In the preceding article, “The Concept of Restoration” (September 4, 2016), we examined a portion of an e-mail exchange dealing with the necessity of restoration. The writer, KB, also had asked twice about the need of being baptized “for the remission of sins,” and the second time I told him I would stand by what Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost. In his last communication, he finally got to the main point (apparently) of the discussion. All that he wrote will be examined, but we will consider it a paragraph at a time. After concluding his comments about Catholicism, he wrote:
The audience in Acts 2 was Jewish, or at least they all had a background in Judaism. Peter’s sermon was a murder indictment directed at the house of Israel. This was the generation of Jews that rejected Jesus our Lord. He said Judgment Day would be easier on Sodom and Gomorrah than this generation. Matthew 23. Toward the end, Peter says, “Be saved from this crooked generation.” They had refused to be baptized by John the Baptist. “Repent and be baptized?” That’s straight out of the John the Baptist handbook. Does it apply to us Gentiles for our salvation? Repentance of unbelief in Jesus Christ and belief on the Lord Jesus Christ obviously does. Acts 3:19, Acts 10:43, Acts 16:31.
My first response was: “Well, I must admit I didn’t see where this was heading.” He began to set forth the untenable position that there are two gospels instead of one—one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles. The New Testament speaks constantly about the gospel; nowhere does it discuss two different gospels—one for Jews and one for Gentiles. Consider a multitude of Scriptures, beginning with Matthew 4:23, where it says that Jesus went forth preaching the gospel of the kingdom (cf. Matt. 9:35). Mark says in his very first verse: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (1:1). The great commission that Jesus gave to His apostles was to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15-16). Isn’t it strange that He did not mention that there were two gospels—one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles?
In addition, there are 6 references to the gospel in Acts and 11 in the Book of Romans—not the least of which is: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation to everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also to the Greek” (1:16). How many gospels does Paul speak of—two—one for Jews and one for Greeks? No, there is only one gospel for both. Paul writes of the gospel 8 times in 1 Corinthians (occasionally 2 or 3 times in a verse), 5 times in 2 Corinthians, 7 times in Galatians, 4 times in Ephesians, 8 times in Philippians, twice in Colossians, 6 times in 1-2 Thessalonians, and three times in 2 Timothy and Philemon. 1 Peter includes it 4 times.
My reply did not mention any of these verses, but they do make it clear, beyond any quibbling, that there is one and only one gospel. Below is what I did write:
The audience of Acts 2 was Jewish, but the goal of Peter’s sermon was not to indict the Jews. That was incidental. To see the point more fully, read Peter’s next sermon. He indicts them all right in Acts 3:14-15 but then adds in verse 17: “Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers.” The purpose of the sermon on Pentecost was to prove that Jesus rose from the dead, which is the reason that he quotes David’s prophecy. It is the reason that he proclaims in Acts 2:36: “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this same Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” That’s when they asked what to do, and Peter told them to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:37-38). It is false to say they had refused John’s baptism. Have you not read Matthew 3:5-6? “Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him, and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.”
In addition to this response, I probably should have told KB that I didn’t know that John the Baptist had a handbook. Apparently, he means that the teaching on baptism in Acts 2:38 is out of the Baptist Manual, but he would be wrong on that, also. They do not teach that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. They clearly teach that one is saved from sins first and then baptized. Next KB tried to confuse the issue by bringing in Holy Spirit baptism. He wrote:
As for water baptism…a transition was being made from water to the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:1-8)—from John the Baptist to Jesus our Lord—from a Levitical cleansing ritual (which only people with a background in Judaism would understand) to a cleansing done by God the Son himself (Matt. 3:11; 1 Cor. 12:13). In Acts 3:19, the same preacher tells another Jewish audience just to repent of their unbelief, of their having rejected Jesus the Messiah in order to procure the remission of sins. How do we reconcile 3:19 with 2:38?
First of all, no such transition took place. Second, Jesus preached baptism in water, and John’s disciples came to Him (John 3-4). Third, not one verse in the New Testament connects Holy Spirit baptism to cleansing from sins. God never designed Holy Spirit baptism to remove sins, nor did He design it to last. It was only for a time—and to accomplish a specific purpose. After that, it ceased. The answer to this segment of KB’s final e-mail follow:
Your transition theory is greatly flawed. Johnand Jesus were preaching the gospel of the kingdom (Mark 1:1, Matt. 3:2, et al.). Water baptism is part of Christianity; it certainly was not part of the Law of Moses. The way you present it requires two different systems following the Law, but there is only one prophesied (Jer. 31:31-34; Deut. 18:15-19), and only one was installed (Heb. 8:6-7). The New Testament does not teach two new systems—only one.
Baptism has nothing to do with Levitical cleansing. The worldwide Flood was the type of which baptism in water is the antitype (1 Peter 3:21). This is the one baptism (Eph. 4:4-6) for all. The type-antitype model does not work with Holy Spirit baptism, which had ended by the time Paul wrote Ephesians 4:4-6.
KB then went on to make a totally unwarranted parallelism with two concepts that are not parallel:
Acts 2:38 is an example of Jewish parallelism, I’ve read. Repentance of our unbelief in Jesus Christ and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ we can all agree this is required for the remission of sins. “…and be baptized, each one of you in the name of Jesus Christ” goes with “…and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
One can only wonder where he read that, since he does not cite a source. Certainly it was not in a reputable commentary. I answered:
Acts 2:38 is the first time the gospel is defined and obeyed (Acts 2:41). Acts 3:19 must be harmonized with it and all the other passages (Acts 8:35-39; Acts 9:18; 22:16, et al.). It is obvious to most people that “be converted” includes being baptized, since forgiveness of sins is associated with it. The “times of refreshing” are equivalent to the blessings included in the gift and promise of the Holy Spirit. I have never heard anyone try to make equivalent baptism for the remission of sins and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. The parallelism is with the gift in verse 38 and the promise of verse 39.
Then he moved on to Cornelius, which most people who do not study the Bible seriously fail to comprehend.
