“Nationally, in 2014, 23% of all American adults identified themselves as atheists,” claims a news report from The Wall Street Journal (June 4-5, 2016). “Secular Voters Raise Their Voices” by Laura Meckler analyzes the religious faith of voters. While it is pointed out that the largest voting block among Democrats is neither Catholic, Evangelical, or Protestant—but rather non-Christian faiths, no affiliation, or atheist/agnostic (36%)—that is not the subject of these comments (A4). Instead, we want to notice the rise of the atheist affiliation, which has risen from 16% to 23% during the years 2007 and 2014.
How can such a leap be explained? Some influences are obvious, such as public education (especially in politically liberal areas of the country and in universities), the ACLU, political correctness, the entertainment media, and probably others. Of course, what masquerades as Christianity these days may also be a negative factor as so much of it neglects the Scriptures. But these influences aside, families no longer teach their children the Bible.
Fifty years ago, most children had some knowledge of the Word of God and were taught Biblical principles in the home, in school, and in the community. Such is no longer the case. National standards of morality are fuzzy at best—with public figures telling lies and a large segment of society not caring. In fact, when crimes are committed, it does not matter what they have done but who they are as to whether or not they will be held accountable. Community standards are generally higher, but again it depends on the area.
Public schools no longer teach the Bible nor uphold what the it teaches. Society has become more and more “tolerant” of what it will accept. In fact, immorality will likely be vaunted while taking a moral stand will often be frowned upon. After all, who are we to “judge” others? Those who take this approach never realize that in saying those things they have just pronounced a judgment upon us. However, the root of the problem is that the Bible is not respected, and its teachings are largely not known.
Children do not practice Biblical morality because more and more parents do not, either. In the absence of a genuine spiritual influence, many are growing up ignorant, which is a factual statement and not intended as an insult. God, through Hosea the prophet, wrote, “My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge…” (4:6). In their case, they were willfully ignorant; the next line of the verse is: “Because you have rejected knowledge….” Some probably have intentionally avoided the Bible, but many have simply grown up apart from any New Testament teaching. It is not uncommon to find a family or a young couple who does not possess a copy of the Bible. And of those who possess them, how many have never read them?
Therefore, many may not be atheists by choice; they may not be committed to it; the situation might be that they have always been devoid of a spiritual emphasis in their lives. Those claiming to be atheists, then, may not have ever thought about the situation that much.
What’s the Attraction?
But for those who have thought about it, what can the attraction be? It would be difficult to know, without some sort of study or investigation, what all the reasons for wanting to be an atheist might be. One reason is apparent, however, and that is that the atheist can invent his own morality. God is the author of objective morality, and His requirements are set forth in the Scriptures. Being an atheist means not having to submit to any of those commandments. If God does not exist, then His moral principles are not valid.
Does that mean that atheists are seriously immoral? No, it only means that they can choose to be, if they so desire. Some atheists may never drink alcohol; some may oppose abortion. Many may choose to be faithful to their mates, but if they do, it will not be due to any precept such as “fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). It may not result from their having studied Matthew 19:3-9. Their morality in this respect may be based on genuine love and practicality.
But if God does not exist, then all people are free from objective moral truth, which means they are free to be as selfish as they wish because they can ignore the golden rule (Matt. 7:12). They are free to make up their own morality, which may mean they might determine to get away with whatever they want. Can they use drugs without getting caught? Then they will. Can they steal from others in such a way as to not draw attention to themselves? Then it is all right, as far as they are concerned. Obviously, some try to get away with even murder, and who knows how many actually have? Until the development of forensic evidence, people actually did get away with murder—so far as man is concerned. Sure, many had suspicions in various cases, but nothing could ever be proven. Now, more murderers are being caught and convicted.
Some, then, are attracted to atheism because they believe it frees them from morality. However, it does not liberate them from the punishment of God, Who shall bring their actions into judgment (2 Cor. 5:10). That Day is not the time to find out that one has been wrong about God’s existence. No excuses will be accepted because He has left ample evidence for all (Rom. 1:18-20). Living a life of denial concerning God does not change the fact of His existence. His precepts were given for our good (Deut. 10:12-13)—both in the present and in eternity. Considering the stakes, all should do their best to have the correct theology.
Non-Religious Congregations
According to the article, “Non-religious congregations—sometimes called godless churches, which offer songs, readings and speakers, but no prayer—have popped across the country.” Probably, they are not doing the Lord’s Supper, either. How about giving? Can they trust each other? If an apostle of Jesus (Judas) was tempted to steal, how much more might be someone without moral restraints?
Why not pray? The Pharisee prayed with himself. He credited his own glorious personage with all his moral goodness and evaluated himself by how rotten others could be (Luke 18:9-14). He never called on God for forgiveness or His providential care or wisdom. He just told Him how good he was. What would prevent atheists from doing the same? Why couldn’t they address a prayer in this fashion: “Our Ego who art within us”? The conclusion would simply be, “For mine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever.” How is that for man’s overinflated sense of worth?
Now what kind of songs do they sing, pray tell—“How Great I Amst?” A great many songs are hymns of praise to the Father or to Jesus; surely they can’t sing those. Imagine an atheist group singing, “Yes, I Believe God is Real”! “Standing on the promises” would not work since they cannot believe there have ever been any. They could not be longing for that “Paradise Valley” or sing, “When We All Get to Heaven.” On the other hand they could just change a few words to make some fit, like, “This World’s My Only Home.” These words might also work: “There’s a mansion now empty where I’ll never live, At the end of life’s troublesome way. Many friends and dear loved ones I won’t see again, Because death is the end, we all say.”
Okay. Well, maybe they sing secular songs. John Lennon’s, “Imagine,” seems appropriate. Probably they would shy away from, “Fire,” performed by the Crazy World of Arthur Brown. They could sing songs of love, peace, and harmony—based on no lofty principles or ideals whatsoever. As for “readings,” two recommendations are given in the next column.
The “Reason Rally”
On June 4, 2016, some of these individuals hosted a “Reason Rally” at the National Mall. They say their “beliefs are centered on reason and science rather than the divine….” This claim is laughable. For 200 years evolutionists and modernists have tried to separate faith from reason—ignoring the fact that faith is based on reason. With a smirk on their faces, atheists like to claim, “We believe in science; you Christians just have faith.” This statement is not accurate. The faith of the Christian is based on evidence, some of which is scientific. The atheist ignores the evidence. Atheists cannot be allowed to get by with this phony illusion. They defy logic rather than abiding by it; the proof follows.
