Who has been a member of the Lord’s church for very long and does not know of Jesus’ plea for unity in John 17:20-21? Who does not know of Paul’s rebuke to the Corinthians for being divided over personalities (1 Cor. 1:10-13)? How often have we recognized that Paul called those Corinthians carnal-minded (1 Cor. 3:1-4)? Virtually all brethren know these truths, yet unity does not exist. Furthermore, all agree with these principles, yet unity does not exist. Why not?
In February, the Gospel Advocate published some articles on the subject of unity. The first of these says that humility is the first essential ingredient, which is one of the key reasons behind division. If brethren would practice humility, almost any matter could be cleared up—because many of them involve past mistakes. Pride prevents brethren from saying, “I’m sorry” or “I made a mistake.” No, rather than do that, a situation remains unresolved for days, months, and years. Of course, if a difficulty between two individuals were confined to them, at least, it would only involve two parties. But how often does that ever happen? Pretty soon others are dragged into the fray, thus establishing a barrier that will unlikely be torn down any time soon. Escalation usually results.
Other qualities frequently absent in conflicts are gentleness, patience, and love (pages 12-14). People become so outraged in a personal dispute that the civility we all know ought to exist immediately flies out the window, taking with it any chance of reconciliation. We would all be appalled if a brother became so angry that he struck a fellow Christian. Why are we not equally distressed when a brother (or sister) becomes so angry that a grudge develops that lasts for years? Neither one is right, yet we condemn the former and say nothing about the latter.
Another article correctly states that unity could be achieved if we all listened to Jesus. The fact is that we do not, nor will that willingness change. This precept is obviously for other people to keep. If I do not abide by it, I have justifiable reasons. Oh, sure, we all quickly criticize denominational folks who deny the authority of Christ, but if we do so, it’s all right. What’s that unflattering term for people who do that? Oh, that’s right— hypocrites. Is that designation a bit strong? Hang on.
There’s no shortage of proof.
“Unity is possible when brethren devote themselves more to the teaching of the biblical text than they do to their opinions, traditions, or desires” (20). That is exactly correct, but again it is not followed. If our first priority was to God and His Word, and we committed ourselves to unity, a number of the divisions we currently have would have long since been resolved. Is this a harsh indictment of brethren? If we know the truth and the importance of unity, then, yes, it is— because we fail to take our responsibility seriously.
Barriers to Unity
Pride has done so much damage to the kingdom of heaven that only error surpasses it. In fact, pride prevents many doctrinal errors from being changed, also. For example, someone may have taught a particular thing that he had not quite thought through. When challenged somewhat, rather than admit he may have overstated the case, he digs in his heels and goes even further than he had originally. He ends up defending what he would have condemned only a short time previously. The more resistance he meets with, the more certain he becomes that his false doctrine (and now all of its applications as well) are correct.
The process occurs something like this. I cannot admit to having taught or practiced error because I am Brother Highly Regarded, and it will damage my reputation if I back away from anything I have ever taught. Rather than admit having misstated something or making a correction, which brethren would have welcomed, the choice is made to entrench oneself even further. Sadly, some never emerge from the quagmire they have created.
But even worse than situations involving error are those where none exists. Both sides are Christians who otherwise adhere to Biblical teaching. “Aunt Matilda said she would fix a blueberry pie to take to the potluck.” “No, she never said that. She only said she would think about it.” “But she was seen buying blueberries at the grocery store.” “So what? It’s a free country. Maybe she was going to use them later in the week for a family get-together.” “Now, look. Everybody expected her to bring the pie to the church supper, and Cousin Murgatroid was greatly offended that he didn’t get his usual piece—especially since he had given her $5.00 to purchase the ingredients.” ”She never understood that the money was to be used for blueberries. Anyway, he didn’t have to be so vocal about it at the dinner.” “Well, I don’t know. He gave her the money and expected just one piece. And it wasn’t there!”
Pretty soon there are allegations that Aunt Matilda probably had used the money to buy something else and that she refused to make the pie to get even for a practical joke Cousin Murgatroid had played on her favorite niece. “He didn’t know that the Jack-in-the-box would actually explode.” “Well, what else did he think gunpowder would do when ignited by a spark?” On and on the silliness goes. So there have been two churches in the town of Harmony (population 300) for nearly 40 years now. Aunt Matilda and Cousin Murgatroid are long gone, but the feud continues. Would it have been so hard for the woman to have apologized for not making the pie and offer to fix one he could have all to himself? As sad as such a situation might be, it could be worse. Brethren from other congregations could have chosen sides, also.
So, people are offended and refuse to be placated. Defensiveness sets in, and people begin assigning motives to others which were never even thought of. Humility, gentleness, patience, and love cannot be found in evidence. An “Us Versus Them” mentality forms, and unity falls by the wayside. What is more important—someone’s feelings, or the church of the Lord? Division loudly proclaims the wrong answer.
Lack of Communication (obviously) keeps brethren from resolving problems. William Shakespeare died 400 years ago—on April 23, 1616, which is the reason Google had his picture (along with scenes from some of his famous plays) on their Website that day. Othello, one of his famous tragedies, involves a trusted friend getting the title character to believe something that was not true. He contrived situations and information to make it look as though Othello’s innocent wife, Desdemona, was cheating on him with one of his military men, Cassio. So inflamed does he become with jealousy and rage that he kills her. Only too late does he discover that she had always been faithful to him and that he had been “played.”
Logically, the tragedy could have been avoided if he had taken the time to talk with her. She never had a chance to explain anything and did not even know that she had been accused of wrongdoing. Likewise, how many times do brethren fail to sit down with each other to discuss a problem in a non-hostile environment? One brother had a lot of animosity toward an eldership but was asked to sit down and talk with them. He clearly had some anger issues, but to his credit he controlled himself. The meeting got off to a bumpy start, but after some questions were asked and answered, it became clear that someone had been feeding him misinformation. Communication resolved the problem. Unfortunately, these circumstances are all too rare. Often, it is the case that someone or some group has done a hatchet job on a preacher, an eldership, or a congregation, and they may not even be aware of what has been alleged. Brethren can make no attempt to solve a problem when they do not know it exists.
When some brethren are asked why they have not tried to effect unity with others, they shrug their shoulders and say, “It will not do any good.” One wonders how they know that when they have not tried. Preconceived ideas, suspicions, and rumors (apparently accepted) will not suffice as reasons to make no effort to achieve unity with our brethren for whom Christ died.
If one church knows that a sister congregation has departed from the truth, then we are not dealing with the same thing. If they have announced publicly that they will have women serve as deaconesses or that they are adding instruments of music to the worship (any worship), then they have clearly rejected the authority of the Scriptures. But many things that occur are not nearly this drastic, and perhaps loving communication might help. We should not make the mistake of assuming that brethren delight in practicing error; oftentimes they lack knowledge..
Intentionally rejecting what the Scriptures teach leads to division. How incongruous is it for Christians to extol, “how good and pleasant it is for brethren to dwell in unity!” (Ps. 133:1)—but then do nothing to make it happen! As already discussed, pride is a compelling factor in propagating division, as is the failure to communicate. This third barrier overlaps with the second, but it involves a direct violation of what Jesus said to do.
