy Appreciation Day? by Lee Moses

In case the reader was not aware, today [October 9, 2016, gws] has been designated “Clergy Appreciation Day.” This observance began seventeen years ago:

In 1992, layperson Jerry Frear, Jr., was brainstorming with church colleagues about how they might be of help to their minister when he glanced at a calendar and noticed that it was almost Groundhog Day. “I thought, if they have a day for groundhogs, there ought to be a day for the 375,000 clergy people in America,” Frear says.1

There are three problems with Clergy Appreciation Day—Clergy, Appreciation, and Day. Concerning Day, this smacks of a religious holiday. And the New Testament simply does not authorize any religious holiday, much less a man-made holiday:

But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain (Gal. 4:9-11).

Paul indicated that the observation of religious “days” was to turn to “the weak and beggarly elements” of false religion. He indicated that such observances would render vain all his labor on their behalf. As for Clergy, this is not a Biblical designation. Clergy is defined as “the group or body of ordained persons in a religion, as distinguished from the laity.”2 The concept of a priesthood separate from the laity was part of the apostasy that led the people away from New Testament Christianity and from the true church it creates (Luke 8:11; Matt. 13:19). The New Testament designates all Christians as priests (1 Peter 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6).

And concerning Appreciation, this is a misplacement of our appreciation. The Lord does not authorize the designation of certain Christians as clergy, while omitting others. And if it is not authorized it is sinful (Col. 3:17). And as the Lord says, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isa. 5:20).

However, if the term “clergy” refers to Biblical “priests”—that is, all Christians—we should indeed have appreciation:

Appreciation for the “clergy” who have gone before. We all stand on the shoulders of those who have found and fought for the Truth. Those departed faithful remain an example and encouragement to us all (Heb. 13:7).

Appreciation for the “clergy” who labor for the Lord today. They are not all preaching in the pulpit, but all the members of the body working together make the body function (Eph. 4:16).

Appreciation for what the “clergy” together constitutes. Since all Christians are priests, together they constitute the church (1 Peter 2:5; compare with 1 Tim. 3:15). This is the church for which Christ died (Eph. 5:25); this is the kingdom which will be delivered to the Father at the end of all things (1 Cor. 15:24).

Appreciation for the greatest of all “clergy.” Of Jesus Christ it is written,

Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted (Heb. 2:17-18).

If “clergy” is used to refer to the New Testament priesthood of all Christians, then and only then should we have appreciation for the clergy. But let us be thankful for that “clergy” every day.

1 Annie’s “Clergy Appreciation Day” page available at http://www.annieshomepage.com/clergyday.html.
2 Dictionary.com. s.v. “Clergy.”

The Denham-Neubauer Debate (Part 2)

Having covered some of the fundamental matters concerning the debate, let us look at some of the issues raised. One of these involved the prophecy of Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2 concerning the man of sin. Neubauer affirmed that this man was the high priest and that Jesus destroyed him in AD 70. Accompanying this assertion was that the Jews were the persecutors of Christians and that God would thus destroy them when Jesus came in AD 70, as per 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9. This is also supposed to correspond to what is being described in the Book of Revelation.

Several problems with this interpretation virtually leap off the pages of the New Testament. First of all, the persecution described in Revelation was intense. No one thinks only a few were put to death; the cry is heard of the souls who were under the altar, asking how long it would be until their blood was avenged in Revelation 6:9-10. This fits well with the Roman persecution of Christians since hundreds and thousands were put to death. How many Christians did the Jews put to death? Stephen was the first (Acts 7:59-60). Paul indicates there were some others in Jerusalem (Acts 26:9-10). He gives no indication of a vast amount, however. Neubauer indicated that the Jews had persecuted many in Thessalonica, and they had, but how many Christians died there? Acts 17:9 says the rulers of the city took security for Jason and the rest but then let them go. So far as we know, no Christian lost his life there.

Brother Neubauer correctly says that we ought to look for what a text meant to the ones who first received it before we ask what it means to us. So what did 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9 mean to them? It was assurance that those who troubled them (by way of persecution) would be troubled by the Lord. Since Paul was writing to those yet alive, they are the ones who would receive rest. Paul says nothing about those put to death as part of their persecution in either 2 Thessalonians 1 or 2. So, did the Jews persecute Christians? Yes, but nothing indicates that the Jews themselves caused very many deaths of Christians—not like the amount of martyrs described in Revelation.

2 Thessalonians says that Jesus would come in flaming fire to take vengeance on the persecutors. Is that said of the destruction of Jerusalem? No, fire is a sign of eternal judgment, as in Matthew 3:10-12, 25:41, 46. How would Christians persecuted by Jews in Thessalonica have been rewarded by the destruction of Jerusalem? Neubauer’s theory does not match the facts.

The Man of Sin (2 Thess. 2)

Bible students have always been intrigued by the identity of the man of sin. Neubauer insisted that he was the high priest and that any other interpretation—especially, the man of sin being the pope—was wrong. Of course, if one is talking about the literal temple of God, the high priest does seem to fit, and the explanation of Jesus destroying him in AD 70 logically follows.

However, Denham repudiated that idea by saying that Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 they should not think that what he had previously taught them was “at hand” (the translation of the King James). Neubauer took high exception to that translation, saying that the New King James and Vine’s Expository Dictionary were correct when they rendered the words: “as though the day of Christ had come.” Greek technicalities aside, frankly, what is the difference? How is “the day had come” different than “the day is at hand”?

The American Standard also contains “at hand.” The Revised Standard uses “has come,” as does the New American Standard and the English Standard Version. Young’s Literal Translation renders it “hath arrived.” All of them are expressing what Paul meant. Do not think that the Day of the Lord (even the beginning of its fulfilment) was at hand, had arrived, or was present. Why should they not think that? Because there would first be “the falling away” and “the man of sin” would be revealed (v. 3).

How can this description refer to the high priest? Did Christians not already know the sinfulness of that man? Had he not been instrumental in determining that Jesus be crucified (Mark 14:60-64)? That is quite revelation enough as to his character. Also Paul had letters from the high priest to bring Christians bound to Jerusalem (Acts 9:1-2). What more evidence does anyone need to have in order to know that he is a sinful man, acting contrary to the interests of God?

Did the high priest claim to be God (v. 4)? Perhaps in a way he acted as though he were, but he never said he was. And what was restraining him (v. 6)? Nothing. He constantly took as much power as Rome would give him. Rome never stepped aside so that his power could increase. He was eventually taken out of the way, but he meets only a few of the characteristics Paul listed. All the things that apply to the man of sin must fit. And what signs and lying wonders did the high priest ever claim to do (v. 9)? Christians were never duped by him to the point of not possessing salvation (v. 10).

Although Neubauer ridiculed the idea that the passage refers to the pope, that interpretation actually fits better. Consider first that before the Lord returned to destroy him, there had to be first the falling away (v. 3). What falling away was there between AD 52 and AD 70? No one has ever heard of one. But all know that the church fell away during the Dark Ages.

