Muslim Beliefs and Claims (Part 1)

The Orlando Sentinel publishes on Saturdays a page that they designate as “A Call to Worship.” It displays advertisements for all manner of religious groups—including Muslims. At the top of the third column (there are six across) and running four inches down (the average size) is an ad that makes the following claims. ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF INCLUSION. Some might want to dispute that, but that is not the subject of this article. The next two statements (the second will be considered next week) must be challenged:

No, they most certainly do not. They may or may not be intending to mislead people by making this statement, but it is totally false, and this article (and the next one) will show abundant proof that they do not believe the prophets of either the Old or the New Testaments. First, let us consider the New Testament. They claim to regard Jesus as a prophet. Okay, then, what did this Prophet say?

One of the most fundamental truths that Jesus taught is that He is the Son of God. First to consider are His tacit admissions of the fact.

1. When Satan tempted Jesus, he told Him to turn stones into bread if He was the Son of God. Jesus repudiated the temptation by quoting Scripture; He did not deny, however, that He was the Son of God (Matt. 4:3-4). Satan again used the phrase, if You are the Son of God, in connection with Jesus throwing Himself off the pinnacle of the temple. Again, Jesus refused to yield to temptation, but again He did not deny His Deity (Matt. 4:6-7).

2. When Jesus met two demon-possessed men in the country of the Gergesenes, they asked, “What have we to do with you, Jesus, You Son of God?” He cast out the demons, but He did not chastise them for what they called Him (Matt. 8:28-34).

3. Jesus was in the city of Capernaum and met a man with an unclean spirit in a synagogue. This man cried out, “‘Let us alone! What have we to do with you, Jesus of Nazareth? Did you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!’” (Luke 4:31-36). Satan and the demons recognized the One Who had power over them. From the synagogue, Jesus went to Simon Peter’s house and healed his mother-in-law (Luke 4:37-39). When the sun set, Jesus began healing those who had various diseases. He also cast out demons, who kept crying out, “You are the Christ, the Son of God!” (Luke 4:40-41). Once again, Jesus did not tell them they were mistaken or that He was not worthy of such an honor. He surely would have if He were not, lest people be confused.

4. When Jesus told Nathanael that He had seen him under a fig tree in a location that the Lord had not visited, Nathanael concluded: “Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” (John 1:49). Jesus did not rebuke him with words such as, “No, Nathanael, you have glorified Me beyond what I deserve.” Instead, He told him he would see even greater things that would cause him to believe (John 1:50-51).

Not only did Jesus never contradict men, demons, or the devil when they said He was the Son of God, He made the claim Himself and agreed with others when they called Him Divine.

1. Referring to Himself, Jesus taught plainly: “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he had not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:18). Muslims should consider this verse carefully. If they reject Jesus as the Son of God, they stand condemned.

2. Referring again to Himself, Jesus claimed that someday “the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live” (John 5:25). A person will be condemned for not believing Jesus is the Son of God; instead, if he hears His voice (is obedient), he will live.

3. Jesus healed a man who had been blind from birth (John 9:1). After the man had been interrogated by the Jews, Jesus found Him and asked him if he believed in the Son of God (although some texts have son of Man). When he asked, “Who is He?” Jesus answered, “You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking with you” (John 9:35-38). The man declared His faith and worshipped Him. (Since only God is to be worshipped, the man must have understood that Jesus was proclaiming His Deity).

4. Jesus asked the Jews why they wanted to stone Him since the Scriptures could not be broken. He wanted to therefore know why they said, “‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’” (John 10:36). In other words, it would only be blasphemy if it were not true. But He is the Son of God!

5. Jesus was intentionally not present when Lazarus died. He and His disciples would not arrive until this friend had been in the tomb four days. The reason for His delay was so that all would realize that Lazarus was fully dead. Jesus proclaimed: “This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it” (John 11:1-4). Jesus then restored his life.

6. At Caesarea Philippi Peter made the confession: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:13-16). Did Jesus rebuke Peter for making an impetuous and untrue statement? No. Instead, He commended Peter for being blessed because “flesh and blood” had not revealed this truth to him, “but My Father who is in heaven” (v. 17). Clearly, Jesus acknowledged His Godhood.

7. Before the high priest, Jesus was adjured to reveal to them whether or not He was the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One. He answered, “I am.” How much plainer could He be in identifying Himself as the Son of God?

Jesus both by implication and declaration claimed to be the Son of God. Furthermore, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all recorded these incidents, and they believed also that Jesus is Divine. In addition to what we have already noticed, Mark makes it plain at the outset what his view of Jesus is: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (1:1). No one need wonder where he stood on the subject. John says that the very reason that he recorded the miracles of Jesus was “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:31).

Paul, who wrote about half of the New Testament books, made it clear that, prior to His coming to earth, Jesus was in the form of God and did not count it robbery to be equal with God (Phil 2:5-8). The New Testament is united in its insistence that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Therefore, Jesus and the New Testament prophets stand together in proclaiming this fact.

Neither Muhammad nor his Muslim followers believe all these passages of Scripture written by New Testament prophets. The proof comes from the Qur’an itself. To those who think that “God hath begotten a Son” the Qur’an teaches: “No knowledge of this have either they or their fathers! A grievous saying to come out of their mouths! They speak no other than a lie” (Sura 18:3-4). In addition to all the teachings previously reviewed, Luke records the angel saying to Mary that her Son would be called “the Son of the Highest” (Luke 1:32). When questioned further, the angel tells her: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:36). Nevertheless, Muhammad said:

Christians say, “The Messiah is a Son of God.” Such the sayings in their mouths! They resemble the sayings of the infidels of old! God do battle with them! How are they misguided! They take their teachers, and their monks, and the Messiah, the son of Mary, for Lords beside God, though bidden to worship one God only. There is no God but He! (Sura 9:30-31).

Muhammad could not let Jesus be the Son of God because to him that idea suggested polygamy. To him the Holy Spirit was not a personality in the Godhead, either. Below are more comments about the Godhead:

Whoever shall join other gods with God, God shall forbid him in the Garden, and His abode shall be in the Fire; and the wicked shall have no helpers. They are surely Infidels who say, “God is the third of three:” for there is no God but one God: and if they refrain not from what they say, a grievous chastisement shall light on such of them as are Infidels (Sura 5:76-77).