Jesus taught: “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother” (Matt. 18:15). How often does a wounded brother or sister tell almost everyone BUT that individual? By this time, the difficulty has already spread, and chances of resolution have diminished. Some may have already chosen “sides” based on partiality rather than on evidence. Or the offended soul may keep the problem to himself, saying nothing at the time, but allowing his feelings of anger to fester. Later they may express themselves in a way totally unrelated to this initial situation. Someone may ask him, “Why are you so vehement against this brother?” “Well, he has done other things before this,” comes the response, but since he never discussed it, he does not know if the original problem may have only been a misunderstanding. Jesus was wise to insist on communication because most things between brethren of good will can be mended.
An offended brother has an obligation to communicate. “Go” sounds a lot like a command. On the other hand, what if a person knows that a fellow Christian has something against him? Jesus covered that, too:
“Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift” (Matt. 5:23-24).
Unity is so important that Jesus does not want anything to get in the way of it. Did someone indicate that he was offended by something a Christian said or did? He should then go to him—make the time to sort out what happened—find out what it is that is troubling another. Jesus wants problems resolved so that unity would exist in His church and so that nothing would hinder the work.
Yet brethren will not apply these principles. On a few occasions concerned brethren have telephoned or written to protest something they deemed offensive only to be greeted with a huge yawn and an “I really don’t care” attitude. How is that fulfilling Matthew 18:15? Or Matthew 5:23-24? Some just refuse to communicate, period. On the other hand, conscientious brethren have never refused to meet with or discuss an issue with a brother. What some apparently fail to realize is that neglecting to do these two things is being disobedient to the Lord. Surely, the Lord, Who gave His life for the church, cannot be happy that some are not nearly so interested in unity as they profess.
Recently, a letter appeared in the April/May issue of a magazine for people of “intelligence,” called Mensa Bulletin. The author of a letter to the editor, a Mr. Kmeco, claims to have read two versions of the Bible from cover to cover, although it does not show. When he found out that most Biblical scholars “considered Moses to be the author of the first five books of the Bible,” it dawned on him that the Bible was written by a man, not a Supreme Being (12). His first mistake is not distinguishing between Moses being the writer versus Moses being the author. Presumably, Mr. Kmeco started with Genesis on his excursions through Holy Writ. He should have noticed that the phrase, And God said, appears ten times in Genesis 1. Nowhere does it say, And Moses said.
Kmeco charges that Moses was merely a leader trying “to persuade his people not to return to Egypt.” Did he not notice the ten plagues that God brought upon Pharaoh and his people to get them out of Egypt in the first place? If Moses were merely a man without Divine guidance, how do we explain that Israel actually did conquer the land God had promised to Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3)? How did slaves suddenly become so adept at fighting military battles— especially against some warriors who were giants? These things occurred through the power of God—not Moses.
Next is the charge that the Bible records some fantastic things, such as a talking serpent, “a Methuselah who lived more than 800 years” (actually it was 969; why the estimate when the exact figure is so easily obtainable?), parting the Red Sea, and “cramming two of every creature into a boat to survive a flood.” Kmeco may be ignorant of the fact that almost every culture on earth has a flood story in its history. Crammed? Does he have any idea that the ark was 1½ football fields long?
The most incredible statement appears in the following question: “Why do such fantastic miracles disappear from the Old Testament after Moses’s death?” Really? How does he think the walls of Jericho collapsed in Joshua 6? Did Kmeco overlook the sun standing still (Joshua 10:12-13)? How does he explain the battles that Israel won with few or zero casualties? Does he not recall Elijah’s contest with the false prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18)? Perhaps he dozed off a few times. (Incidentally, Abraham and Isaac had nothing to do with the burning bush.) Moses did not originate the events that he records in the first five books of the Bible any more than he composed the Ten Commandments. He was inspired of God and quoted as accurate by Jesus and the apostles.
On April 9, 2016, appearing in the Orlando Sentinel, was an interesting article, whose headline offered the following declaration: “Grace for Divorced Catholics” (A3). Needless to say, that news might be of interest to a segment of the population; however, the subtitle was phrased as a contrast: “But Pope Reiterates Ban on Abortion, Contraception and Same-Sex Marriage.”
What does the subtitle say about the philosophy of the writers? What it says is that they approve of morality becoming less strict. In other words, the headline writer wants Catholics to know that there is “grace” (comfort, encouragement) for divorced Catholics, but those who want abortions, birth control, or to marry a member of the same sex are out of luck. Rats! All the praise in the article is for the concessions the pope is making; anytime he stands against the sins society wants to engage in, disappointment is expressed—as if to say, “Sigh, not yet.”
The article does not question the pope’s changes on divorce; they are just portrayed as him trying to create a “more merciful church.” So, up to now they have apparently not been a very merciful religious group. Hmm. And would they be even more merciful if they allowed abortions or accepted homosexual couples? Followed to its logical conclusion, they would be the most merciful church around if they just allowed their members to commit any sin they desire yet still be considered in good standing.
This news story centers on a 260-page document written by the head of the Roman Catholic Church, and he titled it Amoris Laetitia, which means, “The Joy of Love.” In this document we find these words: “By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth.” Perhaps a person should ask, “Could we apply this “wisdom” to the Ten Commandments? “Remember the Sabbath, to keep it holy” (Ex. 20:8). So, is that one of those back-and-white issues? Was that command for every Sabbath? We do not need to wonder. A certain man violated the commandment and was brought to Moses for judgement. God told all the congregation to stone Him (Num. 15:32-36). What? Why not let the man live and be a more merciful Israelite nation?
Yes, Francis is trying to have a more inclusive church, but as of this moment in time, he is not willing to include those who violate other teachings. On homosexual marriage he wrote that “same-sex marriage may not simply be equated with marriage.” He added: “No union that is temporary or closed to the transmission of life can ensure the future of society.” As for abortion, he wrote: “So great is the value of human life, and so inalienable the right to life of an innocent child growing in the mother’s womb, that no alleged right to one’s own body can justify a decision to terminate that life….”
Complaints
Catholics for Choice did not like Amoris Laetitia. They thought that this latest papal document displayed the “immense chasm” between the church’s official policy and the practice of everyday Catholics. Apparently, then, everyday Catholics pay for and receive abortions, although their religion teaches against it. This faction of the Catholic Church argues: “The law says one thing but Catholics the world over behave according to their conscience.”
So what does that mean? Okay, the pope and Catholic doctrine may describe certain behavior as wrong, but if it doesn’t violate a person’s conscience, is it actually all right? Well, then, is there any sin that man has invented that could not be justified on that basis? We know that even murderers have killed innocent people without it violating their consciences. The conscience is not an infallible guide (Acts 23:1).
Another group that was not in agreement with the pope is called DignityUSA, which consists of Catholics who advocate for “rights” for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Catholics and their families. They claim that the pope “failed to fully embrace an entire community.” Horrors! He may have excluded the entire community of child molesters, too; is anyone speaking out for them? The words of the Executive Director of an organization that demands rights for homosexuals and transgenders conclude this piece, showing where the sympathies of the writers lie. Those words are:
Pope Francis has continued the characterization of LGBT people as unable to fully reflect the fullness of God’s plan for humanity. This document continues to demonstrate a tragic ignorance.
Seriously? Exactly which of God’s plans is that? God’s plan for humanity has never included those who practice homosexuality. He destroyed those in Sodom and Gomorrah who practiced the sin (Gen. 18:20; 19:1ff). Under the Law of Moses they were to be put to death (Lev. 20:13). Under Christianity, homosexuality is defined as a sin that ought to be repented of. Where is God’s plan for them to be accepted into society while continuing in their sin? The “tragic ignorance” exists on the part of those who continually reject what the Bible teaches on the subject.