The pope does indeed oppose God and exalt himself (v. 4). Several references throughout history have called him, “Our Holy Lord God, the Pope.” These have been challenged by the Catholic Church as being unwarranted comments and mistranslations. But even if they are incorrect, does not the pope accept worship? Peter refused to do so (Acts 10:25-26); even an angel refused (Rev. 19:10). Only Jesus accepted worship because He was God in the flesh. The pope is not, but he accepts worship. The pope also prays to Mary, and so do many Catholics. Various websites deny all these things, but there is more than sufficient information to confirm the truth of the matter.

Neubauer objected that the pope was never in the temple (church) of God. But exactly when did the original church go into apostasy? It began in the second century and continued in that direction until Boniface III proclaimed himself universal bishop over the church. Sprinkling did not become common for baptism until after 1100 or 1200. Some claim that the official change was “in 1311” at “the Council of Ravenna,” which allowed people to choose immersion or sprinkling. It may be that Boniface III had been immersed for his sins and entered the church that had increasingly wandered away from the New Testament. But even if he was not a member of the Lord’s church, he claimed to be and thus set himself up as God in the temple.

The mystery of lawlessness was already at work, which is the desire for self-exaltation. Diotrephes would display such an attitude (3 John 9), and Paul would warn against those who would draw away disciples after themselves (Acts 20:30). When the nation of Rome was destroyed (around 476), the papacy soon became full blown. There were already five bishops over various regions of the world prior to 606. The office of pope will remain until the Lord returns and destroys him with the brightness of His coming.

Over the years popes have claimed to do miracles (v. 9), and many have been deceived. When people do not have a love of the truth, they will believe anything. They “did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness” (v. 12). Was that true of those who followed the high priest? What corruption were they involved in? They were greedy, yes. Jesus exposed that attitude in the moneychangers. But those who profited from such endeavors were few. What did the Jews as a whole gain by following the high priest? They were rewarded with death when Jerusalem fell.

However, adherents of Catholicism get precisely what is stated in verse 12. Their system of religion allows them to have pleasure in unrighteousness. They confess their sins, do some penance, and then go engage in the same sin again. Just prior to the Reformation—and helping to bring it about—was the sale of indulgences, which allowed a person to purchase pardon for sins in advance of committing them. Thus, people have pleasure in unrighteousness. Which of these two proposed explanations best fits the data?

Date of New Testament Books Being Written

Several books of the New Testament have been assigned dates that come after AD 70. Among them are the gospel of John, as well as the epistles of 1, 2, and 3 John, Jude, and the prophetic book of Revelation. However, if everything was fulfilled in AD 70, then all the books had to be written previously. One problem for those who assert that idea (in the face of historical evidence to the contrary) is that not enough time elapsed for the development of Gnosticism.

On the other hand, Neubauer defends A. T. Robinson who opined that any New Testament book written after AD 70 would surely have mentioned the Destruction of Jerusalem. It is true that the gospel of John omits all of the prophecies concerning that horrible and bloody event. But why does it not occur to these scholars that the reason these latter books do not mention it is precisely because everyone was aware of it? Would anyone expect there to be references to World War II immediately upon its conclusion? Sure, there might be analyses, etc., but everyone knew about it and did not have to be informed. In a world considerably less full of information than ours, all of John’s readers would know what had happened there.

The Death of the Law

In the second speech on the third night of the debate, Neubauer put up a chart that read: “The Law died by means of the Cross but not at the Cross.” “What?” someone says, scratching his head. “Oh, yeah,” emphasizes Neubauer. “The Law was nailed to the cross but wasn’t taken away until AD 70. It was only passing away (Heb. 8:13)”. According to him, Jesus’ coming the second time without sin to salvation (Heb. 9:28) means that Jesus took away the Law at the Destruction of Jerusalem and established His law. This is the way Jehovah’s Witnesses argue.

The Law was nailed to the cross, period (Col. 2:14). Did Jesus die that day? Then so did the Law. The hatred between Jews and Gentiles was fueled by the Law of Moses. According to Ephesians 2:11-15, Jesus became our peace, having broken down the middle wall of division between them. Therefore Jew and Gentile could be one in one body (Eph. 4:4-6). This did not occur at AD 70—but at the cross. Otherwise, Jew and Gentile could not be heirs of Abraham and united together until AD 70. But they clearly were long before that date (Gal. 3:26-29).

In Hebrews 8:6-7 we read that Jesus established (past tense) a better covenant which contained better promises. Then the writer quotes from Jeremiah 31: 31-34 which prophesied of the new covenant. Afterward, the prophet, quoting the phrase, a new covenant, says that the old, therefore, was ready to vanish away—at the time Jeremiah wrote! Neubauer (perhaps intentionally) tries to make the verse applicable at the time Hebrews was written rather than when Jeremiah wrote. Hebrews 8:6-7 said that it had already passed away, thereby disproving Neubauer’s thesis and showing him to take the verse out of context. The reader should study Hebrews 9:27-28. It refers to the death of men followed by the judgment—not a new law. Jesus came the first time to save us from sin, but His second coming will involve eternal salvation.

The New Math

In the second speech of the last night of the debate, Neubauer introduced the audience to his special brand of arithmetic (reminiscent of the bit Rush Limbaugh used to air of “Louis Farrakhan’s Million Man Math Made Easy”). After pointing out that no one in the Old Testament ever lived to be 1,000 years old, he stated that Adam lived 930 years. Then he said that Jesus was baptized at age 30 and Jerusalem was destroyed 40 years later, thus making 1,000 years. How amazing!

Well, consider this. After the resurrection, Jesus’ disciples caught 153 fish. Divide that by the number of those in the Godhead (3), and the quotient is 51. Now subtract the number of days that Jesus fasted in the wilderness (40), and the result is 11—the number of apostles Jesus had left after Judas betrayed Him and hanged himself. What do these numerical manipulations prove? Apparently, they serve as evidence for whatever someone desires of them.

Boasting

Holger Neubauer made two boasts on the final night of the debate. In his second speech, he claimed rather forcefully, “Do you realize that we have already two people who have changed their minds, who had your view before the debate? We’re whippin’ you very well.” In his last speech he spoke more temperately, but nonetheless he exuded the same level of confidence as he said:

But we’re not gonna give up. We’re not gonna shut up. We’re not gonna back up. We believe that we have the truth, and we’re changing minds. I can tell you about anti preachers in Indianapolis. I can tell you about brethren in Ohio who are reading our material. I can tell you about brothers in North Carolina, I can tell you about brothers in Florida, who have contacted us. So, if we’re just so heretical, how do seasoned men, gospel preachers rethink some of the arguments that we’re making?

That’s a question we all wish we had the answer to. How did Mac Deaver, Bob Berard, Glenn Jobe, and others rethink their views on the Holy Spirit? Neubauer moderated for Ben Vick when he debated Mac Deaver in 2011. He certainly knows that Mac changed his mind. How seasoned men are swept away by error is one of the great mysteries. Can Neubauer explain why Rubel Shelly became a liberal? Daniel Denham gave a great response to these two statements by pointing out we were once united, but the introduction of this doctrine has created division. “This has become their golden calf…they’re dividing churches, and he’s proud of that.”