Muhammad does not deal with the eleven passages (or the others previously cited) that show Jesus to be the Son of God. He just says it is not possible and that all who believe it are infidels. One might understand Muhammad’s confusion; he may not have had access to the New Testament or studied it carefully. He was (eventually) opposed to polytheism in any form. However, today Muslim clerics have adequate access to the New Testament; they can read for themselves the passages already examined. They cannot, therefore, say with a straight face that they believe the New Testament prophets when they absolutely repudiate what they teach concerning Jesus being God, as well as the Son of God. Let’s express their dilemma this way.

1. Muslims say they believe the New Testament prophets.

2. Those prophets include Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and Peter.

3. All of those men taught that Jesus is the Son of God.

4. Therefore, Muslims, if they believe those men, must accept that truth as fact.

5. However, they do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God.

6. Therefore, they do not believe New Testament prophets.

7. To claim that they do when they do not is deceptive.

Muslims do not believe the Old Testament prophets, either, which shall be shown in the next article. When they say that they believe Jesus is a prophet or that they believe in Jesus, they do not mean what the Christian means—that He is the Son of God. So, what good does it do to proclaim that He is a prophet when they do not believe His own testimony about Himself? If a prophet says, “I am the Son of God,” on what basis can anyone reject this teaching? To deny Jesus’ Deity is to call Him a liar! And where does that leave them? In effect, Muslims must say, “We know that Jesus is a prophet, but sometimes He lies.” Really? Of what value would such a prophet be, and who is going to tell us when He is lying and when He is telling the truth? Such is chaos.

Are You Tired of It Yet?

Okay, it’s been three weeks since the massacre at an Orlando night club, and probably after one week everyone was tired of hearing about the event. But newspapers and broadcasts continue to emphasize what happened— especially since this tragedy facilitates keeping the homosexual agenda alive. Large portions of the newspaper continue to revisit the ghastly scene, and who knows when they will at last relent from all the emphasis? Are you tired yet of hearing about how discriminated against and downtrodden homosexuals are? Actually, as we have said for years, most people would never know or care—except that they keep pushing for acceptance of their sin, as shown by their insistence for homosexual marriage, which perverts God’s holy institution. When that was achieved, many sympathetic to their “cause” said it was only the beginning.

The Orlando Sentinel never misses an opportunity to promote the practice. In the “People and Arts” section on page A2 for June 23, 2016, they encouraged people to screen a 2007 film about religion and homosexuality, called, “For the Bible Tells Me So.” Does anyone wonder what position the film takes? The Sentinel would probably not endorse it if it concluded that homosexuality is a sin. Just calling the work by the title chosen is a slap upon the face of Christianity because the Bible does define homosexuality as a perversion. It was so thorough in Sodom and Gomorrah that God destroyed the cities with fire and brimstone.

So, now someone comes along and wants to mock the Scriptures, as well as a beloved children’s song, and most of society is all for it. The film-maker says that that LGBT community consists of “people who must fight just to be.” That is not true; they are fighting for approval, which will never happen. He implies that Christians are interpreting the Bible wrongly in their condemnation of homosexuality. How absurd. What could be plainer than when God says in the Law of Moses, “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a female, both of them have committed abomination” (Lev. 20:13)? The penalty assigned for this practice was death. No interpretation is necessary. People, like the film-maker, twist the Scriptures to their own destruction.

But the worst statement is this one made by the film-maker: “I came to the conclusion that not to honor my sexual orientation would be an insult to God.” Right! And the adulterer would insult God not to seduce married women. And the drunkard would insult God by trying to be sober. How can people be so blind? It only shows how entrenched the love of sin is in people like him and serves to remind us of the warning of the prophet: “Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil…” (Isa. 5:20).

Republicans Kill 50 People in Orlando Nightclub

What? Where did that headline appear? As far as is known, such a claim did not appear in any newspaper. Even so, a poll taken among New Jersey residents last week revealed that most people there thought that Republicans were responsible for the massacre. Why? The perception is that Republicans want everyone to have firearms, which enables someone like Omar Mateen to commit mass murder.

First, Republicans may (on average) defend second amendment rights more than Democrats, but it is not a one-party issue. Anyone who doubts that should realize that from 2008 to 2010 the Democrats had the presidency and both houses of Congress, which means they could have passed any legislation they desired to put severe restrictions on gun control. That did not happen because many Democrats do not want overly strict controls, either.

Second, guns are not needed to commit mass murder. On July 13, 1966, Richard Speck broke into a townhouse serving as a dormitory and, armed only with a knife, killed 8 student nurses in Chicago. The Boston Marathon bombing, which occurred on April 15, 2013, killed 3 and injured 264 others. Obviously there are means other than guns (even airplanes) by which to kill people. In fact, bombs are usually far more deadly. It was only November 13 of 2015 that 137 were killed in Paris, 368 being injured.

Third, gun control laws seldom do any good. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws anywhere, yet in 2015, almost 3,000 were killed there; so far this year 1,792 have been victims of shootings there, which would surpass the deaths recorded last year if the second half of the year is anything like the first half.

Fourth, if more citizens were carrying a weapon, fewer atrocities might occur. Notice that terrorists often select targets where no one is likely to be armed so that they can do as much damage as possible—a marathon, a school, a movie theater, etc. But if no one had any firearms whatsoever, who could prevent a terrorist from either detonating a bomb in a public place or serving as the weapon himself?

Another aspect of this matter is to consider who wants to fight Islamic terrorists and who will not even call them that? Who wants to suspend immigration until we have a vetting process that works? Who is crippling the FBI so that they cannot legally use information they receive and have access to? For people on the streets of New Jersey to blame Republicans for terrorist attacks is absurd. Republicans can be blamed for a lot of things, but that is not one of them. Omar Mateen was an Islamic terrorist and a registered Democrat, but it was not his politics that motivated him to murder; it was his religion. He claimed to be acting on behalf of ISIS.

Both Adam and Eve knew God’s law regarding the forbidden fruit. Satan, however, told Eve that she would not die—that God was just withholding from her and her husband the ability to be like Him. Departing from the facts that she had from a reliable source, she instead subscribed to the word on the street (so to speak). Only later did she figure out that she had been lied to. The same thing occurs today. The news media, the entertainment media, and “higher education” are among the worst at providing slanted views.

The following headlines and stories were presented on The O’Reilly Factor on June 16, 2016. These are not made up for a comedy skit. They are actual headlines and stories. The first is from ThinkProgress, which describes itself as “Hard-hitting progressive political news and analysis.” They put forth:

What? Conservative—and especially Christian conservatives have never called for violence against these people. Islam has (see the front page). No one is scapegoating Islam. Mateen declared that he was acting in concert with ISIS. Where has even one “Christian” or conservative (with any credibility) called for their murders? The headline is ridiculous, but the story continues in the same vein.