There must be an entire community comprised of porn stars. How many thousands of such “movies” are made every year? Is someone standing up for them, claiming that rejecting them means that the church is not reflecting the fullness of God’s plan for humanity? In other words, is no classification of deviancy, as defined by the Scriptures, legitimate? Is the upshot of these protests that mankind eventually legitimizes all sins—no matter what they are?
The Main Difference
What the reader does not find in this article is one reference to Holy Scriptures. This is the main difference between Roman Catholicism and Christianity. Their teaching depends on what a pope thinks at any given time; ours is determined by what the Bible teaches. This statement is not intended to demean Catholics; it is simply a statement of fact, and the article proves it. The emphasis throughout the article is that Francis is changing some positions on divorce so that the Church will be more merciful. It also makes the case for the pope to be more merciful on other moral matters, but nowhere does anyone ask, “What do the Scriptures teach?”
Christians, for example, do not ask, “How can we be more inclusive?” but rather, “How did God address this issue?” On abortion, the Bible makes it clear that what is in the womb is alive. Jacob and Esau were struggling within Rebekah prior to their births (Gen. 25:22-24). John the Baptizer leaped in the womb of his mother, Elizabeth, when Mary came to visit her and offered a greeting (Luke 1:41-44). Other passages discuss how we are fearfully and wonderfully made while yet existing in the womb (Ps. 139:13-16). God knew Jeremiah before he was born (Jer. 1:5).
God has not appointed a spokesman to tell the world what His doctrine is in every culture in every generation. He has imparted to us the Word, which has taught the same truth since the first century. It does not change, and it is always profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17). No man nor committee is going to tell us one of these days that divorce is now acceptable where God had before prohibited it. If even one principle can be changed, then all teachings could be altered and (in some cases) discarded. What that means is that in 2030 there could be a new pope, and he might decide that Roman Catholicism should be a more merciful church. He could write a 260-page paper that allows members to have abortions. The reason this could occur is that he is the authority—not Christ or the Bible.
In the article under consideration, not one passage of Scripture is cited concerning divorce. Jesus has not changed His teaching on the subject since the first century. Divorce and remarriage is still unacceptable unless the divorce was for fornication. It remains true that, from the beginning, God designed marriage to be permanent (Matt. 19:3-9). What mere human beings think about the matter is irrelevant. Some think no one should ever get a divorce under any circumstance; some think divorces should be dispensed like paper towels. The only question of any consequence is, “What does God think?” When many were practicing contrary to His will in the days of Ezra, and Nehemiah, they all needed to repent. Many had to put away their “wives” because they were not entitled to have them (Ezra 10:11-12, 18-19, 44). Truth must always take precedence over our feelings on any subject.
All of the arguments expressed in the article presuppose that God has not made a determination on every moral issue, but the Bible teaches that He has. They further express the hope that what God has said in the past can be changed. God, however, does not reconsider His will every so often and change the Scriptures. This is a characteristic of men—not Deity.
For example, in the Book of Mormon monogamy is clearly taught. The reader notes that David and Solomon having many wives was “an abomination before me, saith the Lord” (Jacob 2:24). Every man was to have but one wife (v. 27). However, in a later book, Joseph Smith wrote that polygamy was acceptable; a section of the book specifically address his wife Emma, exhorting her to accept the teaching (Doctrines and Covenants 132:51-56). Years later, the Mormons wanted Utah to be a state, which would never happen if polygamy were to continue to be practiced. The Mormon leadership got a “new” revelation that all Mormons should go back to monogamous relationships. Now, with homosexual marriage being allowed (marriage being redefined), one wonders how long it will be until they have another revelation that again authorizes polygamy.
The strange thing is that adherents in these religions never seem to notice or, at least, be bothered that their teachings change. The Bible describes an eternal God. Can He really not decide whether polygamy is acceptable or whether monogamy is better? Must He vacillate constantly? Do we really hope that our favorite sin will be allowed next year—even though this year it is wrong? People have often laughingly pointed out that under the Old Covenant, God did not issue The Ten Suggestions. Yet that seems to be precisely what some people want.
Sure, homosexuality used to be wrong, but some famous rock singers are homo- or bi-sexual; so we ought to change our outlook. Sure, divorce is wrong, but a family member has obtained one; so the Bible really needs to be re-interpreted. One of my unmarried friends has been committing fornication for years, and he’s a great guy; can’t we get a special exemption for him? Uncle George is the salt of the earth—when he’s sober. Why can’t some sins be exempt from condemnation? By the time this line of thinking comes to an end, not one sinner will be left on earth who merits condemnation. We will find a way to save even the atheists.
God gave us the Bible as our moral standard. It is the perfect law of liberty (James 1:5). When a person obeys the gospel, his sins are washed away. He is washed, sanctified (made holy), and justified—made free from sin (John 8:31-32). He can no longer walk in sin (Rom. 6:3-11; Eph. 5:1-11; 1 Thess. 4:1-7). This arrangement changes when a man such as a modern-day prophet, a pope, or someone making new declarations by the alleged power of the Holy Spirit is put in charge of Christianity. All doctrines relating to holiness are then up for grabs, and the sinful desires of human beings demand to be sanctified. Jesus, however, has not relinquished His power to anyone. He still possesses all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18).
This 2016 lectureship book, edited by David Brown, contains the material presented at the Contending for the Faith lectures, hosted by the Spring Church of Christ. It serves two valuable purposes: 1) It provides fundamental Bible teaching on such important matters as baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, and the nature of and cessation of miracles; and 2) It updates brethren on the present-day thinking of some leaders of the current digression in the church.
The first chapter (appropriately) deals with, “What Constitutes Fatal Error?” This is the definition provided that is then elaborated on with examples to illustrate the point.
I am affirming that any doctrine causing one to omit or violate a God-authorized obligation pertaining to becoming a Christian, or that is necessary to living the Christian life, is a false doctrine that constitutes “fatal error” (3).
This definition should be examined closely. God is the only One Who may authorize what we do and what we teach (Col. 3:17). Therefore, Christians cannot do what God has not authorized with respect to becoming a Christian, offering acceptable worship, or living the Christian life, nor can they omit what He requires to be done. We know that it has been Satan’s goal from the very beginning to separate man from God, and he does that by encouraging us to ignore what God said—His authority.
The devil can have no greater delight than to pervert the way in which one is saved in the Scriptures—so that people think they are Christians when they are not. Having failed in preventing believers from obeying the true gospel, Satan next delights in seeing that our worship becomes perverted, as with Cain not giving God what He required (Gen. 4:1-7) or as Nadab and Abihu did when they offered to God that which was not authorized (Lev. 10:1-2). The third area of emphasis that Satan then goes after is to keep Christians from living properly (for example, violating the principles clearly set forth in Galatians 5:19-23).
Errors regarding the Holy Spirit may affect all three of these areas. Calvinism teaches that a person can only respond to the gospel if the Holy Spirit allows him to; those sitting around waiting to feel drawn may be forever disappointed because they have never had a personal subjective “experience,” thus confirming they are one of the “chosen.” Second, errors pertaining to the Holy Spirit will cause some to think they ought to be speaking in tongues or prophesying, thus perverting today’s worship. The third area that affects Christian living is thinking that the Holy Spirit will somehow provide extra strength in resisting temptation, granting wisdom directly to the individual, or directly communicating with him in various situations.