The Denham-Neubauer Debate (Part 1)

When brother Warren debated Antony G.N. Flew 40 years ago in 1976, those who attended were excited to see what would unfold: Would the atheist with his use of logic prevail—or the Christian, a man of faith? Brother Thomas B. Warren, the Christian, began in his first speech to present logical arguments, and he never relented. One can only imagine what Flew expected to occur in the debate, but it was the Christian who used logic while the atheist ran away from it. Brother Warren pointed out in his book, Logic and the Bible that David Hume wrote that “no man turns against reason until reason turns against him.”

Holger Neubauer was trained by Thomas B. Warren (among others), but during this debate there was no evidence of it. He refused to answer the logical arguments which brother Denham made, even though he signed his name to do exactly that the first two nights and therefore obligated himself to do so. Nor did he set forth any arguments of his own—except for one on the third night of the debate. So what did he do? Just as Flew came prepared with classroom lectures which he gave instead of debating, so Neubauer obviously came prepared to make speeches designed to explain the major tenets of his doctrine. Neither Flew nor Neubauer actually engaged in debate. Occasionally they commented on something the opposition said, but that was about it.

The proof that this was Neubauer’s aim is that he often times would bring up a verse or a passage, and when brother Denham would explain it, he would drop it like a hot potato and never mention it again. It was a strange way of debating. On the other hand, Daniel Denham fulfilled his affirmative obligations by setting forth logical arguments which Neubauer, for the most part, ignored. When he was in the negative the last two nights of the debate, Denham spent his time looking at what Neubauer had said and answering the points. This is what a debater is supposed to do. Unfortunately, only brother Denham came to actually debate.

When one of the two disputants engaged in a controversial matter refuses to fulfill his obligations, those who are observers should ask themselves, “Why?” Especially those who share Neubauer’s position should ask themselves why he would choose to “debate” the way he did. Does he know that his position is wrong? Why can’t he discuss the subject logically? Whether he realizes it or not, the answer is that a position that cannot be logically set forth or defended is wrong.

The first two nights of the debate, the proposition was: “The Scriptures teach that the general resurrection of the dead is yet future and is a bodily resurrection.” Those words mean probably what the reader thinks they mean and which he has heard all of his life. It means that there is (as we often sing) “a great day coming,” in which there shall be a resurrection from the dead, as Jesus taught:

“Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of commendation” (John 5:28-29).

On that day, all shall be raised bodily from the dead. All shall first be changed to a resurrected body before being rewarded or punished. Those, like brother Neubauer who hold to the AD 70 doctrine (also called Realized Eschatology or Max Kingism) deny that there is a future general resurrection and that all people will be bodily raised from the dead. They believe that the resurrection described in John 5, along with the second coming of Christ, occurred in AD 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed. Thus they argue that no future coming of Christ and no future day of resurrection will occur.

Now, everyone agrees that Jesus came in judgment upon Jerusalem (figuratively, through the Roman armies) in AD 70, but we deny that this destruction was what Jesus had reference to in John 5:28-29. Brother Denham pointed out that there are several comings of Christ mentioned in the New Testament. Jesus came figuratively in the person of the Holy Spirit (John 14:17-18), in judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70, and in judgment later on Rome, the persecutor of the church, according to the Book of Revelation. He even threatened to come in judgment on the church at Ephesus when He urged them to repent, or He would remove their candlestick (Rev. 2:5). However, there is only one second coming in judgment on the whole world.

Neubauer’s response was to say that these brethren had more comings of Jesus than Old MacDonald had animals on his farm, with, “Here a coming, there a coming—everywhere, a coming coming.” He probably thought this was a good laugh line—one that would score well with his folks—until one realizes that these various comings were not invented by “these brethren.” The Holy Spirit describes them in the Holy Book. Brother Denham later chastised him for his frivolity.

However, a good reason exists for concluding that the figurative coming in judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70 is not the second coming described in so many passages of Scripture. Denham went to the very plain verses recorded in Acts 1:9-11. He pointed out that these words were not part of a figurative or symbolic passage—but of narrative, which is to be taken literally.

Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner, as you saw Him go into heaven (Acts 1:9-11).

Since the angels assured the apostles that Jesus would come again in like manner, that means that Jesus will come literally (rather than just figuratively or symbolically), visibly, personally, and bodily. Each night the debaters had an opportunity to ask 5 questions, which had to be answered in writing before the first speech of the evening. Neubauer was asked the very first evening if Jesus would return visibly, and he answered, “False.”

Brother Denham pointed out all the words in the text relating to physical sight: watched, out of their sight, looked, gazing, saw. Furthermore, Revelation 1:7a says: “Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye shall see Him, and they also who pierced Him.” Neubauer could never get beyond this first argument.

Some time, in the course of his first negative speech, Neubauer cited Matthew 24:30, which does mention people seeing Jesus coming in clouds in judgment on Jerusalem, but this passage is obviously figurative and symbolic while Acts 1:9-11 is not. Apocalyptic language is used in Matthew 24, and “the sign” would appear. Neubauer began talking about the Scripture’s use of clouds as a motif. A cloud hides the presence of God. Whatever he was getting at, he did not answer the arguments made by brother Denham.

Neubauer also claimed that “all the comings are the same,” which no serious Bible student would say, in light of the fact that God came in judgment several times in the Old Testament—on Assyria, Babylon, Edom, etc. None of these involved the judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70. The only thing Neubauer ever said additionally on Acts 1:9-11 was in his first speech on the second night when he ridiculed the idea of a literal, bodily return. He wanted to know what height Jesus would have and if He would still have scars in His hands. Everyone knows that flesh and blood cannot enter heaven and that Jesus’ body had to undergo change before He entered heaven to be seated on the right hand of God, but that does not negate what the angels said. How are people to recognize Him if He does not have the appearance of His physical body?

In his opening speech, Daniel made one other argument based on 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17, which his opponent ignored in his next speech. Since Neubauer did not follow Denham’s lead, what did he do?

He began by stating: “If you understand the time of the event, you can understand the nature of the event,” which is interesting. What did he mean by it? He first talked about the wolf and the lamb prophecy of Isaiah 11:1 being fulfilled. Okay, but what does that have to do with the issue? Then he went to Revelation 1:1 and 1:3, as well as Revelation 22:6 and 10 to show that the things written in Revelation were “at hand” and would “shortly” take place. Nobody disagrees with these Scriptures (obviously); we often use those verses to show that premillennialism is false.

But Neubauer and his cohorts will argue that Revelation was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, and thus it would occur within a year or two. No date for the writing was given by Neubauer, but usually the early date is AD 69, which would be about as shortly as possible. Denham eventually pointed out that the phrase at hand means that the prophecy is about to begin—not necessarily that all that is recorded would be completed shortly.

Neubauer went on record as saying the phrases are always immediate. He hammered that point repeatedly. Then he said, “However, there might be a marker in the text that signifies it does not begin until later. The second night of the debate these statements were played next to each other in a loop. “Always. However. Always. However.” As brother Denham pointed out, “If something is always, then there cannot be a however.”