ISIS may sensationalize anti-gay violence— specifically to spark the anti-Islam sentiment that fuels it—but that doesn’t make radical Islam more violent against LGBT people than the conservative Christian sentiment that permeates the U.S.

This is so much blather. There may be some such lunatic or group somewhere, but they do not define conservative Christianity. Yes, we point out that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin, and we vigorously oppose homosexual marriage as a perversion of the institution God gave to man and woman when He created them. God explains and defines sin so that people can know right from wrong. Homosexuality is just one sin; people also commit many others (Rom. 1:21-32; Gal. 5:19-21; Rev. 21:8, et al.). All of these are wrong; every one of them needs to be repented of, and Christians are not bashful about declaring the truth of the matter.

But God’s instructions to us are to teach the gospel and show the way out of sin. Not one New Testament passage can be found that would command Christians to harm or kill anyone. The New Testament teaches us to love our neighbors—even the sinful ones. We have ourselves made a conscious decision to give up sin; we want others to do likewise. Violence is wrong.

Somebody named Zack Ford wrote those inane words, vainly attempting to prove that Christians are just as violent as Muslims against LGBTs. The problem is that some may think such irresponsible statements are true. The next one was written by Muna Mire for Teen Vogue:

Seriously? Now America is going to be blamed? It is in Muslim nations that homosexuals are put to death with the approval of their Muslim governments. Precisely what laws are in force either in the United States as a whole (or in any one state of the union) that calls for killing these human beings? We live in a free nation that allows people the right even to make stupid statements. Below Mire wrote more gobbledegook:

Omar was the product of American culture. The rage he held in his heart for gay people, and perhaps for himself, is the same rage fueling street harassment of visibly queer and gender nonconforming people….

Perhaps a few people on the street are not fond of homosexuals; certainly that is possible. Some people on the street may be thieves, but that does not make them the product of American culture. People have been guilty of numerous sins from the beginning— some that they had never seen before.

Cain killed his brother Abel. This was not an act of imitation. He did not learn it from his father or mother; he did not succumb to killing his brother because he had seen too many murders on television and was unduly influenced by the violence of his society. Why did Richard Speck and John Gacy do what they did? What about Jeffrey Dahmer, who killed 17 young men and ate some of them? Was he “the product of American culture?” Allegations such as these simply have no merit.

A third story was written by Amanda Marotte for Salon. The headline reads:

What? Too much testosterone is now the problem? What does she have to say about the Muslim woman who blew others up along with herself? The reader has probably noticed that all of these people are desperately trying to find some other motive for the Pulse shootings other than the real reason. Marotte muses:

For obvious political reasons, conservatives are hustling as fast as they can to make this about “radical Islam,” which is to say they are trying to imply that there’s something inherent to Islam and not Christianity that causes such violence. This, of course, is hoary nonsense….

Why is it that when the facts of the case are reported that Marotte portrays conservatives as scrambling to throw the blame on someone else? What she is doing is politicizing the issue, which some people seem prone to do. No one scrambled to blame Islam; Mateen credited ISIS for what he was doing. Conservative Christians didn’t immediately call a conference when this event occurred and ask, “Is there any way we can blame Islam for this?” Mateen made the connection—not us.

Why do liberals make such baseless accusations? It might be because that is what they would do. Perhaps that is an unfair suggestion, but consider this? What kind of political hay would the news media have made over this shooting if Mateen had been at a Trump rally? What if he were a member of the Tea Party? Everyone knows that the news headlines would have been along these lines:

Neither would have been true, but look what the left is already accusing conservatives of when they are not even involved in the matter! What would it be like if one had been? It is reported that Mateen supported Hillary for president, but no headline will accuse her of causing this massacre. And it shouldn’t—because the idea is preposterous! Why don’t people think it’s equally absurd to suggest that a Republican is inspiring hatred? Instead, people in New Jersey think the Republicans are responsible. The only difference appears to be that “journalists” would support and foster such foolishness were a conservative involved. No wonder so many people have a low opinion of the news media. They still retain a measure of influence over some, unfortunately, which they do not deserve having.

Satan thrives on deception, lying, and spin. Those who use such tactics themselves apparently do not care that they have climbed in bed with the devil. Christians need to avoid at all cost methods such as these. Jesus denounced the devil as a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44). Truth is the only thing that will serve an individual or a society well. Lies are all too commonplace, and many do not care if something is true or not—so long as it is against the other guy. This attitude is shameful. Jesus said to judge righteous judgment (John 7:46). He also proclaimed that the way we judge others is the way in which we shall be judged (Matt. 7:1-5). We cannot have two different standards—one for “our” side and one for our opponents.

When news events occur, we ought to only be interested in what happened. Political opponents should not be blamed—either directly or indirectly. Conservative Christians should not be blamed for what they have not done. Jesus never taught anyone to hate those who violate the will of God. He died to save them from their sins. True Christianity preaches love and calls all people to repentance. It is not unfair to notice that the Muslim religion does not do the same.

The Kindest Behavior toward a Homosexual

A Muslim cleric, Dr. Farrokh Sekaleshfar, is being reminded of his words from a 2013 speech given at the University of Michigan. “Death is the sentence. There’s nothing to be embarrassed about this. Death is the sentence. We have to have that compassion for people. With homosexuals, it’s the same. Out of compassion, let’s get rid of them now.” What do these words sound like to the average person? Do they not call for killing homosexuals?

But the speaker of those sentiments has backtracked after the mass killing of two weeks ago. He has now stated that he is “totally against the barbaric act of violence” that occurred. He adds that such a killing cannot “be justified Islamically.” Really? But that is not all he said. He tried to explain: “I never gave the call to a death sentence.” He was just explaining what Islamic law is “in a country whose people democratically desired Islamic law to be exercised….”

Oh, so it is only in an Islamic country that it is compassionate to kill homosexuals? In the United States, it is not compassionate? The Islamic doctor is playing with words. Everyone understands what he meant with his original statement. And we cannot help but wonder: “Is it the compassionate thing to do to kill Christians or anyone else who does not worship Allah?” Hmm.