The remainder of this essay delves into examples of what are matters of obligation and matters of option. Also enumerated are six errors regarding the Holy Spirit that would be fatal to the Christian if he believed them (12). The second chapter discusses the claim by some that we need the direct help of the Holy Spirit to keep us from sin. (If this is the case, then whose fault is it when we sin?). A special emphasis is given to the fact that such teachings (whether intended or not) attack the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures (26-30).
Some are now claiming that the promise of Holy Spirit baptism in Matthew 3:11 is something that all Christians receive, which is something that Mac Deaver has begun to teach in recent years. He has made this position known both in books and articles that he has written, as well as in public debates that he has held on Holy Spirit-related issues. Ironically it is his father, Roy Deaver, who is cited to refute Mac’s teaching. In fact, two quotes by his father utterly refute Mac’s interpretation of Matthew 3:11 and are well worth noting (38, 40).
The following words begin the next topic:
The doctrine that men today are “Spirit-filled” or “filled with the Holy Spirit” is one of those doctrines that was once peculiar to Pentecostals. But, like many other false Pentecostal doctrines, it has become transdenominational and even churches of Christ—who ought to know better—now describe themselves as “Spirit-filled” (41).
Some might wonder what is wrong with being “Spirit-filled”? After all, if we follow the teachings of the Holy Spirit as He inspired the New Testament, can we not be said to be “Spirit-filled”? Yes, but as the above quote indicated, that is not the way the phrase is being defined. Those “brethren” using this description refer to a direct, personal leading of the Spirit—separate from what the Word teaches. Cited are quotes from a congregation in Altus, Oklahoma, one in Highland Oaks in Dallas, one in Wichita, Kansas, and one called “The Branch” (formerly the church in Farmers Branch, Texas) (41-43).
It has become the mantra of those who introduce error to say, “Well, we studied the subject and prayed about it.” Especially have such statements been used to allow women to preach or teach publicly and to introduce instrumental music. It is always the same line. Studying the subject is good, but praying about it is not going to elicit any more information from God than we already have. Yet when The Branch began using instrumental music, they stated how they arrived at such a decision: “This conclusion is the result of much prayer and considerable study of the Scriptures on this matter.” Whose wisdom did they study—Max Lucado’s? The Scriptures do not support their actions.
One question that many brethren have considered is, “In the New Testament, who received the baptism of the Holy Spirit?” One of the passages to consider is Acts 2. Although most brethren have taught for decades that only the apostles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, Mac Deaver has departed from that position and now claims that all 120 were. Several reasons are cited to explain why that is not the case (61-62). The design and purpose of Holy Spirit baptism is also delineated (62-64). Several writers point out the fact that by the time Paul wrote Ephesians 4:4-6, there was only one baptism and that was the one for the forgiveness of sins (64-66).
In the section on John 3:5, the following teaching by Mac Deaver is refuted:
But before a man can be given the indwelling of the Spirit, he must be regenerated by the Spirit so that his nature is changed. And this is clearly when a man is baptized in water. As a man’s body is lowered in the water, when it is submerged in the water, the Holy Spirit submerges that man’s human spirit within himself to change his nature. And at the very precise moment when God considers that man no longer sinner but now saint, at that precise instant, the regenerating submerging Spirit moves from the outside to the inside of that heart (Tit. 3:5; Gal. 4:6) (76).
The verses cited do not confirm the heretical view espoused above. No verse talks about immersing the human spirit into the Divine Spirit, as a careful Bible student would immediately recognize. Again, if it were the case, then whose fault is it when man sins? We know that Peter, for example, was actually baptized in the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4). No one (in his right mind) would even think about denying that fact. So how do we explain that Peter later sinned and was to be blamed, thus necessitating that Paul rebuke him (Gal. 2:11-14)? Since his human spirit had unquestionably been immersed into the Holy Spirit, how was Peter able to sin?
The purpose of Holy Spirit baptism was not to change the nature of the human being. Jesus told the apostles that they would receive power when the Holy Spirit came upon them. They were emboldened to preach the Word of God (Luke 24:49, Acts 1:8). They were able to speak in tongues as a sign to unbelievers and to glorify God. Neither baptism in water nor the Holy Spirit changed anyone’s nature. It changed their state from one of condemnation to one of salvation. And this occurs—not by what the Holy Spirit does—but by what the blood of Christ does in washing away our sins (Rev. 1:5). By His blood we are washed, sanctified, and justified (1 Cor. 6:11). The role of the Spirit was to reveal truth so that people could obey the truth. He also bore witness to the truth with miracles, signs, and wonders. He tells us how to become mature Christians (2 Peter 1:5-11; Gal. 5:22-23). Deaver has assigned to the Spirit what He Himself does not claim.
Much more is presented on various aspects of this topic (see particularly pages 81-94). Another fatal error is the concept of “special illumination” by the Holy Spirit—the idea that the Spirit not only inspired the Bible to be written, but He has to make clear to us what those words mean. In other words, the Spirit must “directly” enable the Christian to UNDERSTAND Scripture. One problem with this claim is that, among all who claim to be directly helped by the Spirit, they cannot agree on the meaning of various passages (95-118). More than a page full of endnotes is included.
An excellent analysis of the Jonathan Jones’ speech at Freed-Hardeman in 2014 is given (119-39). Several quotations from that presentation at the lectures reveal the direction that many (including some at FHU?) are leaning toward at the current time, and the refutation of these errors is superb. Chapters such as these are worth the price of the book. More outstanding material, (including the distinction between Calvinism and Arminianism) immediately follows with a careful look at “John Wesley’s Second Work of Grace” (140-41). Wesley is the forerunner of much that some are claiming today.
Do people come to Christ because of the teaching in the Word, or must the Holy Spirit specifically draw them (152-62)? What does John 14-16 actually teach about the Holy Spirit (163-75)? One passage that has been especially butchered is Acts 2:38-39. What is set forth on this passage (and others) is crucial. One quote from John T. Lewis on Mark 16:16 is especially pertinent; he asked: “Did you ever hear a Baptist, Methodist, or Presbyterian preacher tell sinners to do what Christ said to tell them?” (181). Likewise, they will not preach what Peter did on the Day of Pentecost, either. Mark 16:15-20 is also covered (186-91).
Many have heard of the “oneness” doctrine—that Jesus is the only person in the Godhead; this error is set forth and soundly refuted (192-205). Other chapters deal with “The Nature and Purpose of Miracles,” “The Laying on of Hands,” “Speaking in Tongues,” along with what the New Testament says about when such spiritual gifts would cease. Specific Scriptures include John 7:37-39, 1 Corinthians 12:13 and 13:8-13, and Joel 2:28-32. Other doctrinal sections include an analysis of Calvin’s teaching on “Irresistible Grace” and the idea that the Holy Spirit is not a Person. The book closes with two chapters on “The Single Woman” and “The Married Woman.”
Faithful brethren should not underestimate the impact that some “Christian” preachers are having with these errors. Many churches and elderships no longer know the Book as they once did. Neither have they kept themselves familiar with what is occurring in the church. Most of us want to believe the best of our brethren and have forgotten that Satan can present himself as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:13-15). This book provides the opportunity for everyone to see what is happening NOW, as well as where it all originated. It may be ordered from Contending for the Faith, (281) 350-5516. We also have some copies here at South Seminole ($18.00).