By far, the majority of brethren believe that the Book of Revelation is referring to the destruction of Rome, the persecutor of Christians. Neubauer said that the seals, the trumpets, and the bowls are all referring to the same event, just as Pharaoh’s dreams of the seven skinny cows and the seven ears of grain confirmed the truth of the prophecy. The only trouble is that inspiration told us that the case involving the grain and the cows was so. Nowhere in Revelation does anyone reveal that the seals, the trumpets, and the bowls are the same message. Nothing in inspiration confirms that notion. And in fact, it would ruin the symbolism both in Genesis and Revelation. Two is a symbol of strength while three is the number of the Godhead. For something to be stated three times is one time too many.

One other topic Neubauer covered, which appeared not to have any relevance to Denham’s material was to give an exposition of Zechariah 14:1-9. He claimed that it referred to the coming of the Lord in judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70 and that all commentaries agree with him on that interpretation. This reviewer has three commentaries on Zechariah. Two of them disagree that what is being described is the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Neubauer also claimed that Peter and Paul were the two witnesses that went to heaven in Revelation 11. Agreement on that claim is slim, but even if everyone on earth were in agreement, it had nothing to do with answering Denham’s affirmative.

These first two speeches set the tenor for the debate; giving a full rundown for the four nights would be tedious; so key insights and statements will be examined. It was difficult to follow Neubauer. In his second speech on the first night, for example, he zipped through several Scriptures, and the connection between them was lost. This reviewer wrote down 18 verses so diverse that how they were logically connected is totally unknown. They vary from Deuteronomy, Galatians, Luke, Ezekiel, 1 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Revelation, Isaiah, John, and Hebrews. It began to dawn (perhaps, millennially dawn) on some people that Neubauer was using the tactics of Jehovah’s Witnesses and premillennialists in darting here and there to try to stitch up a doctrine.

The first speech of the last night of the debate proceeded in the same way—so much so that at the conclusion of the speech, this reviewer wrote down the following words about Neubauer—confused and confusing. In that same speech, he claimed: “I don’t care what secular history says about Isaiah 7:14. I believe it is a triple entendre.” [He had pooh-poohed secular history earlier when it disagreed with his “interpretation.” Most of those present were fairly shocked at that pronouncement.]  What he meant here is anyone’s guess. But he is wrong about Isaiah 7:14. It does not have three separate fulfillments; it only has one.

Some think the first fulfillment was Isaiah’s wife having a son—or if not her, someone else in the same time frame. The problem with that is, since Isaiah and his wife were married, she was not a virgin. If anyone knew what the Hebrew word almah meant, it would be the Jews, and they translated it in the LXX as parthenos, a word which always means “virgin.” No young woman in Isaiah’s day was a virgin who gave birth to a son. If so, who was she? Could we have a name, perchance?

The one and only correct interpretation regards Mary giving birth to Jesus; that this is the correct interpretation and application of Isaiah’s prophecy is confirmed by the inspired writer, Matthew (1:22-23). However, Neubauer suggests another fulfillment. He had a theory about the male child born to the woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, being Jesus also. While it is obvious that the child born is Jesus (He is the male child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron—Rev. 12:5), He is spoken in this passage as having been brought forth by Israel (the woman described), who was anything but a virgin—either physically or spiritually. The two passages cannot be combined.

Throughout the debate Neubauer assumed that if certain language was used in one place, it meant the same thing elsewhere. While that does sometimes occur, such language may have a different meaning or a new meaning, building on what had happened previously. To assume that the same word or phrase always means the same thing it did elsewhere is the logical fallacy of equivocation. Having been taught logic,  Neubauer should know better.

The Same Mind (Part 3)

In the document that a Preaching Brother (P.B.) sent, written by a Ministerial Alliance (MA) in another state, the writers try to make a case for Biblical unity by saying that some things are not “essential” for salvation; however, others are. Some “doctrines are not open for debate because they are clearly stated.” Hmm. The first thing that ought to come to the mind of everyone reading those words is, “Who gets to decide what is essential for salvation and not open for debate and which topics are too difficult for us to understand, thereby allowing for disagreement?”

In other words, who gets to decide what is essential and clearly stated in the New Testament, and what is not essential to salvation because of its obscurity? The answer is, “Obviously, the Ministerial Alliance.” If they determine that “faith only” is a requirement that all Christians must agree upon, well, that settles it. If some object to the role that baptism plays in salvation, as per Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38, they would probably say, “Why, that is too obscure to require agreement.” See how this system works? Anyone who has a question concerning what is “essential” Christian doctrine and what is not should just address it to these “learned doctors” of the Ministerial Alliance. Apparently, it has never dawned on them how presumptuous they are.

Concerning this position of theirs, we might legitimately ask, “What makes a doctrine essential?” For example, Jesus commanded that, as disciples of His, we love one another. Is that clear or obscure? Does it need to be repeated in order to count, and, if so, how many times? Or is one well-worded statement sufficient? Being baptized in water is a clear requirement for salvation, stated repeatedly in the Book of Acts (2:38; 8:35-39; 9:18; 10:47-48; 16:31-34; 22:16). Why isn’t that clear?

The Ten Commandments that God gave to Israel are clear, short, and completely intelligible. No one can read Luke 13:3, and muse, “I just don’t get it.” How hard is it to comprehend when Jesus said that “unless you repent you shall all likewise perish”? Does someone need a theological degree to understand that principle and to know it requires effort on man’s part to accomplish? Is it any harder than when Jesus said, “for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24)?

The necessity of baptism as part of God’s means of saving us is just as intelligble as any of these. If none of the other verses cited are clear enough, how about, “There is an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism…” (1 Peter 3:21)? Baptism saves! No—not by itself, any more than faith can save by itself. But it is certainly part of salvation. If we can understand the need for love, faith, and repentance, we definitely should be able to understand the requirement of baptism—unless we are biased against it.

Is Baptism “Sprinkling”?

The men of the MA did not address whether infants should be baptized or not, although, when denominationalists do so, they do not baptize—but rather sprinkle water on the child. First of all, were any infants in the New Testament ever commanded to be baptized? Is there an example of one being either sprinkled or immersed? The answer to both questions is no. Some have argued it is implied because whole households such as Cornelius’ and Lydia’s were baptized. The reasoning is that these households must have included infants. But this notion is not a fact but rather an assumption. Not one clear passage can be cited for the practice. And yet the MA will fellowship both those who do and those who don’t practice “infant baptism.” In their eyes, infant baptism must be too obscure to divide over. However, the truth is, “The New Testament provides no authority to baptize infants.” It’s not obscure; they are just ignoring it.

Also, in this vein, we might ask, “Do the men of the MA not know what the word baptism means? When someone is unfamiliar with a word in the English language, he looks up the word in a dictionary. Since the New Testament was written in Greek, a student of the Bible looks up the definition of a word in a lexicon, which is the Greek equivalent of dictionary. Anyone who looks up the Greek word baptizo (translated “baptise” in the English) in a lexicon will find the following definition: “1. Prop. To dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge…. 2. To cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water…” (Thayer 94).

One can study more than a column of information on baptizo and not find a single reference to sprinkling. Has no one in the MA ever bothered to check? Or are they just ignoring the fact that the word means “to immerse” and not “to sprinkle”? How can this group of men be of “the same mind” when some of them practice sprinkling instead of immersion? Now, the definition of the word resolves the problem all by itself. What a word meant to the people who spoke, wrote, and comprehended Greek is crucial. No one has the authority to force a word in another language to mean what it never meant. What kind of respect and reverence for the Word of God is that?