Later, in Acts 10:43-44, God reveals how gracious He’s going to be when the Gentiles receive the Holy Spirit at the point of belief. A person who has received the Holy Spirit is not a lost sinner (Eph. 1:13; 4:30; 1 Cor. 12:13; Matt. 3:11; Rom. 8:9, 14). People received the Holy Spirit in various ways in the book of Acts. How do we receive the Holy Spirit today? Obviously not by the laying on of hands by the apostles. That leaves either “repent and be baptized” or at the point of belief. Paul tells us the answer in his letters to the Gentile churches (Eph. 1:13, Gal. 3:2, 5; Rom. 8:9,14; 1 Cor. 12:13). Grace and peace to you from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Just because someone can string together a bunch of Scriptures does not mean that they prove the point asserted. Quite often, they relate only slightly to the subject. The reader may have noticed that the two sections of Scriptures are almost identical, but he does not explain how any of them relates to his thesis. My reply is set forth below:
You are simply wrong about Cornelius and his family being saved by the Holy Spirit. What makes you think so? Balaam spoke by the Holy Spirit in Numbers, but it is evident that he was not saved. The high priest in John 11:49-51 spoke by the Holy Spirit; do you want to argue that he was saved? Cornelius was not saved because the Holy Spirit came upon him—the purpose for that was to show the Jews that God received the Gentiles. Read carefully Acts 11:1-18. Peter recounts all that happened so they would know that God accepted the Gentiles. They agreed. But also notice that it was not by the Holy Spirit they were saved; verse 14 states: “Peter was to tell them WORDS by which they would be saved.”
Baptism in the Holy Spirit can only be shown in two instances—on Pentecost and at the household of Cornelius. It is not stated that Paul was baptized by the Holy Spirit, but we know that he was (implication). Can you name and prove that one other individual received the Holy Spirit in that manner? Many received miraculous gifts, but these instances are not the same as baptism in the Holy Spirit. Being baptized in the Spirit was a promise, which was fulfilled; baptism in water was a command (Matt. 28:18-20, Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). And it is still in force.
Jews and Gentiles are all one in Christ Jesus, and they all got there in the same way—through baptism in water (Eph. 4:5), which the Flood prefigured (1 Peter 3:21). The New Testament does not teach two plans of salvation; there is one faith (Eph. 4:5).
I pray these few comments prove helpful.
So—that was it. KB did not respond further. It would seem that he really only wanted to unload the false doctrine that he believes onto someone else rather than engage in a meaningful study. Just looking at the Scriptures declaring that there is one gospel should be sufficient to put the matter to rest. Baptism in the Holy Spirit was never a command, as Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15-16 are. It is never said to cleanse anyone’s sins, and there is no mention of it after Acts 10. One cannot assume that passages that mention the Holy Spirit are, in fact, referring to baptism in the Holy Spirit, since some received miraculous gifts of the Spirit in various congregations. We must all read carefully the Word of God.
Years ago, advertisements for the latest Clint Eastwood movie said, “The man with no name is back again.” Recently, I received an e-mail from a person with no name—but he or she did have what looked like a telephone number. Since no name was used, this individual will be called the Person With A Number (PWAN). Whoever it was initiated an even briefer e-mail exchange than the one described last week. This one occurred on August 17-18, 2016.
In past years, when not everyone knew that Max Lucado was a false teacher, I wrote several articles showing what he had said or written, pointing out the way in which his writings contradicted what the Bible teaches. Usually, emotionally-wrought fans of his would write me to criticize what I had written. Many of them were just like the one written by PWAN. He asked: “Why don’t you focus on your own shortcomings instead of trying to destroy Max Lucado?” This message contained nothing that I had not heard before. People had written, accusing me of being envious of Max’s success or some other such tripe that was totally irrelevant to the errors he teaches. So, I determined to approach the subject humorously and therefore answered: “According to recent findings, Max has not been harmed at all by any of my articles. Besides, nothing was said but the truth. Do you have a problem with that?”
This statement is true. Despite all the articles I (and others) have written analyzing what Max Lucado teaches, not once have I ever received a note from anybody, saying, “I was going to buy a Max Lucado book, but after reading your article, I decided not to.” His sales have not seemed to slump in the slightest. Yet despite having no impact at all on his popularity, somebody always feels compelled to criticize me. I have asked repeatedly for anyone to point out even one thing I said about Lucado that was false. In nearly two decades, no one has pointed out a single misrepresentation. PWAN sent one more message, saying: “I am for Max not against him, and, yes, I have a problem with people being unfactual.”
Unfortunately, these comments did not spell out anything in my articles that was erroneous. So, I sent him something that showed his misplaced emphasis: “I am for Christ—not against Him (Matt. 12:30). Max is against Him. If you think I said something unfactual when I was quoting Max’s own words, please say what it is.” PWAN sent nothing else. As usual, one of Max’s devoted fans disappointed me again by failing to expose any wrongdoing on my part. Jesus once said, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil…” (John 18:23). Likewise, according to this principle, I’m still waiting.
Occasionally, someone sends an e-mail in the form of a question which may lead to a brief (or a lengthy) discussion. This one turned out to be brief, but the ideas brought into it were quite broad. All of the comments came from someone who will be referred to as KB, and his first question was: “Do you maintain that Alexander Campbell restored the church?”
The obvious answer is, “No,” but what was behind the asking of this question? The direction of the conversation could go anywhere from here; so after thinking it over a bit, I wrote the following answer:
No. Martin Luther and others began the Restoration process (trying to go back to practice what the Bible teaches rather than continue in the traditions of men); Campbell and many others continued it.
A question for you would be: Do you think anything needed to be restored?
Anyone who knows the history of Christianity knows why Luther and others saw the need for reforms because of the direction that the Catholic Church took from about 350 to 1500. Luther and the Reformers did indeed begin a process of returning to what the Bible teaches, but they only went so far. Campbell and others realized that fact and determined to go all the way back to what was taught in the New Testament. They made more progress, and we continue to have the same attitude today. But thus far, KB had not stated the reason for asking the question. His next message was not only astounding; it became clear that he wanted to go a different direction:
I don’t think the church needed to be restored. Matt 16:18. We are in a constant state of reformation (repentance) though. Do you maintain that the design of one’s water baptism must be “in order to obtain the remission of sins” in order to be valid?
His first sentence leaves one flabbergasted. The church that Jesus established (Matt. 16:18) in the first century bore no resemblance to what was taught concerning salvation in the 1500s—or what worship had become. Furthermore, there were the doctrines regarding relics and indulgences which is mainly what Luther opposed. His second sentence is a little closer to the truth. We should always have an attitude that, if we learn more truth, we have a responsibility to practice it. However, we do not expect, in light of the last 200 years of discussions and debates, to find anything earth-shattering at this point.
The question asked in the third sentence came as a surprise. Since we had begun discussing restoration, I was not quite ready to switch topics. I responded:
That’s interesting. The original church (although not all Christians) morphed into a system that, pertaining to organization, had an unauthorized pope and an unauthorized priesthood; in terms of salvation changed immersion (the definition of baptism) into sprinkling; and perverted worship in about every way possible—yet you say it did not need to be restored. One question: What would it take further to need restoration?