Over the years “Christianity” has taken some hits from the likes of James and Tammy Faye Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart, whose sexual scandals led to their downfalls. Now the spotlight in this area is on Orlando Baptist Church, in the wake of their now-resigned “pastor’s” difficulties. He was accused of having a mistress and resigned in February. The leaders of the church claimed that his resignation had nothing to do with the alleged “affair”; they claim that they had agreed to pay her for her silence. In fact, in this follow-up article of March 26, 2016, the church disputes the majority of the allegations the woman made. “…they weren’t attempting to silence her but were actually trying to provide confidential support and counseling” (A10). Hmm. As the saying goes, “We report; you decide.”
Just weeks following that “event,” came another scandal. It seems that the same “pastor” who practiced sexual immorality with one of his members is filing personal bankruptcy for, um, $16,000,000. Yes, that is correct. He owes $17 million dollars but only has assets of $1 million. As the attorney for the female paramour said, “How can a pastor of a church have that much debt?” That is certainly a good question, and a second is like unto it: “And also, where did it all go?” (A1). The “pastor’s” attorney said that “the debts are related to failed investments during the Great Recession” (A10). Really? So, he borrowed money to invest? Does that make any sense? But then he also said that the timing of the filing and the scandal were just “coincidence.”
The story gets even more bizarre. The man in question appears to have been involved in “land development for national builders during a time when he was not pastoring a church” (A10). Having a part-time job that leaves one $17 million in debt does not sound like a way to boost one’s salary. How does that happen? Some people think the outlay for AMWAY is expensive! This same guy was running a charity for chicken farms to feed people in Kenya, and one man sued him in 2013, claiming that he was appropriating the funds for his own personal use. Oh, but he explained that the money had to be put into his personal accounts because of a bookkeeping error. The lawsuit was dropped, and the man’s money was returned. One more piece of information is that $3.6 million was loaned to the “pastor” by FirstCity Bank in Atlanta that failed in 2012. The president of that institution is “serving a 12-year prison term for a multi-million-dollar conspiracy to defraud the bank,” according to the FBI (A10).
Could all of these things just “happen” to one man? Only if he were the most unlucky individual alive! The “pastor” might consider some Scriptures: “Can a man take fire to his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?” (Pr. 6:27).
“But those who desire to be rich fall into a temptation and a snare…” (1 Tim. 6:9).
Mankind looks at the future, and it appears to be bleak. This theme has surfaced in dozens of literary works. One of those was The Time Machine, written by H. G. Wells in 1895, which involved a future society in which there were only two races: the Eloi, who lived above ground, were weak and barely able to think; and the Morlocks, who lived under ground, did all of the work, and had Eloi as their food. This kind of future certainly did not bode well for mankind.
There have been dozens of novels of dystopia—a future world where there is oppression or misery. George Orwell wrote 1984, in which Big Brother was watching everyone—and all had to conform to the latest propaganda. It was a thoughtcrime to have any desire for individualism.
Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World showed a future where people became dehumanized. Both individualism and initiative were discouraged, along with any kind of critical thinking. Families did not exist, since children were created technologically.
Logan’s Run depicted a future where, to avoid overpopulation, every citizen was put to death at the age of 30 in a process called Carousel. People were told the ritual was a form of “renewal.” The only way to escape was to try to make it outside the city to “Sanctuary,” but policemen called Sandmen would pursue if that choice were made.
In Fahrenheit 451, all books were banned and burned when they were discovered. The content of any particular book was irrelevant. All of them had to be burned. Only outside the city was a place where book-lovers lived.
To avoid emotional distress, the society of The Giver opted for “sameness.” Thus everyone lived in an identical, colorless house with a perfect climate. Only one person was granted to be the Receiver of Memories. No one seems to have been able to think critically here, either.
In Divergent, there are five groups of people, and everyone must fit into one (and only one) of those categories, which are Abnegation, Erudite, Dauntless, Amity, and Candor. One of the slogans was: “Faction is thicker than blood.”
One of the most popular of the recent dystopian novels (and movies, which were very well done) was The Hunger Games, in which two youths are chosen from each of the twelve districts after the war to compete in a contest to the death. The purpose was to satisfy man’s lust for violence. The young people in the “games” try to kill each other, as well as face unexpected challenges from the environment on which they do battle—only one champion survives the ordeal.
These are just a few of the dozens of novels about the dismal outlook for man in the future. Why are they so popular? What is so fascinating about them? They have now saturated our culture. Even Zager and Evans locked down the number one spot on the American pop chart back in 1969 for six weeks with: “In the Year 2525.” It also was number one for three weeks in the U.K. and has been recorded in seven different languages. What is the fascination?
Is it that we do not like the way things are going in this world and are afraid that one of these dystopian nightmares will overtake us? Is it the fear that something worse will come upon us than what we now experience? The imaginations of those who have written such novels are certainly keen. Soylent Green was based on the idea of overpopulation. Brave New World played off the development of technology and what it might lead to. 1984 seemed plausible because of the political ideologies involved.
Many seem to fear the taking away of critical thinking and individualism. Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged proposes a solution to the nightmares that bureaucratic aristocracies can impose on society—on those who actually produce. Orwell frighteningly talked about convincing children that 2 + 2 = 5. Today we have teachers who say, “It’s okay if you want to believe that.” How long will it be until it is mandatory to believe error?
Apparently, a good many of us have fears that some of these outlined dystopian scenarios might have some validity. It seems that every day less and less of our world makes sense. One wonders at times if we are all being prepped to believe anything and to disregard logic. In many aspects of life, we are told to listen to our emotions—to place the heart above the head, which means that feelings should triumph over intellect, which is scary enough in the present culture.
Why do writers not depict Utopian societies? Maybe that requires even more imagination. And it might be more boring. After all, if life is perfect, no conflict exists, and without conflict, no one is going to have a book readership or a movie audience. What was the last movie anyone saw without a conflict that needed to be resolved? It might be an internal battle that an individual is fighting, but most likely the plot centers on a war between two individuals, two nations, or a small group of rebels against an oppressive regime.
Usually, the reader/viewer is pulling for the one who is being abused, but Winston Smith does not win (1984). Most of the others do because we want to see justice done. We want to see fairness win out. We want the dystopian universe to become normal. Why do we care, since it is only fiction? We identify with the abused individual, and we want them to triumph—just as we want ourselves to be victorious.
The Way We Were
The problem that mankind has in general is sin. Dystopian futures frighten us—probably because we can envision them occurring—but problems have existed since the Garden of Eden. Abel apparently had no indication that his brother Cain would kill him (Gen. 4). And look at what happened within a relatively short period of time afterward. As families had children, and little or no disease as yet existed, people truly were fruitful and multiplied. If Adam and Eve had brought into the world only ten children in 100 years (although Adam lived to the age of 930), that would have meant that five couples could have had 50 children in the next hundred years. (These are conservative estimates, as each woman could have had 25 or 50 youngsters.)
By the third hundred years those 25 couples probably had in excess of 250 children who married and reproduced. At that same rate, with only a few deaths by the tenth generation (100 years for a generation, and only ten children per family during that hundred years), there would be a world population of nearly 20 million. In the next 500 years that population would increase to roughly 50 billion people—minus about 31,250 for the first six generations having entirely died off. This is about 7 times the earth’s current population. Genesis 6:5 and 11 describe our dystopian past:
Then 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.
The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
This world’s condition was not the hypothetical possibility that sprang from the mind of a clever author; it is the dismal reality of the way earth developed. Notice that what is described did not just affect one nation or one city—violence filled the earth. It was not imposed by one regime, such as Stalin murdering perhaps as many as 20 million of his own people—it was worldwide. The description seems to indicate a world in chaos. What had happened to the concept of love? It seems to have been replaced by that of, “Kill thy neighbor.”