But God gave other means in the New Testament of knowing that baptism is immersion. John, for example, baptized in Aenon, for there was “much water there.” (John 3:23). If he only sprinkled people, why would he need much water? A single water pot would be plenty to baptize hundreds with. A person only needs “much water” if he is immersing people. God provided a specific example of that very point in Acts 8:35-39. It is not uncommon, while traveling, to take along water to drink. Many still do so even though not very far from water at any one time. People once carried canteens.

If the Ethiopian eunuch was traveling with water in his chariot, Philip could have taken some and sprinkled him; they would have not have even needed to stop the chariot! And when they did come to some water, Philip could have just reached down and taken enough to sprinkle the eunuch. Instead, however, the text says, “So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.” Obviously, the eunuch was immersed (in harmony with the meaning of baptize). Only one reason exists for going down into the water. Verse 39 adds that “they came up out of the water.”

When a person knows the definition of the word and notes the example of the baptism of the eunuch, he is not surprised when reading Romans 6:4 to learn that baptism is a burial in water: “Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”

Now are any of these passages difficult to understand? Are they too “obscure” to comprehend? What baptism is—is clear. Fallible human beings can understand it. It is essential for salvation and not really open for disagreement. But despite these facts, the MA would not agree, would they—not because they cannot understand it; after all, they have the same Scriptures in their Bibles that you have in yours. They have the same lexicons that are available to all. Their problem is that some of the members of the MA practice sprinkling, and they are not about to give it up even though it is not baptism.

They also will not baptize people so that they might be saved. They baptize them because they believe they are already saved. Yet John came “preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4). And he prepared the way for Jesus, who also baptized (John 4:1-2). On the Day of Pentecost, when the multitude asked what they should do, Peter did not answer like the MA would have. He did not say there was not anything they could do; Peter told them: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…” (Acts 2:38). This is the exact same message presented earlier by John, continued by Jesus, and taught by the apostles as well.

Even Saul, the former persecutor of Christians, was told, “And now, why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of
the Lord” (Acts 22:16). In baptism, God removes a person’s sins with the blood of Jesus (Rev. 1:5). That is the reason baptism is for the remission of sins. Not one of the MA believes that, although it is plainly set forth in the Scriptures. And they have the same Bible that everyone else does. Therefore, the only Scriptures that are “very clear” and not open for “debate” are those that the MA selects. If they do not believe it or refuse to practice it, then it suddenly becomes obscure. The MA is just playing fast and loose with the Scriptures while trying to sound high-minded.

Unity

In their emphasis on unity, the MA quotes from Thomas Campbell who “advocated closer relations with all Christians.” But what they do not point out is that Campbell was decrying arbitrary divisions that kept “believers” apart. His views changed as he understood the Bible better. But whatever his views were is irrelevant. The questions are, “What is our understanding today?” and, “What is actually taught in the Scriptures?”

Unity cannot exist between “Christians” when we do not all have the same definition of who a Christian is. If God requires people to be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins (and He does), it is at that point that they are born again (John 3:5). Three thousand repented and were baptized on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41), and they were added to the church (Acts 2:47). Those who are not baptized are not Christians Anyone who aspires to please God must do what He says. We must all be of the “same mind” on something so crucial as salvation!

If someone, therefore, comes to us and says, “I was sprinkled as an infant, can you accept me as a Christian brother?” The answer is, “No.” This response does not mean we don’t like the person or that we would not like to fellowship him; it means that we have respect for the Scriptures and the teaching of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The man must be taught the truth and obey from the heart that form of teaching concerning salvation (Rom. 6:17-18).

But even if we disregard the most crucial matter of salvation, how can the MA be united when they hold different positions morally? In most communities, at least one denomination supports abortion. Sometimes it is the United Methodist Church, as in Denton, Texas. In fact, the doctor who performed abortions was a member there. So how can pro-life “churches” have unity and be of the same mind with those denominations that promote abortion. Jesus is not both for and against the practice; how can His followers be?

Or take the subject of homosexuality. How many in the MA uphold this sin? How many will perform homosexual marriages? Do any of the men oppose the practice? If the MA has men in both camps, how can they say they are of the same mind? Jesus is not both for and against homosexuality. He condemned it (since it is included under the broad topic of fornication). Once again, a Greek lexicon would be helpful in discerning what porneia refers to.

The point is simply this. The Ministerial Alliance is not united in regards to baptism and the manner of becoming a Christian, nor are they united in the kind of morality the Bible teaches. (Or will they say that these two moral issues are so murky that they can still fellowship one another?) The MA has tried their best to insist they can be united when they neither believe the same doctrines nor practice the same morality. They are only fooling themselves about their so-called “unity.” They are only united against us.

The Problem in a Nutshell

The final article dealing with the Ministerial Alliance (part 3) is the article inside, but this slot will highlight the fundamental problem of all those who claim that salvation is by “faith only.” They want man to have no response at all to God, but in actuality they know that this position is impossible and conflicts with the Scriptures. Here is the way the Ministerial Alliance, who took out a full-page newspaper advertisement to attack the Preaching Brother in another state, handled it.

They conclude with a lengthy paragraph of explanation with these words: “We are saved by Jesus’ death on the cross as the sinless Savior, not by anything we can do (Eph. 2:8-9).” Notice, we are not saved by anything we can do. Why do they say this? They say it in order to exclude baptism. They consider that baptism is something we can do, but it is not a work of man; it is the working of God (Col. 2:12): “buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God who raised Him from the dead.” Baptism is a matter of faith—of trust in God—that He will remove our sins when we are buried with Christ. But the Ministerial Alliance—to a man—does not want baptism to be part of salvation. God is the One Who included baptism as part of His plan for salvation. They want to remove it.

They view baptism as a human effort which cannot be part of a system in which man is saved by faith. They cite several verses which teach that salvation is by faith, and every Christian agrees with what those verses teach on the importance and significance of faith. But not one of them ever says “faith only.” In fact, “faith only” involves a human response—faith is built by looking at the Word of God and responding positively to the evidence (Rom. 10:17). John says that he recorded the evidence of the miracles of Jesus just so that people would believe (John 20:30-31).

But the real problem the Ministerial Alliance has is that they contradict themselves. They concluded that we are not saved by anything we can do, but look what they wrote earlier in the very same paragraph: “Salvation comes to all who confess their sin, turn from it, and place faith in Jesus as the crucified and risen Lord.” Wait a minute! Notice how they tried to sneak in repentance? One must “turn from” sin (or repent). Although they did not emphasize this point with a Scripture, Jesus taught that “unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). The problem for them is that repentance requires man doing something. It requires human effort (considerably more than it does to be lowered into a watery grave and raised up again). They hopelessly contradict themselves. They must choose—Is there effort on the part of man (such as in repentance) or not? Peter links repentance and baptism together in Acts 2:38. Both are required.

The Same Mind (Part 2)

The Holy Spirit is the Christian’s guide to helpunderstand truth (John 16:13). Christians can be fallible, however, although the Holy Spirit (God) is not.