Under the Law of Moses, God commanded homosexuals to be put to death—because what they practice is perversion (Lev. 20:13). It had nothing to do with compassion—at least, not for them. The purpose was to keep the nation of Israel holy. Furthermore, God showed His attitude toward homosexuality by destroying Sodom, Gomorah, Admah, and Zeboiim (Gen. 19). And that serves as a reminder still of the eternal punishment of those who practice that perversion (Jude 7). Killing homosexuals or abortion doctors or anyone else whose sinful behavior that is odious to us is not, therefore, compassion. It robs them of the opportunity to repent. Bernard Nathanson, who helped begin NARAL, changed his mind and recanted the practice of abortion. So did Carol Everett who once owned several abortion clinics. A few homosexuals have also repented. God will decide when they are past feeling and judge them. A Christian’s responsibility is to encourage obedience—not put anyone to death.

The Devil’s Use of Familiarity

A strategy was attempted at the Joplin Unity Meeting in 1984. The purpose of getting 50 members of the Christian Church and 50 members of the churches of Christ together was not to discuss differences between the two groups; it was to attempt to unify men “from both sides of the keyboard,” as it was often expressed. The ten discussion groups, each containing ten members were always split 5-5 for the sake of “balance.” But the groups did not generally discuss whether the use of instrumental music was right or wrong, but instead commented on the speeches made previously to the whole assembly. The attitude was more one of, “How can we get along? How can we work with each other?” Suggestions were made and later reported to the entire group of men present. Afterward, comments about the value of the meeting included, this assessment: “Well, we learned by the two diverse groups being together that neither of us has horns.”

It was a clever strategy and may have encouraged some to compromise. It is harder to oppose someone you are familiar with. Gratefully, some saw through the attempt and realized, “Whether or not I personally like a certain individual is irrelevant. Is his teaching true or false?” There’s a reason wolves wear sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15); if they looked like wolves and snarled, “I’m about to devour you,” they probably would not get many takers. But by blending in and appearing personable, they gain the sheep’s confidence.

Alexander Pope, famous for his mock-epic, The Rape of the Lock, and An Essay on Criticism, penned the verse below. Usually only the last four lines are cited, but the first four prior to them are exceedingly interesting and relevant to this topic. Carl Garner included them on page 94 of his chapter for Studies in Jeremiah (Volume 1); the emphasis is mine:

We don’t go down with a quick, hard fall;
We just glide along.
Little by little we lighten our load,
Till we cannot tell right from wrong.

Sin is a monster of such frightful countenance,
That to be hated needs but to be seen.
But seen too often, familiar with its face,
We first endure, then pity, and then embrace!

Observant souls quite often have lamented, “Brethren, we are drifting.” The way the poet would have said that is, “We are gliding along.” We have become accustomed to certain men from the denominational world, who have put together materials that fit the category of Christian evidences or who have produced popular books or videos on marriage and the family. But we must remember that many of these are Calvinists and will tell people to recite “the sinner’s prayer” (which cannot be found in the Bible) and then assure them that once saved, they cannot possibly be lost.

A greater danger, however, is the problem within the church. Many of the wolves are quite personable, and some apparently cannot bring themselves to think that underneath the sheepskin are wolf hides. It is not the outward demeanor by which brethren ought to be making judgments; what is the doctrine of the person in question. The same volume of Jeremiah has a number of interesting and vital comments, due to the nature of the Biblical book it is reviewing. Below are some of those. Don Walker wrote:

In my generation I have seen the forming of another denomination among many. It is sad enough that there would be the establishment of another body that stands in opposition to God’s way, but even sadder still, this denomination formed from within the Lord’s church. A failure to follow God’s will abounds and yet weak preachers proclaim that all is well. “Peace, peace,” is the mantra of the day for far too many (134).

This phenomenon happens when brethren refuse to take false teaching seriously. So we have a little annihilation doctrine here, a little direct influence of the Holy Spirit there, a little elder re-evaluation here, a little instrumental music or handclapping there. But many quickly assure us that the best course to pursue is not one of objection or criticism, but one of “peace.”
Wayne Jones wrote that Judah was taken captive by Babylon because “they trusted in a covenant that they had not merely broken but willfully shattered” (227). Interesting. If we know what the New Testament teaches and we willingly violate it on any subject, are we not today shattering our covenant? Sean Hochdorf made an incisive comment, also:

Whenever a message is preached that does not originate with God, unity will always be hindered (358).

The result of heeding the false prophet’s words is that “they make you worthless” (359).

This last reference is to Jeremiah 23:16. Both it and its succeeding verse are reprinted below:

Thus says the Lord of hosts:

“Do not listen to the words of the prophet who prophesy to you. They make you worthless: they speak a vision of their own heart, not from the mouth of the Lord.

They continually say to those who despise Me, ‘The Lord has said, “You shall have peace”’; And to everyone who walks according to the imagination of his own heart, ‘No evil shall come upon you.’”

How’s that for a deal? You can do whatever you want, and nothing bad will happen to you. Few are the ones to whom that message would not appeal. Are we far from that today? The only difference is that what some brethren are telling us today is, “You can fellowship anyone you want, and no one will hold you accountable for it. Nothing bad will happen to you.”

Dave Rogers, in analyzing Jeremiah 26:4-7, cites William S. Cline’s three sermon points on the passage from a previous Firm Foundation Commentary on Jeremiah, published in 1986 (2:77):

First [is] an appeal for obedience by the people in order to facilitate God’s desire to forgive and bless them. Second, the notion that absolute submission to God’s word is indispensable to this objective, which entails the people both hearing and heeding Jeremiah’s message. Third is the observation that there is no room for “compromise” on these points…” (392).

What was true in Jeremiah’s day remains true; we have no more of a license to rebel against any portion of the Word of God any more than they did.

Jeremiah pointed out that Judah’s problem was that the nation would not obey God nor receive correction. Jeremiah 7:28 closes by declaring: “Truth has perished and has been cut off from their mouth.” Jason Rollo, commenting on this verse, says: “They did not love truth. They did not adore truth. They did not care about truth. They did not value truth. They did not speak truth. They did not want truth” (151). Commenting on verse 30, Rollo declares that “anything contrary to God’s Law is evil” (152, emph. his). How true this is. Attempts to rationalize sin fail utterly. Whatever disagrees with God’s Law in speech or in practice is evil. There can be no two ways about it.

Rollo continues to observe from Jeremiah 2:35 the way the people “felt about themselves.” They claimed they were innocent! Seriously? Yes. He writes:

Amazingly, these rebels had rejected God’s teachings by doing the exact opposite of that which was required. They did not fear Him, which tells the reason for their departure. Yet, when Jeremiah rebuked them, they in essence said, “Who us? You must be joking; we haven’t done anything amiss” (152).