No greater dystopia could exist than a world in which love is largely absent. Nothing is quite so ugly as any place in which God has been largely forgotten and the operating philosophy is “the survival of the fittest.” Might makes right means that, if I am more powerful than you, I can take what you have—just like the Danites who stole from Micah. They numbered 600, and they knew what Micah possessed. They entered his house and took his graven image, his ephod, his household idols, and his molded image (Judges 18:18). When Micah’s priest asked what they were doing, they invited him to come with them, too, and he did. When Micah discovered what happened, he protested their stealing of his property. They told him:
“Do not let your voice be heard among us, lest angry men fall upon you, and you lose your life, with the lives of your household.” Then the children of Dan went their way. And when Micah saw that they were too strong for him, he turned and went back to his house (Judges 18:25-26).
Even though this event occurred after the Flood, during what we often refer to as “the dark ages” of Israel’s history, it represents the type of behavior that existed before the Flood. Any time man chooses to exclude God from his thoughts, moral collapse follows close behind. Individuals or the state can confiscate property, control one’s children, and even impose death, should they so desire. And there is no seeming solution to those situations.
In most of the dystopian novels, however, a hero, heroine, or an alliance of rebels succeeds in conquering the evil ruling forces and setting things right. But they always succeed on their own ingenuity and not because of God. Usually peace results but not necessarily morality. Sometimes love triumphs, which is a characteristic of God, but that is about as close to Him as any writer gets. In fact, it is usually the human spirit that prevails. Dystopian novels do not usually exalt God.
The Way It Is and Will Be
In truth, God’s answer to a wicked and perverse world was to destroy it. There was no easy fix. Cleansing the earth and beginning again only lasted for a short time; it was not long before man created idolatry and began to worship the creature rather than the Creator (Rom. 1:18-32). God used the rising and falling of nations to punish those who rejected Him thereafter. Unfortunately, it has never made much difference. People do not usually associate sin with their downfall even though the example of Babylon and Belshazzar is a vivid one. Many have ignored that God punished Israel for their sins and brought them back to their land when they repented. When people choose to forget God, they do not recognize His involvement in these matters.
Christ coming into the world had a powerful effect—for a while. He was certainly the answer to an evil society, but before too many centuries elapsed, even the purest religion became corrupt—and it has never recovered. Man, it seems, in general has rejected the way to an actual Utopia by refusing to apply the principles of Christianity as God designed them. What would the world be like if people showed love and kindness to all—if we were truly united and acted in the best interests of others? What if we truly honored God as a nation?
It will never happen because the free will God gave us allows us to be selfish if we so desire. Only Heaven itself will be where God and righteousness reigns (2 Peter 3:10-13). Only those who truly desire to be there and have proven it by their obedience to God on earth shall ever experience the blessings God has always wanted for mankind. All others will live (continually die) in the worst, inescapable dystopia imaginable (Rev. 20:15).
LETTER TO ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
by Roelf L. Ruffner
To Whom It May Concern:
I read in the Winter-Spring issue of ACU TODAY that ACU will be adding the papers of Max Lucado to an honored place in the Milliken Special Collections and Archives of the Brown Library. As a Christian, a preacher of the Gospel, a student of Restoration history, and an ACU alumnus (’76), I wish to express my profound disappointment in the University’s decision. It is an undeniable fact that Max is a very popular religious writer who has sold millions of books and influenced millions. I have no qualms with a writer being successful, but at what a price? For example, the other day a Lutheran friend of mine told me that his “pastor” has started using one of Max’s books in his Bible class. With sadness and disgust, I told him that Max was no longer affiliated with the churches of Christ and even the church he serves in San Antonio (Oak Hills) has removed “of Christ” from their sign. Max Lucado is a false teacher, is no longer a brother-in-Christ, and has been marked by faithful members of Christ’s body for a long time (cf. Rom. 16:17-18). He no longer writes, teaches, or preaches the truth of the Gospel (John 8:31-32) as did those who took part in the Restoration or even the founders of ACU.
I have noticed that Max strives to offend no one, in tune with the religious pluralism of our age. You might call his message “cotton candy religion”—all fluffy sweetness yet nothing in the middle. Sin is rarely condemned in his books. I remember seeing him on the Larry King Show a few years ago. He would not condemn the sin of homosexual behavior as the Holy Bible does—in spite of Larry’s many attempts to get him to do so. The gospel Max teaches is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:9). He also downgrades or does not mention the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins for salvation (Mark 16:16; John 3:5; Acts 2:38, 22:16; Rom. 6:1-6) in his writings. When he does mention it in his books, he seems to agree with Baptist false doctrine that a sinner is saved before he is baptized. I attempted to correspond with Max a couple of years ago about this (cf. Mat. 18:15), but all I got was a terse four word reply and a referral to one of his aides. Would any of the Restoration preachers have agreed with Max about baptism? History says no!
Max also has problems with Christian fellowship: he fellowships those not in fellowship with Jesus and His church (Eph. 5:11; 2 John 9-11). He has fellowshipped Roman Catholic priests which none of the Restorers or the founders ACU would have done. Would Max debate Baptist preachers, Presbyterian preachers, and Roman Catholic Church officials, as Alexander Campbell and others did? Would he confront anyone about their religious error? Why then does his “collection” deserve to be in the same room as their work? … Please show some respect for those brave men who risked all for the Cause of Christ and the restoration of New Testament Christianity. Please recall the history of Abilene Christian University and how the founders of ACU in 1906 clave to the Lord and His word rather than the Digressives and their manmade additions to the worship of God. Max Lucado does not deserve to be mentioned in their company.
[Editor’s Note: Who would have thought that a “Christian” college, founded by those who had a commitment to the truth, would ever have honored a heretic like Max Lucado? It is sad that such a letter would ever need to be written, but “our” universities are all headed the same direction; some have just not yet gone as far as Abilene. Brother Ruffner is correct in what he wrote. All alumni should be so vocal.]
Almost everybody knows someone who refuses to become a Christian because, he says, “There are too many hypocrites in the church.” Frankly, there are some. Does that observation qualify as a new revelation? Hardly. Jesus denounced some of the leading scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites in Matthew 23. Is it any wonder that some who are respected as Christian “leaders” today could be classified the same way?
In Christianity, we find those like Max Lucado, who grew up being taught the truth but departed from it a long time ago. The same could be said of Rubel Shelly and others. They all know the truth, but they are ignoring it and teaching otherwise because error is more popular. Paul warned that some brethren, who had itching ears, would heap to themselves teachers who would say what they wanted to hear (2 Tim. 4:1-5). No one wants to hear that their sins have condemned them and that they need to repent; it is much more enjoyable to hear that everything is fine and that God just wants everyone to be happy.
Buddhist Problems
On May 10, 2015, the Orlando Sentinel published an interesting article: “Monk Targets Buddhism’s Underbelly.” The story is about a Buddhist monk in Thailand, whose name is, “Phra Issara.” He was being accompanied by bodyguards in public, and he had received bomb threats. His temple was attacked by gunfire last year, and he has also received kidnapping threats. What has provoked all this hostility? Essentially, the reason is that he is trying to rid their religious system of hypocrites (A10). Monks have always been revered in Thailand (which is 95% Buddhist), but many among the 300,000 of them have begun to use their religious system to make money.
Wow! Who would have thought of that—making money off of religion? What have these monks been doing—reading the history of the Catholic Church and its sale of indulgences and relics? Picture Mr. Haney from Green Acres saying, “Mister Douglas, this is a genuine (gen you wine) piece of the very cross on which Jesus was crucified. And it could be yours for only $400.” Or picture the televangelists who promise miracles and cures if you will just send them some “seed” money. While these things are obviously fraudulent, many buy right into it—literally.
Some Buddhist monks are catching on. They have refused to be transparent in their financial dealing; one was caught and forced to return about $30,000,000 that he had embezzled. Thailand’s 38,000 temples rely on donations to function. They receive annually between $3 and 3.6 billion dollars, which averages out to about $80,000 per temple per year. Some of the monks have turned greedy and don’t want to give an honest accounting of how much money they receive.
These negatives (stealing and violence) are not the religion’s fault. Buddhism does not endorse greed (by which some monks seem to be possessed) any more than Christianity does. How many hucksters are out there fleecing people in the name of Jesus? Leaders are susceptible to sin no matter what religion or what denomination they are. Of course, atheists must be excluded. Since they have no objective moral principles to adhere to, they have nothing to violate. Buddhists do, however, and some of their sins were listed:
There have been monks with girlfriends (and boyfriends), drunk monks crashing cars, monks pocketing wads of cash meant for funerals or playing the stock market. And that’s not even mentioning the monks on meth….
Thailand Politics
The government may be involved in the moral cleanup underway. (Fortunately, there is seldom any hypocrisy in politics.) Last year a military junta took over the country from a democratically elected prime minister, named Yingluck Shinawatra (no relationship to Frank). Yingluck is out of luck because he was “a polarizing figure.” Issara supported the overthrow. The junta has used “ever more dictatorial powers to crack down on opposition politicians, human right activists and the media.” That doesn’t sound good. Issara is said to be a good friend of the junta leader. Since they were reforming the government, Issara thinks the corruption in Buddhism ought to be purged, also.
This monk must be an optimist. He believes the worldliness infesting Buddhism can be fixed. He said:
If I can let the people know about the problems in the clergy that have been piling up for a long time and I find solutions, I’m glad to do this even if I die in the process.
His sentiments are noble, but one authority on Thai Buddhism does not think he will be successful. Commenting on the corruption, Sulak Sivaraksa said:
The fundamental teachings of the Buddha are that we should be transforming greed into generosity and hatred into loving kindness, but the new religions in this country are consumerism and capitalism.
Unfortunately, many Thai men are becoming monks for the benefits, such as a free university education. Any time there is something to gain from religion, it will attract people. How many become preachers because they love Jesus and love the souls of men? And how many become preachers because now they can earn a pretty good amount of money doing so? Has the motive for preaching changed since Acts 20:20, 27?
A Universal Problem
Sulak said that Thailand has lacked proper moral leadership; therefore misconduct went unpunished. A senior official at the Mahamakut Buddhist University, Anil Sakya, commented on the new reforms:
I think this is just a human problem. We are living in society and sometimes in societies things go wrong. Every country, every religion has good and bad people. Look at Christianity and all the bad Catholic fathers, look at the bad people in Islam.
Another commented similarly about the hypocritical religious figures in Thailand, saying, “Those people are not real monks, they’re just people wearing monk’s robes.” Undoubtedly, these observations are correct. Many are not genuine Christians, either; they just speak the lingo. However, the Buddhist solution to the problem is not accurate. Sulak said:
In Buddhism, we believe things will die and will be reborn. So in the future, maybe we will have fewer monks but better monks.
If that were the case, why hasn’t it happened in several thousand years? One would think that all the evil people who died in the flood a few thousand years ago would have spiritually evolved enough by now that there would be no evil left. But the world is actually regressing to the point of callous disregard for human life that existed then (Gen. 6:11).
The fact is that “it is appointed unto man to die once, but after this the judgment” (Heb. 9:27). Nobody is continually reborn until he gets it right. This life is all we have, and we need to perfect ourselves now by, first of all, becoming Christians so that His blood can (in baptism) wash us, sanctify us, and justify us. Then we must go on to perfection (Matt. 5:48; Heb. 6:4-6; Gal. 5:22-23, 2 Peter 1:5-11). We must be converted from the inside out and always approach God in spirit and in truth. Only then can we have confidence in salvation and avoid the snare of hypocrisy.
In beginning the review last week of Joel Osteen’s 2004 multi-million bestseller, Your Best Life Now, nothing was mentioned past page 31 because it was important to see how he presented the Scriptures at the very outset. Yet another example of his mishandling of the Scriptures involves Isaiah 54:2-3a, in which the Israelites are commanded: “Enlarge the place of your tent.” They are to “stretch out the curtains” of their habitations because they are going to be expanding “to the right and to the left”—or “bursting at the seams,” according to Osteen’s translation. What point does he make concerning this passage?
What a powerful picture of God’s desire for you! God is saying get ready for more. Make room for increase. Enlarge your tents. He’s saying expect more favor, more supernatural blessings. Don’t become satisfied with where you are (33).
Really? God is saying all that to each individual? Osteen assures the reader that God doesn’t want them to have so-so health; they need to feel terrific! They shouldn’t have to worry about just having enough money to pay the bills. God wants them to thrive financially. “God is waiting on you to stretch your faith” (33). If the reader could stretch his faith the way Osteen does the Scriptures, he would be an overnight millionaire. But this passage is not talking about the way God deals with Christians. Isn’t it interesting that Osteen made an application from 2-3a and ignored the first verse of the chapter, cited below.
“Sing, O barren, you who have not been borne!
Break forth into singing, and cry aloud.
You who have not travailed with child!
For more are the children of the desolate
Than the children of the married woman,”
Says the Lord.
Now we know why the tents need to be enlarged—children are on the way. Verse 3 (the part not quoted by Osteen) resumes this thought, talking about the blessings that their new descendants would inherit. It would be more appropriate to quote this verse and promise barren women that they would have children than to use the passage the way Osteen did, but both would be inappropriate applications. The verses are describing life after the captivity. Osteen has no clue on the proper way to use the Scriptures.
But he wants everyone to believe that God is a cosmic Santa Claus, just waiting to give them what they want—no, more than what they want! People should not just ask for a bigger apartment; God wants them to own their own house (35). One wonders how Osteen knows what God wants for each individual. Sometime, when he is checking with the Lord on all these matters, he might ask Him what His disposition is towards those who take Scriptures out of context.
God’s Favor
Psalm 8:3-6 is an interesting passage:
When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained, What is man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him? For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor. You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet.
The last three of those verses are cited by the author of Hebrews (2:6-8) and applied to Jesus. However, Osteen mentions that fact not at all. How he does use the passage is to say that the word honor could be translated as favor. One wonders what lexicon he is using since he provides no documentation for this claim. The word means “ornament, splendor, honor.” The main sense of the word is “ornament, adorning, decoration.” It is also used of the majesty of God; majesty adorns Him. The King James translated the Hebrew word (haw dawr’) [Strong’s #1926] as glory seven times and majesty seven times. Also used were honor (5 times), beauty (4 times), comeliness (3 times), excellency (twice) and one time each for glorious and goodly. No major translation—not even some paraphrases, such as the New Living Translation—uses “favor.” It correctly renders the Hebrew word “honor.”
So, on what basis does he claim that honor could be translated as “favor.” None. Even if he did find some bizarre translation or some commentator who would agree with him, it would still not change the Hebrew word or the way it is used. Favor does not in any way present the meaning of the Hebrew word; it is a different concept altogether.
But having made this false claim, Osteen builds an entire principle on his error. After claiming (illegitimately) that honor means “favor,” he next defines favor to mean: “to assist, to provide with special advantages and to receive preferential treatment” (38). The claim is then made that God wants to give His followers preferential treatment in order to make their lives easier. People ought to live “favor-minded,” meaning that they should “expect God’s special help.” One wonders what would happen if everyone became a Christian; who would God favor then?
On the basis of this mistranslation of Psalm 8:5, then, those who consider themselves as children of the Most High God can expect preferential treatment (39). Not only are they (as children of God) to expect God’s favor in this way, they must declare it, which will cause employer’s to want to hire them and give them promotions (38). This is simply, “Name it and claim it.”
Osteen wants everyone to know that he is not arrogant. No, no, no. He gets preferential treatment—not because he is somebody important—the reason is that he belongs to God (39). This favor caused a policeman to let him go when he was speeding (40), but it will also cause a company to hire the “favored” one, get a seat at a restaurant, or find a parking spot in a crowded lot (41). Isn’t it wonderful? And it’s all based on a mistranslation of the word honor. Osteen is not done with this principle; he builds on it; the next chapter is titled, “Living Favor-Minded.”
What Did Peter Mean?
Yes! It gets even better. If you live “favor-minded,” “God’s blessings are going to chase you down and overtake you” (41). How can anyone afford to pass this up? In this instance, you do not even need to seek God’s blessings; they come barreling out of nowhere to hunt you down. Osteen quotes again from a strange version of the Bible: “If you will hope to the end, divine favor will come” (52). The verse actually says: “Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:13).
It is hard to tell that these are the same two verses, but here is Osteen’s point based on the verse: “When you really understand that you have this favor available to you, living with confidence comes much more easily” (52). Uh, the favor (grace) described in 1 Peter 1:13 is received at the revelation of Jesus Christ (when He returns); it therefore has nothing to do with confident living now. All these examples of the way Osteen handles the Word of God reveal that he has practically no knowledge of the Scriptures, or if he does, he has no idea what they mean. He finds a word or a phrase and, whether he understands it or not (and he does not seem to care), he utilizes it as a major plank in his belief system.
“Develop a Healthy Self-Image”
Joel Osteen lacks respect for the Scriptures, as does anyone who searches for verses to sustain his theology rather than studying the Bible to see what it actually teaches. To be fair to the author, his book does have some positive value to it—but not so much that it could be recommended. Many people probably do look at themselves as failures and, for whatever reason, have a poor self-image. But since God made us, each and every one of us has value.
In making this point, however, he quotes from The Message, a really bad paraphrase of the Scriptures. Two blind men asked Jesus to be healed. He asked if they believed He could do so, and they answered “Yes, Lord.” He then touched their eyes and said, “According to your faith let it be to you” (Matt. 9:27-29). This is a literal and fine translation, but The Message renders the verse thus: “[Jesus] touched their eyes and said, “Become what you believe’” (76). In other words, you can be it if you believe it. Arrgh!
In “Developing a Prosperous Mindset,” Osteen frowns upon those who think they have risen about as high as they can in their job—especially when they resignedly say, “This is just my lot in life.” He recoils at that attitude: “That’s not true! Your ‘lot in life’ is to continually increase” (87). He assumes that it is God’s will for every person to succeed and be prosperous. He does not cite the verse in which Jesus told one very wealthy man to give it all away (Luke 18:18-23).
The author is correct when he says we can choose our own thoughts (102); he even cites correctly Philippians 4:8. But he is wrong when he affirms, “There is nothing negative about Him [God]” (105). God brings judgment upon both people and nations. He struck Nabal, who died (1 Sam. 25:38). He caused both the northern and southern kingdoms to go into captivity, and they might have considered that God was being negative with them. Likewise, those who are cast into the Lake of Fire might very well contemplate a negative future (Rev. 20:15). God wants people to succeed spiritually, but He brings judgment on those who reject Him, and no amount of positive thinking will change that fact.
Health, as Well as Prosperity
Just as with prosperity, Osteen thinks that God wants to heal everyone, also. Well, at least there is precedent for that. Jesus did heal people of their illnesses while He was on the earth; He did not make them all millionaires. But His healing of the physical infirmities was to demonstrate that He could help them with the spiritual problems. If everyone did what Osteen advises (127-29), no one would ever die. Is his case being overstated? He wrote these words:
If you are facing sickness today, you should confirm God’s Word concerning healing. Say something such as, “Father, I thank you that You promised me in Psalms that I will live and not die and I will declare the works of the Lord.” As you boldly declare it, you are confirming that truth in your own life (130).
Letting go of the past (painful events) is good advice, as is avoiding bitterness and allowing God to take care of justice. He also includes a helpful section on giving to others, although some of his suggestions lurch into the realm of the radical (244). Furthermore, he claims that happiness is a choice—another good principle (269).
Not only is his translation choice suspect, so are whatever commentaries he uses. He claims that Paul wrote “more than half of the New Testament while incarcerated” and that he was reportedly “standing in raw sewage that at times came all the way up to his waist” (276). Really? Scholars agree that Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon were written from prison, as was 2 Timothy. What are the others? And what Biblical evidence is there for Paul standing in raw sewage? Presenting positive principles is fine; we all can use some encouragement, but Christians ought to get these from the Bible—not Joel Osteen.
A new book is available for only $35, according to The Wall Street Journal of March 12-13, 2016. The title is The Invention of God, and it follows in a long line of “scholarly” works that show no respect for the Bible as the Word of God—but quotes it as though it is true when it is convenient to do so. The author of this new book claims, among other things, that YHWH had His origin in the 13th century B.C. “among Israel’s Edomite neighbors” (C6). Yes, according to this theory, Jehovah was just a local Canaanite deity that developed into the concept of a universal, all-powerful God. Really? Think of the implications of just this one statement. It would mean that:
- Genesis 1:1 is fraudulent, since God did not, as yet, exist;
- YHWH could not have instructed Moses to go down to Egypt to deliver Israel from Egyptian bondage;
- The Ten Commandments were composed by men rather than God;
- The Ten Plagues must have been The Ten Accidental Catastrophes;
- The Law of Moses was actually not the Law of God, which has been accepted as true for centuries;
- The true and Living God is a myth and there is therefore no objective morality or ethics.
Yes, all of these fundamental facts are wrong because one “scholar” did some research and has an alternate theory. But it gets even worse. According to the author (who probably would like to see his name in print), YHWH had a consort named Asherah, aka the “Queen of Heaven.” One wonders, sometimes, if “scholars” just try out the looniest thing imaginable to see how many gullible people they can sucker into their hypotheses. No one can subscribe to these fantastic views without rejecting the first five books of the Bible in their entirety, which would also invalidate the New Testament, which accepts what is written in the Old Testament as true.
Paul references Adam and Eve as the first man and woman (1 Tim. 2:11-14); Jesus bases the permanence of marriage between one man and one woman on God’s original design, which He instituted in the Garden of Eden (Matt. 19:3-9; Gen. 2:18-24). The end of the world is based on the universal Flood in Noah’s day (2 Peter 3:5-9; Gen. 6-9). Jesus is the One through whom all the nations of the earth shall be blessed (Gal. 3:8; Gen. 22:18). Much more could be cited, but the one thing it is important to understand is that Jesus and the apostles supplied evidence for what they said—namely miracles—which is the reason Christianity became accepted in the first century. And the author of this book offers…speculations. No thanks; we’ll stick with the truth.