This response pretty much explains itself. An additional clarification might be helpful regarding the original church changing the way it did. Some departures had already occurred from the New Testament at the time that Constantine issued the Edict of Toleration in 311 A.D. After that date, this Roman emperor had a huge effect on the church—especially as it regards structure. The Biblical design of elders and deacons over one congregation was scrapped, and a hierarchy was instituted not unlike that of the Roman government. Men were appointed over districts and regions; the eventual result was the establishment of a universal bishop, or pope, in 606. Not all Christians accepted these changes, but the majority did, and they regarded anyone who did not as a heretic. KB’s next response made it clear that he had not really written to discuss restoration. Read his first sentence, and try to keep your jaw from dropping.
Brother Gary, the Catholic Church could just stop doing un-biblical things, couldn’t they? They could reform (repent). Many Catholics will make it to heaven in spite of themselves…just like you, me, and mother Teresa. Eph. 2:8, 9, 10. Do you maintain that the design of one’s water baptism must be “in order to obtain the remission of sins” to be valid?
Wow! How should one respond to this message? I decided not to deal with his opinion of whom he thought might be saved; the truth is that only those who have obeyed the gospel can be saved (2 Thess. 1:7-9). Just because I “feel” that I am or others are saved does not make it so. The New Testament defines who is saved and who is not. Salvation is not a subjective experience but rather obeying what God said to do. It would probably prove counterproductive to the remainder of the discussion to challenge what KB said at this point; so I sent the following reply:
Have you ever seen any sign that the Catholic Church will cease doing un-biblical things? It’s been a thousand years. Do you know how long the list is of things they changed from the New Testament? That is the reason that the practices of the New Testament need to be restored. Have you not read how that Hezekiah and Josiah restored Israel? They went back to doing things the way Moses said. The only way the church can be restored is to go back to what Jesus and the apostles taught. I’m not understanding why that is a problem for you.
As to baptism, I have no power (nor the will) to change what Peter, the apostle of the Lord taught, when asked, “What shall we do?” Are you going to take issue with Acts 2:37-38?
At this point KB launched everything that he had been wanting to say but had held back on. Here we will only deal with what he had to say on the subject of restoration. The rest of his comments will be examined in a subsequent article. He wrapped up his thoughts about Catholicism in this way:
Brother Gary, if we were to debate a Catholic clergyman….and we argued that we need to follow what Jesus and the apostles taught, his response would be, “How do you think the Bible came in to existence? Do you think it just dropped down from heaven miraculously? The church fathers put it together. Out of all the books floating around, they decided which books belonged in the canon. Therefore, we, the clergymen, have final authority, etc.” How would we counter this argument?
Notice that he deserted the discussion of restoration, nor did he answer the questions I asked him concerning how restoration is achieved. He ignored all of that (remember he is the one who began the correspondence with a question about restoration) and tried to point out why my comments to a Catholic clergyman might be irrelevant. My response to him answered his question:
A Catholic can claim anything he wants. Jesus still says that we will be judged by His words—not some pope’s or priest’s interpretation (John 12:48). Furthermore, Paul said that all Scripture was given by inspiration of God—not inspiration of God and approval of the Roman Catholic Church (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Peter writes that holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). Yes, the Bible is a miracle (see miraculousbible.org for lots of information). Can the God Who created the heavens and the earth instantaneously (Ps. 33:9) not inspire AND PRESERVE His Scriptures? The church fathers only included what was already accepted. How do you know the providence of God was not involved in this decision? According to the books of the Bible (which Catholics say they chose), their “clergy” has no authority for existing. The Bible speaks not of cardinals, archbishops, or popes. Peter said that God had given Christians all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). Those offices were not included. Jude said “the faith” was once for all delivered to the saints (Christians) (Jude 3). Nothing was reserved for future Catholic clergymen. Their hollow claims have no validity.
Restoration
KB did not reply to these comments, which were sent on August 13, 2016. The Catholic Church makes a lot of claims they cannot prove. One pope even claimed that they changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday (so why do they have services on Saturday, then?), which the Seventh-Day Adventists are fond of quoting. They did not, however, do so. New Testament Christians met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7)—the same day Paul authorized a collection to be taken up (1 Cor. 16:1-2). They can claim they decided what books are in the New Testament, but that was decided more than 200 years before there was a pope. No one has the right to change what the New Testament teaches—not a pope, not Joseph Smith, not Ellen G. White—not anyone. God delivered to the saints in the first century “the faith” (Jude 3). It does not change.
However, when men make changes, then Christianity is no longer the true religion Jesus gave to the world. The same thing had happened in the first century, and Jesus dealt with that problem. The Pharisees had established a tradition that violated the fifth commandment. They should have honored their fathers and mothers by supporting them when they became elderly, but they devised a way to get around that, which involved saying, “It is Corban,” meaning that they had dedicated the money to God that would have helped their parents (Matt. 15:1-9; Mark 7:11). Jesus said that this practice made their worship vain because they were teaching as doctrine the commandments of men. The only way out of this predicament was to quit the man-made practice and take care of their parents.
Likewise, they had, over the years, arrived at the point where some taught that they could divorce their wives for just any cause. When they asked Jesus about it, He went to Genesis and asked if they had not read what Moses wrote there about God creating one woman for one man for life. The only way to get out from under what is being done wrong today is to go back and read the New Testament. God established the structure for the church that He desired it to have, which included elders and deacons (1 Tim. 3:1-13). He did not authorize any type of church government beyond the local congregation. Every congregation of the Lord’s church is supposed to be self-governing and independent.
How many religious groups would be willing to give up their national headquarters and conventions? Yet they are not in the New Testament. If we are going to be pleasing to God, we ought to restore the truth and the correct practices of the church of the New Testament. What we teach regarding salvation should be what Jesus and His apostles taught. Our worship should be as simple as theirs was. Our government must echo theirs. Our doctrines should come from New Testament passages. Only then can we be the restored New Testament church. No man (or group of men) has authority from God to make changes in any of these areas. And why would we want to? Should it not be the goal of each Christian to believe and obey the truth?
Probably few people care, but the Playboy Mansion has been sold for $100,000,000. According to the August 17th (2016) Orlando Sentinel, the five-acre piece of property was purchased by the next-door neighbor (A4). The terms of the sale allow Hugh Hefner, who is 90, to stay there the rest of his life. How disappointing! One might have hoped that the house would have been razed and then watered by tanker trucks full of Lysol. But the neighbor is only going to combine his property and Heffner’s into one. The two were originally one until 40 years ago when they were split, the larger portion being sold to the current tenant. No word was mentioned as to what the former editor of Playboy would do with the money; one thing is certain—he will not be able to buy his way out of death and the judgment.