They must have graduated from the school of King Saul who, when he returned from the battle against the Amalekites, told Samuel, “I have performed the commandment of the Lord” (1 Sam. 15:13). He had not, but in effect, he was saying, “I am as obedient and as innocent as I know how to be.” When Samuel challenged him, he began to give excuses for his failures, but Samuel rejected those and implied that he was stubborn and rebellious.

Judah did that which God “commanded them not.” Rollo correctly points out that this phrase means that what they were doing was “wholly unauthorized” (155). God never approves of mankind doing what He has not authorized. The same thing was said of Nadab and Abihu. They “offered profane fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them” (Lev. 10:1). This phrase once again means that what they did was “wholly unauthorized.”

But here is the application. The truth of the New Testament includes what it teaches concerning fellowship. 2 John 9-11 and other related passages are the Law of God. Why, then, do some who insist that we only do what is authorized and stand for truth without compromise suddenly become mute on this subject or begin to make excuses for what they are doing, declaring their innocence? Something is not adding up.

Paul delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan, meaning that he withdrew fellowship from them. Why? The answer is that they had drifted so far away from the moorings of the faith that they had suffered shipwreck with respect to it. In the course of either propagating or defending their error, they were actually guilty of blasphemy (1 Tim. 1:18-20). Now, if some brethren had invited them to speak on a lectureship or workshop, does anyone believe that Paul would have been a co-speaker at that event—unless he took his time to expose their false doctrine?

Such individuals and their teachings are to be shunned—not promoted. Paul wrote:

But shun profane and vain babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some (2 Tim. 2: 18-20).

Did they not believe Jesus was Savior? Probably they did. Were they teaching something weird about salvation other than Acts 2:38? Nothing so indicates. Had they perverted the worship of the saints? Paul provides no evidence of such. But in teaching that the resurrection was already past, they strayed concerning the truth. Error is no substitute for truth. How many errors did it take for Paul to mark these brethren (Rom. 16:17-18)? What would be the difference between inviting F. LaGard Smith to a lectureship and asking Hymenaeus?

Now what are brethren supposed to think of those who invite false teachers and those who appear on the same program without objecting to the presence of Hymenaeus among the speakers? Are we going to ignore standing for the truth when it insists that we refuse fellowship to some? Do we really love, value, and care about the truth? Or will we compromise and then insist that we have not done anything amiss?

Deterioration by Association

God Instructed Haggai the prophet to ask a question of the priests about something in the Law of Moses: “If one carries holy meat in the fold of his garment, and with the edge he touches bread or stew, wine or oil, or any food, will it become holy?” The priests correctly answered, “No” (Hag. 2:12). A second question followed: “If one who is unclean because of a dead body touched any of these, will it be unclean?” Again, the priests rightly answered that it would be unclean (Hag. 2:13). The application of this point was that, since the people were unclean, all of their offerings were, therefore, unclean.

Apparently the holy meat could not sanctify anything the garment came in contact with, but it retained its holiness. On the other hand, one defiled by a corpse contaminated everything with which he came in contact. Some brethren do not like the phrase, guilt by association; how about deterioration by association? Let’s consider some other examples. When “the sons of God saw the daughters of men were beautiful,” they intermarried with them (Gen. 6:2). What resulted was a better mankind where everyone called upon God, right? No, the fact is that “the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5).

“Wait a minute!” someone might protest. “The righteous must intermingle with the wicked; otherwise, how will Christians be the light of the world and the salt of the earth?” (Matt. 5:13-16). But there are some situations and times when a person cannot do any good. Take for example where Lot and his family lived in Sodom. His righteous soul was constantly oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked (2 Peter 2:7-8). His righteousness was unappreciated and ignored. Not even ten righteous people could be found at the time of its destruction.

So, with what influences should the Christian surround himself—those that smack of worldliness, which will implant coarse language in his head, along with acts of wickedness (1 Cor. 15:33; Pr. 13:20)? Likewise, what are our spiritual associations—those in denominations that will neither teach nor practice the truth regarding salvation and worship? And what brethren do we desire to be most associated with—those who teach annihilation, that the Lord returned once and for all in A.D. 70, that the Holy Spirit operates directly on the heart of the Christian, that instrumental music is not a salvation issue, or that fellowship with those in error is entirely permissible? Do we want to subject ourselves to deterioration by association?

“The Way We Were”

The article on the front page was satire, of course; there is no such thing as the As Practiced Version—yet. But the problem highlighted in that piece is, unfortunately, real. Brethren that once were conscientious about applying New Testament teaching regarding fellowship now could not care a withered fig tree about it. Or so it seems. It appears that many who were once quite scrupulous in that regard are eager to go anywhere and speak on any program—regardless of who is on it that they will be fellowshipping.

It would be a simple thing to name names, and some have already done so, but the purpose of this article is to show that brethren have always stood where some of us still stand with respect to truth and fellowship—and not that long ago. Within the past two decades, numerous brethren stood together in their understanding and application of the Bible’s doctrine in these important subjects. It’s “the way we were.” Many churches once posted on their signs out front: “If you’re not as close to God as you once were, guess who moved.” Similarly, if all of us brethren are not standing where we once did, guess who moved?

The point here is to demonstrate that we once all believed the same teaching; this is not particularly difficult to show. Citations from a few books should establish it. The first quote is from Roy Deaver, which appeared in the Annual Denton lectureship book, Studies in 1, 2, 3 John (325).

We are to “…have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather even reprove them” (Eph. 5:11). God’s people are in a very definite sense “custodians” of the faith, and as such are obligated (and privileged) to “…contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). May God help us to be faithful to the solemn charge. The Lord Himself was the Master Controversialist. Mr. Campbell said about the Lord: “Hence, the Prince of Peace never sheathed the sword of the Spirit while he lived. He drew it on the banks of the Jordan and threw the scabbard away.”

These words were published in 1987; they were and are true. Does everyone still agree with brother Deaver? But, speaking of fellowship, how about a definition for the term? The Florida School of Preaching included one in their 2003 book, Do You Understand Fellowship? Micky Bell wrote that fellowship can also be translated as “partner,” “communion,” and “partaker” (18). He also wrote:

The phrase “Christian fellowship” brings to mind the sweet spirit of love that is to exist among brethren, those of like precious faith. It is among the most precious gifts that God allows us to enjoy while here on this earth… (24).