The Warren-Flew Debate occurred in 1976. It was Thomas B. Warren, Ph.D. (Christian), who presented one logical argument after another. It was Antony G. N. Flew (atheist) who did not, even resorting once to saying, “Can’t you just see that?” instead of presenting evidence. In the 40 years since this debate, not one atheist has yet to answer Warren’s arguments. In fact, Flew, several years after the debate, became a theist.
Christians are the ones who point out the logic of the New Testament. The gospel of John supplies the answer to an important question—“Why did people believe Jesus in the first century?” No one can make such claims as to be the light of the world, the judge of all mankind, to have come down from heaven, or to be equal with the Father without people thinking He was nuts. So why did they believe Him? Because, unlike modern skeptics, they were convinced by the evidence that Jesus provided for them in His miracles. When they exclude the Divine as a source of proof, they have cut themselves off from crucial data.
The fact that an entire genre of Apologetics exists demonstrates that Christians believe in reason and argumentation. One of the greatest evidences for the beauty and power of the Scriptures is the Bible itself. Atheists could see God more clearly if they would read it and know its contents. The fact is that many of them only get to know it for the purpose of finding flaws and inconsistencies, most of which are superficial and easily harmonized. To this day, they cannot answer even the most fundamental question: “If God does not exist, why ought anyone to be moral, loving, good, or kind?” In fact, the very concept of oughtness does not exist in the philosophy of atheism.
Hopelessness
The fruits of atheism are seen in the following two readings (provided from “Tom’s Pen” (June 1, 2016). Clarence Darrow, famed atheist of the last century, was reported to have said these words at the age of 78:
I am waiting to die, without fear or enthusiasm. I no longer doubt. I know now that there is nothing after death—nothing to look forward to in joy or in fear…I am not the agnostic any more, I am a materialist. It took me more than fifty years to find it out. All my life I have been seeking some definite proof of God—something I could put my finger on and say ‘This is fact.’ But my doubts are at rest now. I know that such fact does not exist. When I die—as I shall soon—my body will decay. My mind will decay and my intellect will be gone. My soul? There is no such thing.
The great agnostic of the last century, Colonel Robert Ingersoll, spoke at his brother’s grave. What an orator he was! What an intellect was his. What a great power for God this man could have been. President Garfield, who was one of the pall bearers, said that the Colonel broke down and cried like a child in the delivery of that speech. Among other things, Ingersoll said:
“Whether in mid-ocean, or amidst the breakers of the farther shore, a wreck must mark the end of each and all. Though every hour is rich with love, and every moment is jeweled with a joy, it will at its close be a tragedy as deep and dark as can be woven of the warp and woof of mystery and death. Life is a narrow vale between the cold and barren peaks of two eternities; we strive in vain to look beyond the heights; we cry aloud, and the only answer is our wailing cry. From the voiceless lips of the unreplying dead there comes no word.
Tom correctly responded to and concluded:
This, dear reader, is the epitome of despair. How much better to be able to say, “I have fought the good fight of faith,” or “I know whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that He is able to guard that which I have committed unto Him.” Ingersoll’s words are a fair representation of the hopelessness of disbelief. No wonder the man broke down and wept such tears of disbelief!
The word, integrity, is found sixteen times in the Old Testament. (In this era of television and corruption, integrity is scarcely to be found at all.) In eleven passages, the word translated “integrity” in the King James Version is tom [8537] (pronounced tome). According to Strong, this masculine noun refers to “integrity, completeness, fullness, simplicity, and innocence.” When Abimelech, for example, took Abram’s “sister” as a wife, he did so in the integrity of his heart, which is the reason that God did not kill him (Gen. 20:5-6). In other words, he had not done anything intentionally wrong.
Twice David writes that he has walked in integrity (Ps. 25:21; 26:1). He also vows to do so in the future (Ps. 26:11). He is confident that God will uphold him in his integrity (Ps. 41:12). The same word is translated “upright” or ”uprightly” seven times in Proverbs in addition to “integrity,” as in: “Better is the poor who walks in his integrity, than one who is perverse in his lips, and is a fool” (Pr. 19:1).
The other word is related to the first [8538]; it is tummah (pronounced toom maw’) and is the feminine form of the word. This is the word used four times in Job when he is asked if he still retains his integrity (2:3, 9; 27:5; 31:6). Solomon also used it in Proverbs 11:3. The word does not appear in the New Testament at all in the King James, but several translations use it in Titus 2:7, where the King James has incorruption. Paul charged Titus to be a pattern of good works and that in doctrine he should show integrity or incorruption. All Christians should walk in integrity and especially allow no corruption to infiltrate New Testament teaching.
Tom Wacaster included the following story in a June 1, 2016, posting of Tom’s Pen: “Major William Dean died in 1985. He was a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor and was considered one of American’s greatest heroes. He fought in the Korean War and was captured and tortured. Dean resisted all efforts by the communists to extract military information from him. In order to maintain his sanity he would resort to mind games, or reciting passages from the Bible. One day the general was informed by his captors that he was to be taken out and shot. A firing squad was standing in readiness. The condemned was granted a few moments in which to write a letter to his wife. He penned what he thought would be his last words. In addition to the words of love and devotion to his wife, he wrote a sentence for his son. ‘Tell Bill the word is integrity.’” What an outstanding legacy to leave a young person—not only to say it but to live it!
How many have ever heard of the National Monument to the Forefathers? If not, one might wonder how he made it through 12 grades of learning and some beyond that) without ever hearing about it. Everybody knows about the famous landmark that we call The Statue of Liberty, which was given to the United States for its one hundredth birthday by France—but not assembled and opened to the public until October 1886. She has become a symbol of freedom for the United States. How many thousands of immigrants have come to this country and seen Lady Liberty upon their arrival? Numerous movies have featured her prominently.
But few have heard of the other monument sometimes called the Pilgrim Statue, d
espite the fact that it is thought to be the world’s largest granite sculpture. It stands 81 feet high, was placed in Plymouth, Massachusetts, and opened on August 1, 1889. The 180-ton monument faces northeast, toward Plymouth Harbor, according to Wikipedia. It contains some important information about who we are, as a people.
The lady (36 feet tall) herself stands upon a pedestal, and one foot is resting upon a replica of Plymouth Rock. She is standing up straight. In her left hand she holds an open Bible. The index finger of her right hand is pointing toward Heaven. Her name is Faith, and the symbolism is that the Bible produces Faith (much as is found in John 20:30-31), which creates the opportunity for us to go to Heaven. In today’s world it is hard to imagine that anyone would erect such a statue, but there was a time in our nation’s history in which people were not ashamed of Faith.
But there is more. The base of the statue is octagonal. Four beings are seated facing four different directions, with a large panel between each of them. The one in front says: “National Monument to the Forefathers, Erected by a Grateful People in Remembrance of Their Labors, Sacrifices and Sufferings for the Cause of Civil and Religious Liberty.” The importance of this statement involves something not very often heard today, and that is that our founding fathers came here—not just for civil liberty—but for religious freedom, which was being denied them in England.
On two panels are listed the passengers of the Mayflower. The fourth side contains the following inspirational quote from Governor William Bradford from the dedication of his book, Of Plymouth Plantation:
Thus out of small beginnings greater things have been produced by His hand that made all things of nothing and gives being to all things that are, and as one small candle may light a thousand, so the light here kindled hath shone to many, yea, in some sort to our whole nation. Let the glorious name of Jehovah have all the praise.
The Four Figures
The panels, as stated before, are between the four figures jutting out from the base of the statue. Each of them is seated, and each of them is important. The one shown above is Morality. She holds the Ten Commandments in her left hand and the scroll of Revelation in her right hand. She and the other three figures are seated on chairs. These were also carved out of blocks of solid granite. Underneath Morality is a scene that includes an Old Testament prophet and New Testament evangelists, who are sowing the seed of the gospel. Morality is one of the four basic principles on which the Pilgrims founded their society. What has happened to these principles today? Respect for life has given way to abortion, and the marriage institution given to us by our Creator has been perverted and polluted. Telling the truth is now considered quaint and a relic of the past. How sad that being honest is not even regarded as a virtue any longer; many have no problem with being lied to repeatedly.
The pilgrims were probably not morally perfect, but they had much higher standards than citizens of this nation do today. Their standard of morality was the Word of God, and they did not apologize for it. To date, no one has found a suitable substitute for the Holy Scriptures, which explains why chaos reigns throughout the land.
The second figure’s principle is not unrelated to the first—Law. Those who violate the law and moral principles must be punished, or no one knows what to expect. In our early society, the few who violated the law were sentenced instead of receiving a slap on the wrist. How ironic that justice prevailed at a time when no lawyers were present. Underneath Law one sees Justice on the one hand and Mercy on the other. These always need to balance each other and take into account the motives of the evildoer. Some crimes are so heinous that mercy cannot be extended, but other offenders deserve compassionate consideration.
The third figure is Education. In those days, this was a reference to actual learning. Underneath are Wisdom and Youth, and the idea is to teach knowledge and applications which will make students wise. How different from the educational philosophy of many today, where sex education and gender “issues” begin, in some areas of the country, to be taught in grade school. Students no longer learn facts to be wise; they are more likely to be taught how to get along in a liberal society. The philosophy of the pilgrims was teaching reading, writing, arithmetic, and the Bible—concepts that might actually prove useful to young people.
The fourth principle (on the last figure) on which society was built was Liberty. Many on board the Mayflower had already experienced persecution at the hands of those who despised anything but the Church of England. They wanted to be free to follow their consciences. Underneath a soldier are Peace and Overthrow of Tyranny. Unfortunately, peace cannot always be attained except at the expense of war, which eventually occurred.
Morality, Law, Education, and Liberty. These are the principles upon which those fleeing oppression built their civilization. It would still work, but freedoms in this nation have been encroached upon by our own government. Education has been politicized and taken out from under the control of parents—sometimes leaving them little choice but to pay for private schooling or to home school. Law has become handy only when it serves certain interests. If certain people violate it, the law is ignored, but it may be applied harshly to others. The Supreme Court has made up law instead of upholding the laws we already have. Lawyers can sometimes get away with doing legal contortions that would break the back of any being that was not a snake. And morality has been reduced to: “Anything you want to do is fine with me (except murdering me).” Our founding fathers knew that these four items were indispen-sable in operating a stable society. No wonder so few of us have heard of this monument.
The Best Monument to Liberty
This National Monument to our Forefathers ought to be known by all and visited by many. But an even greater monument exists that is not made of granite. It consists of two perishable items—the bread and the fruit of the vine. These represent the body and blood of Jesus, which were offered to truly set us free from the enslavement of the devil.
Sin is worse than any dictator or council. Men who head such governments can be brutal, but they do not last forever. Every great world empire falls—even if they believe they are invincible. Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon fell. So did Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. All of these ruled through force and military might, but they were all conquered. Regimes begun by men also fall to other men. The spiritual kingdom of Jesus, however, stands forever (Dan. 2:44).
Furthermore, Jesus brings liberty to men even when they are enslaved. How does He do that? Near the outset of His ministry, He went to Nazareth and read from a scroll of Isaiah. He read 61:1-2, part of which is quoted below:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because the Lord has anointed Me to preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives….”
How did Jesus accomplish this goal? He allowed Himself to be crucified—to be the sacrifice for our sins. And when we are buried with Him in baptism (immersion), we are “crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin” (Rom. 6:6). Jesus has set the captives (us) free. Not only are our sins forgiven, but the very enslaving action of sin has been destroyed. We may remain in a nation that has physical control over us, but spiritually we are free.
We experience unfettered liberty because we know the words of Jesus, and if we abide in them, the truth shall make us free (John 8:31-32). That occurs when we obey the gospel by repenting of our sins and being baptized for their forgiveness (Acts 2:38). We are now dead indeed to sin, but alive to God through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom. 6:3-11). What is the memorial that we have that reminds us of our liberation?
The Lord’s Supper reminds us of what it took to obtain the precious freedom that we enjoy. Jesus gave His body and His blood for us and commanded us to remember Him by partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine—which serves as a monument to Him, salvation, and liberty. As often as we eat and drink it, we proclaim His death until He comes (1 Cor. 11:26). If it is profitable to remember the founding principles of this nation (and it is), how much more beneficial is it to remember the principle upon which our spiritual and eternal liberty is based—the unselfish sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for us?
As news commentator Paul Harvey used to say, “Here is a strange.” The following event took place in Utica, New York, and was reported in the July 6, 2016 Orlando Sentinel. The title of the article grabs the reader’s attention immediately—“Woman Found Guilty in Brother’s Beating Death at Church” (A4) What? Who gets beaten to death in a church building? Apparently, members of the Word of Life Christian Church participated in a 14-hour group beating of the woman’s two half-brothers. What were these people thinking? Had any of them ever read the Scriptures? Have they no understanding that Christianity teaches us to love one another?
The sister was acquitted of murder, since intent could not be proven, but she was convicted of manslaughter and assault. According to the news account, “She pummeled both brothers’ groins with an electrical cord.” What kind of a person does that? If it was not her idea, how does she let someone talk her into it? Apparently, no charges could be filed for stupidity and callous indifference to human suffering. How could anyone present possibly in good conscience have participated in such an atrocious occurrence? Did not even one person present have an ounce of pity that such an ordeal would last for fourteen minutes, let alone fourteen hours?
Oh, and the “pastor” of this morbid group referred to this as a counseling session. If he has not been charged, he should be, since he authorized the actions that occurred. Some counseling sessions may be a bit raucous, with participants shouting at one another or throwing nerf bricks, but what is therapeutic about being beaten mercilessly? Religious freedom does not include the right to inflict physical punishment on others. This “church” should be closed down immediately—not only for what the group members did, but because they have grossly mishandled the name of Christ.
This “counseling” session took place after the 19-year-old and 17-year-old brothers had discussed leaving the church. What kind of an organization is this? This “church” is obviously a cult, and they revere their leader above God. They do what their “pastor” tells them instead of following Jesus. They are a disgrace and an embarrassment to all who genuinely call on the name of the Lord. People ought to study the inspired Word of God and follow its teachings rather than put their trust in any man (Ps. 118:8). This religious group’s members undoubtedly need genuine counseling, as well as deprogramming.
The third provocative article in the July, 2016 issue of The Christian Chronicle is in the “Dialogue” section.
The question is posed thus in black above the title:
DOES THE NUMBER OF CUPS in the Lord’s Supper matter? A minister for one-cup congregations shares his perspective [all of which is one line across the top of the page 15]. Underneath it in much larger red letters is the answer:
No such thing as ‘individual communion’
What does the minister mean? With one loaf and one cup, communion is individual. Congregants can hardly do it at the same time. Be that as it may, the interview is with Brett Hickey, who began working with the Denton County Church of Christ, in Lewisville, Texas, last year. He is apparently popular, speaking on a television program and holding a number of gospel meetings each year. He is probably, therefore, a fair representative and speaks for most of this group.
When asked why this group insists on using only one cup, Brett answered that it was to preserve the remembrance of the Lord’s Supper “just as it was delivered,” as stated in 1 Corinthians 11:2. Well, yes, all members desire to deliver the traditions just as they were delivered; however, in 2,000 years there have been changes in customs and advancement in various areas that do not affect the nature of the commands.
Singing, for example, was not done in 4-part harmony in the first century, but when we sing in that manner, we are still just singing. It only changes if we add musical instruments to the singing—or humming or handclapping or footstomping. It changes if some of the congregation is excluded when we are to be speaking to one another (Eph. 5:19). The Lord’s Supper consists of the bread and the fruit of the vine. What container it comes in does not change the fact that it is the body and blood of Christ. To insist on one cup is to add a third element to the Lord’s Supper.
A second reason for one cup, Hickey asserted, is that there is just as much authority for it as there is for meeting on the first day of the week. Hickey avers that the commands concerning the Lord’s Supper are even more emphatic because Jesus said, “Do this.” He cites Mark 14:23, Luke 22:19, and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. Matthew and Mark do not record the words, “Do this.” In Luke 22:19, when Jesus broke the bread, He said: “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me” (cf. 1 Cor. 11:23-25). What were they required to do? Remember His physical body, represented by the bread. Did Jesus admonish, “Be sure you only have one loaf”? How would that work in a congregation of 500 people? In the early church they had ten times that many, according to Acts 4:4. What oven would have baked that loaf?
The same is true of the cup. Jesus passed around one cup containing the fruit of the vine, and all the disciples drank of it (Matt. 26:27; Mark 14:23). But there were only 13 present—Jesus and the twelve. What would Jesus have done if there had been 70 present? He would have had to prepare a lot larger cup, or He would have had to refill it as it went around. Now imagine a cup large enough to handle 3,000 on Pentecost and 5,000 shortly thereafter. It is doubtful that anyone made a cup that large; so it would have had to be refilled numerous times—or, more likely, several cups would have been used. God did not see fit to tell us the way they distributed the Lord’s Supper among so many people. We do not know how many loaves or cups were used or how the bread and the fruit of the vine was distributed to each worshipper. All we know is that “they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread…” (Acts 2:42), a synecdoche, where a part (the bread) stands for the whole (the Lord’s Supper) (cf. Acts 20:7).
The main point is this. The use of the word cup, scholars agree, is another figure of speech—a metonymy, in which the container stands for the contents. We use this terminology all the time, as seen below. A. Lowell Altizer gave this illustration when he spoke on Luke 22 for Studies in Luke, the 14th Annual Lectureship of the East Tennessee School of Preaching and Missions. In a dispute over this very issue of whether one cup was all that was permissible to be used in the Lord’s Supper, his father
walked to the cupboard and therefrom took an empty tea-cup, handed it to the brother and asked him to drink thereof. The man responded, “There’s nothing therein to drink, this cup contains nothing!” He was then told that the “cup” of which we drink must be the contained and not the container (267).
This is only logical, but do not expect one-cuppers to see it. It is sad that people can be so insistent (even to the point of withdrawing fellowship) because of their failure to grasp an obvious figure of speech. When Jesus took the cup and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves” (Luke 22:17), did they chop the cup in pieces and each take a portion, or did they divide the contents? To ask the question is to answer it.
Hickey cites sources saying that members drinking out of the same cup carries little risk and that they don’t get sick more than others do. The studies he cites may be valid (15), and they do answer a concern that many people have, but they do not have a Scriptural bearing on whether or not someone has the right to demand that everyone drink from one cup. A more pertinent question is: “Do one-cup congregations consider themselves to be in fellowship with other churches of Christ?” And the answer is, “NO!” Hickey reasons:
Fellowship
We see this departure from the New Testament in the same light as many multi-cup congregations view those who have introduced instrumental music into their worship services and so do not consider themselves to be in fellowship with us (15-16).
This argument was already answered earlier in this article. The container(s) do not change the nature of the bread or the fruit of the vine. Instrumental music alters singing. To add mechanical instruments to the singing God commanded would be like adding peanut butter to the bread or vodka to the fruit of the vine. Unaltered, the unleavened bread still represents the body of Christ, and the juice of the grape His blood. The one-cup group would need to show that something about multiple cups changes the nature of the fruit of the vine in order to have a case.
Since they cannot demonstrate that a change in the worship has occurred, they are wrong to require that others conform to their preference. This attitude is exactly that possessed by the Judaizing teachers in the first century when they attempted to bind the Law of Moses upon Christians—even Gentile Christians who were never under the Law. Jesus, the Head of the church, has given no one the right to legislate in His stead. He does instruct His followers to withdraw fellowship if they have changed the nature of worship, behaved immorally, or have introduced a doctrine contrary to what has been taught in the New Testament. No one has authority to withdraw over an opinion.
While it is true that unity must be based on truth, unity cannot exist based on the personal preference of a few. Likewise, if one group of brethren prefers not to have a kitchen in their church building, that is their prerogative, but they do not have a right to condemn others who choose to include one when it is a matter of opinion and judgment. Some have opposed drinking fountains, restrooms, air conditioning, and pew cushions, yet none of these changes the nature of worship. Neither do containers or kitchens.
Hickey cites J.W. McGarvey a true scholar of the highest order, but when he argued on this matter, he used human wisdom rather than the Scriptures, saying that the Lord wanted the twelve to drink from the same cup; otherwise He could have done it another way. But how does he know that Jesus did not simply use the most expedient method under the circumstances? Again, what would He have done if the 70 had been present? McGarvey concluded that “we shall be far more likely to please him [sic] by doing what he [sic] did than by doing what he [sic] avoided.” Yet no evidence proves that Jesus avoided anything. McGarvey has not shown that the container was of any real importance. The Lord surely knew what would happen on Pentecost, and yet He gave no instructions that they should continue to use one cup when conditions were vastly different from those in an upper room.
Change in a Teaching
Hickey quotes from G. C. Brewer as one who said he thought he was the one who introduced individual communion cups to the churches of Christ. Whether he did or not is irrelevant. It is Hickey’s comment that is significant: “Any change in a teaching that was practiced for almost 20 centuries after the time of Jesus is at least questionable and at the most unacceptable” (16).
This statement is false. Any change in teaching is wrong whether it occurs in the first century or the twentieth century. No one is authorized to change the doctrine of Jesus or His apostles. However, Hickey does not refer to a teaching—but to a practice or custom. For nearly three centuries, brethren did not meet in church buildings. Was it wrong when they began to build them? Did they violate a teaching of Jesus? Could members of the church have argued, as McGarvey did, that we were far more likely to please Him by avoiding erecting such structures, as Jesus did?
When were Bibles mass produced, and when were songbooks added? When was air conditioning added to buildings? Wasn’t it nearly twenty centuries later? And when did radio and television programs come into being? How about the Internet? The point is that none of these change the nature of the work we do, nor do they alter the worship that we offer God. We can remember Jesus no matter how large or small the loaf is and regardless of the container holding the fruit of the vine.
Other Differences
When asked if any other differences existed between the one-cuppers and multiple-cup churches, Hickey replied that they found no Biblical authority for “segregated Bible classes.” In other words, they think that two-year-olds will learn as effectively in an adult Bible class as they would in one on their own level—or that no classes should exist in the first place, which is ludicrous. Not all teaching in the New Testament was public. Nicodemus came to Jesus by night; Jesus discussed salvation with the woman at the well. Two disciples spent an evening with the Lord (John 1:39). Jesus taught two on the road to Emmaeus (Luke 24:18-27). Paul taught daily for two years in the school of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9-10).
Certainly, children can and should be taught at home, but why deny them the opportunity to learn in a Bible class with other children? Bible classes do not take the place of home instruction; they supplement it. Should Acts 2:42 read, “And the disciples continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine—but only on the first day of the week—and certainly not in a class situation”? This idea that Bible classes are somehow unauthorized or evil is particularly obnoxious; it robs children and adults of valuable learning opportunities. God expects Christians to grow; classes are one means of aiding in that growth. So are publications and the Internet. When women teach children, they are not teaching in the assembly. These quibbles result from sloppy logic. And why is the Christian Chronicle providing a voice for these errors?
Everyone has probably heard about the atheist who stood up in a public meeting and said, “If there is a God, I’ll give Him sixty seconds to strike me dead.” Everyone looked around nervously until halfway through the allotted time one man replied, “Does this man think he can exhaust the patience of the eternal God in just one minute?” Hmm, good point. If God punished mankind for every evil deed the moment it occurred, the population would be considerably smaller.
Some are not bashful about challenging God either directly or through some actions they know would violate His righteousness. It was Onan’s responsibility, for example, to raise up children in his brother’s stead, whom God had killed because of his wickedness. When he refused at the last minute to do so, God slew him, also (Gen. 38:1-10). In a sense, one could say that Onan was just asking to be punished. No one had more of an obnoxious attitude, however, than Jezebel. Her prophets were first defeated and then slain, and she might have questioned her values, but instead she swore revenge against Elijah (1 Kings 19:1-2). Even when her death was inevitable, she taunted the one God sent to bring judgment upon her—shortly before she became dog food (2 Kings 9:31-37).
The latest widespread offense against God was organized by a Mexican “adult hospitality” firm, called Original Group, according to the Orlando Sentinel (July 3, 2016). Royal Caribbean Cruises operates a luxury line—Azamara Club Cruises (F1). Royal has chartered the Azamara Quest for an 8-day cruise in the fall of next year, which will travel from Italy to Croatia and Slovenia. The 690-passenger ship will sport a sex theme and be designated the Desire Cruise. “The couples-only voyage is slated to have ‘mix-n-mingle’ private playrooms and clothing-optional areas of the ship, such as the pool deck.”
It is comforting to know, however, that the erotic adventure will not be a “free-for-all.” The ship has some really, really strict rules, such as keeping noise levels down after midnight. How thoughtful! No one is allowed to hit on staff members. How utterly uninclusive! And no means “no.” How well will that work if they have been selling alcohol to their patrons? Those seem to be the only limits besides restricting passengers to couples-only areas. Anyone who has ever read Hebrews 13:4 knows that such an idea is nothing more than baiting God to judge them. Probably, no icebergs will be lurking along the route, but that is no guarantee of safety. None were needed to bring death upon Er, Onan, or Jezebel, either.
Okay; it has been 15 years since part one of this series. They have continued to publish interviews and news stories about liberal churches and schools, but the July issue caught the attention of several people, mainly due to three articles in it—one of which was an interview with a “one cup” group. But let’s begin with the “opinion” piece— “Restroom Debate Requires Loving, Kingdom Answers to Questions of Gender Identity” (28). The title is enough to turn the reader’s stomach.
Gender Identity
The “kingdom” answer is for each individual to accept the way God made him. Only those born hermaphrodites have a legitimate problem. One knows that the ride is going to be bumpy when he reads that the kingdom perspective is, “Everyone sins.” Of course the statement is true, but it is irrelevant. No one is allowed to entertain sin or practice sin. Jesus called sin sin, but we are living in an age where some try to excuse everyone instead of holding them accountable.
Adultery, for example, is sin. Should an adulterer be forgiven? Yes, but not if he continues to practice it. Jesus told the woman taken in adultery to go and sin no more. He did not tell her, “Aw, shucks, we all sin.”
And while we should not “mock, belittle, or marginalize another human because of their sin or temptation,” neither are we to support them in their error.
Is it the case that no group should receive “worse sinners” status? Really? Does that hold true for child molesters and mass murderers? Why does the author of this article think that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed—because the inhabitants cheated at cards? Did God Himself not assign them “worse sinners” status? While all sin—even private sin—is an affront to God, how can it not be seen that the results of some sins are far worse than others? Homosexuality left unchecked in the cities of the plain caused the sin to spread even further.
When Herod killed all of the children two years old and under, he committed an atrocious act. Most people would say that it is worse than coveting an extra piece of pie or cake. Will God destroy a nation for allowing 60 million abortions, which approves of Planned Parenthood selling body parts of infants? Perhaps we should be blasé and conclude that everyone sins and there is no group that has “worse sinners” status.
The statements become more outrageous as the article continues. “Identity confusion is common.” Says who? If it is (which seems unlikely based on the past experience of most of us), it has only recently become so and probably due to those who are intentionally trying to confuse others. Who has heard anyone wonder if he should be male or female on a given day?
The writer goes on to say that we all “fall prey to the lies of the enemy that convince us we are not enough, that we need to be something more or different than we are.” The Bible says that Eve fell for Satan’s lie that God was keeping something from mankind—something we deserved to have, but nothing indicates she was experiencing feelings of inadequacy. The devil did not attempt to get her to change genders. We do not hear her muttering, “I want to be more like Adam.”
The writer then ties gender ”confusion” to God not knowing what He is doing and a legitimate principle of the need of self-improvement. He says: “How God made me is not sufficient, and I need to change myself so I will be better than I am.” Then he cites eating the forbidden fruit as an example. This analogy fails because the first couple was not trying to better themselves; they were trying to have more than what God desired for them. There’s a reason the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes are termed covetousness. The desire is for something that one should not have or for what is not even available. Certainly, we should improve on the skills that God has given us, but Satan promises what is not even realistic.
What Reflects Jesus?
The author rightly observes that the way we treat someone personally is not the same way we deal with issues publicly. But he way oversteps the truth when he avers: “Judgement [sic], condemnation, harshness and disgust do not reflect Jesus.” Has he never read
Matthew 23 and all of the times Jesus said, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites”? His personal conversation with Nicodemus was totally different.
But Jesus never said, “Don’t judge, period.” Rather He said, “Judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24). Who condemned sin more than Jesus did? “And this is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:19). As for harshness, some would say that Matthew 7:13-14 is way too harsh. Concerning the word disgust, perhaps the author should read Leviticus 20:13: “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” The word abomination means “an abhorrence for someone or something.” That just might include the concept of disgust.
The public has been talked into thinking that homosexuality is just an alternative “lifestyle.” No, it still disgusts God; it is an abomination. Now those claiming to be Christians are falling for the propaganda of the homosexual agenda. We do not hate individuals, but the sin is disgusting. The writer is correct in saying that the issue is not about restrooms; it is not—it is about advancing the homosexual agenda.
Many misapply compassion. It should not be granted to those who have no intention of changing. Jesus was willing to grant forgiveness to Zacchaeus for his genuine repentance of stealing from others and the willingness to restore fourfold. Did he not have compassion on others? Yes, but He expressed it in the form of warning. He told Judas it would be better that he had not been born (Matt. 26:24). To tell people steeped in sin, “Unless you repent, you shall all likewise perish,” is the demonstration of compassion. To say that we are all sinners helps them not at all.
The writer of this unfortunate article claims that “this issue is not new, and it involves people in the pews of more churches than most might think.” Preposterous! Of all the problems that brethren and churches have had in the past 50 years, this notion has not once surfaced—until now. “Historically, Christians struggling with gender dysphoria did so in silence due to fear.” Where is the evidence for all this confusion? Where is the Scriptural evidence for it?
The writer says we need to view gender identity problems from a “kingdom perspective.” Okay. Here it is. If you want to be valuable in the kingdom, quit being self-absorbed and introspective to the point where you think you are the most important individual in the universe and that God made a mistake in assigning your gender. You are what you are; now make the best use of it to mature spiritually and teach others.
“Need for Christian Higher Education”
The second article under consideration from the July issue of The Christian Chronicle reviews a speech given at the so-called Christian’s Scholar Conference, hosted by David Lipscomb University in June of this year. This activity travels to various schools around the country. The conference has had a reputation for being a showcase of liberalism for decades since its inception at Pepperdine in 1981. The speaker who claimed that the need for Christian universities is greater than ever is a graduate of Lubbock Christian University and Abilene Christian University—two places that faithful brethren would warn young people to stay away from. He was a former professor at Pepperdine and has been the head of Southern Methodist University since 1995 (3).
One might ask, “What is one of ‘our guys’ doing as the head of a Methodist School?” Could it be that “our guy” is so compromised that nobody cares? It may also be that SMU is no longer concerned about its original beliefs all that much. One thing is certain: Most of the universities established by brethren and associated with the churches of Christ no longer stand with the religious convictions of those who founded them. Most have departed from those principles. The only school somewhat trustworthy at the current time is Freed-Hardeman, but if it joined Lipscomb, Lubbock, Pepperdine, Abilene, OCU, and others next week, few would be greatly surprised. How sad that institutions founded to do so much good have resulted in so much damage!
Ideally, a Christian College sounds like a wonderful idea, and for decades after their origin, many of them were. Young Christian men and women met their mates at these institutions, and strong Christian families were formed. But things have changed. In order to get the doctoral degrees needed now to teach in Christian universities, a teacher must get degrees from secular universities which have no respect for the Bible. Not many can reject the peer pressure and the desire to fit in with the kind of thinking in these institutions. Undergraduates can resist with a strong support base from the local congregation, but with advanced degrees it is different. Students in a particular discipline are more likely to know and interact with each other, and one needs great resolve in order to stand alone.
One example will suffice. Brother Thomas B. Warren encouraged brethren to obtain advanced degrees in order to fight against atheism. Rubel Shelly took up the challenge, but if he has battled any atheists, it must be a well-kept secret. What happened while he was getting his Ph.D. at Vanderbilt is anyone’s guess, but he has never been the same since. Prior to his attending school there, he published Liberalism’s Threat to the Faith, which is a solid, right-on-the-money book. He has become, however, the very person (a liberal) that he wrote so eloquently against in the 1970s.
He agrees with very little of what he was taught and what he believed in during his younger years, including important subjects such as salvation, correct worship, various doctrines, and fellowship. He became President of Rochester College (formerly Michigan Christian College) in 2009, where he undoubtedly influenced young people to follow in the pathways of liberalism and compromise. The reader can just imagine what his latest book is about, published in 2011: I Knew Jesus Before He Was a Christian and I liked Him Better Then. This is the higher Christian education that The Christian Chronicle hopes to preserve?
The thesis of the article is that “Christian beliefs are under assault.” Yes, we quite agree—they are under assault by liberal professors. What is the point of saving students from atheism and then turning them over to teachers who present a false gospel to them? While it is true that atheism still needs to be opposed with all our might, do we have no responsibility to warn young people against false prophets who appear in sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15)?
The speaker talks about young people being trained to make a difference in the kingdom of God. Why cannot the local congregation do that? No Christian universities existed in the first century. Christianity grew and prospered because brethren had been converted and convicted by the truth (Acts 8:3-4). Having a Ph.D. is not required in order to be evangelistic. Possessing truth and a love for souls is sufficient. Most young people are either saved or lost depending on what the home and the church do. Some of the most effective Christians are “home-grown” (as with Paul and Timothy).
Brethren should pray for wisdom in this regard.
[Editor’s Note: The following excerpt appeared in the July 1, 2001 Spiritual Perspectives (then published in Denton, Texas) in response to some articles that appeared in The Christian Chronicle in May and June of that year. June’s issue also interviewed Rubel Shelly, another well-known heretic.]
… So what “leaders” does The Christian Chronicle interview for a sampling of their “wisdom”? Below are some of the names of those who were consulted:
1. Lynn Anderson announced nearly thirty years ago that the church of Christ is a “BIG, SICK DENOMINATION.” He has since written Navigating the Winds of Change and is regarded by all faithful brethren as a “change” agent. Dave Miller reviewed his book in the 1995 Spiritual Sword lectureship book, God’s Amazing Grace (507-38). Yet Anderson was the man chosen to discuss “Leadership Renewal” (May) and “Empowering Leaders” (June).
2. Gregory Sterling is a Notre Dame professor and preaches for a congregation in Warsaw, Indiana, which other churches in that area do not fellowship—one that has appointed deaconesses. His topic was “Leadership in Churches of Christ” (May).
3. Don Browning was assigned “Diversity, Strength for the Church.” He worked with the Singing Oaks Church of Christ here in Denton for a number of years. He is the one who got that congregation to host a drive-through “Easter” program (see “Why Pearl Street Does Not Fellowship Singing Oaks” in the April 9, 2000 Spiritual Perspectives). Browning can fellowship Leroy Garrett (who has been on the cutting edge of apostasy for more than four decades) and at least some religious denominations (June).
Some of the other “leaders” are associated with Abilene Christian University; most are with…liberal churches. They even interviewed one who actually preaches the Truth, but why do they mostly select apostates? Are change agents the only ones we have to lead us? God forbid! Why was there no interview with…directors of sound schools of preaching? These men have a profound influence over those who will be working with congregations for decades to come. Of course, these schools are not producing change agents, advocating the appointment of deaconesses, or teaching their graduates how to host drive-through “Easter” services. Is it the flair for defying the Word of God that made these interviewees desirable to The Christian Chronicle?
Having considered what the New Testament writers teach about Jesus, let us now observe what the Old Testament prophets taught regarding Him. Jude records what an early prophet foretold of Jesus. Enoch, the seventh from Adam said these words:
Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him (Jude 14-15).
This is indeed a prophecy that occurred even before the Flood, but it is describing not that judgment but the one that occurs at the end of time. It harmonizes well with what Jesus taught in John 5:27-29, as well as what Paul described in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9. The Lord, then, in Jude 14-15 is not Allah or even the Father. It is Jesus, the Son of God, the Son of Man.
David
King David also prophesied of Jesus, and Peter quoted what he wrote in Psalm 16:8-11 on the Day of Pentecost to prove that Jesus would rise from the dead. Muhammad, however, did not believe that Jesus rose from the dead because He was never crucified. This is the teaching of Sura 4 (about 155-58):
And for their saying, “Verily we have slain the Messiah, Jesus the Son of Mary, an Apostle of God.” Yet they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but they had only his likeness. And they who differed about him were in doubt concerning him: No sure knowledge had they about him, but followed only an opinion, and they did not really slay him, but God took him up to Himself.
So, how can David prophesy of the resurrection of Christ, when, according to Muhammad, He was never crucified or buried? David also wrote the words that Jesus spoke on the cross: “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me” (Ps. 22:1). If Jesus was not crucified, then He was not on the cross, and He could not have spoken these words. In this same Psalm, David writes:
They pierced My hands and My feet; I can count all My bones. They look and stare at Me. They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing cast lots (Ps. 22:16b-18).
All of these were fulfilled at the cross, which Muhammad said Jesus was never on! Muslims do not believe the Old Testament prophets—neither Enoch nor David. Their advertisement which claims they do is a lie. They do not believe the prophets at all.
Isaiah
Isaiah prophesied of the virgin birth (Isaiah 7:14), which Matthew says was fulfilled when Mary gave birth to Jesus (Matt. 1:18-23). Luke explains that the Holy Spirit came upon Mary and overshadowed her. Therefore the Holy One Who was born of her would be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). However, Muhammad rejected the Deity of Jesus (as seen in the previous article). One would think Muhammad would reject the virgin birth, but he does not per se. He seems to accept the fact that Mary gave birth to Jesus.
He does not necessarily attribute the birth to the Holy Spirit, but just says that Jesus resulted from “an act of divine will,” which is true but ambiguous. Muhammad did not believe Jesus is the Son of God (as per the previous article); so, although he accepts Isaiah 7:14 in some measure, he does not accept the implications of the verse (along with the explicit statement of Luke and all of the evidence of the Deity of Jesus in the New Testament).
Isaiah 53 prophesies of the death of Jesus on the cross. He was “wounded for our transgressions” (v. 5) (except He was never crucified). “And they made His grave with the wicked—But with the rich at His death” (v. 9). Oh, but wait. God didn’t allow Jesus to be crucified; so He could not have been between the two thieves (the wicked). And since God took Him to heaven Himself, He could not have been buried in a new tomb owned by a wealthy man (the rich). When did Jesus, therefore, suffer “the travail of His soul” (v. 11) and pour out “His soul unto death” (v. 12), if not on the cross? Muslims do not believe Isaiah any more than they do David.
Speaking of the death of Jesus, He Himself foretold it on three occasions prior to its occurrence, as the following verses indicate:
And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again (Mark 8: 31).
or He taught His disciples and said to them, “The Son of Man is being delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him. And after He is killed, He will rise the third day” (Mark 9: 31).
“And they will mock Him, and scourge Him, and spit upon Him, and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again” (Mark 10:34).
Notice Jesus did not say that the Father would save Him from crucifixion and death—but that they would kill Him. Muhammad is wrong about the prophets.
Micah
Almost everyone knows of the prophecy that Jesus was to be born in Bethlehem—from Micah 5:2, but it is important to notice the description that occurs at the end of the verse concerning Jesus.
But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting.
The Muslims have the same problem with this passage that Jehovah’s Witnesses do. Clearly this is a prophecy of the birthplace of Jesus. We know that because: 1) That is the city in which He was born (Luke 2:4-7; and 2) When the wise men asked what city He Who was to be born King of the Jews would be born in, the chief priests and the scribes answered, “Bethlehem,” based on this verse (Matt. 2:1-6).
But notice the description of Jesus in the last part of the verse. His future kingship is noted, but so is His Deity! His ways have been “from everlasting,” a phrase that is only ever used of God (Ps. 90:2). Jesus is God! But since Muhammad denied that fact, it is evident that he did not believe the Old Testament prophets. The Old Testament prophets believed in the Deity of Jesus. And Jesus’ Godhood is further tied in with His Kingship.
Jesus’ Kingship and Deity
The Old Testament prophets often wrote of the coming king. His kingdom is everlasting, as is the king.
And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people… (Dan. 2:44).
The prophet is talking about the church which was established during the days of the Roman emperors (the fourth world kingdom). It would never be destroyed which means it has continued until this very hour. It has never fallen into the hands of anyone else because Jesus is the King, and He continues to live and reign. Later (Dan. 7:13-14), Daniel describes One like the Son of Man (a phrase often applied to Jesus) as coming in the clouds to the Ancient of Days (which occurred in Acts 1:9-11), and being given a kingdom, which Peter mentions on Pentecost has having occurred (Acts 2:29-35). Peter here says that Jesus ascended to Heaven and has received His kingdom.
Furthermore, people in the first century often associated the kingship and the Deity of Jesus together. After a brief conversation with Jesus, Nathanael concluded, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the king of Israel!” (John 1:49). Jesus is the everlasting king of an everlasting kingdom. Muhammad did not believe Daniel.
The Second Statement
Thus far these two articles have dealt with the first statement that Muslims make in their current advertisement in the Orlando Sentinel—that Muslims believe in all the prophets of the Old and New Testaments. It has been made abundantly clear that they do not. This claim is deceptive and untrue; how can they not know it?
But they make a second claim in their ad which is also false. They say:
Read Quran – The Original, unchanged word of God
as His Last and Final testament to humankind.
The Scriptures declare this claim to be false—even though they were written 600 years earlier. First, the reader ought to know that Qur’an was not always in the form we have it today. Muhammad never wrote a single word of it down. He composed it to be sung by him and his men. It was not written down until two years after his death. Therefore, all the variations were destroyed before it was ever published. It may not be the original, but it is the only version there is.
Second (and more importantly), the New Testament is God’s final testament to humankind because it says that it is. Jude said that the faith was once for all delivered to the saints (v. 3). Peter said that God had given us all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). So, who is telling the truth—the Bible or Muslims? No doubt the followers of Muhammad would say they are right. They don’t believe the Old Testament prophets—furthermore, they do not believe what any of the New Testament writers say, either. They will not hesitant to contradict Peter and Jude.
Muslims have the same problem as Mormons, who have no choice but to tell Muslims that they are wrong because Joseph Smith received an even later covenant than they did. Muhammad allegedly received his in the early 600s, and Joseph Smith got his in the 1800s. Perhaps they should debate each other.
The New Testament tells us that it is complete precisely to avoid those who would come along later on claiming to have new insights, more revelation, or a final covenant. The Old Testament pointed to the New. A Messiah was coming—a king, a prophet, the Lord, Deity, Savior—and Jesus fulfilled them all. A new covenant was coming (Deut. 18:15-19; Jer. 31:31-34). But where is the promise in the New of an even newer or another covenant to come? None exists.
Muslims try to say that Muhammad was the Comforter that Jesus promised, but this is foolish. Besides, people are not comforted by Muhammad; they are terrified and threatened with death for disagreeing with Him. Muslims may know their own religion, but they know next to nothing about the Old and New Testaments.
What’s the best way to become wise? Most people might answer that the best way to attain wisdom is to read and study the basic principles that pertain to living in this world. Some might add that it would be helpful to be given real-life practical situations and practice problem-solving techniques. One might throw in, along these lines, finding a person who possesses wisdom to observe what he does. All of these are helpful suggestions, but how many would suggest Proverbs 9:10?
That verse tells us: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” A similar verse is Proverbs 1:7: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Yet another verse adds this thought: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have those who do His commandments. His praise endures forever” (Ps. 111:10). What do these verses teach? One can find knowledge, understanding, and wisdom in some measure in secular teachings. But those will only help in earthly matters. Spiritual knowledge and wisdom can only come when one fears God.
The problem with society in general today is that people have no fear of God. His attributes include both justice and wrath against sin, but His nature has been diminished to basically only include love. To be sure, He is love, and we are right to emphasize the immense boundaries of that love—but not to the exclusion of His attitude toward sin, disobedience, and rebellion. Even religious people no longer want to hear about God’s anger; as in Isaiah’s day, they want to hear “smooth things” (Isa. 30:10).
Such an attitude will never achieve wisdom. God has the power to terminate our lives any moment He chooses, as He did with Er and Onan (Gen. 38:2-10). He also has the power to cast the eternal soul into hell, which He will do unless their name is in the Book of Life (Rev. 20:15). If we do not fear Him and His awesome power, we are foolish indeed. We can be motivated by both the fear of the Lord and love of Him as well (since He desires that all be saved). We should never lose sight of the fact that He expects our love to bring about obedience (John 14:15), which in turn gives us a good understanding.
You must be logged in to post a comment.