The real estate owned by Hefner is infamous for its immorality. Even the news blurb, which contains just factual information, could not help but report the truth concerning what occurred there for years. He turned “it into a playground for countless celebrity-filled parties and hedonism that defined the Playboy ethos.” If someone did not know what the word hedonism meant, he might, when reading the above sentence, envision a well-landscaped place with a merry-go-round, monkey bars, and teeter-totters, where the socially elite hung out.
Needless to say, many women were immodestly clad at that location, but now too much clothing is being protested. The day following the Hefner story, a column by Kathleen Parker was published on page A17. She opened the subject with the following irony:
Once upon a time, a scantily clad lass padding down a beach might cause a riot—at least of eyeballs eager to extend a sidelong glance. Today, it’s the fully-clothed woman who overheats passions in France, where three towns have banned the burkini. Leave it to the French to criminalize modesty.
Yes, three towns in France have banned the attire that Muslim women wear. Their outfits (dubbed burkinis) are modest, covering the hair and the entire body down to the feet. They seem to call attention to the style and color of what the woman is wearing rather than to the flesh that is exposed. Compared to the women who are on the beach with most of their bodies exposed, they look a little bizarre. However, an interesting question should be asked: Which type of clothing led to the hedonism that took place at Hefner’s house? Hmm.
About 15 years ago, brethren in a Bible class at Pearl Street were studying the subject of church discipline. This writer asked the question, “Why don’t brethren withdraw fellowship the way the Bible says they ought to?” Brother Dub McClish answered succinctly that the problem was the three F’s: “Friends, family, and finances.” Even though that particular answer was new to many, it made immediate sense.
Concerning the latter of these three, one speaker told of a congregation in Tennessee whose elders had a meeting with their preacher and told him that he could not teach on marriage, divorce, and remarriage because, having just moved into their new building with a high mortgage payment, they could not afford “to run anybody off.” Apparently, they did not want to hear any of that “in season, out of season” preaching (2 Tim. 4:2). One cannot even imagine the church budget determining what was suitable preaching material in the first century.
The other reason why brethren do not fulfil their Christian responsibility to wayward members is that they are related to or are best friends with an influential member of the church. How sad if Christians are saying things, such as, “Yes, it’s a bad situation, but his father’s an elder,” or, “She’s the daughter of the preacher.” Do people not realize that, if someone is guilty of sin, they do not get a free pass because they are related to or are friends with brethren in the leadership? How well is that going to work on the Day of Judgment? “But, Lord, I should be in heaven because I’m the child of a preacher.” “Lord, I was really good friends with an elder; he would really want me to be here.” If anybody recognizes that such excuses will be rejected then, why are they tolerated now?
Biblical Grace Versus Modern Grace
Two other applications of this awful practice need to be considered. The first relates to another topic about which the Preaching Brother (P.B.) wrote. He had been trying to teach New Testament Christianity in the area in which he lives (not the state of Florida). So, he wrote some newspaper articles in which he distinguished between the grace that is taught in the Bible and the grace that is being taught and practiced by many folks in the 21st century.
The way that some folks believe it today is summarized by saying: “Let us sin that we might receive more grace” (Rom. 6:1, 15). In other words, people like to sin, and God likes to be gracious. Hey! It’s a great plan; we both get what we want. All facetiousness aside, this really is the way some people teach grace; they have tossed out the need for man to repent (that is, cease practicing what is sinful). Many people are really not enthusiastic about hearing that they should live holy and righteous before God (2 Cor. 7:1).
Instrumental Music
But what got the ministerial alliance in an uproar was when P.B. wrote articles about instrumental music versus singing a Capella. He also included in one of them this comment: “Ask your preacher why he doesn’t preach on certain Bible subjects.” They responded with a half-page article in the paper in which they denounced him as “causing religious division.” Really? Since neither Jesus nor the apostles ever sang with musical instruments, why are they upset when people do not use them today? No church in the first century is said to have had mechanical accompaniment when they sang hymns. Brethren for hundreds of years sang a Capella. So, when someone introduced instruments into worship, that was the party that created division. If not, why not?
“Oh, but since most people use them today, isn’t it divisive to refuse to have them?” No. They were not authorized in the first century, and they are not authorized now. God has never made any changes in His New Covenant. God defines what true worship is, as well as who true worshippers are (John 4:24), and He did not include instrumental music as part of what He wants in the assembly. By simply singing, as God commanded, we are following His commandments (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Those who do otherwise are responsible for the division.
P.B. asked to meet with the ministerial alliance to discuss religious division. Believe it or not, they were not interested in doing so. So, he asked to meet with any group in one of their buildings to discuss any subject they liked. Again, they ignored him. He asked them if any or all of them would debate him on one subject; there were no takers. Since they would not engage in an honorable public discussion, he told them he would respond to their charges in the newspaper, which he did. It took eight months. They have not attacked him since.
Readers might be wondering, “Well, this is all fine and good, but what does it have to do with the main theme of this article?” It was necessary to provide the background for the next sentence in P.B.’s letter, which follows: “The bad/sad part was that some of our members got mad at me.” What? That was the situation, but why? He checked his records and was reminded that some of the members who had quit (over a period of time) gave the following reason—they did not believe there was only one church, as described in the New Testament. “How is that possible?” a sane Christian would ask. How could it be any clearer that Jesus only built one church (Matt 16:18) and died for one church (Acts 20:28)? Paul even says there is one body (Eph. 4:4). There was one overriding reason why they refused to believe the Scriptures on this point—they had family and friends in religious denominations!
Truth Versus Lesser Concerns
The correct response ought to be, “So what?” Are family members more important than truth? Jesus stated that His followers were His family—and more important than His earthly family (Matt. 12:46-50). We all want friends, but it would never occur to genuine Christians to compromise in order to keep them. If they say things, such as, “Your preacher is condemning us,” the response should be, “He is setting forth the Scriptures. Has he said something untrue? Has he advocated something false? Please show us from the Scriptures where he is wrong, and we will talk with him.”
It does not matter what a family member thinks or how insulted he may feel. The only question is, “What does the Bible teach?” Jesus said that He came to bring division among family members (Matt. 10:34-37). He and the truth that He taught is what sets us free from sin (John 8:31-32). No family died for us or can set us free. Christians submit to the teachings of the New Testament. It does not matter if we agree or disagree with them. The Bible is right. Our feelings must take second place as we consider objective truth. But if this is our standard, can we hold those in denominations to a lesser one? They too are subject to what Christ and the apostles taught (John 12:48; Heb. 2:1-4); their traditions are worthless. Unity can only result if we all walk by the same rule (Phil. 3:16).
While some use the Methodist Discipline, the Baptist Manual, Luther’s Catechism, Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, or some “Lateran Council” of the Catholic Church, the so-called “Christian” world will never be united. Only when people get back to reading the Scriptures can unity prevail. How can there be members of the church who do not understand this principle? Is it hard to understand Jesus’ prayer for unity (John 17:20-21)? Is it difficult to comprehend Paul’s command for unity and prohibition against division (1 Cor. 1:10-13)?