We are called into the fellowship of God’s Son when we obey the gospel. We have no right to extend that fellowship to those who have not complied with the God-given conditions of entering into that realm of fellowship. Christian fellowship is not something we can extend, or withhold, based solely on our own judgment. It is based on truth, on God’s word.

For us to have fellowship with one another, we must first be in fellowship with God and Christ. As discussed earlier, this involves belief of the truth, obedience to the truth, and a manner of life and service rendered in harmony with the truth (Eph. 5:15-17) (25).

He then cites the warning John gave in 2 John 10. Just 13 years ago, brethren believed in this passage. Studies in Jeremiah and Lamentations (Volume 1), edited by Devin Dean for Schertz, Texas, also contained some thoughts along these lines. Rob Whitacre expressed the situation clearly:

How sad when good and wise men in elderships across our land, on boards of education in our schools, and in pulpits of churches see the warning signs but refuse to sound the alarm and become activists for Christ. How many of you have heard brethren say, “I did not agree,” while standing in their shadows. Fellowship with sin is no different than committing the sin (2 John 9-11). We all need to be announcers and activists of the truth (105).

Then he cited James 1:22 (being doers and not just hearers). Who agrees with the following sentence?

Fellowship with sin is no different than committing the sin (2 John 9-11).

So, should a man who has written a book promoting the idea of Annihilationism, (as F. LaGard Smith did in After Life), be invited to a college lectureship to be fellowshipped by other speakers, the students, and attendees? Isn’t the invitation alone a matter of bidding him Godspeed? How does 2 John 9-11 not apply in this instance?

How does a man who directed Pepperdine’s lectures for 32 years (who invited Shelly and others to appear on their programs), also get invited to that same college lectureship (Faulkner) without 2 John 9-11 being violated? If brethren insist on tossing these Scriptures out of the Bible, why don’t they rewrite the Bible, if they do not intend to honor verses inspired by the Holy Spirit?

However, this is not the way we have been. In perusing the 2003 Florida School of Preaching book, for example, Jackie Stearsman wrote the following comments on page 525.

What should an individual do who finds the con-gregation he is a part of does not have the fellowship of God (2 Jn. 9-11)? What should a congregation (group of individuals) do when they recognize they are not in fellowship with God (2 Jn. 9-11)?

2 John 9-11 is then quoted in its entirety. One might ask a few more questions, such as: “How should brethren respond when false teachers are invited to speak at lectureships or at neighboring congregations?” “What should be our attitude toward those who appear on lectureships with false teachers?” However, the point is that we did not used to be afraid to cite and apply 2 John 9-11.

Brian Kenyon, who edited this book, also cited 2 John 9-11 on pages 544-45 and then made these comments a paragraph later:

To emphasize the importance of the doctrine of Christ, John says the faithful are not to receive those who do not bring this doctrine. Like today, there were those in the first century who brought false doctrine to the homes and meetings of the church (cf. Gal. 1:6-9; 1 Jn. 4:1). To endorse false doctrine in any way is to become a participant in it (545).

Keeping that last sentence in mind, it is worth asking again: “What should be our attitude toward those who appear on lectureships with false teachers?” In his chapter of this same book, Terry Hightower also cited 2 John 9-11, along with Ephesians 5:11 and Romans 6:17-18, in making this point: “God’s divine word requires that we uphold and apply such disciplinary verses…” (260). Consider these thoughtful words by Marlin Kilpatrick:

Respecting doctrinal issues by following the teaching of the Scriptures is the key to Scriptural fellowship. This fellowship is desirable, but not at any price. Too many brethren have simply agreed to disagree. Apparently, they think they can continue to walk with Christ in such an “arrangement.” Such “thinking” is a sad mistake.

One of the saddest spectacles in the Lord’s church in recent years is the continued division which has plagued us since the last century. Brethren who are not content with following the New Testament pattern for Scriptural fellowship are at the very root of the problem(s) the church faces today (381-82).

What else can one say but, “Amen!”? But that chorus of voices has diminished since 2003, when this book was published.

In his chapter on, “With Whom Do the Saved Have Fellowship?” Kent Bailey mentions the necessity of “withdrawing fellowship from brethren when they will not repent of sin.” He further explained this statement for the 2004 Memphis School of Preaching lectures on Sin and Salvation: Volume 1 by providing a list of categories of brethren we must withdraw fellowship from. The first one mentioned was those “who abide not in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9-11).” He also added several sins from 1 Corinthians 5:11, those unwilling to work (2 Thess. 3:1-15), those guilty of the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21), and those who preach “another gospel” (Gal. 1:6-9) (484).

Just a dozen years ago, we all agreed with material that expressed these sentiments. Do we still? This may be a surprise for some, but, while reading the following words, try to imagine who wrote them:

Liberal elements within the churches of Christ have been making great strides toward turning the church into a denomination. Although many brethren seem not to have realized it, we are being influenced to abandon our distinctiveness and extend fellowship to all who profess Christianity.

Truth cannot fellowship error.

Whoa! This preacher was right on, wasn’t he? He published these and other similar sentiments in the 1970s in a book he titled, “Liberalism’s Threat to the Faith (11, 19). The author of these words was none other than Rubel Shelly. Within ten years he became one of the liberals that he describes and decries in his book! Bobby Liddell called attention to this material for the 1997 Power lectures in Southaven, Mississippi, in the book, Dangerous ’Isms, edited by B. J. Clarke. Liddell goes on to say that liberals, which Shelly now was, “praise men who are leading folks to hell!!” (575). Liddell insists that, rather than extending fellowship to men like Shelly, we “must be in fellowship with, and encourage those who, courageously, are standing in the gap (Eze. 22:20; 1 John 1:6-10; Eph. 5:11; 2 John 9-11).”

What was advocated above is the truth, and it is where we all stood at one time. It’s the way we were. But a shift has occurred. Rubel Shelly is still invited to speak at Pepperdine and other locations. How can a brother be considered faithful when he speaks at Pepperdine or fellowships the false teachers who do speak there? How can someone fellowship the Deavers with their error on the Holy Spirit, and no one raise an eyebrow over it? Yes, it has been and is being done.

How can F. LaGard Smith be invited to speak and “faithful” brethren appear on the same program? How many doctrines does a man need to be in error about before he is labeled a false teacher? How many false teachers must a brother fellowship before he is considered in violation of 2 John 9-11? We used to know the answers to these questions. Why don’t we now? A few of us are still standing in the gap, upholding the truth. Some are no longer there; why have they moved?