Thus continues the defense of denominationalism on the part of the Ministerial Alliance (MA) in a town in another state. They published a declaration in the local newspaper aimed at a Preaching Brother (P.B.) who decried Christians being divided. The MA sought to explain their rationale for unity in division. It is easy to see why it took him nearly a year to respond to what they wrote. Prior to the quote above they had, in effect, blamed Almighty God for being unable to communicate with His creation (mankind)—thus creating division among believers—but with the two sentences above they have actually found a way to make matters worse, which shall be demonstrated shortly.

Before getting to that, however, it must first be shown that every one of these men misunderstands and misinterprets John 16:13. Anyone reading the context would know that Jesus was not speaking to all Christians there—His words are applicable only to His apostles. Notice both verses 12 and 13:

“I still have many things to say to you [the apostles, GWS], but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.”

Denominational preachers often try to make this passage apply to the Holy Spirit revealing things to all Christians, which is problematic, to say the least. The fact is that Jesus was promising His apostles they would be guided into all truth, which both Peter and Jude claim was accomplished (2 Peter 1:3, Jude 3). But if this applied to all Christians for all time to come, then it would mean: 1) that revelation was still ongoing; and 2) that the Holy Spirit continually helps all Christians to understand the Scriptures. Now if that were the case, where is the additional truth that has been revealed since the first century? In fact, why do we not have an annual update of all the truth the Holy Spirit has revealed since last year? Imagine all of the volumes every Christian would need to read from the past two millenia just to keep current!

The truth that Jesus and the Holy Spirit gave to the apostles was completed by the end of the first century. He gave them all things that pertain to life and godliness; He delivered to them once and for all “the faith.” (Notice that Paul talks about “one faith” in Ephesians 4:5.) If all had been revealed at that time, then nothing further has or could be revealed since. Possibly the men of the Ministerial Alliance don’t understand that, or maybe they are just trying to deceive people. Jesus spoke similarly in John 14:25-26, but they did not refer to that passage; so it appears below:

“These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.”

In both passages, Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit will teach them all things and guide them into all truth, but in John 14 He tells them the Holy Spirit will enable them to remember the words that Jesus had spoken to them. No wonder this verse was ignored. Nearly anyone would conclude, “Wait a minute! I never heard the words of Jesus personally spoken to me.” People would know immediately that Jesus was speaking only to the apostles; so the MA omitted John 14:25-26 and used 16:13. This is an example of men using the Scriptures to prove their theology instead of studying them to discover what they actually teach.

But, suppose for a moment that the Ministerial Alliance (MA) were correct. Do they realize what they have just advocated? Do they understand that they have just blamed the Holy Spirit for the divisions that exist in Christianity today? They claim that the Holy Spirit guides us in understanding truth, but the very next sentence claims that Christians are fallible. Wait a minute! The Holy Spirit is not fallible, but Christians are. True. But if the infallible Holy Spirit is our guide to truth, why are we not all in agreement?

Is the Holy Spirit guiding some to be Methodists and others to be Baptists? Is the Holy Spirit causing various people to choose Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormons? Dare we mention the various groups of Pentecostals? They definitely claim to have the Holy Spirit; the only problem is that some of them believe that the Godhead consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit while others believe Jesus is the only one in the Godhead. Why is the Holy Spirit giving out so many interpretations that outright contradict one another? Has the MA never read 1 Corinthians 14:33? “For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.”

One certainly wonders, “If with the help of the infallible Holy Spirit, we have all these religious groups teaching doctrines diametrically opposed to each other, what would things be like if He was not helping?” Of course, the answer is that He is not. Men have created division. It is not God’s fault, nor are we too stupid to understand truth. Neither can the Holy Spirit be accused or blamed for the chaos. Let’s face it: Men do not have the desire to be united—or we would be.

Seeking to prove that the Holy Spirit is infallible but Christians are not, the MA provides examples. First, Peter was corrected by Paul (Gal. 2:11-14). Second, “The council at Jerusalem in Acts 15 is an example of Christian leaders coming to agreement when there had been opposing views.” Third, Apollos had to be taught the way of the Lord more perfectly. These are fine verses to study, but they have nothing to do with the subject at hand. First of all, Peter did not teach error. Paul rebuked him for his actions—which, by the way, were not consistent with his own teachings. Peter, apparently, responded properly to the rebuke and corrected his mistake. However, the event had nothing to do with any doctrine that the Holy Spirit taught Peter.

Yes, the error of the Judaizing teachers was resolved in Acts 15. Peter made a logical presentation for not keeping the Law of Moses; no one had ever kept it perfectly (except for Jesus). Furthermore, God gave the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews, thus showing His approval of them. Paul and Barnabas gave evidence concerning what God had done with respect to the Gentiles. James quoted Scripture to prove Gentiles were acceptable. So the doctrine of the apostles became clear at this point, but some of the Judaizing teachers refused to cooperate with the decision. As late as A.D. 62-64, Paul was still denouncing such men in Philippians 3.

All might well wonder why the Judaizing teachers refused to cooperate with their brethren on this matter. The logic of Peter, the Scriptures given by James, and the examples of God’s receiving and blessing the Gentiles was sufficient evidence for any fair-minded Christian; the problem was that some of the Jews who had become Christians could not overcome their bias in favor of the Law of Moses. The dispute had been resolved—by the Scriptures. They just refused to accept the truth on the matter.

And that is the problem with all denominations. The things that divide those who desire to be Christians have already been resolved—and by the Scriptures. People just do not want to accept the solution. Suddenly matters of doctrine become opinion, or, “Human beings are just too fallible.” No, the problem is that people refuse to see beyond their biases—just like the Judaizing teachers.

The third example had to do with Apollos being taught more perfectly. The MA should not have mentioned this illustration because it utterly destroys the whole point they are making. Yes, the eloquent Apollos was in error concerning John’s baptism, but he studied with Aquila and Priscilla and came to a knowledge of the truth. If he had behaved like the men of the MA, he would have muttered something about being a fallible Christian and continued on his merry way. When people discuss the Scriptures, there is hope for unity, which occurred in this case. The three of them parted in harmony—not agreeing to disagree.

The authors of the newspaper article from the MA never seem to notice when they have blundered beyond recovery. They just go from bad to worse. Consider the final three sentences of their third paragraph.

Since all Christians are in the process of learning and growing in understanding by the leading of the Holy Spirit, we are not perfect nor do we have perfect knowledge. Some things are difficult to understand. Some things we will only understand clearly when we are in heaven in front of God Himself.

This paragraph would be entirely true if it were not for the phrase, by the leading of the Holy Spirit. If the infallible Holy Spirit is our guide and leading us, why is our understanding not better than it is? Why do we not all believe the same teaching? Why do some believe in original sin while others don’t? Granted that we may be at different levels of understanding and the degree of our spirituality, but how, if we are all led by the Spirit, can we hold to doctrines that are the exact opposite of each other? Do we really want to blame the Holy Spirit for that?

Notice that the Scriptures teach that it is possible for unity to exist. Paul commanded that brethren be “perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). Despite the MA’s attempt to make the verse only refer to purpose, it is obvious what Paul meant. In Ephesians 4:4-6 he provided seven reasons for unity. The first one listed is that there is only one body or church (cf. Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23). Since there is only one church, how is it that the MA’s members belong to several churches?

Second, there is only one Holy Spirit—not several spirits leading Christians in different directions. Third, all Christians have the same hope—the resurrected Jesus. Fourth, we have only one Lord, Jesus. Fifth, there is only one faith—which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). So why are the members of the MA willing to accept the idea of several “faiths”? Sixth, God authorizes only one baptism, yet some in the MA probably sprinkle instead of immerse. A simple lexicon would explain the meaning of the Greek word translated “baptism”; they don’t even need the Holy Spirit on this one. Seventh, there is only one God and Father of all.

In the first century, the church really was led by the Holy Spirit. He inspired the apostles to teach the truth regarding salvation, worship, and all other matters. And what do you know? As long as brethren followed those teachings, they remained united. After three thousand were baptized on the Day of Pentecost, they “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine…” (Acts 2:41-42). The Holy Spirit does not create disunity; the Words He inspired do not, either. Brethren enjoyed fellowship with each other during this time. Only one thing disrupts unity—error, which is the opposite of truth. Unity can only be restored through adherence to truth.

Would We Be Better Off Without It?

“We are a guinea-pig generation for an experiment in mass debasement that few of us would ever have consented to, and whose full nefarious impact may not be known for years. The march of technology is irreversible, and we aren’t so naïve as to believe that any kind of imposed regulation could ever reseal the Pandora’s box of pornography.”

Those are pretty hifalutin words, but the last line makes clear that the complaint is against pornography, which does indeed debase people. Since the 1950s, this culture has been bombarded by wave after wave of pornography in its various formats. It began with slick magazines, moved into the genre of movies which became available to watch (and still is) on cable stations (also videocassettes, books, DVDs, and online). Some would not agree, but pornography is a “dead-end outlet for people too lazy to reap the ample rewards of healthy sexuality.” Certainly, the statements quoted are accurate, but it is surprising that they come from Pamela Anderson Lee.

Does that name sound familiar? It might. She appeared on the television series, Baywatch, from 1992-97. Yes, she is an ex-Playboy model and no stranger to nudity or sex tapes. So, it is interesting that she has now concluded that at age 49 much of what she has devoted herself to is unhealthy for the public. Lest the reader think that she has been busy earning a Ph.D., however, she does have a co-writer for this Wall Street Journal column—a rabbi named Shmuley Boteach (no, I didn’t make that up). Presumably, much of the verbiage is his, although both agreed with the final product.

No one could argue successfully against the fact that viewing pornography is an exercise in dehumanizing men and women. God created us in His image (Gen. 1:26-28). Yet many in society want to exalt the human body. Within 100 years, the design of the swimsuit for women went from nearly total coverage to nearly total exposure. The girly magazines with their centerfolds went further, but then the floodgates were opened with various movies depicting various aspects of intimacy. Although the lust of the flesh offers a strong appeal to many, it will not encourage anyone to be pure in heart. The sin (Matt. 5:27-28) may not be irreversible for everyone, but a few are already on record as having gone past the point of no return. The use of pornography will ruin homes, healthy relationships between males and females, and (most importantly) one’s relationship with God. We wish Pamela Anderson Lee success in her efforts to combat this evil influence on society.

The Same Mind (Part 1)

A Preaching Brother (P.B.) wrote a few weeks ago about a challenge he received from a ministerial alliance in the town where he lives and works. Having mentioned some of those matters in Spiritual Perspectives, which he receives, he wrote back and provided a copy of the document that those men had published in the newspaper. He offered to meet with them (which they ignored), and he answered all of their arguments over a period of time in the same newspaper they had used. Their argument on 1 Corinthians 1 is particularly interesting. That paragraph will be cited below, after which appropriate comments will be offered.

During the first century of the church, God spoke through the Apostle Paul to the church at Corinth to dissolve division. Some people in the church wanted to follow Peter (Cephas), others Paul, some Apollos. One group arrogantly divided on the grounds they were “of Christ” (1 Corinthians 1:12). Paul confronted them and said, “…by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and there be no divisions among you, but you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10, NAS).

These divisions caused Christian people to take sides and refuse to cooperate or fellowship with one another. That is why the apostle emphatically asks, “Is Christ divided?” The answer is a resounding, “NO!” God had encouraged their cooperation and unified spirit. “Same mind” does not mean that every Christian thinks exactly alike. It means to unify on the basis of their goal or purpose.

The first paragraph above is entirely true with the possible exception of one statement. How do these men know that those who were saying they were “of Christ” were arrogant? They could have been, but is it not the case that this claim is what all of them should have been saying—that we are “of Christ”? It may be that these were the only ones trying to be Scriptural— and not belong to any faction at all.

The second paragraph likewise denounces division, but then opens the door to let it in. Why is it that the first thing denominationalists (and some liberal brethren) say is that to be joined together “in the same mind and in the same judgment” does not mean that Christians must think alike? Do those words actually mean the opposite—that thinking alike is not required? Did Paul say that he was referring only to a goal or purpose? Where does he state or imply that explanation? Here is the humor in the situation. This article is signed by men who work with different denominations, but they are talking about unity! Since they do not agree on what the New Testament teaches, they must re-interpret 1 Corinthians 1:10.

How fascinating is this! Men who cannot belong to the same “church” or worship together because of their differences are quoting what Paul wrote against division! The only thing that brought them together was their disdain of the Lord’s church. Perhaps we should feel honored. But, since they brought up the passage, why not try to determine what it means—instead of just asserting that it means one thing but not another? What do the Scriptures teach?

Three words in 1 Corinthians 1:10 deserve to be looked at closely. The first of these is katartizo. These critics of the church of Christ used the New American Standard, which did not translate the word very well. They rendered it “made complete.” Here are the words other translations chose.

KJV – “perfectly joined together”
NKJ – “perfectly joined together”
ASV – “perfected together”

Some translations have “united”; even the NIV has “perfectly united.” The idea of perfection comes from the root word, artios [739], which is combined with the preposition, kata [2596]. The Greek word artios is only used one time in the New Testament—in 2 Timothy 3:17, where it is rendered “perfect”—as in “that the man of God may be perfect….” To leave out the idea of perfection seems to be an injustice to the meaning of the word.

The combined word, katartizo [2675] is found 13 times in the New Testament. Twice it refers to fishermen mending their nets (Matt. 4:21; Mark 1:19). The word perfect shows up in 7 renderings out of the 13. Paul once tells brethren to be perfect (2 Cor. 13:11). It’s the word used in Galatians 6:1, where Paul says to restore one overtaken in a trespass (Gal. 6:1). Two related words also carry this idea. Paul’s desire for brethren was their “perfection” [2676] (2 Cor. 13:9), and the spiritual offices and gifts were for the “perfection” [2677] of the saints (Eph. 4:12). God wants brethren to be perfectly joined together.

Nous, which is translated “mind” [3563] appears 24 times in the New Testament. Several times the translators used “understanding.” Nothing indicates goals or purposes. The word gnomee, translated “judgment” [1106], is translated “purpose” but only one out of nine times. It is found as “advice” in 2 Corinthians 8:10. In 1 Corinthians Paul gives his “judgment” in 7:25 and calls upon the brethren to abide after his “judgment” in 7:40. Twice the King James’ translators chose “mind” to represent the Greek word (Philemon 14; Rev. 17: 13). Paul was referring to their thinking.

The apostle wanted the church at Corinth, then, to be united—perfectly united. He wanted them to be perfectly joined together in their thinking and their understanding. Even if the time to examine these words had not been taken, most people reading the text would have come away with the correct meaning. It is so obvious that one has to work hard to miss it. The men who wrote the newspaper article have to say they believe in unity even though it’s obvious they do not. After affirming they are united, then they try their hardest to twist and contort 1 Corinthians 1:10 to make it mean something else. Here is what they wrote next:

Every church background in the world has members with varying opinions on doctrines (teachings). In any congregation in any church, there will be a variance of opinions. Differing opinions are tolerated when they are considered to be over “non-essential” issues. The term “nonessential” does not mean the doctrine is unimportant. It means it is not essential for salvation.

Seriously? So, after claiming that Christians do not have to be united in their thinking and understanding, then they extend that notion to doctrine, also. Where is all of this floundering going to end? One huge problem that the reader may have already thought of is, “Who decides what is an essential doctrine and what is nonessential?” The world has already seen the Jesus Seminar attempt to define what words the Lord actually spoke and what ones He did not. Now we have a group of denominational ministers telling us that the teachings of the New Testament can be divided into essential and non-essential teachings!

Why didn’t the Holy Spirit simply have the apostles write, after a doctrinal section of Scripture, E for essential and NE for non-essential? Then we would all know, and maybe some would not be so confused. Of course, if some doctrines are non-essential, why did God put them in there to start with? Ay-yi-yi. Should we rewrite a few passages? “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, but some of it is non-essential” (2 Tim. 3:16). How would that do? “Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, but try to figure out which ones are non-essential” (1 Tim. 4:16).

Just when one thinks the men who placed this article in the newspaper could not manage to make themselves look any worse, they manage to outdo all previous efforts. They continue: “Although God has one correct teaching, human beings are often unable to understand it.” What? Okay, Who created the universe, including man? Are they actually affirming that the God who created the human brain and gave us the ability to vocalize our thoughts is somehow deficient in being able to communicate with us? They admit that God has one correct teaching but then say that we have trouble understanding it.

So, whose fault would that be? Either God was not able to express Himself in a way that human beings could understand His truth, or He made us incapable of understanding it. Which one of these is the explanation? If God is unable to effectively speak to mankind, then the fault lies with Him. If we are too dumb to get what He’s saying, then we may be blamed to some degree, but ultimately this comes back to God also. Why didn’t He make us a little bit smarter?

These comments highlight the problem that denominationalism has. There is only one correct teaching; they agree on that, but somehow they must justify the division that keeps them apart. They answer that we as human beings are unable to understand that one doctrine that God gave to us. This attitude may sound as though they are trying to be humble, but it is nothing more than gibberish. Those in denominations seek to justify their division when they all know there is only one doctrine. So they say, “We are weak human beings; sometimes our intellect falls short of understanding God; so we admit that we’re fallible human beings, but we’re trying.”

No, they are not! If they were really trying, they would make an effort to understand the truth, which is what Paul commanded brethren at Corinth. Believing the same one doctrine is not only possible, Jesus expected it. Did He not say that if His disciples continued in His word, they would “know the truth,” and that the truth would set them free? So, which ones of those who signed the article for the newspaper have not yet been set free? Jesus says we will know the truth if we abide in His Word (John 8:31-32); denominationalists say, “We human beings are often unable to understand it.” In effect, they are arguing against what Jesus taught.

He also said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). But if we are unable to understand the one doctrine, the truth, then how can we come to the Father? Does no one in these religious groups see that this attempt to justify division is disastrous? How can it even be entertained as a serious defense—let alone be published in the newspaper? Here is their case: We are all divided over what the one doctrine is that God has revealed (because human beings are often unable to understand it), but we are actually united—especially against those who point out the fallacy of denominationalism.

Gospel preachers have long shown—from 1 Corinthians 1:10— that God expects His followers to be united—the very thing for which Jesus prayed (John 17:20- 21). Denominationalism is divisive and confuses the average person, who wonders, “Why are there so many churches?” The answer is that men like those who signed the letter are comfortable with it and do not intend to change. They devise justifications for it which are laughable. The solution is to give up manmade doctrines and study the Word, as Jesus taught. Only then might we all be perfectly joined together “in the same mind and in the same judgment.”

Jezebel’s Children

This wicked queen of Israel did have physical children of her own—both of whom died young—but the title refers to her figurative offspring. And who are they? They are the ones who share her shameless character and her irrational way of thinking. The designation of Jezebel’s Children could refer to her callous disregard of innocent human life. Without a qualm or a single twinge of conscience, she devised a plot whereby the innocent Naboth was accused, convicted, and killed—just so her husband could possess his land that contained a fruitful vineyard. All those who murder in cold blood are her children—and Cain’s as well, who was the first to resort to violence without provocation. All the women who have allowed the lives of their innocent babies to be terminated without any remorse are truly daughters of Jezebel. Those who operate or support Planned Parenthood are also her kinsmen.

However, she represents evil in an even greater way—besides the one that allows for immorality and the kind of heartlessness described above. She symbolizes everyone who knows the truth but rejects it anyway. Her husband had witnessed an extraordinary event. Queen Jezebel’s prophets of Baal had tried all day to call down fire from above to consume the bull they had laid out on the altar for him. They leaped, they cried aloud, they cut themselves—all in a vain effort to prove their god’s existence (1 Kings 18:26-29). Then Elijah soaked his sacrifice with water, along with the altar and the ground around it. Then his God—the true and living God—consumed all of it with fire (1 Kings 18:30-39).

King Ahab told Jezebel what had happened, including the fact that Elijah executed her prophets. Such a tremendous event was unparalleled. The land also enjoyed rain for the first time in 3½ years. Surely the queen would now see the error of her ways and repent of all her wickedness. It never happened. Despite whatever wonder and excitement there had been in Ahab’s voice, Jezebel remained unmoved. In fact, she swore that Elijah would be dead within one day’s time (1 Kings 19:1-2).

She could have given birth to those Pharisees who rejected Jesus. They too rejected the evidence of the miracles time after time. Centuries later, the atheist Voltaire claimed that he would refuse to believe a miracle if he saw it with his own eyes. He truly was a son of Jezebel. When Jesus healed a man lame for 38 years, they sought to kill Him because He had broken the Sabbath (so far as they were concerned) and made Himself equal with God in the process (John 5:18). They cast the blind man whom Jesus healed out of the temple and claimed Jesus was a sinner, although they had irrefutable evidence that the man had been blind from birth. When Jesus resurrected Lazarus from the dead, the chief priests sought to put both of them to death. Those who reject both the natural evidence of the existence of God (Rom. 1:18-20) and the supernatural revelation of God, confirmed by miracles (John 20:30-31) are all Jezebel’s children.