P.B. reports that those who had friends and relatives in those denominations then tried to get him fired—unsuccessfully. It is obvious that they have a higher regard for their earthly family than the spiritual family they are in (or have now left). And what message does that give to those folks? They are saying, essentially, “I think more of you than I do the Lord’s church. I esteem you higher than someone who preaches the Word of God. I love you more than Jesus Who died for my sins. I value your denomination more than the Lord’s church.”
Furthermore, those in this group are endorsing (by their actions) three things: a false gospel which those in denominations teach, the false worship that they conduct, and other false doctrines to which these groups subscribe. Paul warned against false gospels (Gal. 1:6-9); Jesus talked about useless worship (John 4:20-24); Paul warned against false teachings (1 Tim. 4:16). How could a supposed Christian be so wrong?
The Third Application
P.B. did not mention this application, but it needs to be pointed out. Some may have been in total disagreement with those timid brethren who will not stand (Eph. 6:10-17), but let me ask this question directly: “Why do you see what is wrong with family and friends being regarded more highly than the Lord’s church—but do not see that you are doing the same thing by fellowshipping congregations in error and false teachers?”
Those who would never allow the church to forego discipline or compromise with denominations often will not take a stand against liberal teachers. “What is so different?” one wonders. Did the inspired apostle write an amendment to 2 John 9-11 that the rest of us do not know about? At certain lectureships, some speakers are rubbing shoulders with those who teach real (not imagined) error, and they apparently think nothing about it.
The most common excuse for preachers fellowshipping liberals is, “Oh, I’ll go anywhere to preach the truth.” Really? What verse is that? “Jesus spoke in the synagogue.” Yes, He did—until the crowd heard what the message was. Then they wanted to kill Him (Luke 4:28-30). Jesus did not appear on a lectureship in Jerusalem with the high priest, and Paul did not allow himself to be scheduled on the same program with Hymenaeus and Philetus on the subject of eschatology.
Warning after warning is provided in the New Testament on the subject of fellowship (Rom. 16:17-18; Titus 3:10). Heretics are to be rejected—not given the right hand of fellowship! Why is this part of the New Testament not being followed by some brethren?
The answer is the same as in the other two instances—friends, family, and finances. “Hey! I’ve got friends over at the Apostasy Street Church. I won’t withdraw fellowship from them or refuse to participate in their activities.” ”My nephew is a deacon over at the Will Worship Church of Christ. He says that things are not nearly as bad as reported. They only use instrumental music in their Saturday evening service.” “We know that Brother Dynamo at the Expansion Street Church of Christ some-times goes a little far, but he is so well-loved, and we have 25 of our former members over there. You know they wouldn’t put up with anything really unscriptural.” Has anyone heard excuses such as these?
If some brethren choose to disregard clear-cut errors taught by false teachers and fellowship them anyway, should we all follow suit? No. What others choose to do is not our standard. The Word of God is our guideline. We must abide in the truth (John 8:31-32)—even if we are the only ones who do. (We are not talking about opinions here but actual plain teaching in the Scriptures.) How is it that the church ran into apostasy from the second to the sixth centuries? How were so many pulled away from the changes to worship and salvation that all had once held to? It may be an answer that is too simplistic, but it would not be surprising to learn that it had something to do with friends, family, or finances.
Ever wonder how preachers prepare their messages? The preaching brother (P.B., for short) whose letter was cited last week (see the two articles from August 21, 2016) commented on some additional topics. One of those involved a conversation with a Baptist preacher who lives in the same town. P.B. asked him how he studied in preparing to preach. Here is the answer he gave: “I read a text, pray about it, think about it, and take a little nap. God tells me what it means while I’m asleep. When I wake up, I know what to preach.”
How interesting! Who wouldn’t want to hear some of those sermons that God allegedly gave him? Now, surprisingly, there’s a little bit of sense in doing what he suggested; however, God is not providing messages. Most people call this the incubation period. Many preachers think ahead about what topic or what text they want to use on Sunday. They might have a thesis or some points in mind that need to be made. Most probably do some thinking, praying, and reading as they prepare their sermons, usually beginning in the early part of the week. While participating in other things, the mind is always at work—even while asleep. Usually, when it is time to sit down and write the message, clarity of thought has been achieved, and one begins to set forth his ideas in a logical fashion.
This is a natural process, however—not God dumping the entire message in someone’s laptop. And it does not always work. Sometimes, all that percolating results in nothing intelligible, and the well-rested preacher finds himself staring at a blank page and wondering, “Okay, what’s Plan B?” But even if he is ready to begin, it is frequently necessary to look things up along the way. We all have lexicons to find the definitions of certain Greek words; God does not give those out miraculously. Likewise, concordances prove helpful, as well as other resources, to explain various references that are being used. Those “relying on God” for material are only going to end up repeating what they have said before—which the listeners have probably already heard.
This Baptist preacher’s claim is reminiscent of what one Pentecostal preacher once said. Present were some of his members who were intermingled with a denominational preacher and a few of his “flock.” The conversation turned to the way each man prepared his weekly message. The denominational fellow described how many hours he spent each week in sermon preparation, whereupon the Pentecostal boasted, “The Holy Spirit gives my sermon every week. He gives it to me while I’m speaking. I never spend any time in sermon
The same writer of the letter mentioned in the previous article also spoke of a Baptist preacher who taught youngsters in a local public school to stay away from the church of Christ because we are “a cult.” As is often the case, those who have an argument make it, and those who don’t call names. We have debated many Baptists over what the Scriptures teach; we are still willing to do so, but rather than examine the Scriptures and reason with and from them, some just prefer to make charges in venues where we cannot defend ourselves. So, we will do so here. On the Internet, one can find the article, “Social Aspects of Cult-Like Behavior” (no author).
The first characteristic is that of submission. “Leaders are often seen as prophets, apostles, or special individuals with unusual connections to God.” Does it occur to anyone that this describes Jesus? Some in the first-century could have referred to Him as a cult leader. But He actually did have a special connection with God, and He proved it with miracles. However, no one else today can make those claims. No apostles or prophets exist; the New Testament teaches that those offices came to an end (Eph. 4:11-16; cf. 1 Cor. 13:1-13). They have not existed since the first century; so we are not a cult. We follow what Jesus taught.
A second characteristic of a cult is that of exclusivity. “Their group is the only true religious system, or one of the few true remnants of God’s people.” Once again, that is what Jesus taught. No one comes to the Father except through Him (John 14:6). That is still true; so no other religion in the world is acceptable; only Jesus died for the sins of the world (John 12:32). If these facts make Christianity a cult, then so be it. All of those who follow the truth cannot accept a false way (John 8:31-32). If that makes Christians cultish, okay. The alternative, however, is that truth either does not exist or we cannot know it, but Jesus said we could.
Third is that cults have a persecution complex. One wonders what Christians in the first century might have thought of that? They actually were persecuted; furthermore, Jesus (their cult leader) told them they could expect persecution in Matthew 5:10-12. However, actual cults always claim that everyone is against them, and sometimes they may be—depending on how far out their teachings are. We are not a cult in that sense because we get our teachings from the Word.
The fourth aspect involves the control “of member’s actions and thinking through repeated indoctrination and/or threats of loss of salvation….” Once again, does this not sound like the New Testament? Preachers and teachers are to edify the body of Christ. It is good to remind brethren of what they have learned (2 Peter 1:13). Also, if one chose to live immorally, the church was to withdraw fellowship from him (1 Cor. 5); false teachers were to be marked (Rom. 16:17-18).
While modern cultic groups take these things to extremes, these principles are taught in the New Testament. We are not a cult, but we follow these precepts.
Isolation is the fifth characteristic listed for cults, which involves getting the initiates away from family members. Nothing in the New Testament suggests this practice. Jesus wants people saved from their sins—and that cannot occur through isolation. Jesus taught His followers to live in the world but not be of the world. We are to maintain relationships with others, which is what the churches of Christ practice since we are not a cult.
Love Bombing, sixth, means showing great love and attention to an initiate in order to “transfer emotional dependence to the group.” Naturally, those who obey the gospel receive love and attention, but it is genuine rather than forced and not for “control” purposes. We are not a cult, but we do believe we are to love one another (1 John 4:7-8).
The seventh aspect of a cult is that the “leader” has special knowledge that he receives from God and then passes on to others. The Scriptures were written for all; Paul says that, when they read his letters, they would understand his knowledge of the mystery (Eph. 3:1-7). The “leader” of a cult is claiming what God has not given him—no basis for such a thing is found in the New Testament. Even Paul’s teachings were examined by the Bereans, and they were commended for it (Acts 17:11). No one today has such a special knowledge or insight that all should listen to him instead of God. The Lord has not chosen an exalted spokesman for Him today. The Word contains His instructions. We believe that—and are not a cult.
Indoctrination, eighth, is part of any religious group. All need to have instruction in what they believe and are part of, but with cults it may refer to some of the “special knowledge” that has been imparted to them by the “leader” or some “rules” that are not found in the Bible. Since we follow the teaching of the Scriptures, we are not a cult even though we teach our members.
Salvation depends on the group and “special knowledge,” also. Genuine followers of Jesus study His Words pertaining to salvation. For example, He taught that faith in Him was essential (John 8:24). He also said that no one was going to be saved without repentance (Luke 13:3). He linked baptism with faith in Mark 16:16: “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” Peter, one of His inspired apostles, told a crowd of believing Jews that they must “repent and be baptized…for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). This is not “special knowledge”; it is easily located. Churches of Christ did not invent any of these parts of salvation; they are there for all to see. We are not a cult—but rather uphold what the Scriptures teach.
Groupthink
This word, groupthink (the tenth description of a cult) appeared in George Orwell’s interesting novel, 1984. The state demanded that everyone think in the precise same way, or they imposed a penalty. Cults follow that pattern. Everything that those in authority say are to be followed. The “leader’s” authority is not to be questioned. Actually, Jesus has all authority (Matt. 28:18), and if we trust Him, we should not question what He says. However, a cult figure today is not Jesus, and he does not have His authority, either. The real problem here is that no one is encouraged to ask questions. This dark atmosphere does not describe the churches of Christ. We are the one group that encourages people to think and ask questions. Several leaders from other religious groups (not regarded by many as a cult) have told their people essentially, “This is what we are, and this is what we believe. Just accept it.” We either give a Bible answer or ask for time to search for one because we are not a cult. Nevertheless, Paul did stress that we needed to be united in what we believe and practice (1 Cor. 1:10).
The eleventh criticism of cults is that they avoid critical thinking. This has already been dealt with. The twelfth deals with shunning and expulsion from the group, which has also already been addressed. The thirteenth one is at first a bit surprising—since it is “Gender Roles.” Okay, to what does this category refer?
The first answer is not that helpful. It states: “Control of gender roles and definitions.” It might have been helpful if an explanation or examples had been furnished. The reason for desiring more information is that the Bible sets forth gender roles. First of all, God made mankind male and female—two specific genders. New York may list 31 genders to choose from, but most folks know instinctively that such is fermented nonsense. God created the man to be the leader in the home and in the church (Eph. 5:22-25; 1 Tim. 2:11-14). These facts do not imply that women are not very bright or that men are. God created roles for each gender. Some are not happy with that, but God knows what He is doing.
The second statement is: “Severe control of gender roles sometimes leads to sexual exploitation.” Perhaps the author is thinking of David Koresh and the Branch Davidian compound, but he does not say so. It was rumored that Koresh had “slept” with several of the girls. Anyone who gets involved with a group that has its own compound, secrets, and an authoritative “leader” should be immediately suspicious. If those things are not enough, one should leave straightway any group that allows for sexual immorality under any pretext. Cults thrive on such ideas, but the church of the Lord does not so operate. We believe things should be open and honest in the sight of all men (because we are not a cult) and that nothing immoral should be advocated. No justification exists for violating these clear moral precepts. God means what He says (Heb. 13:4).
One television program years ago dealt with a “fictitious” cult, which justified committing sin (lying, adultery, etc.). The line that the cult repeated frequently, was: “A sin to end a greater sin is not a sin at all.” Almost anything the Bible calls a sin could be rationalized so long it was in hopes of getting rid of an even bigger sin. This philosophy is not remotely Biblical.
Appearance Standards
The last criticism of cults involved their dress. Many of them demand that their adherents maintain a certain “look.”
For instance, women might wear prairie dresses, and/or their hair in buns, and/or no makeup, and/ or the men might all wear white short-sleeved shirts, and/or without beards, or all wear beards.
This seems like the least objectionable feature of the 14 mentioned, but such a practice can be unnerving to others. God is able to take our individualities and make us all one; He does not need uniforms to accomplish that. We may express our personal preferences in the styles we choose—so long as they fit the definition of modesty. We are not a cult; so we do not impose hair-styles and garment standards on our members.
Having run through the list of things, we have seen that churches of Christ fail to measure down to the status of a cult in almost every area. The only one we could possibly qualify in is the second one, but even then we are not heavy-handed. We do not insist that we are right and that everyone else is wrong, but we are willing to discuss any subject. Of course, we believe we are right, but we are always willing to put those beliefs to the test. Of all religious groups in the world, we are the one who is willing to discuss what the Scriptures teach on any crucial subject. We are willing to engage in formal debate, if need be—in order to arrive at the truth. No cult is willing to do that.
Besides, what is the alternative? Do others know that they are wrong but refuse to come to a knowledge of the truth? Or do they not know a position is false but are unwilling to discuss the matter? How honest is either of these positions? Do they think that seeking truth is a waste of time? God does not. He said of His people Israel in the Old Testament that they were destroyed for a lack of knowledge. Truth is not a subject one should be blasé about.
The Website under consideration also says that any deviation from seven doctrines makes one a cult. Included are: 1) the Deity of Christ, 2) the virgin birth, 3) the physical resurrection of Christ; 4) monotheism, 5) the Trinity, 6) the gospel as the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and 7) salvation by grace through faith alone. The first six are true. The seventh one is contradicted by James 2:24. No passage teaches “faith alone.” Yet they would insist that anyone who does not conform to that is a cult. We are willing to discuss this point; are they?
A few days ago I received a letter from a fellow preacher in another state who lamented that there were no preachers’ meetings in the area where he lives that are worth attending. His comments are readily understandable since the same condition exists in Central Florida. Why is that? Times have changed. Evangelists used to gather to discuss the Bible. Such arrangements have fallen by the wayside.
My experience is only anecdotal; so perhaps others would like to comment on the subject. Back in the ’70s I occasionally enjoyed meeting with other preachers in the Pittsburgh area. As a young preacher, I received many good suggestions, as well as hearing good lessons presented. When I moved to Iowa, a group was meeting, but it disbanded shortly thereafter. I began one in our church building, and it continued for several years after I left. We discussed a number of issues and topics.
I moved to Indiana in 1991 and attended a meeting about an hour away, but it ceased after one year. I started one at our church building, and it is still meeting there 25 years later. I still enjoy attending them when we visit. No rules or bylaws existed then or since. Preachers just meet to discuss passages of Scripture, things occurring in religion, or even problems that might exist. Any of the men can bring up any topic, and even though occasional disagreements occur, everyone knows that all are trying to advance the kingdom here on earth.
But the atmosphere was different when we moved to Denton. First of all, I was not invited to the meeting even though they met in town. After a few years, one man asked me to attend on the occasion of his speaking. The meeting was conducted by liberals; two of the “leaders” were elders at the congregation that had Leroy Garrett teaching Bible classes. (For those unaware, he and Carl Ketcherside were the forerunners of Rubel Shelly and Max Lucado.) One of the “preachers” had close ties to Pepperdine. They quickly let it be known that they were a conservative group (gag!) and that they wanted no controversy. That was the last meeting I attended. The Fort Worth meetings eventually invited a false teacher to attend and participate. Many no longer felt comfortable there.
In Central Florida, I attended a preachers’ luncheon the very first year I moved here. It was made clear that no Scriptures were ever discussed. Instead the men talked about what works were being done in the area. At that time the main topic was the upcoming Spiritual Growth Workshop, hosted by and for liberals. I have not been back since. What would be the point?
“Assuredly, I say to you that tax collectors and harlots enter the kingdom of God before you” (Matt. 21:31b). In the next verse, as support for this statement, Jesus cites the recent example of these undesirable elements of society responding to the preaching of John while many of the pious Jews (especially the leaders) refused to believe or obey. Why did this irony exist? One would think that the especially religious would be lining up to hear John and Jesus while the publicans and sinners “passed by on the other side.” One problem with the ”religious” is they become complacent—precisely because they are spiritually-minded. They run the risk of becoming entrenched in their own man-made traditions (Matt. 15:1-9), becoming self-righteous (thinking they are better than others—Luke 18:9-11), and failing to evaluate themselves (2 Cor. 13:5). In fact, a common problem of people today, also, is to think, “I’m all right. I’m already religious.”
Thus, the very ones who should have delighted in hearing John and Jesus frequently turned away because in their preaching they ignored traditions and taught basic, fundamental doctrine. But some of the harlots and tax collectors listened. Why? One reason might have been that they had no pious pretensions to live up to. They knew they were sinners. They knew they had violated God’s law and were counted by others as unredeemable. Another reason was that they knew enough about the self-proclaimed “righteous” to recognize the hypocrisy that existed. The observations Jesus made about the Pharisees in Matthew 6 were undoubtedly already noticed by their social “inferiors.”
One reason the tax collectors and harlots may have listened to John and Jesus is that they recognized them as genuine rather than hypocritical. They lived what they preached. Second, these servants of God did not share that attitude of exclusiveness. Even though Jesus was actually higher and holier than, say, the woman at the well, that difference did not serve as a barrier to Him for speaking to her (John 4). Third, John and Jesus offered hope instead of condemnation.
Everyone, regardless, of his past, can respond to the invitation to have sins forgiven. How refreshing to realize that one can escape the weight and drudgery of one’s sins. Who wants to live under the oppressive idea: “There’s no way out; what you have been is what you will be”? The better message is: “You can change. You can have forgiveness. You can be spiritually whole. You can be granted eternal life.” Anyone who is weary of sin can answer the invitation that Jesus offers: “Come unto Me, call you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28).
One of the questions put into the Question Box simply asked: “What is the ‘Lucifer’ effect?” The expression seems to have originated with (according to the Internet) Philip Zimbardo, a psychologist and professor emeritus at Stanford University. He has written, among others, three books: The Lucifer Effect (published in 2007, although the experiment was conducted many years earlier in 1971), The Time Paradox (2008), and The Time Cure co-authored by Richard and Rosemary Sword (2012).
The experiment was done with college students who volunteered for this study. The “prisoners” in the experiment did not know when it would begin. They were shocked to be arrested one morning and taken to a mock prison, where they were “stripped, searched, shaved and deloused, which caused a great deal of humiliation,” as one might imagine. The nine “guards” were not supposed to use corporal punishment, but they soon violated that rule. The prisoners at first did not take the authority of the guards seriously, but they began to when physically disciplined.
On only the second day, a rebellion broke out, which angered the “guards,” who responded with a show of force. They stripped the inmates naked, put the leaders in solitary confinement, and imposed other cruelties upon them. This construct only lasted 6 days instead of the two weeks planned. Frankly, the experiment was poorly defined and executed (in the estimation of this writer). To take students of equal rank and treat them in this fashion seems irresponsible and of little value. The greatest lesson to be learned is that no one should volunteer for an experiment unless he knows specifically what’s involved in it.
The Milgram Experiment
A much better study had been conducted in 1961 at Yale, in which one person administered an electric shock to another individual in a separate room for giving a wrong answer to a question. He himself received a sample from an electroshock generator of what he would be dishing out to a fellow human being. The punishment increased by 15 volts every time there was an incorrect answer; the dial went up to 450. Some participants refused to go beyond meting out 135 volts; however, most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible.
The fact that the person being punished had a heart condition did not seem to have much effect on the questioner, who could hear the screams as the voltage increased. It was estimated that no more than 3% of those giving the shock treatments would go all the way to 450 volts. In reality, 65% of those administering the punishment (26 out of 40) gave the maximum penalty, although many sweated, bit their lips, groaned, stuttered, or dug their fingernails into their skin.
The saving feature in this study is that none of the victims was injured; they were actors. No one had received any shocks whatsoever. Those controlling the shocks were the real subject of the experiment. And it really did reveal something about human beings—perhaps even providing insight into explaining how the Nazis could do what they did in World War II. How far will people go to be obedient and to have approval of those in charge?
A Faulty Assumption
Although both of these experiments are dealing in some measure with obedience, Milgram certainly designed his better. But where did Zimbardo come up with the idea of the “Lucifer” effect? He claims that it comes from the idea of the metamorphosis of Lucifer into Satan—that Lucifer “was once God’s favorite angel until he challenged God’s authority and was cast into Hell with all the other fallen angels.” Of course, this entire notion is fallacious.
The name Lucifer occurs only one time in the Scriptures—in Isaiah 14:12: “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened nations!” But is this a description of Satan? To get the entire context, a student of the Word must go to where this passage begins, which is Isaiah 14:3-4, where the reader discovers that he is reading a proverb against the king of Babylon—of his impending death.
Among the things mentioned is that the Lord can break the staff of the wicked, the scepter of rulers (5). The underworld (sheol) is excited about receiving the king of Babylon (9). Other kings will say to him, “Have you also become as weak as we? Have you become like us?” (10). All of his greatness and pomp is being brought down to sheol (11). The reason that Lucifer is fallen is not that heaven was his original abode (since he is an earthly king), but because he said in his heart:
“I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation, on the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.” Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit. Those who see you will gaze at you, and consider you, saying, “Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world as a wilderness and destroyed its cities, who did not open the house of his prisoners?” (13-17).
Notice that nothing is said about the devil or Satan or angels—fallen or otherwise. The passage refers to the fall of the self-exalted king of Babylon. God will judge that nation and its king (22).
The word Lucifer means “light bearer.” No one can offer any proof that Lucifer is synonymous with Satan. Nothing indicates that Lucifer was ever an angel or in heaven or fell from there to join other fallen angels. The devil, in fact, is undoubtedly the one who seduced the other angels and, very likely, with the same approach he used on Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. He convinced them that the Paradise God had put them in was not good enough—that He was withholding from them knowledge that would make them even greater and happier than they already were. How do you convince angels or humans that there is something better than being in heaven itself? That is how proficient Satan is at his job.
Good and Evil
While Zimbardo is wrong about Lucifer, what about his thesis that certain stimuli will cause good people to do bad things? He concludes:
Good people can be induced, seduced, and initiated into behaving in evil ways. They can also be led to act in irrational, stupid, selfdestructive, antisocial, and mindless ways when they are immersed in “total situations” that impact nature….”
Although many, or even most, may respond in a wicked manner, some always resist these pressures. From Zimbardo’s and Milgram’s study have come seven steps that grease “the slippery slope of evil.”
1. Mindlessly taking the first step. The solution to committing this action is to prevent it by evaluating and testing all things (1 Thess. 5:21-22). Don’t mindlessly do anything!
2. Dehumanization of others. Watching television and movies that offer up countless acts of violence against people we don’t know can be a contributing factor. Video games in which killing people is the major theme may contribute to dehumanization. Each human being is created in the image of God, can feel pain, or experience suffering. Every individual has value and worth to God. Jesus died for each one. Everyone should resist dehumanizing others for any reason.
3. Deindividualization of self (anonymity). As has often been stated, character is what a person does when no one is looking. If granted anonymity, is it all right to steal from another? If others do not find out, is it all right to commit fornication and adultery? How about inflicting pain on someone else—if he will never know who did so? God always knows (Pr. 15:3). No one ever “gets away with” anything.
4. Diffusion of personal responsibility. This simply means that when a person is in charge of inflicting pain on others, he is assured that he will not be held responsible. But we are accountable for the way we treat others (Matt. 22:37-40).
5. Blind obedience to authority. Those being tested were told they had to act cruelly. Their superiors would say, “I advise you to continue with the experiment,” if anyone wanted to quit. It could be stated more forcefully, “You must continue.” Most would respond favorably to this kind of authority, even though they were not fully convinced.
6. Uncritical conformity to group norms. Assurance that others complied with the rules was an incentive for everyone to comply even if they had reservations about doing so. The child of God must learn to resist peer pressure (Pr. 13:20; 1 Cor. 15:33).
7. Passive tolerance of evil through inaction or indifference. Once a person fails to respond the way he should, it becomes easier to say and do nothing. The Bible, however, teaches that we ought to promote good and oppose evil (Pr. 17:15; Eph. 5:8-11).
Attitudes in the Church
It must be admitted that false doctrines are of the devil since God teaches only the truth (John 8:31-32) and Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44). Since false teachings originate with the devil, they are responsible for much evil in the world and in the church. When brethren succumb to errors, they have become disciples of the evil one. Some of the previously-examined principles are in operation in those instances.
Some, for example, mindlessly take the first step toward apostasy. They should have evaluated matters more carefully. Second, when a division occurs, it is too easy to look upon a brother as an enemy to be opposed rather than a brother to be saved (dehumanization). One gains a certain amount of anonymity by taking solace that he is part of a group, which also partially alleviates him from personal responsibility.
Many become careless in following leaders of movements rather than abiding in the Word. Each new group formed soon establishes its own norms with which all are expected to conform. The damage that the error is causing becomes a matter of indifference as time progresses, as do the pleas of earnest brethren to depart from the error. The more one resists those efforts, the easier it becomes to ignore them.
Equally evil, however, is the attitude of brethren who refuse to get involved in opposing false teaching. An unhealthy and unwholesome attitude has arisen among some brethren who just want to avoid conflict. Peace is preferable to a disruption of fellowship. Unity (more perceived than actual) is prized more highly than standing for the truth. No one wants to be called a radical. So, many congregations watch and observe but say nothing. Some are willing to fellowship error right along with truth; they have “a passive tolerance of evil through inaction or indifference.” The only solution to this problem is to return to number one and stop doing things mindlessly. Whether as individuals or congregations, we must evaluate things properly and respond accordingly.