Missing Scriptures

Last week I was reading through what I thought was my Bible. It looked the same as mine, but it actually was one given to me by a friend who wanted me to look through it and see what I thought of it. It was called the APV, which I had not heard of before. He had given me a letter explaining about the translation. Hmm. What had I done with that? As I was thumbing through it, much to my surprise, I discovered that 2 John 9-11 was missing. What? How odd! Verses 1-8 were there, as were verses 12 and 13—only they were now numbered 9 and 10. “Who would dare to remove three verses from the Bible!” I thought to myself. I stared at it in disbelief, but those three verses remained gone.

I couldn’t help wondering if any other verses were missing. It seemed to be otherwise normal. It took a while, but as I was skimming through it, I notice that 1 Corinthians only contained 15 chapters! When did that change occur? Surely the entire text was not missing in early manuscripts. But, yes, 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 was missing entirely. Ephesians 5:11 was gone, and Titus 3:10-11 was also absent. “This is crazy!” I thought. I decided the only way to make any sense out of all this was to find the accompanying explanation. Where was that piece of paper? After searching for a bit, I found it mixed in with some newspapers. It read:

The publishers of the APV hope that you enjoy the efforts of selected brethren to make the Bible relevant. The most appropriate title we could think of is descriptive of the work. It is the As Practiced Version. Everyone is aware that needless divisions have existed in the church over the past 20 years. Many different views have surfaced over some of these matters, and lines of fellowship have been drawn, which exclude large segments of brethren from loving and appreciating one another. We all agree that these barriers are harmful to the cause of Christ; so passages that might be misconstrued, along with those that have been misused, have been removed. Matthew 7:15-20 is now gone because who among us can identify someone else as a wolf in sheep’s clothing? With this version you will be able to fellowship Rubel Shelly, Max Lucado, Jerry Rushford (who directed the Pepperdine lectures for 32 years), and many others. So what if some brethren, such as F. LaGard Smith and Edward Fudge, deny that hell, as defined in the Bible, exists? Can we afford to withdraw from everyone with whom we have honest disagreements? Why, we would have to banish to the theological scrap heap Mac Deaver and his Holy Spirit teachings, the A.D. 70 folks, and probably those who do not object to instrumental music. Brethren, how far are we willing to go? Eventually no one will be left. The As Practiced Version will unite all of us by removing that which divides us. Harmony ought to result among God’s people.

Feminism’s Effects on Religion

Dateline 800 B. C. (Dan, Israel). Dan is one of the twelve tribes of Israel; it remains the northernmost city in the kingdom. We were able to interview recently one of the men that officiates at the altar in this territory, whose name just happens to be that of the tribe’s founder, Dan. (Int. is short for interviewer.)

Int: How are things going in your part of the country?

Dan: Great. I’ve just written a new book: Accepting Apostasy.

Int: That sounds bold. Tell me about it.

Dan: Well, when this golden calf was first set up, a lot of people took issue with it.

Int: Weren’t those some of the same people who bellyached about priests coming from tribes other than Levi?

Dan: Yes, it seems there are always detractors when people are trying to make progress. So I decided to fling the word apostasy back into their faces and show them that God is pleased with our progress over the past century-and-a-half.

Int: No one has a problem with the golden calf now, do they?

Dan: Oh, once in a while some radical still prophesies doom, but we just point to our marvelous prosperity as proof that God is not displeased with us. Each year more and more people come here to worship. They are absolutely awed by the sight of the golden calf.

Int: I can imagine. So why did you write the book?

Dan: I wanted people to know that they should not take for granted the fact that so many people now accept the calf. For many years my predecessors were persecuted and made to look evil because they dared to be different from Judah.

Int: I know, if the press had not manipulated public opinion, who knows if you would have ever gotten this far?

Dan: We knew that we were on the right side of history in this struggle and that public sentiment would eventually be in our favor. It’s been about 150 years now, however; it is clear that we have prevailed.

Int: Any words of advice for those who want to bring in future “apostasies”?

Dan: Yes, don’t give up. Step back for a bit, if you must, but then boldly drive forward again. The public does not have enough energy to resist change for long. Eventually, the sentiment will turn in your favor. After a few years, no one will challenge you anymore.

The preceding discussion was fiction (maybe) and could be used to justify almost any practice—from homosexual ministers marrying their own kind to women usurping spiritual roles God gave to men. Many think, for example, that because denominations and instrumental music have been used for 500 years, they must both be acceptable. However, time is not the operating factor; God’s approval is. The golden calves lasted more than two centuries in Israel, but when God arranged for Assyria to take the northern kingdom captive, He inspired these words found in 2 Kings 17:21:

For He tore Israel from the house of David, and they made Jeroboam the Son of Nebat king. Then Jeroboam drove Israel from following the Lord, and made them commit a great sin.

The golden calf, along with the other innovations, may have become accepted for more than 200 years, but it was wrong the day Jeroboam established false religion, and the next two centuries could not change wrong into right. Just because objections ceased did not mean that God changed His mind regarding the sin. Some religious denominations are nearly 500 years old—but that’s still 1,500 years too late to be the church Jesus established in the first century.

An article appeared recently in the Orlando Sentinel that praised a female rabbi and how she “fought for it.” Published on May 27, 2006; it assumes that women in roles of spiritual leadership are acceptable, nor does it seek in any way to prove the practice is Biblical.

The article calls her by the venerable Jewish name of Sally. She wanted to be a rabbi when she was still in high school back in 1963 (probably listening to Leslie Gore’s, “You Don’t Own Me”). When she applied to be a student, she was told that the school had never ordained a woman and that they did not know of any opportunities available for her upon graduation (A10).

She eventually graduated, was ordained, and spent the majority of her career at a Reform Temple in New Jersey (not a surprise) until she retired ten years ago. Now she has (wait for it) written a book, along with other women of her ilk, about her exciting adventures in overcoming gender “prejudice.” [No “journalist” ever considers whether or not the Bible may be right rather than prejudiced.] Her first claim is that what she did is an important part of history. So is what Jeroboam did. It was part of the reason Israel was destroyed. Many events are historical—for good or evil. The stoning of Stephen was a historical event, but that did not make it right. Herod’s slaughtering of the children was historical—but not helpful. Neither is Sally’s cause.

She surmises that the greatest difficulty she faced was “that people judged the idea of women in the rabbinate by virtue of what I did and what their experience of me was.” In other words, if she delivered a good message, they liked and approved of her, and if not, then they didn’t like her. However, this is not the standard. People should have asked, “Is a female rabbi authorized in the Old Testament?” and the answer is, “No.” Unfortunately, many use the pragmatic approach instead of a Biblical standard. “Does it work? Okay, then, it’s all right.” No, robbing people at gunpoint to raise money for God may prove lucrative (if one doesn’t get caught), but it is not right!

Someone might argue that the Old Testament doesn’t authorize male rabbis, either. Two things ought to be considered on that score. First, the forerunner of such a practice may go back to Ezra and Nehemiah. In Nehemiah 8:1-8, the people had returned from captivity. They had rebuilt the temple and the walls of the city of Jerusalem. The people were united and told Ezra the scribe they wanted him to read the Book of the Law of Moses in their hearing. He read from it in the open square from morning until midday, and the people were attentive to the book of the Law.

Then Ezra built a platform of wood on which to stand while addressing the people. Other men stood alongside him. These, along with the Levites, helped the people to understand the Law; “they gave the sense, and helped them to understand the reading” (v. 8). The Old Testament comes to a close after these things (and those written in Malachi). This could well be the origin of men becoming rabbis, as well as the practice of teaching from a platform. God expressed no displeasure with what was done on this occasion, and it was a practical way of communicating the Word to people. In other words, it violated no other command or principle, and it facilitated getting the knowledge of God to the Jews.

The second reason why the existence of rabbis appears to be legitimate is that Jesus did not condemn them, which He certainly would have done if the practiced violated God’s will. The only thing He protested was the exaltation of such men (Matt. 23:1-12, esp. v. 8). But the careful reader ought to notice that these rabbis were male. Not one was a female. Though women accompanied Jesus and were among His disciples, not one of the apostles was a woman. Furthermore, under the Law of Moses, all of the priests were male, also. God has always given public spiritual responsibilities to males—both in Judaism and in Christianity. For a female to attempt to assume those positions is both presumptuous and unauthorized.

Sally comments concerning herself and the other women who have assumed the role of rabbi: “…we have learned to rethink previous models of leadership, I think.” The translation of these words is: “We are ignoring what God authorized and are now doing what we want.” God made no provision for feminine rabbis just as He made no provision for priests to be from any tribe but Levi. If more than three thousand years of Jewish history has not shown that God appointed the male gender to handle spiritual leadership, someone is just not paying attention.

“We’ve learned to accept new models of divinity,” Sally claims. Because female rabbis are now more common, she thinks Jews now have a greater understanding that “God embodies characteristics both masculine and feminine. We’ve become more gender-aware.” Do we not only need to read Genesis 1-2 to come to the conclusion that God made us male and female? Do we not comprehend that He is a God of compassion—a trait more closely associated with women than men? But none of these things relate to the roles God assigned to each gender.

The female “rabbi” thinks that it is wonderful that there are now female scholars. Have not women usually been free to read the Word, make comments in a discussion, or write chapters, articles, and even books if they so desire? No one has ever decried their intellect. However, that is different than having women on a faculty to teach or assuming the role of a rabbi.

A lack of humility is seen in Sally’s answer to the question if she had ever imagined (when she was the only female student) that one day female students would outnumber males in Reform Rabbinic institutions. She answered, “I not only envisioned it. I fought for it….” Isn’t that often the case? People fight to be accepted as a minority, but really they want to be the majority.

The interviewer asked Sally what she thought about the pope granting the possibility of female deacons. She answered that she was not surprised. “You know, the Catholic Church is not that much different than Orthodox Judaism in regard to women being leaders. I feel that the day will come when they’ll be more than deacons.” Perhaps she is right. If the culture is going to influence religion rather than the other way around, she may be correct. Since society has accepted homosexuality, many churches have scrambled to get on board (as evidenced by the article on page one).

The problem is that people do not know the Bible, nor do they reverence God. Many do not like what God revealed in His Word, and they think they have the right to change it. They desire to make God into man’s image. If men choose to accept perversion, they think God should give His blessing. If they want to defy His giving males the leadership role in the home and in the church, they do so without ever looking back. Then they brag about their achievements! But all of their ways are futile because God does not alter His Word to accommodate a changing society. What He commanded is still right, and it is the standard by which we shall be judged.

Church of Sodom

Whoops! My mistake! The title of the news item that ran on page A4 of the Orlando Sentinel for May 22, 2016 read, “Church of Scotland will let gay ministers wed,” but when I saw it, I thought it said Church of Sodom. Okay, well, it could be either one. The brief blurb stated that the Church of Scotland voted to allow its ministers to “enter same-sex marriages.” First of all, the fact that they have homosexual ministers in the first place shows that they cannot read Hebrew, Greek, or English, for that matter, since the major translations correctly condemn homosexuality as a sin (Gen. 18:20; 19:4-5; Rom 1:21-27; Jude 7).

But that Biblical fact aside, they are also apparently ignorant of the fact that “in the beginning” God created marriage between a man and a woman (Gen. 2:18-25). One would think that this passage would not be hard to find since anyone could stumble across it who can read the first three pages of the Old Testament. Jesus also referred to it as a precedent for marriages in His day and for all time. God designed marriage for one man and one woman—for life.

Speaking of that, the Church of Scotland insists that it is maintaining “its traditional view of marriage between a man and a woman.” Wait a minute! First, what they say they are maintaining is not their view of marriage. It is God’s; they got it from Him. They have just been upholding His view—until now. Pardon me, but how can anyone say they are maintaining something when they are allowing it to change? Isn’t this like an outfielder saying, “I caught the fly ball,” even though it is lying on the ground? This is strangely reminiscent of Saul coming back from the war against Amalek and saying, “I have kept the commandment of the Lord.” Samuel wanted to know why he heard animal sounds (since they were supposed to have been destroyed). If the Church of Scotland is maintaining God’s definition of marriage, why are two males saying, “I do”? Why are two females exchanging vows?

However, despite allowing homosexual ministers to become married, they will not allow their “clergy” to perform homosexual weddings. What? By whom, pray tell, will their homosexual ministers be married? Heathens? Even more liberal ministers in other denominations? Rogue Church of Scotland ministers? Horrors! Essentially, then, homosexual ministers in the Church of Scotland are being told, “You can be married, but not by us.” Apparently they have never heard the British expression, “In for a penny, in for a pound.” Oh, the problems unauthorized denominations get into!

Would it not be simpler to be the New Testament church and abide in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles?