On August 17, 2014, Spiritual Perspectives published a review of a tract on the subject of Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, which dealt with the alleged “waiting game,” which is a misnomer relating to a Biblical teaching. A friend wrote to see what answer could be made to three arguments he offered against the position in that article. He did not defend the “waiting game” ideology, but rather questioned if the defense set forth did not bring with it certain problems. They are legitimate inquiries, deserving of answers.
Argument #1 – Two Exceptions?
The friend pointed out that we all agree that “Jesus presented one, and only one exception for divorce and remarriage.” He also agreed that it is important, in Matthew 19:9, to understand that Jesus was referring to the obtaining of a civil divorce and a civil remarriage. That is the reason that adultery is committed—because the original pair remain married, so far as God is concerned, and on that basis a new marriage, though the civil government recognizes it, nevertheless constitutes living in adultery.
So, we all agree that a civil divorce is not valid—unless one spouse committed adultery. The focus of attention now becomes the woman who was put away. The questioner claims, and he is correct, that the position set forth in the original article distinguishes between two types of women that are put away unscripturally by a civil divorce. That claim was made because it is undeniably true.
Dick has no legitimate reason to put Jane away; he is just tired of her and wants to move on. He files for divorce (or in some cultures just declares himself free). It should be obvious to all that Jane can have one of two responses. Either she agrees with the civil divorce because she is ready to move on, also, or she opposes the notion because she respects her wedding vows.
If the woman in the first category remarries, she is guilty of adultery, along with her new spouse because the basis of her divorce was not adultery on the part of her mate. The woman in the second category is a different matter. She was not in agreement with the civil divorce, does not have a new boyfriend waiting around, and actually is praying for a reconciliation with her husband. When he does marry someone else civilly, she actually has a Biblical reason for divorce and can put him away in God’s eyes. Why does Jesus not mention this alternative? It is presumed that if she had a Scriptural cause for divorce, all would know it and recognize it. Therefore Jesus is describing what happens if a wife is complicit in the unauthorized civil divorce.
The statement, then, might be made: “The result is that there are actually two exceptions to the entire scenario presented by the Lord. One exception has to do with the one doing the putting away [“except for fornication”], the second having to do with the one put away [“except she be the innocent part in the putting away”]. As per what was presented above, it is not a second exception; it reverts to the initial case of putting someone away for a Scriptural reason.
Besides, if Jesus intended to include the woman who agrees with a civil divorce and the woman who disagrees as well, then both the guilty and the innocent are included in the same category. All agree that the guilty (the one who agreed to a civil divorce without any fornication being committed) cannot marry again without committing adultery. But should the one who did not agree be equally condemned? If she fought the divorce at every opportunity and did everything within her power to get her mate to repent and reconsider, why is she put into the same category as the guilty? She cannot put him away before the civil divorce because she has no evidence of him committing fornication. But then she cannot Scripturally put him away after his adulterous civil marriage, either. Why not?
Argument #2 – Jesus referred to the Innocent
This is a continuation of the first argument. The questioner thinks that the position set forth in the previous article and reaffirmed here makes “the Lord actually say, ‘…he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery, except where she that is put away was innocent in the matter.’” Of course, that would be one way of expressing it—somewhat of a prejudicial way. And it overlooks two important facts. First, it seems to ignore that a civil divorce is not an actual divorce, as God regards it. God does not uphold civil law when it violates His law. For that reason, a civil divorce (without the Scriptural reason of fornication) is regarded as invalid. The only way a “divorced” couple can commit adultery against the original mate is if God does not count as valid what they did before the civil authorities. That “civil divorce” did not mean anything. The two are still married, and if the husband marries another, he becomes an adulterer.
Some civilly “put away” women would accept that court ruling and would find another man and marry him, which would be wrong and under the condemnation of Jesus. But the Lord did not deal with every possible scenario; nevertheless we can make right decisions with the principles that are set forth. And that brings us back to the woman who was “civilly” put away without her co-operation or participation. After her husband “marries” another and is living in adultery, where does that leave her? She cannot obtain a civil divorce; her husband already did. Yet her circumstance is that, while she has remained true to her wedding vows, her husband is living in adultery. Has she no recourse? She has a Scriptural reason for a Scriptural divorce, but some want to deny her that right! She is not a second exception. She falls under the category of a person who has the only legitimate reason for divorce—fornication on the part of her husband. But some brethren want to refuse her that right because her husband obtained an invalid civil divorce without her approval.
The one who posed the three questions also wrote: “Actually, the words of the Lord appear to suggest that ‘she that was put away’ was innocent in the matter, but she could still not remarry.” There are at least two different kinds of innocent: 1) One may be innocent of an action when it is initiated (the filing for divorce) but then go along with it, or 2) One may be innocent of the action taken and oppose it altogether. Jesus was surely speaking of the first category and not the one in the second category, trying to preserve her marriage.
Some may blithely say, “Oh, well, sometimes the innocent must suffer because of the actions of the guilty.” Those who utter such comments, however, are not usually the ones in those awkward positions. It is a fact that, because of free will, many innocent souls suffer (Rev. 6:9-10), but this situation is not comparable to those. Probably, the put away woman has already suffered much; but the question here involves determining marriage availability.
Argument #3:
The third argument has to do with avoiding generalizations. The questioner points out incidents where a person might fight against a divorce for reasons other than the Scriptural one. He phrased it this way.
Dick and Jane get married. After some years, Dick puts Jane away for an unscriptural reason. She was opposed to the divorce, not for any Biblical reason, but because it was not financially good for her. Perhaps she felt it best to keep the marriage for the children’s sake, or because she does not want to get kicked out of their huge house, or she might lose her luxury automobile, et al. The reasons are endless. The point is, she did not initiate the divorce, and may have actually opposed it.
“Does she qualify as an innocent party who has the right to remarry?” The question is good but problematic. Human beings are complex creatures whose motivations may involve several factors. In some instances it would be difficult to determine whether the main reason was financial or Scriptural. Some women choose to remain married even when everyone knows her hus-band is a philanderer, hoping that he will repent and change his ways at some future time. Others might remain faithful only for the children’s sake. We may never know an individual’s true motivation, but we can look at the facts. Did she commit fornication, as her husband did? No. Does she have a legitimate reason to put him away (since he civilly divorced and married another)? Yes. Sometimes, people do not even know their own motives until years later. We cannot operate on what cannot be known—but upon what can be known.
A Further Comment
One of the more thought-proving lines from the arguments that were made was the one that stated, in essence, the following. If the innocent “put away” wife can marry again, then there are two exceptions to divorce and remarriage—adultery and an innocent party being wronged civilly. This has already been answered previously by showing that it is not an exception but rather complies with the fornication principle.
This concept can also be turned around. If those who argue that the innocent, protesting mate cannot remarry, then a second exception exists that is also not stated in Matthew 19:9. A person commits adultery: 1) if he, without his mate having committed fornication, divorces and remarries, and 2) if she who has never committed adultery and tried to preserve her marriage puts away her husband Scripturally (though not in a civil court) and marries again. In either instance, there is a second category not explicitly stated. However, in the latter instance the woman has conformed to other Biblical principles; the man in the first category violates them. The three arguments made actually serve to strengthen the position taught in the original article.
The following report of a telephone conversation that occurred on Monday is not intended in any way to demean the woman who called. She was pleasant and not really argumentative; undoubtedly, she believes herself to be a sincere person, yet she would not consider the evidence of the Scriptures.
A married woman, who shall be called Melinda (not her real name) called with two Bible questions. First, however, she asked if I knew about a certain website. I did not, but a quick perusal of it showed that it belonged to the Mormons although they did not so identify themselves, preferring to use only Church of Christ and omitting “of the Latter-Day Saints.” Nothing she had read on that site pertained to us.
Melinda’s first question had to do with instruments of music and why we do not use them. I told her she would never understand us unless she understood Colossians 3:17: “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.” I explained that whatever we teach or practice in worship and service must be authorized by Jesus. She said, “Oh, I totally agree with that.” Then I asked, “Have you ever read in the New Testament where instruments of music were used by Jesus, the apostles, or any of the churches?”
She seemed to already know that fact, and without a moment’s hesitation she said, “But all churches do things the Bible doesn’t say. When I was younger, we were taught that women couldn’t wear pants, and that wasn’t in the Bible. All churches teach things that are not in the Bible.” I pointed out that the teaching about pants was not authorized. She had entirely abandoned Colossians 3:17 and her agreement with it—and did not even realize it.
When she brought up an idea concerning the use of instruments that seemed logical to her, I said that I was glad she had introduced logic because she had used the tu quoque fallacy, which is saying, “OK, this is bad” (using instruments of music), “but you’re just as bad” (teaching against women wearing pants). I called attention to the meaning of Colossians 3:17 again.
“But I love to sing with instruments. I feel closest to God during these moments.” I agreed that music can be very powerful and affect us emotionally but then added that the question is, “What does God want—not what do we want, or what makes us happy?” I cited Cain and Abel and the fact that God rejected Cain’s offering because it was what he wanted rather than what God commanded (Gen. 4).
She had no comment about that but immediately went to another point. “I have discovered that your church (as she referred to the church of Christ) used to be with the Christian Church, but you guys took out the instruments.” “No,” I answered. “In the 1800s, when many of these congregations originated in America, they did not use instruments. They were not removed; they were added. They were never part of the worship until some began using them in the latter part of the 19th century. And when they were introduced, it caused division among Christians. We have debated their use for over 100 years, and they have not presented one valid argument to justify its use. All they can say is, ‘We like it, and we’re going to use it.’”
All she could do was respond, “I just can’t think that God would condemn me to hell for using instruments of music—especially when they make me feel so close to Him.” My final comment on that subject was, “There are two ways to discover that He will condemn you: The first is through the Word” (applying properly Colossians 3:17); The second is through experience” (actually being lost); “I hope you find out the first way.”
The second question, which was discussed somewhere in the middle of the previous subject, concerned modern-day miracles. I pointed her to Mark 6:54-56 and asked why no one today did what Jesus did—walk into an area where sick people are (such as a local hospital) and walk out with all the patients cured. She immediately fell into the old dodge that sometimes people don’t have enough faith. I told her I knew of a lady who believed so much that she threw away her medicine and died two days later.
“I meant that the person doing the healing didn’t have enough faith.” “Really?” I responded. “Then why are they on television all the time talking about what they can do?” That discussion got nowhere; so finally I asked her, “Do you believe God is still revealing truth today?” “Oh, yes,” she answered. “Then you’re going to have to decide whether you believe that doctrine or you believe the Scriptures because 2 Peter 1:3 says that God has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness.”
“Well, sometimes people take verses out of context.” “It’s only the third verse of Peter’s letter,” I replied, “It would be pretty difficult to take it out of context.” Then I added, “Do you not see that you have the same problem as others? The Mormons claim to have more revelation from God. So does the pope. Pentecostals are always getting fresh revelations, and none of these agree with each other. Do you not sense that something is wrong? Trinitarian Pentecostals disagree with ‘Jesus only’ Pentecostals, yet they both claim to do miracles. Genuine miracles bore witness to the truth (John 20:30-31).”
What Melinda did not see is that she is not open-minded. Like so many people, she actually had her mind already made up before she telephoned to ask her questions. No amount of evidence would change her mind on those topics. She did not want to know what the Bible teaches. How many are like her—confident that their alleged sincerity will save them though they deny the truth?
In discussing the aftermath of the Restoration Sum-mit that took place August 7-9, 1984, one more occurrence is of interest. After I reported on the Joplin Unity meeting published in the Southside Mirror (October 20th and 27th, 1984), I wrote an open letter to Rubel Shelly and printed it the following week (November 4, 1984). I sent it to him, along with the two articles printed prior to this one (duplicated in Spiritual Perspectives, September 7 and 14, 2014).
This letter began with a summary of the various times our paths had crossed. Not only had several members from Southside in Peoria attended a gospel meeting where Shelly did some excellent preaching at a sister congregation, but I had heard him speak at the Freed-Hardeman lectures. I received the sermons he mailed out when he worked with the Getwell church and told him how much I enjoyed three of his books: Young People Make Moral Decisions, The Lamb and His Enemies, and Liberalism’s Threat to the Faith. I reminded him of what he wrote in chapter three of that book, in which he dealt with the ecumenical movement:
Among other things it says “spiritual fellowship depends on something more than an individual’s personal feelings toward men around him” and “…unity with one another that does not grow out of a unity with God is not a valid unity” (16:45).
Shelly was absolutely Biblical in these comments. The unity that prevailed after Pentecost was based on everyone continuing steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine (Acts 2:42). Those who are in fellowship with God must be in fellowship with one another. Those who are not in fellowship with God cannot be in fellowship with those who are. But Shelly had violated his own writings at Joplin. The fellowship that had been arrived at during those three days was not based at all on doctrine but solely on personal feelings. In fact, developing those feelings seems to have been the goal.
Next, I showed to Shelly what an outstanding job he had done in his debate against Dwayne (also spelled Duane and Dwaine, depending on the source) Dunning on the topic of instrumental music. I reminded Shelly:
You made some comments about that debate at Freed-Hardeman in 1977. But before we look at that, brother Shelly, it’s time to ask, “What has happened to you? Why have you changed? I knew of no one in the brotherhood your age who was more solid in the faith! What awesome power moved you from the truth we all thought you were grounded in? Only two years younger than you, I could identify with you and dare to become like you. That is the one desire I no longer experience.
In reporting on the Joplin Unity Meeting (I was there, also—uninvited, but asked to participate), you recently wrote, “It is simply incorrect to say (as I have!) that the use of instrumental music among them stems from a lack of respect for authority of Scripture. Their use of instruments and our non-usage of them relates to a hermeneutical method rather than a difference of view concerning sufficiency and authority of the Bible.”
You certainly have changed your tune. You used to explain the difference between the Christian church and the Lord’s church much more simply and understandably. Now you apologize for their confusion, but on page 312 of the 1977 Freed-Hardeman lectureship book, you told us how your 7-year-old daughter and your 3-year old son could easily understand the difference between sing and play in the “Simon Says” game. You wrote:
When the instruction was to sing, she never once went to the piano! Children can understand the authority principle in their games. Why can grown people not see it in relation to the Word of God?
Yet now you’ve apparently become one of the “grown people” who fails to understand, or at least you seem to be able to accept those who can’t understand—or won’t understand (16:45).
Before continuing with this article and the next point that concerns salvation itself, a further comment about instrumental music might prove helpful. Shelly was wrong to say that those in the Christian Church just have a different hermeneutical method than we do. To say it this way is to imply that we have different methods, but they are both valid. They are not. The Christian Church has a wrong hermeneutical method, which we have demonstrated to them over and over in debates; they simply refuse to accept it.
Colossians 3:17 makes it clear that we must have authority for whatever we teach and practice. Asking where something is condemned is the wrong approach; whatever we do must be authorized—by the New Testament, which is the covenant that Christians are under. Many immediately appeal to David and the use of musical instruments in the Old Testament. Those were authorized (2 Chron. 29:25). In the New Testament, however, no authority for their use in worship is provided. Furthermore, neither Jesus nor His disciples ever used them. God is interested in true worshippers, who worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:23-24). True worshippers are those who do only what is authorized. Adding a piano, an organ, stringed instruments, or percussion (including the clapping of hands) lacks authority and does not fit the category of true worship. Having dealt with Shelly’s new view on instrumental music, we examine his view on salvation.
Salvation
But it gets worse. I heard your group’s definition of, “Who is a Christian?” in Joplin, which was absolutely unbelievable! You know, when you first started to knock the “sectarian” spirit in the churches of Christ, I felt I knew what you meant, and I was with you. Never did I imagine that you were about to attempt to broaden the limits of fellowship beyond what the Bible authorizes.
I refer to your article, “Baptism: What Must One Know?” which appeared on April 22 of this year [1984, GWS] in your church bulletin, The Ashwood Leaves. You wrote:
One is a candidate for New Testament baptism if he knows (1) he is a sinner and lost, (2) Christ is the only Savior, and (3) Christ saves those who obey Him in sincere faith. One who knows this much of the will of God is in position to be instructed to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Do you realize that according to this definition that our brethren would include the Baptists, many Pentecostals, the Mormons, and Jehovahs’ Witnesses?! Brother Shelly, it is strange indeed for one who has learned so much from you, admired you, and is no doubt intellectually inferior to you to have to inform you that your position is wrong!
You used to quote John 8:31-32. We once had brethren who gave up the church for the charismatic movement. When asked how the Spirit of the Lord could dwell in those who were not baptized, they said that many Pentecostals were baptized. “Not for the forgiveness of sins,” I hastily pointed out. They replied, “If people are baptized to obey Jesus, that is sufficient.” Is that any different from what you’re saying? I cited John 8:31-32. All those who are saved must obey in response to the truth. The only alternative is to argue that people can be saved accidentally.
The Ethiopian eunuch understood the gospel message and how to obey it. Peter announced that baptism was “for the remission of sins.” Sure, the Bible teaches more about baptism, but how can anyone be saved from his sins without knowing why he is being baptized? Saul wasn’t told to arise and be baptized to obey Jesus—but to wash away his sins (Acts 22:16).
Let’s take a Baptist who is “saved” (the way Baptists teach it) in the month of February. In June he is immersed in order to obey Jesus, and in October he learns that one purpose (in fact, the major purpose) of baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. So, when is he saved?
- Before baptism?
- At baptism?
- When he understands what baptism is for?
Surely, you would not advocate alternative A. If you say B, then here is a person saved before he knows the truth (John 8:31-32; Rom. 6:17-18). If you choose C, you must conclude that either salvation is retroactive or that he is saved apart from baptism.
Instead of debating the spiritual state of such people, why don’t we just teach them the truth and ask them to be baptized for the right reason? That would remove all doubt and bring about true unity. Your current position will produce division.
Brother Shelly, we don’t want to desert you, but when you desert God and wander outside of the boundaries of truth, you give us no choice. We pray that you’ll be restored to the Word which you once knew and were proficient in defending (16:45).
- W. Summers
Response
Rubel Shelly did send a return letter. I searched in vain for a rationale for his changed positions; none could be found. In fact, just about everything was ignored. In fact, he accused me of having impure motives, hinting that having written the letter to him would score well among some brethren and would, perhaps, help me make a name for myself.
To be sure, I did share the information about the Joplin Unity Meeting with some brethren, and they were interested in it—but because of the subject matter, not because of me. In the fall of 1986 I entered graduate school and did not write many religious essays for another three years. Visits to various lectureships were limited during this time period. From 1989-1991, I taught at the junior college near Peoria, which is scarcely the way to make a name for oneself in the church. Shelly obviously misread my intentions in writing to him, or he simply wanted a way to deflect attention away from himself. What better way to defend yourself than by attacking the one who is calling you to account? Ahab accused Elijah of being the troubler of Israel when it was the idolatry and ungodliness of Ahab and Jezebel that was the real problem.
Shelly moved on to fellowship just about anyone who calls himself a Christian (thus violating his own earlier views that he had both written and spoken), but I am still where I was thirty years ago, advocating that a person can only be saved by knowing and obeying the truth (John 8:31-32). Must a person know that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, as Peter confessed (Matt. 16:16)? Yes. Unless anyone believes in God and Jesus as His Son, he cannot be saved. Those who only want to call Jesus a prophet or a great man have not believed the truth.
Does a person need to repent of sins in order to be saved? Yes, the hundreds and thousands who have been told to pray, “I am a sinner and I now receive you Jesus as Lord and Savior,” have not repented of their sins. Perhaps that is the reason that so many of them continue in sin. They have been deluded—and usually quite willingly so. How attractive salvation is—if I can be saved and continue sinning, also! This is the equivalent of having your cake and eating it, too.
For those who believe and have repented of their sins, confessing the name of Jesus is not especially difficult to do (unless it is in a Muslim environment). And that brings us again to baptism. Is a person saved before being baptized (as so many teach)? If so, then why be baptized at all, since the purpose of baptism is to wash away sins? Are there two ways to remove sins? Can one be saved merely by asking Jesus to be saved? If so, then baptism is superfluous, because no one can be saved-er than saved. Are some saved without baptism and some saved by baptism? If so, then there are two plans of salvation instead of one, and this idea violates what Paul wrote of in Ephesians 4:1-6.
If one’s sins are removed by simply asking Jesus for forgiveness, then that individual is already born again, and a living child of God is then buried with Christ (Rom. 6:3-5). But we do not bury one newly-born. We bury the dead—the dead in sin. After the blood of Christ washes away their sins (Rev. 1:5) in baptism, then they are born anew and arise to walk in newness of life. It is the one coming forth from the waters of baptism who is born again—not the one entering into them.
If one is saved by merely asking Jesus for salvation, then why didn’t Peter say that on Pentecost instead of, “Repent and be baptized”? And why did Peter later write that “baptism doth also now save us” (1 Peter 3:21)? The answer is easy: God gave only one way that anyone can be saved, and that is through immersion in water for the right reason—to obtain forgiveness of sins.
If someone wants to have fellowship with all of those who claim to be Christians, then both the purpose and the mode of baptism must be discarded. Ignoring the purpose of baptism would allow us to fellowship anyone who has been immersed (Baptists, Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, et al.) Ignoring the mode of baptism (immersion) would allow us to fellowship all who sprinkle and call it baptism (Catholic, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, et al.).
Do we care what the Bible teaches, or are we more interested in the approval of men? Most people definitely fit in this latter category. Political correctness demands that all men be saved—not only those who have never been baptized for the forgiveness of their sins—but those who do not even believe in Jesus as the Son of God. No one can say that Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, or any other group will be, lost. We will all be saved, don’t you know? Even the evil people in the world will not be punished much, if at all. Universalism is the destination of all those who reject the truth concerning salvation.
The Broader Response
The Joplin Meeting was successful. Prior to 1984, congregations of the Lord’s church did not add instruments of music (and had not since the split several decades earlier). But now they have—perhaps not as the direct result of Joplin but certainly as a result of the mindset that led to Joplin. Two congregations of some size within 50 miles of South Seminole have already added it, and it is expected that another one will soon.
Compromise on worship, salvation, or doctrine in one major point serves as an invitation to further departures. Consider all of the examples the past has to offer, beginning with Jesse B. Ferguson, a popular preacher in Nashville around 1850. According to Wikipedia, he “became convinced of the eventual salvation of all souls through divine grace, the doctrine of Universalism, and was active in the Universalist faith in his later years.” Carl Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett, and Rubel Shelly have all marched off in that direction. We must remain with the Scriptures and not follow such deceived men.
The Restoration Summit (as it was usually billed), held in Joplin, Missouri, on August 7th-9th, 1984, involved 50 members of the Independent Christian Church and 50 from the churches of Christ. It is ironic that almost from the beginning, several leaders backed away from the word summit, saying that it was a bit pretentious. Many referred to it as merely the Joplin Unity Meeting. The previous article (9-7-14) took us up to the last day of the meeting, in which several expressed unity, but none of it was based on anyone’s decision to give up the instrument nor to adopt it. The only discernible basis for unity was simply for both sides to continue doing what they had already been doing but have fellowship anyway. This concept is not Biblical and was not acceptable to some of our brethren who had been invited to participate. All quotes here are from the original article I wrote and published in the Southside Mirror on October 28, 1984 (16:44).
Rubel Shelly
It has already been reported that ten discussion groups had been established. In each one were five from the churches of Christ and five from the Independ-ent Christian Church. One of the ten members of each group had been appointed leader and undoubtedly had certain guidelines to follow. Rubel Shelly was one of the group leaders.
At one time, Rubel Shelly had been well known for his outstanding preaching and teaching in the churches of Christ. He appeared to be solid and right down the line on doctrinal, as well as moral, issues. His book, Young People Make Moral Decisions, remains an excellent study book on morality. In the early 1980s, questions emerged concerning what he had begun teaching, and he made an appearance at the Freed-Hardeman lectures, in which he assured everyone he had not changed—and that he still taught the same gospel that he always had. That was not true.
In 1984 (the same year as the Joplin meeting), he wrote, I Just want to be a Christian (re-published in 1986). Brethren who read the material knew he had changed. My review of that book can be found by typing in the title and the author on the Internet. About the third entry will be “Rubel Shelly’s Teaching on Fellowship: An Analysis of I Just Want to be a Christian.”
Not only did Shelly’s changing views show up in his book, they also showed up in Joplin. His group took it upon themselves the goal of trying to define what a Christian is. Below is what that group, under Shelly’s guidance, came up with for a definition.
A Christian is one who “accepts Christ by grace through faith, as expressed in repentance and baptism.” Is this your definition, reader? Have you noticed what is conspicuously absent? Nothing is said about baptism being for the forgive-ness of sins. Lest anyone think I’m being picky in insisting on “for the forgiveness of sins” being spelled out, please know that the secretary of Shelly’s group, after giving the “group’s” definition, somberly added, “That includes more than those who are in this room.”
Those in the room were members of the churches of Christ and the Independent Christian Church. Whom did he mean? The Disciples? Naw! Mormons? No, I rather suspect he meant Baptists, though he did not say it. One man from our group suggested we consider Baptists as brethren. Some even among us are suggesting that those who are baptized to follow the Biblical example instead of for the forgiveness of sins should be considered Christians. That is not true. One must obey the gospel and know his sins are being forgiven as he is baptized. No one can ignore truth and its relation to salvation; Jesus said it was essential (John 8:31-32). Baptism for just any reason cannot save anyone. It appears that Rubel Shelly is trying to open the doors of fellowship wider than God has authorized (16:44).
That assessment, made over thirty years ago, was accurate. Shelly was indeed attempting to broaden the borders of the kingdom. Before long he was fellowshipping as brethren those who were immersed for just any reason, as well as those who had not been at all. In fact, Shelly has “progressed” so far that he will fellowship just about anyone except faithful brethren. Looking back on what happened at Joplin, it was merely an invitation to compromise and to broaden the base of fellowship beyond Biblical borders. Some in the Independent Christian Church were already willing to accept various members of denominations as brethren, which showed that they have no true understanding of the distinctiveness of the Lord’s Church in the first place and that, in the second place, they think of themselves as a religious denomination.
We in the true churches of Christ do not, and never will, share the view that the existence of religious denominations is acceptable to our Lord Who prayed for unity of those who believe in Him (John 17:20-21). Furthermore, we cannot extend fellowship to those who have never been saved from their sins. Salvation is not determined by men but by God. If no repentance occurs (as is often the case with “Sinners’ Prayers”), no salvation exists. If a person is not baptized (immersed) in water in order to have his sins removed, he just got wet. Salvation can only come as the result of obeying the truth (John 8:31-32), and the truth is that one is buried in the water as a person laden with sins. While immersed, the blood of Jesus cleanses and washes those sins away (Acts 22:16; Rev. 1:5). When raised up, the individual has been washed, sanctified, and justified (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Sprinkling cannot accomplish that. Being baptized to join the Baptist Church does not accomplish that. Christians cannot fellowship those whom God has not cleansed.
The Case of the Disappearing Tract
It is not unusual for any lectureship or special event to have some religious materials of interest available for those in attendance. Several tables had various items. One brother had brought several hundred copies of a tract about a speech that H. Leo Boles had given at a unity meeting in 1939. He probably did not have permission from the organizers to display them, and when the tract was called to the attention of these men, they unceremoniously removed them. Probably, they were well within their rights to do so, but one cannot help but wonder, “What were they afraid of—the truth?”
Brother Boles had pointed out that unity could not exist while the instrument was being used. It is a simple principle to understand. We cannot conscientiously worship with the instrument. They say they can worship with or without it. No one needs to be a genius to figure out how to have unity under these conditions.
- Carl Ketcherside
Although most brethren have not heard his name today, in the past the majority of brethren probably did. He was among those who initially was more conservative than the Scriptures. He once taught, among other things, that a preacher could not stay in one location, and he based this on a false distinction between the words gospel and doctrine. He preached a very limited view of fellowship. Later, he flip-flopped entirely and became so liberal that he would fellowship just about anyone.
I heard him speak in the 1980s, and he attributed his change to a sort of mystical experience he had somewhere in Europe. However, he maintained his gospel / doctrine theology; he just changed the applications of it. Now he advocated that we must only be united on what pertains to the gospel, but on doctrinal matters we can disagree. Nowhere in the New Testament can such a dichotomy be found. Acts 2:42 by itself refutes the idea. Sometime on Wednesday a box containing manila envelopes appeared on one of the tables. No name was attached to it, but they were free.
Each packet (and I removed six of them) included four items. The largest was a book by Ketcherside titled “…That the world may believe…”: A Study of the Covenants. Also enclosed were two issues of Ketcherside’s Fellowship, which were magazines dated 1973 and 1974. The last item, surrounded by a red cover, was a copy of “The Lunenberg Letter,” in which a lady from that city in Virginia had asked Alexander Campbell some very pointed questions about the role of baptism in salvation (such as discussed above). He did not answer her directly and in fact went a long way around the barn to avoid answering. All of this originally appeared in the Millennial Harbinger of 1837 (16:44).
The three items by Ketcherside simply contained expressions of his false doctrine. The copy of the Lunenberg letter, however, was included in an effort to suggest that brethren not be so rigid when it comes to fellowship. Campbell took a loose view of baptism in the letter and suggested accepting those who were pious but not baptized properly over those who had been but were cantankerous brethren. However, the lady from Lunenberg was correct in what she wrote, and Campbell was wrong. Again, it was clear that someone had an agenda in setting out this propaganda. The original article continued with that thought.
What were these Ketcherside materials doing at the unity meeting? I could not imagine, for there can be no faster way to kill a unity meeting for most of us than to invite Carl Ketcherside to participate in it. Well, he wasn’t on the program, but who had brought his materials? I asked a few people; no one seemed to know anything about how they came to be there. This was indeed puzzling.
During the announcements Thursday morning, we were informed that College Press would be open for any of us to tour or browse through. With visions of book bargains dancing in my head, I hurried over after the final “Amen,” in hopes of finding several Restoration Reprints. After meeting several friendly people, including DeWelt’s wife, I got down to business (16:44).
Don DeWelt was the owner of College Press, located in Joplin, Missouri. They published new books, but they specialized in publishing books from some of the restorers in the 19th century that would have been unavailable otherwise. Some of these were by Abner Jones, Robert Milligan, J. B. Briney, and others. Some were historical narratives, and one covered five of Alexander Campbell’s debates. Whereas Alan Cloyd had been one of the organizers on “our” side, Don DeWelt had been one of the key men on “their” side. As friendly as the folks at College Press were, they had actually figured in the answer to the mystery.
While enjoying myself in this fashion, some men carried in boxes of materials. One box held manila envelopes. Surely it couldn’t be. “What are those?” I asked innocently.
“Some materials by Brother Ketcherside,” came the answer. My heart sank. “I have one, thanks.” To myself I added, “Actually I have six.” So! The Ketcherside propaganda had been supplied by College Press. Sigh. And for what purpose?
No matter how sincere are the people; no matter how noble the motives; no matter how the joys of fellowship are emphasized; no matter how much love is preached—the Bible still says there is but one faith. Unity can never be achieved at the expense of truth and doctrine (Eph. 4:5; Jude 3-4; 2 Tim. 3:8; Rom. 6:16; 16:17; 2 John 9-11) (16:44).
Aftermath
Except for one year when there were two, there has been an annual Restoration Forum every year since 1984. Many of the men invited to the Joplin meeting never attended another meeting, having discovered that no sincere effort toward unity was being made. One of those was my friend from Lincoln who had encouraged me to attend the meeting. He remained a faithful gospel preacher, as surely some others did, also.
Out of curiosity, when Restoration VII was held in Lincoln, Illinois, I attended a few sessions to see what had happened in the intervening years. Mostly, it was aimed at getting those who do not use instruments of music to compromise. It was surprising to note that Olan Hicks was present (although he was not scheduled to speak). He is mostly known for his errors on marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Sixteen years later, when I debated him on this subject, he confessed what many already knew—that he had no problem with using instruments of music in worship. However, it was a revelation to many of those present, and he lost whatever credibility he had with the audience on the basis of his stance on that issue.
According to an article from the Goshen Christian Church, whose minister is Kim Huffman, some additional things have occurred with respect to unity meetings. In an article called, “The Restoration Movement,” we find the following summary.
Efforts have been made to restore unity among the various branches of the Restoration Movement. In 1984 a “Restoration Summit” was held at the Ozark Christian College, with fifty representatives of both…the Christian churches and churches of Christ. Later meetings were open to all, and were known as “Restoration Forums.” Beginning in 1986 they have been held annually, generally in October or November, with the hosting venue alternating between the…Christian churches and churches of Christ. Topics discussed have included issues such as instrumental music, the nature of the church, and practical steps for promoting unity. Efforts have been made in the early 21st century to include representatives of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). These efforts followed the “Stone-Campbell Dialogue,” which was a series of meetings beginning in 1999 that included representatives of all three major U.S. branches of the Restoration Movement. The first full meeting in 1999 included six representatives from each of the three traditions. Meetings were held twice annually, and in 2001 were expanded to include anyone associated with the Restoration Movement who was interested in attending.
Remember how in 1984 the Independent Christian Church was eager to disassociate itself from the Disciples of Christ? Only fifteen years later, many wanted to include them in Restoration discussions. This is the way that Satan works: he gets people to depart one step at a time. When they are comfortable with one change, he then introduces the next step (and so on). The Disciples of Christ may have split off from the original idea of “restoration,” but that is exactly the point. They do not agree with the fundamental principles of respect for the Word of God; they deny its teachings at every turn. One of their men told me more than 40 years ago that he had read a very convincing paper that suggested that Joseph rose to power in Egypt because he was a homosexual—an idea that is as preposterous as it is blasphemous.
We have nothing in common with such thinking, and it is foolish to waste one’s time considering any kind of unity with them. The Bible still teaches baptism for the remission of sins and the concept of one church, along with the belief that truth exists and that we can know it. Either we stand with the Scriptures, or else we can believe and practice anything we want. It will not matter what—since anything else would be wrong. Brethren ought to remain firm and not seek unity with the devil.
For months the Joplin Unity Summit was advertised far and wide, and I was able to attend it on August 7th, 8th, and 9th, 1984—30 years ago. Many, especially newer Christians, have probably never heard of the event, and others may only have incidental knowledge of what occurred and why. These articles will review the mechanics of the meeting, the significance of it, and what has happened since. Throughout this article I will be quoting from my review written two months after attending it and published on October 21 and 28 in the Southside Mirror (Volume 16:43-44).
The Mechanics
One hundred men were invited to take part in the program. Fifty men from the Independent Christian Churches and fifty from the churches of Christ met to discuss unity (16:43).
At the time, I was working with a church in Peoria, Illinois, and knew a fellow preacher in nearby Lincoln. He had been invited to be one of 100 men to participate in the “summit.” The reason he had been selected is that he had formed a relationship with at least one individual at Lincoln Christian College, which served Independent Christian Churches. In fact, he had spoken there to students and had explained without compromise or apology what our rationale was for not using instruments of music in worship.
It was he who encouraged me to make arrangements to attend what was certain to be a historic event. It happened that Barb and I had close friends who lived in Joplin; so we took our vacation in order to visit with them and for me to attend the unity meeting. Tuesday afternoon, my friend and I stopped by the campus of what was then called Ozark Bible College and picked up a schedule of events. We both attended the opening lecture that evening. It was then that we learned something strange.
The entire three-day conference was not open to everyone, and we shortly discovered this fact. I had found my friend from Lincoln, and he asked if I would be attending the next day. We went to ask Alan Cloyd (the one from the churches of Christ who had organized the summit) if that was permissible, since it had been announced that three or four invitees had been unable to attend.
He refused, adding that the “study groups” were especially arranged. Anyone, however, was welcome to listen to the main speeches. The next day it became clear why “just anyone” was not allowed to participate when it was announced that each man had been picked on the basis of (among other things) his disposition and temperament. Two days later my group leader commented, “One rabble-rouser can ruin a whole conference.” (It is not my intention here to rouse any rabble; any rabble reading this article should stop at once.) (16:43).
So how did I get into one of the ten study groups? I had decided to come Wednesday morning to hear the two lectures. During the intervening discussion session I would just sit and read. While I was engaged in that very task, Ken Idleman, the president of Ozark Bible College, walked past and asked if I’d be interested in filling one of the vacancies in a study group. It took about one-tenth of a second to mull it over before giving him an affirmative response and hastily joining the group discussion which was already in progress. From that point on I was allowed to participate in every session (16:43).
How ironic that “our” guy adamantly refused to allow me to participate in the activities, but the President of the school, comprising students from the Independent Christian Churches, was thoroughly hospitable.
The Significance
Wednesday included a full day of speeches, discussions, and conversation between the two groups, ending with a speech by Reuel Lemmons, who received a standing ovation. This was quite puzzling because nothing he said seemed worthy of applause. (Of course, this is just an opinion.) All the day’s activities prompted me to sit down and try to evaluate the entire matter. There were many questions.
Why was this meeting being held? What was the motivation behind it? Who was the guiding force? What was to be gained by it? Was it a genuine attempt at unity? Or was it a sellout, an attempt to get us to compromise our principles? Was the Independent Christian Church willing to sacrifice the instrument for unity? Was a special mood being created by these discussions and if so, to what end? These questions and others had no answer at this time.
One thing was certain. Though love, unity, brotherhood, tolerance, and fellowship had been stressed repeatedly, absolutely nothing had been mentioned concerning false doctrine, false teachers, marking those who cause division, or withdrawing from those who go onward and abide not in the doctrine of Christ.
The point had been made that if we knew and understood one another better, we would appreciate and respect each other more. If we emphasized those many doctrines and tenets upon which we agree, there would be a more solid basis upon which to build unity. The problem with this approach is that when we split from each other originally, those conditions already existed. Brethren knew and understood each other and agreed on the bulk of New Testament doctrine. We separated regardless. No, knowl-edge of and love for each other cannot bring unity (16:63).
The Speeches
Some of the messages delivered were of interest (although Lemmons’ was not one of those), beginning with those given on the opening night.
On Tuesday evening Monroe Hawley gave an informative and accurate account of the history and current status of the churches of Christ. Boyce Mouton was supposed to have done likewise on behalf of the Independent Christian Churches. Although he presented a very entertaining and interesting lesson, he did not fulfill his assignment. On Thursday morning Lynn Gardner, Dean of Ozark Bible College, took some time to inform us on the matter. He was careful to show that their beliefs are totally opposite of those held by the Disciples of Christ on crucial issues. Whereas the conservative Christian churches hold to the same views we do on God, Christ, the Bible, man, and the church, the Disciples do not (16:43).
For those who may not be fully aware of history over the past 150 years, the division over the introduction of instrumental music began in earnest after the Civil War. By 1906, the division was official, but most of the damage had already been done. The churches of Christ continued without using instruments of music, and those who split off called themselves the Christian Church, although some did not change their name. Beginning around 1920 and continuing to the 1950s, an even more liberal element began to develop, culminating in another religious group, calling themselves the Disciples of Christ. Most of them went with the new name, but some continued to call themselves the Christian Church. At the “unity meeting” those of Ozark Bible College wanted to be certain that no one mistook them for the very liberal Disciples of Christ.
On Wednesday morning was a topic that promised to get at the root of the division: “Exegesis and Hermeneutics as They Relate to the Unity Question.” Exegesis refers to the proper means of getting out of the Scriptures only what they say. Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting the Scriptures properly. Since two different views over the use of instrumental music exist, it would have been interesting to have heard both rationales. The presentation for “our” side went well, but the speech for the opposing view failed in its purpose.
Fred Thompson (not the actor) “said half a dozen things that were either confusing or questionable, so much so that others from the Christian Church shook their heads and declared that his views did not represent the majority of them” (16:43). After lunch “Hardeman Nichols delivered an outstanding speech on Bible authority.” He not only covered his own topic well but refuted every error made by Thompson in his speech before lunch. His presentation was both eloquent and pertinent; it was easily the highlight of the day.
The final speech of the afternoon by W. F. Lown was a bit on the surprising side since he took issue with two of the restoration pleas that most of us have always thought were Biblical. One of his recommendations was to change,
“Where the Bible speaks, we speak;
and where the Bible is silent, we are silent,”
to, “Where the Bible speaks, we ought to be silent;
And where the Bible is silent, we have liberty to speak.”
Anyone looking at those statements long enough will likely become very confused. Here is the intent of them. In the first one, we show respect for Bible authority. If the Bible teaches it, we teach it. Of course, many religious groups ignore a great portion of what the Bible says. Whereas the Bible condemns sin, for example, they do not. Even though God has defined a particular action as a sin, they say nothing. The same could be said of doctrinal matters. Like Paul, our goal ought to be “to declare the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). We do not teach any doctrine on our own authority. Whatever we do or teach must come from God (Col. 3:17). The second part of the first quotation likewise respects the silence of the Scriptures. If God did not teach it, we must be silent about teaching it, also.
What did Lown mean by reversing the two sayings? By the first part of it, he surely did not mean that we should not teach what the Bible does. He may have meant that we should not add to or take away anything from what the Scriptures have in them, which would be correct and in harmony with Biblical principles on this subject (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18-19). One might well ask, however, “Why did he invert the two sayings? Does it clarify our thinking or merely confuse us?” We need clarity, not cleverness.
The second part of the switched-up statement is even more confusing. We suppose that what he was getting at was, “If the Bible does not teach on a particular issue, then we are at liberty to have an opinion concerning it.” All right, we might have an opinion, but we do not have the right to practice it without a, “Thus saith the Lord.” How this principle might be applied would be: “The Bible does not say, ‘Do not use instruments of music in worship’; therefore, my opinion is that it can be done.” Again, this opinion cannot authorize doing what the Bible does not teach.
This is the approach usually used by those defending the use of instruments of music. “The Bible doesn’t say not to use them.” No, it does not—any more than it says, “Don’t use incense in worship,” “Don’t genuflect,” “Don’t use pizza and Mountain Dew for the Lord’s Supper,” and, “Don’t dance in a Mosh Pit in worship to God.” All those things have been done. What is wrong with any of them? The Bible does not say, “Don’t do them.” But where does the Bible authorize them to be done? The Bible must teach that something is to be done before we can safely do it. More specifically, since we are under the New Testament, our authority must come from Jesus, His apostles, or His prophets. Lown was trying to be clever, but we cannot accept his new principle.
Another saying that brethren have long used is: “In matters of faith unity; in matters of opinion liberty; in all things charity.” He wanted to change that one to: ‘In all things love” (which is identical); “in essentials unity; and in non-essentials longsuffering.” What is the purpose for the change? It is not as poetic as the first one, and it muddies the water. Who gets to decide what is essential and non-essential? This approach may open the door to even more problems than what we currently have. If something is part of the faith, it is essential; if it is not part of the faith taught in the Scriptures, it is not essential. Having the authority of God for what we teach and what we practice is the Biblical position (Col. 3:17).
The Final Day
What had all these lectures and group meetings been leading up to? No principles had been enumerated that were acceptable to all present. True, there had been a spirit of good will, but could that by itself lead to unity? No one had a speech to make the final day. Instead, each of the ten discussion groups gave summaries of what they had accomplished. They presented suggestions that might lead to a greater unity between the two groups present. The program closed on a tearful note as two family members from the two different groups present prayed for unity and affirmed their love for each other. “Many who were present were moved deeply” (16:44); I was not.
The reason I lacked sympathy was not because certain things do not move me and arouse my emotions; the reason involved the fact that nothing had changed, and yet one would have thought that everyone had just seen The Passion of the Christ. Had anyone from “our” side admitted that our hermeneutics was all wrong? No. Had anyone from the other side admitted that the use of instruments of music were wrong and repented of their use? Such an idea had not even been whispered.
Then what was everyone so emotional about? The only thing that had occurred in those three days was that men from both sides had gotten to know each other better. However, the fact that I had gotten to know them personally did not change our relationship Scripturally. They were going to continue to use instruments of music in worship, and we were still going to insist that no New Testament authority for their use could be found. Where is the basis for unity in that? I was feeling so un-unified that I did not pose for the group picture.
When all is said and done, it still amounts to a few limited choices.
1) They give up the instrument, which is not authorized by the Scriptures.
2) We give up our objections to the instrument and at the same time all else that God has not authorized.
3) We agree to disagree—to have fellowship on occasion, to work together on some things, to exchange pulpits, articles, etc. There are two things (at least) wrong with this approach.
- a) It is tantamount to saying that more than one, indeed conflicting, views of reality exist. Such is false. If they could be, denominationalism might have a leg to stand on. And in fact, this view tends toward the acceptance of denominationalism.
- b) This course (if pursued) would eventually result in either total division again in the future or (which is more likely) a gradual compromise in which churches of Christ eventually accept the instrument. May it never be! (16:44).
Two weeks ago the Orlando Sentinel must have burst somebody’s bubble with the data they reported. Even though it is only at the bottom of page B4, the headline of the news blurb reads: “Sexually Transmitted Diseases Rise in State.” This August 17, 2014 article reports that “infectious cases of syphilis have more than doubled during the past decade—and more than tripled in Hillsborough County….” This county includes Tampa. Cases of chlamydia have almost doubled throughout the state in the past ten years and more than doubled in the Tampa area. Instances of reported gonorrhea have risen more slowly and mostly in Hillsborough County.
This is disturbing news because these types of diseases are not supposed to exist. When was the last time a television show or movie featured a romance with any of these problems? A man and a woman meet: she’s “hot,” and he’s “cool,” and pretty soon they are committing fornication or adultery, but they never end up with such diseases—not even when they are promiscuous. Why, everyone knows that sex is for recreation, and there are rarely any bad side effects. Okay, occasionally an unexpected pregnancy occurs, but no one is supposed to end up with health problems.
Or so people are persuaded to believe. Perhaps a high school girl is dating a guy who convinces her to be intimate with him. He will tell her he loves her and that she should prove her love to him. As in the song, “C’Mon, Eileen” (1983), he tells her: “At this moment, you mean everything.” The key phrase is at this moment. Who knows when all of those positive feelings may turn to negative ones, as was the case with Amnon’s treatment of Tamar? The Shirelles (the first all-female group to have a #1 single) asked the musical question back in 1961: “Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?” And the answer is frequently, “Probably not.” And how sure is she that the guy has not been with other women or even a prostitute?
Is it possible that a person contemplating one sin might be guilty of another—that is, lying? Fornication is a sin—something to flee from (1 Cor. 6:18). Anyone who is willing to violate God’s law in this regard would probably have no qualms about being less than truthful about other relationships. Why do men and women also assume that they are so attractive that a potential “lover” is only interested in them (and no one else)?
The same is true with adultery. If a married man is willing to have a “relationship” with one woman who is not his wife, how can she be sure he is not also seeing other women or will after a time be with someone other than her? If a man cheats on his wife with a single woman and even goes so far as to divorce his wife to marry her, what guarantee does she have he will not cheat on her, also? The answer may be rooted in ego: “That was her, but this is me.” Truly, pride goes before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.
The news article affirmed that “most sexually transmitted diseases are fairly easily preventable.” This is so true—by abstaining from illicit relationships. Abstinence works every time it is tried. Single men and women who practice 1 Corinthians 6:18-20 do not have to worry about being lied to or making unscheduled trips to the doctor. Those who refrain from having extra-marital affairs likewise remain safe (if their mate shares the same philosophy).
In the fantasy world that Hollywood constructs, the young unmarried couple is always in love. The pair married to others should have really been with each other because they are “soul-mates.” Ah, nothing is so exhilarating as being in love again. Maybe that’s the reason that some have one affair after another. No matter how sordid, however, Hollywood can make it seem wonderful and necessary. With a fantasy, everything can work out beautifully—even if struggles must be overcome. In real life, people cope with diseases.
“For everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven: a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace” (Ecc. 3:1-8 – ASV).
The subject of time has been written about, sung about, but mostly ignored. Preachers have been lauded as not keeping up with time as they speak long past the congregation’s established “quitting” time. The one thing everyone should agree on is that we have all been given the same number of seconds, minutes, and hours in each day. Like our souls, which God has placed into our care, time is something that every one of us must manage carefully. There was a period in our society when manners were as valued as gold or silver, and they spoke volumes concerning the type of person one was. However today, manners seem to be a thing of the past—allotted to an antiquated society that was never as enlightened as we have supposedly become.
People in many societies seem to care nothing of excusing themselves when bumping into another person, or belching in public, let alone the foul language that seems to have become the norm for men, women, and children. But possibly one of the most ill-man-nered attitudes of people today, and most particularly among Christians, is a total lack of time management!
Punctuality is that quality in a person that causes him to be prompt, able to keep an appointment, or doing things at the precise or exact time. In other words, he is dependable. Brethren will use the excuse that they just don’t seem to have enough hours in the day as they rush to Bible class or worship services. More times than not, brethren are found interrupting a Bible class or the worship services because of their lack of promptness. Yet these same individuals wouldn’t think of being late to get the best seats at a sporting event, concert, or movie.
Paul told the Colossians, “Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time” (Col. 4:5). If someone is always late to Bible class and/or wor-ship, then it is most likely that they are just as late to their jobs or other secular appointments. How is it possible for us to make a difference in the world when we are not being an example to those outside the church? Paul said to the brethren at Colosse as well as Ephesus that our Christian walk is to be one that is according to wisdom, careful, and not as the unwise (Col. 4:5; Eph. 5:15-16). A lack of punctuality is really an attitude of habit, and as such it becomes a vice and not a virtue.
How often do we fail to realize the various things God has given us to be stewards over? Each of those things can become either a blessing or a curse towards our hope of eternal life. Mismanagement of God’s time causes us to violate more commands than we can shake a stick at! We do not have the “time” to make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:18-20) We do not have the “time” to visit someone in the hospital or at home (Matt. 25:41-45). We do not have the “time” to speak to someone who is erring (James 5:19-20). We do not have the “time” to be given to hospitality (Rom. 12:13). Older women do not have the “time” to teach the younger women (Titus 2:3-4). Men do not take the “time” to study the Scriptures and work toward becoming qualified elders (1 Tim. 3:1). On and on the list could go.
No Christian should ever be so careless and disre-spectful as to constantly be late in assembling with the saints. It shows a lack of love and respect for the one (teacher, preacher, et al.) who has given his or her time in preparing class material. It shows a lack of love for brethren in the class or assembly who are disturbed by all the commotion that is made in getting seated.
What about Bible class teachers who are never in their classes on time? Their example teaches others that “time” is of no consequence. It is something we are free to use or discard as we please. Bible class teachers should always be in their classes at least ten minutes before their students arrive, especially if visitors should come. Not being punctual shows that one is not thinking of others above themselves (Phil. 2:3-4). It demonstrates that they seek their own needs and not those of Christ (Phil. 2:21).
Punctuality can be a vice or a virtue, but all Christians should diligently strive to add it to their faith as a virtue that the brethren and the world looks up to. Please, let’s watch our (God’s) time.
[Editor’s Note: We want to thank Mike, whom we support in Pierre, South Dakota, for writing this article. I remember one congregation where brethren arrived from 2 to 30 minutes late—for worship (they did not bother with Bible study)! Two weeks ago, everyone’s arrival was checked here. More than one-third of us were late. One question worth thinking about is from a verse in Malachi in the context of giving: “Will a man rob God?” (Mal. 3:8). Yes, His people were robbing Him in terms of tithes and offerings. Is it possible to do the same thing with time?
NIGHTMARE SITUATIONS
Gary W. Summers
Despite it being a sin that Christians should flee from, many unfortunately do end up having romantic fantasies and involvement of which they are later ashamed. One can understand (but not approve) how both men and women might allow themselves to be deceived by Satan into committing fornication, but the other perversions of sexuality that are reported from time to time have no justification at all. Consider two of the stories that appeared in the July 16, 2014 Orlando Sentinel.
One of these involved a fifth-grade teacher in the Daytona Beach area who had once been a “youth pastor.” They found more than 8,700 images in one of his computer folders and six videos containing pornographic materials involving young boys (B3). How a person could be so perverted is unfathomable.
Another news item on the same page as the preceding one involved “Pastor Pete” who founded a shelter for homeless women in a community within an hour of Orlando. He called it “Our House of Refuge Ministries, Inc.,” but he forced women to have sex with him in the facility. He was married and also had children (B3).
How do people get to be so perverted? What is in their thoughts that they depart so far from what is normal? Pornography would be an encouragement. In many of those materials, women are portrayed as always desiring sexual partners; so therefore rape does not exist. It does, however, in actuality, and it combines immorality with violence, both of which violate the Word of God. If God judges those who commit fornication (Heb.13:4), what will He do with those who coerce others by force to join in sin?
On August 17, the Orlando Sentinel published an article on campus rape. No one has been convicted on a Florida campus of this crime in a few years. Most of these situations, they say, involve alcohol, and most of the men say that the act was consensual (A1, A9). Un-fortunately, compelling proof is difficult to come by. Of course, God knows what occurred and will recompense accordingly.
Some women have been a discredit to their gender first of all by supporting the myths that some men choose to believe. They pose for lurid photographs or display themselves in videos as always-compliant objects of lust. But beyond the fiction of “Desperate Housewives,” some women have been guilty of and convicted of seducing male teens.
Our current society could use massive doses of purity and holiness. Too many have given themselves over to the lust of the flesh. The best cure is to ignore pornography—even that which is called “soft.” God created intimacy for marriage—not before it or outside of it. Paul provides the best solution in Philippians 4:8.
ANOTHER NEW RELIGION: TERASEM
Gary W. Summers
When Mitt Romney was running for President in 2012, the fact that he was a Mormon bothered some people—possibly enough not to vote for him. Cause for concern is not unfounded for those who know the fraud-ulent basis for that religion. They also claim to have new revelation from God on a continuous basis—which flatly contradicts 2 Peter 1:3 and Jude 3. His religion was not really a campaign issue, but it might have cost him some votes.
However, there is a political race going on in District 8 (which includes Brevard and Eastern Orange County) that was unique enough to merit being newsworthy by the Orlando Sentinel. We will leave out the last names and the party affiliation of the candidate because it is irrelevant. But one of the candidates is the son of a man who began his own religion—and had a sex-change operation. As Lonesome George might have said, “You just can’t hardly find candidates like them no more.”
The name of this religion is Terasem Faith. According to the candidate, in the article published on August 19, 2014, he is Jewish and claims that Terasem “is a ‘spiritual rider’ to traditional religion” (B1). “He stresses down-to-Earth beliefs and values.” Really? So what happens if you go to the Terasem Faith website? You find out that they have four core beliefs.
- Life is purposeful.
2. Death is optional.
3. God is technological.
4. Love is essential.
The first tenet seems correct, depending on the way someone might explain it. It could be Calvinistic, but it could also just be calling attention to the fact that God created us in His own image and that our purpose is to glorify Him in the best way we can. Likewise with the fourth one, God is love, and love is essential (Matt. 22: 37-40; 1 John 2:9-11; 3:15; 4:7-8, 20). Of course, agreement with this statement might depend on what the author of it means by the word love. But, at least on the surface, we can agree with the first and the last principles.
The second one is a surprise, to state the obvious. It is reminiscent of Mary Baker Eddy, who taught, “Death is an illusion.” She has since learned that it is the separation of the spirit from the body (James 2:26), a fact well in evidence during her lifetime. Thus far, in the history of the world, only two men have not died as all others have—Enoch and Elijah. They did, however, depart from this Earth. One has died but been resurrected. He ascended to the heavens in a cloud and is sitting at the right hand of the throne of God. Those who believe in, obey, and are faithful to Him shall join Him in the future. All are subject to death until that day He returns; then they shall rise to join Him in the air. At that point there shall be no more death for the righteous. The ungodly suffer eternal spiritual death.
he is an active member in the church. And until he filed to run for Congress last year, he was an administrator managing the church’s real estate.
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them (Rom. 16:17).
This oft-quoted verse was challenged a few days ago in a conversation this writer had with a preacher in the area who will be hosting a man who is well known for teaching a particular error. He said that Paul meant for these words to be applied only for members within the congregation at Rome. He made this claim in the context of all churches being autonomous (and there-fore no one had the right to question their choice of the man they had invited to speak). When asked if Paul would say nothing, then, if Hymenaeus and Philetus had been invited to speak to a congregation with which he was familiar, he immediately changed the subject. Apparently, he knew he was wrong but did not want to admit it. But what about Romans 16:17? What did Paul mean, and how should the verse be applied?
Definitions
Like many Greek words, the word skopeo has more than one meaning. According to Strong (#4868), it means: 1) “to look at, observe, contemplate”; 2) “to mark”; 3) “to fix one’s eyes upon, direct one’s attention to anyone”; 4) “to look to, take heed to thyself.” As it pertains to Romans 16:17, various translations use the following renderings.
NKJ – “note” KJV – “mark”
ASV – “mark” NAS – “keep your eye on”
ESV – “watch out for”
The noun form of the word skopos (#4869) is found only once in the New Testament—in Philippians 3:14, where Paul says: “I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” All but the KJV use “goal.”
It is interesting that we get the English word scope from the Greek word, and in its general sense, it refers to “something aimed at,” “purpose.” In other words, then, Paul is advising brethren to mark, to note, to keep their eye on, to watch out for, to focus their attention on a certain type of individual, and he offers a description of that person.
First, he is one who causes division. The other two times this word is found in the New Testament it is translated “divisions” (1 Cor. 3:3) and “dissensions” (Gal. 5:20). On the latter occasion, Paul includes it as one of many works of the flesh. The former instance referred to the division that existed in Corinth, for which Paul sternly rebuked those brethren. The root word stasis (#4714) can refer to dissension, sedition, and rebellion, as in the case of Barabbas (Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19, 25).
Second, he causes offenses, from the Greek word skandalon (#4625), from which the English word scandal is derived. The use of this word today has degenerated from the original meaning. People wrinkle up their noses and are offended by a whole host of insignificant things, but the Greek word often states what is an offense to God. So serious are these sins that the word is sometimes rendered “stumbling block” (Rom. 11:9; 1 Cor. 1:23, 1 John 2:10; Rev. 2:14).
These divisions and offenses are contrary to the doctrine which brethren had been taught and consequently learned. The apostles’ doctrine began to be taught and is emphasized when the church was established (Acts 2:42). Anything that contradicts New Testament teaching is contrary to that teaching—and therefore contrary to the truth. What society in general and some brethren in particular do not seem to realize is that truth is not the same as error, sound doctrine is not equal to false doctrine, and healthy food is far better than junk food.
The last question concerning definitions is, “What does the word avoid mean? It is only used three times in the New Testament—here and in Romans 3:12 and 1 Peter 3:11. The former of these other texts is translated: “They have all gone out of the way.” It refers to man going away from God, choosing unrighteousness. Man has avoided the good and chosen the evil. The latter passage the KJV translates as: “Let him eschew evil,” whereas the NKJ says, “Let him turn away from evil and do good.” The avoidance in that instance is an affirmation of goodness and a turning away from evil. A choice must be made as to what or who we are going to fellowship. Those who have taught error and refused to repent of it ought not to be fellowshipped.
The Perspective of Commentaries
A brief look at several sources on Romans 16:17 might prove helpful.
The Pulpit Commentary: “The allusion seems to be, not to persons within the Church, but rather outsiders, who come with new notions to disturb its peace” (18: 3:456).
Tyndale: “…the admonition in this paragraph has points of affinity of the Ephesian church in Acts xx. 28ff” (Romans 276).
Barnes: “Probably he refers here to Jewish teachers, or those who insisted strenuously on the observance of the rites of Moses…” (Acts/Romans 2: 329). “Give them no countenance of approbation” (2:330).
Clarke: “let them have no kiss of charity nor peace…. Give them no countenance, and have no religious fellowship with them” (6:164).
Henry: “If truth be once deserted, unity and peace will not last long. Now, mark those that thus cause divisions. There is need of a piercing watchful eye to discern the danger we are in from such people…. A danger discovered is half prevented.” “Shun all unnecessary communion and communications with them, lest you be leavened and infected by them” (1799).
These are what some well-known denominational commentators had to say on the subject. Now let us look at what some brethren have written.
Gospel Advocate Commentaries: “No greater evil, according to the Scriptures, could befall the churches than the divisions arising from the introduction of teaching and practices not required by God” (276).
Roy Deaver: “If they are not brethren, they must be made known, be clearly identified, and their doctrines specified. They must be avoided. If they are brethren, these instructions demand a withdrawal of fellowship. The disorderly must be dealt with. Trying to ignore sin increases sin” (615).
Tom Wacaster (2005): “Are we turning away when we invite them into our midst, or when we attend their workshops and lectures?” (647).
Brad Price: “In a day and time when doctrine is often pushed aside for entertainment, “feel good preaching,” and “just Jesus,” this is a very helpful text. God has doctrine (teaching) that is to be taught, learned by those who do not know it, and obeyed by all” (345).
Dub McClish (Studies in Romans): “There was never a more devilish philosophy than that which teaches that spiritual Truth is unimportant or nonexistent and that doctrinal purity is inconsequential” (311). “False doctrine does not exist independently of false teachers. Therefore, the originators and propagators of the divisive doctrines must be dealt with” (312).
Within or Without?
Do all the comments made thus far sound like Paul is warning in Romans 16:17 against those in the congregation or those who might visit it from outside? Since Acts 20:28 was mentioned by one commentator as being a similar situation, why not take a look at it? Paul desired greatly to meet with the elders of Ephesus before he completed his journey to Jerusalem. He was in a hurry to be in Jerusalem by Pentecost (v. 16). The elders came to him and, among other things, he told them:
“Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He has purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock” (Acts 20:28-29).
If we learn nothing else from these verses, we learn that one of the jobs of shepherds (pastors, bishops) is to protect the flock. He knew that wolves would come into their midst after he left. It would not be unreasonable that, when Paul wrote Romans, he was, in fact, thinking of the Judaizing teachers that caused such havoc in Jerusalem and among the churches of Galatia, and he perceived that many of them would make their way to Rome, also. False teachers tend to be evangelistic in spreading their doctrine around. Not only was it true in the first century, it is the case today. A number of them have written books, which fortunately have been reviewed in Profiles in Apostasy #1 and #2. Many of those who have published their false doctrines are invited to host workshops all over the brotherhood (as brother Wacaster lamented above).
That Paul was speaking of such men is easy to be seen because in the next verse (Acts 20:30) he said that some of their own men would speak perverse things. Sometimes the error comes from without; sometimes it is from within. In either case, the church must not fellowship them if they refuse to repent.
Church Autonomy
Should one church try to tell another congregation what to do? Of course not. Each eldership is only over its own people; they have but one flock to shepherd and cannot send a list of requirements or standards that other churches must conform to. However, all Scriptures must be taken into consideration. The first thing each congregation can do is to guard and protect itself, as Romans 16:17 and Acts 20:28-30 indicate. 2 John 9-11 also shares this perspective:
Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.
Does anyone think such a person should be invited to speak, host a workshop, or conduct a gospel meeting? All brethren ought to agree on such matters (but obviously do not). But the next question is, “What about when members of churches in a particular area are invited to attend a spiritual event at another congregation? Are all principles taught in the Scriptures to be tossed aside in the name of autonomy? Do the shepherds still not have the same responsibility to shepherd the flock and guard it from wolves?
It is right and good that brethren have fellowship with one another. Paul wrote to the Romans in the verse adjacent to the one under consideration: “Greet one another with a holy kiss. The churches of Christ greet you” (Rom. 16:16). Yes, fellowship is enjoyable and encouraging, but what happens when a sister congregation brings in a wolf? Shall we send the sheep over with their own sheering implements? Obviously we ought to warn them instead.
Did the congregation who invited a false teacher know that he was a wolf? We might assume the worst and think, “Yeah, they’re just apostate,” which could be the case. But if they have generally been noted for soundness, it might be that they are simply not well-informed. Is providing information a threat to their autonomy? Surely not!
Suppose that some brethren knew that a man held to a false teaching on marriage and divorce. He would not encourage anyone to do so, but he is on record as having said that a Christian can divorce and remarry as many times as he wants to for just any reason. He asserts that he is following the Bible, and he has some scheme by which he has re-defined both marriage and divorce. It may be that the elders were somewhat careless in inviting him to host a workshop. It may be that one of the members recommended him and assured the leadership that he would do a fantastic job. At least one congregation in the area receives an invitation to attend, and the leaders are appalled. They have known about this fellow for years.
Should they be silent because of congregational autonomy, or should they contact that eldership and provide information for them? If they did meet with them and provide information, would they be trying to tell them what to do? Or would they be showing loving concern for them?
Or turn it around. Suppose you are the one who has invited an old friend to come host a gospel meeting. Unexpectedly, because you know the man so well, you get a phone call from someone who has information about him. Maybe that person says that your guest speaker is now preaching for a denomination. “That’s crazy!” you respond. “Why, I’ve known him for years.” Or maybe someone tells you the unfortunate news that your guy has been accused of molesting children or has had an affair and left his wife. One might imagine a number of situations that are unsavory. The question is, “What are you going to do?”
Are you going to dismiss the informant with a wave of the hand and refuse to consider the evidence he said he had? Does that seem wise? How embarrassing might such an approach prove to be in the future? Such has already occurred in a number of instances, although one situation was the reverse of this scenario. A speaker was warned about going to a congregation with liberal practices. Information contained in a packet was mailed to him. He left it unopened on his desk (see no evil?) and fellowshipped the liberal church.
Do people appreciate warnings that a hurricane is headed their way? Do they appreciate it when they are told they must boil their drinking water for a 48-hour period? Then why do so many resist warnings about false teachers? Perhaps the reason is what Dub McClish wrote in his comments on Romans 16:16:
Quite pitifully some (including many elders) are so ignorant of the Truth they are incapable of recognizing error when they hear or see it. (312).
Many have such a lack of knowledge that they do not recognize errors regarding the Holy Spirit when they are apprised of it. They will gladly hear convoluted explanations that defy both logic and plain passages of Scripture and marvel at what a “genius” they have heard. Some confuse being left in a state of bewilderment with awe; the two are not the same.
We enjoy fellowship with other churches, and we would like for that to continue, but we cannot fellowship one who has taught error publicly and refused to repent of it. Furthermore, we wonder why brethren continue to use such men. What other conclusion can we draw when they refuse to consider warnings that include abundant evidence?
Unity, peace, and fellowship are indeed concepts enjoined upon all Christians, and most brethren probably possess a natural desire to have those things, but we must also take into account the warnings God gave us in His Word. They exist for a reason.
Recently, a tract on the subject of Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage came into my possession with a request for comments to be given. It was written by Brother Ken Butterworth from Oxford, Alabama, whom I do not recall having met. Despite some truths that are taught in it, it was disjointed, repetitive, and demeaning to anyone who holds a contrary view. The author is not shy about setting forth his own view but does not seriously consider any alternatives in his 19 pages of text.
It begins with a letter written to the son of a mother who is a member of the church. He was about to marry again without the proper authority of the Lord. Butter-worth does correctly state that only three individuals are qualified (from God’s perspective) to be married: 1) one who has never been married; 2) one whose mate has died; and 3) one whose mate committed fornication (5). The author of the tract did not explain in his personal letter why the man was not eligible to marry again, but he covered certain principles that would apply to several situations. Having introduced the topic of the tract, he never returned to this particular instance, indicating what the man did.
Page 5 begins his analysis of Matthew 19:1-9. All faithful brethren must be in agreement with the idea that Jesus said there was but one reason for divorce—namely fornication. The author does not go into the definition of the Greek word, porneia, from which comes the English word, porn, often associated with pornography (“writing about sexual immorality,” and now pictures as well). This Greek word is defined by Thayer as referring to “illicit sexual intercourse in general” (532). The word includes lascivious, sexual behavior with someone of the opposite or the same sex.
Some brethren have tried to argue that it is not possible to live in fornication or adultery; the author rightly cites Colossians 3:5-7, which shows that some of the Colossians had lived in fornication (5).
Marrying an Unqualified Person
Usually a person will field questions after he has set forth the Biblical teaching on divorce, but the author here rather strangely introduces a case that rarely occurs. What happens if a person who is authorized to be married marries someone who is not? Butterworth’s answer is that they must separate, and neither one may marry again. He asserts that neither is an innocent party. However, such an assessment is false. First of all, one must be aware that every culture from the first century to now is not like 21st-century America. Second, one ought to consider that even here people lie.
Jane tells Dick that she has never been married before, and he has no reason to doubt her, but in Other City she was married for six months. Her husband was dealing drugs, and her life was in danger. After her divorce, she fled to Big City and went back to her maid-en name. In an effort to blot out this sad and painful part of her life, she told everyone, including Dick, that she had never been married. Jane did not have a right to marry. She had never studied the Scriptures, or she would have known that she could have separated and either remained single or reconciled to her husband.
Some time passes, and Dick somehow finds out about Jane’s first marriage and unscriptural divorce. He never intended to do anything wrong but was lied to, just as Jacob’s sons lied to him about Joseph. He believed what was not true and had in all innocence acted upon the deception. He immediately separates from Jane, since he is not entitled to have her. After his heartache has lessened, he wonders if it will ever be possible to marry again. He runs into Brother Butterworth and is told, “No, of course not. There are no innocent parties in this case. You must remain unmarried.” Of course, Dick, being a conscientious Christian, knows that he never acted with wrong motives, and he corrected the situation as soon as he knew about it.
Incredible Rationale
Butterworth, in his “one size fits all” wisdom says that if Dick marries again at this point in his life, he commits adultery. Furthermore, the author mocks all who would disagree with him, saying that they have “a feeble and unscriptural argument” (6). That argument is: 1) Jane had no right to marry. 2) Therefore, Dick and Jane were never married (so far as God is concerned). 3) Conclusion: Since he has never married, Dick is free to marry now. How does the author of the tract reply to this reasoning? He answers:
(1) God said they were married (Matt. 19:9)! God never approved or sanctioned the marriage, but recognized it as a marriage. (2) If he was not really married to her, then why get a divorce? You cannot divorce someone you are not married to (6).
Seriously? The author has already shown that an individual can live in adultery or fornication (Col. 3:5-7). But he insists that Dick is actually “married” to Jane, yet he is living in adultery with her (which presumes that Jane is still married to her first husband)! How can both be true? The fact is that Dick and Jane are living in adultery because they are not married because she is still married to her first husband! All of the rhetoric about not divorcing someone to whom you are not married is nonsense, and Butterworth ought to know better because he already introduced the subject of Herod’s marriage. He wrote: “Herod was told he could not have/keep his brother’s wife (Matt. 14:4)” (5).
Using the author’s logic, one ought to ask, “How can Herodias be Philip’s wife and Herod’s at the same time?” It is interesting that, in mentioning this “royal” situation, Butterworth quoted from the account in Matthew rather than the one in Mark, which also refers to Herodias as “his brother Philip’s wife,” but adds, “For he had married her” (Herod had married Herodias). How do you marry someone else’s wife? Is this one of those marriages that is not approved or sanctioned but still recognized as a marriage anyway? Apparently, Herodias was somewhat of a magician in order to be Philip’s wife and Herod’s at the same time.
Butterworth and many others fail to recognize accommodative language when they see it. Herodias was indeed Philip’s wife, as God views it. She was not free to leave him Scripturally. When the text says that Herod married her, Mark does not mean their marriage was Scriptural. They had satisfied civil law but had violated God’s law. Likewise, when Jesus says in Matthew 19:9 that a man “marries” another, it is obvious that he means according to some standard other than God’s. Men may do many things that would harmonize with civil law but not God’s law. For example, civil law allows a doctor to perform abortions, but God’s law does not. People, therefore, may divorce and marry as many times as they want and for just about any reason they want, but that does not mean they have God’s blessing to do so.
How does a person divorce someone he is not married to? In Dick’s case, when he discovered he was not Scripturally married to Jane, he put her away civilly. Of course, if man’s laws were identical with God’s, that would not have been necessary, since it was not lawful for Dick to have Jane. If it was not lawful, then God did not authorize it, period. It is impossible for God to recognize as a marriage one that is not lawful.
An example not related to the subject of marriage might prove helpful. In Matthew 22:17, Jesus was asked, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” The word translated “lawful” is the same word used in Matthew 14:4 and 19:3. When they ask about paying taxes, they cannot be asking if it is lawful according to the laws of the land. Obviously, it was not only lawful, but required; it would be unlawful if they did not obey the civil government. So what are they asking? They are asking if it is lawful in God’s eyes to pay taxes to Caesar, or should they resist doing so.
Again, the civil law and God’s laws do not always coincide. It is the same for the question Jesus was asked about marriage in Matthew 19:3, when the Pharisees asked Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” They are not asking if it was the law of the land concerning the putting away of their wives. They could, and they did. Their question was, “Is it lawful so far as God is concerned?”
In Matthew 19:9, Jesus says: “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife….” He obviously means here “divorces her in a civil sense,” since they were free to do that. “…and marries another….” Again, He means in a civil sense in using marry. “…commits adultery….” (so far as God is concerned). “…and whoever marries her (with the permission of the civil government) who is divorced” (with the permission of the civil government but not according to God’s law). “commits adultery” (so far as God is concerned).
Every student of the Word must make an effort to determine whether lawful (or unlawful) means in God’s eyes or in man’s eyes because marry, divorce, wife, and husband can be used in both ways. Such distinctions are not difficult to determine; the context makes it clear. Dick does have the right to marry again because he married and divorced Jane under civil law. So far as God was concerned, he never was married to her and is thus free to marry another eligible person.
Butterworth makes a third argument. If a man could marry one unauthorized woman, then why could he not “marry” two such women, ten, or more? Technically, he could—just as a man might live with two, ten, or more women without “marrying” any of them. Would that disqualify him from actually marrying a woman somewhere down the road? In the song, “We’ll Sing in the Sunshine,” Gale Garnett promised to live with a man one year before leaving him. She could do that 30 times before finally deciding to marry someone when she was 60. Would she not still be eligible for marriage? This argument has no merit.
The Waiting Game
In between the last scenario and the next one, Butterworth throws in a few Biblical truths (which do not relate directly to either situation). He cites Ezra 10 to prove that a person cannot sometimes keep his present mate with God’s approval (6). True. He says that God’s forgiveness of an adulterer does not mean he can marry again (7). True, but these do not affect the previous or the next example, which involves a couple he names Dan and Judy.
According to the details he provides, they filed for a divorce on irreconcilable differences. Butterworth then claims that a brother told Dan to wait until Judy remarried or started living with another man, and then he could be free to marry his sweetheart. Such would be wrong—not for the reason Butterworth says—but because they both agreed to the divorce. Neither had the authority to divorce the other, and neither has the right to remarry; if either or both of them do, adultery would be committed. As already stated in the tract, there is only one reason for divorce—a spouse’s commission of adultery. Therefore, both are condemned by Matthew 19:9.
Had Butterworth left it at that, he would have been fine (on this point—not the one already objected to). We would all agree that two people cannot just agree to get a divorce for reasons other than adultery and go on their merry ways. Both share equally in the guilt of getting the divorce, and both have no authority from God for remarriage—no matter who commits immorality first after the decree is finalized.
But the author of this tract determined to lump the innocent with the guilty. He further claims:
If a man decides to put away his wife for whatever/any reason except adultery and she opposes it, then when he does divorce her and she later remarries, she can claim freedom to remarry without sin (10).
In other words, Sue and Jim are married. Whether they are both Christians or not is irrelevant. The key element here is that Sue does not want a divorce. She is not in agreement at all that they should have a divorce and protests before the judge, but he grants the divorce anyway. Sue remains hopeful that Jim will change his mind, but to no avail; he marries someone else. Sue has done nothing wrong and has been completely honorable, but Butterworth tells her: “So, you thought you could play The Waiting Game and get away with it. Hah! Such ‘foolishness is as foreign to the Bible as is a defense for homosexuality’” (10).
The fact is that the civil divorce is not valid (a principle that Butterworth appears to agree with on page 15). Jim and Sue are still married in God’s eyes, and she does have a right to divorce Him Scripturally and remarry. One wonders how anyone can fail to see the truth of this situation.
Some of those who hold Butterworth’s view are like the Baptists of the 19th century. When someone would try to set forth the truth about baptism for the forgiveness of sins, they would all croak, like frogs in unison, “Campbellite! Campbellite!” They would not examine the Scriptures or the merit of the presentation; they were only interested in insulting and shouting down their opponents. Likewise, these Christian counterparts cannot fairly examine the Scriptures, and when some makes a logical argument, they all repeat, like parrots, “The Waiting Game! Awwwk! The Waiting Game!”
Desertion
The author is correct when he states that desertion is not a reason for remarriage. The only thing necessary here is to add a clarification. If a mate deserts a spouse, then the spouse is not automatically free to remarry. Several things could occur under this category. A man’s wife could just leave him because she does not want to be married to him or anyone. Is this wrong? Yes. She is failing to live up to her marriage vows and her responsibility as a wife (1 Cor. 7:1-5). Her husband cannot divorce her, however, because she is not committing adultery and is living a celibate life.
However, in another instance, a man just leaves his wife, and she does not know where he is for, say, two years. She does not know if he is alive or dead, but she does not violate her vows. Finally, she discovers that he is in a nearby town and living with another woman (or another man). He makes it clear that he has no interest in returning to her. Now she knows that she has a Biblical reason to obtain a divorce and files for a civil divorce. Will Butterworth and those who agree with him call this the Waiting Game, too?
Marriage is God’s institution and is not to be trifled with. God’s laws must be respected. Strange things occur, however, and people need to have Bible answers for particular problems. It does no good to accuse people of playing The Waiting Game when such is not the case. Undoubtedly, some have tried to manipulate things to their own advantage, but that does not mean that everyone is trying to circumvent God’s principles.
Those who commit adultery may well lose the marriage they are in and, if so, be precluded from any further marriage. The guilty party has no authority to marry again. Those who agree to a civil divorce in the absence of any adultery forfeit their right to marry again with God’s approval. These tenets do not allow for any wiggle room.
But those who are innocent ought not to be told they have lost their right to marry again, also. They should not be assigned evil motives and wrongfully accused for conditions that were beyond their control. The just should not be condemned any more than the wicked should be justified (Pr. 17:15). Brother Butterworth includes some valuable information in his tract, but his zeal for upholding God’s marriage law has caused him to insist on a narrower view than the Bible presents.
. e does not aut
After Phillip Schaff supplies background information about the apostles and a timeline of New Testament events, from the birth of Christ to the exile of John in Patmos (1:219-22), he discusses the miracle of Pentecost, which he terms as following Easter, thus revealing his denominational heritage (since the word Easter never appears in the Greek New Testament) (1:225). Pentecost, the feast of harvest, lasted one day (1:226). He points out that this is the day of the first spiritual harvest on earth and acknowledges that Pentecost was “the birthday of the visible kingdom of Christ on earth” (1:227).
The Day of Pentecost
Sadly, these are among the few comments concerning the Day of Pentecost that are accurate, and the author does not explain why this harvest of souls was the birthday of the kingdom on earth or how Jesus added these saved souls to His church, which is the most important event of that day. He refers to the content of Peter’s sermon in only one summary paragraph (which is quoted later in this article).
This would have been an excellent section to have highlighted Peter’s message of the resurrected Jesus and shown the profound effect on the Jews that day, which caused them to ask what they should do (Acts 2: 37). Then Schaff might have discussed Peter‘s answer: “Repent and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). He might further have noted that some 3,000 did precisely that (Acts 2:41). They were born again of water and the Spirit; the church was born also. The Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved (Acts 2:47). But immersion was not taught by the religious group with which Schaff was affiliated (which was the sprinkling of infants and confirmation); so he passed over it with only a brief comment.
Instead, he spent the bulk of his time discussing what the Holy Spirit did that day and the way it affected the apostles—and he got it wrong. At this point in the book, one is hoping that he is a better historian than a commentator on the events. How ironic that he noted the significance of the Day of Pentecost but spent all of his time on a lesser matter while barely mentioning what was truly important.
Who Spoke in Tongues?
What happened when the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit? Schaff says: “To the apostles it was their baptism, confirmation, and ordination, all in one, for they received no other” (1:229). This claim does not make sense. It was a baptism of the Holy Spirit, but it did not and does not take the place of baptism in water for the remission of sins. There is no such thing as “confirmation” in the Christian system. Although the word does appear in its non-religious meaning twice in the New Testament, it never refers to such a Christian “ordinance” that was invented many years later by men. God never authorized that practice. As for ordination, Jesus had called them to preach years earlier, and no special “ordination” may be found in the pages of Holy Writ. What Schaff says in this statement should serve as a warning to all that one can become so familiar with religious practices begun by men, but not found in the Bible, that it influences all they do.
As a result of being filled with the Spirit, Schaff correctly says that the apostles now possessed “an understanding of Christ’s words and plan of salvation as they never had before. What was dark and mysterious became now clear and full of meaning to them” (1:229). True, they now understood the plan of salvation much better—in fact, well enough to preach it the same day. Had Schaff left it at this, he would have been back on track, but he suddenly derailed the train entirely. He writes:
But the communication of the Holy Spirit was not confined to the Twelve. It extended to the brethren of the Lord, the mother of Jesus, the pious women who attended his ministry, and the whole brotherhood of a hundred and twenty souls who were assembled in that chamber. They were “all” filled with the Spirit, and all spoke with tongues… (1:229).
Hold on for a minute! If the apostles received their “baptism, confirmation, and ordination” in being filled with the Holy Spirit, and the 120 received the same thing, then why were they not equally baptized, confirmed, and ordained? Could they not all preach and be ordained then—even the women? Yet we know that this was not the case from the pages of the New Testament. None of the apostles, evangelists, or elders were female, and this is by God’s design (1 Tim. 2:11-14). The lack of the denominational ordinance of confirmation has already been noted, but what about the Holy Spirit baptism taking the place of water baptism for the forgiveness of sins?
Apparently, Schaff thought that, since the apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit, they did not need to be baptized in water (perhaps they were exempt?). His footnote on the matter says: “They were baptized with water by John; but Christian baptism was first administered by them on the day of Pentecost. Christ himself did not baptize, John 4:2.” Schaff is assuming two things—1) that the disciples were not also baptized by Jesus (not Himself personally, but by His authority, John 4:1-2); and 2) that they might have baptized themselves first on the Day of Pentecost and then baptized all the others. This writer thinks that number one is the more likely, but either is possible.
It has been argued—even by brethren—that the apostles were placed miraculously in the church and were never baptized for the remission of sins, but both John and Jesus baptized for that purpose. Is it logical to conclude that Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness but that His apostles were exempted from what is required of all Christians? Either their baptism by the authority of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins prior to the cross was valid, or they too were baptized in water on Pentecost.
But why does Schaff think that the 120 were filled with the Holy Spirit? He cites Acts 1:13-14. An examination of the text will prove helpful, beginning with Acts 1:4. “And being assembled together with them, he commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem….” The first thing the reader should ask is, “Who is them?” We would have to check for an antecedent, which is found in verse 2—“the apostles.” Whom follows in verse 3. The same procedure should follow in Acts 2:1 where we read they were all with one accord in one place. Who is they? The preceding verse (Acts 1:26) closes by naming the twelve apostles. It would be logical to think that they in Acts 2:1 refers to the apostles (Matthias was numbered with them)—not the 120 who were mentioned previously.
But starting at chapter one, the main subject is “the apostles.” They are first mentioned in Acts 1:2, and no one else is introduced through Acts 1:13. Jesus was speaking only to them in 1:4 when He told them to wait in Jerusalem for the promise of the Father. To them only did He promise power after the Holy Spirit came upon them. Only to them did He assure that they would be witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea, in Samaria, and to the uttermost parts of the world (1:8). No others were present when the apostles saw Jesus taken up and received by a cloud as they watched. They then returned by themselves to Jerusalem (1:9-12). Upon arrival they went into “an upper room, where they were staying: Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James.” The eleven were staying in an upper room for the time being. It does not say they were in the upper room when Judas’ replacement was selected or on the Day of Pentecost.
Others are drawn into the narrative in Acts 1:14. The apostles continued with one accord with the women, Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. During that time Peter stood up and told those present that they needed to select a replacement for Judas, which they did. They cast lots and Matthias was chosen; afterward, he was numbered with the eleven apostles (1:15-26). Some assume that the 120 were present on the Day of Pentecost, which is not totally off the wall, since the last event included them, but it is equally possible that, with the event being over, the narrative picks up again with the apostles where it was before, and they are the last antecedent of they.
We know that the women in the 120 did not receive what the apostles did; they were not “ordained.” The promise had not been made to them that they would receive the Holy Spirit, which Jesus gave to the eleven in John 14:25-26, 15:27, and 16:12-13. And after the supernatural occurrence happened, Peter stood up with the eleven. Why did not the 119 stand up with him if they had all received what the apostles received (2: 14)? This now makes four reasons for concluding that only the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit: 1) it was only promised to them; 2) the antecedent only refers to them; 3) the women were not ordained to preach; and 4) only the eleven stood up with Peter.
What is the case for the other side? There are only two points that are generally argued. First, the they in Acts 2:1 refers to all 120. It could, but the nearest antecedent remains apostles; so further evidence would be needed. And the further evidence would need to be compelling. The only other argument is Peter’s citation of Joel which talks about daughters and maidservants prophesying in Acts 2:17-18. Not everything in this prophecy had already happened, but it had begun to be fulfilled. Women would prophesy later (in the presence of each other), but they never did publicly (1 Tim. 2:11-14). Therefore, the women present on Pentecost did not do so, either, since it would have violated God’s plan.
What Did the Apostles Speak?
Equally mystifying to the last position taken is the following one—that the apostles did not speak in actual languages! “The supernatural experience of the disciples broke through the confines of ordinary speech and burst out in ecstatic language of praise and thanksgiving to God for the great works he did among them” (1: 230). What does Schaff mean by this statement? He affirms that the glossolalia (tongue speaking) here was “an act of worship and adoration, not an act of teaching and instruction…” (1:230). He repeats this point, and it may be primarily true, but he is wrong to think instruction cannot overlap with praise. Praising God does teach others; do we not learn that from the Psalms? And do not New Testament passages confirm that we teach one another while singing praises unto God (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). The two concepts are not mutually exclusive; they are harmonious.
But where does the text say that speaking in these languages was ecstatic? Except for their praising of God, no comments are given concerning their emotional state. Must one be in a state of ecstasy in order to praise God? Can we not do so while we are rational and thinking clearly? Does Schaff really want to go there? A peculiar statement follows this one. “The Holy Spirit was certainly at work among the hearers as well as the speakers…” (232). What? He adds: “It was the same Spirit who inspired the tongues of the speakers and the hearts of the susceptible hearers, and raised both above the ordinary level of consciousness” (1:232). Where is this stuff coming from? Not from the text of Acts 2.
In the “Notes” section of this chapter, Schaff comments furthers on some of these matters. He argues that in Corinth speaking in tongues had nothing to do with the spread of the gospel. It was instead self-devotion (he may be right in that, since they were in it for what they could get out of it instead of what God could be given). He says that individuals were
wholly absorbed in communion with God, and gave utterance to their rapturous feelings in broken, abrupt, rhapsodic, unintelligible words. It was emotional rather than intellectual, the language of the excited imagination, not of cool reflection (1:235).
It sounds more like the frenzy of the false prophets of Baal than the worship of Almighty God (1 Kings 18:28-29). If the Corinthians were behaving in this manner, was God the author of it? Maybe that is the reason Paul had to warn them that “no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed…” (1 Cor. 12:3). If the Corinthians were overly emotional, maybe that was the reason their worship was chaotic, and Paul had to admonish them, “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. 14:40). But the Spirit did not make them this way because the “spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” (1 Cor. 14:32). Would that be less true of tongue speakers?
Schaff’s ideas of this type of worship do not come from the New Testament. He assumes that a phenomenon of his day, called “speaking in tongues” is what the Bible meant. He discusses having personally observed an Irvingite group in New York; he said that their words
were broken, ejaculatory, but uttered in abnormal, startling, impressive sounds, in a state of apparent unconsciousness and rapture, and without any control over the tongue, which was seized as it were by a foreign power (1:237).
This is not at all what the Scriptures describe. Every Christian should commit to memory Acts 2:4: “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” What does this verse tell us? They spoke with other tongues (languages). They did not speak gibberish and the Spirit made it intelligible. With the Spirit’s guidance, they spoke the languages, which Jews from various countries heard and understood. Because they spoke in these languages, people heard in those languages. Nobody commented that they were making impressive, broken, abrupt, and unintelligible sounds, indicating they did not have control over their own tongues!
Salvation
This chapter on the Day of Pentecost contains 21 pages. Most of it is devoted to what the Holy Spirit did in a miraculous way. Scant attention is paid to the climax of all that happened with respect to salvation. Following is all that Schaff wrote about this topic. Peter
humbly condescended to refute the charge of intoxication by reminding them of the early hour of the day, even when drunkards are sober, and explained from the prophecies of Joel and the sixteenth Psalm of David that Jesus of Nazareth, whom the Jews had crucified, but who was by word and deed, by his resurrection from the dead, his exaltation to the right hand of God, and the effusion of the Holy Ghost, accredited as the promised Messiah, according to the express prediction of the Scripture. Then he called upon his hearers to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus, as the founder and the head of the heavenly kingdom, that even though they had crucified him, the Lord and the Messiah, might receive the forgive-ness of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost, whose wonderful workings they saw and heard in the disciples (1:233-34).
Even to this day, people find the Holy Spirit much more fascinating a subject than salvation. How ironic it is that the emphasis in the Bible is the theme of redemption, but people write a multitude of books on the Holy Spirit—most of them inaccurate! Still, the above quote is right and serves as an excellent summary of that notable day. Some might think that Schaff was implying the gift of the Holy Spirit was miraculous, which might be, but his wording is correct. They were promised the gift, and they had seen the Spirit’s workings.
Phillip Schaff is the author of the eight volumes of History of the Christian Church. According to Wikipedia,
Schaff was born in Chur, Switzerland and educated at the gymnasium of Stuttgart. At the universities of Tübingen, Halle and Berlin, he was successively influenced by Baur and Schmid, by Tholuck and Julius Müller, by David Strauss and, above all, Neander. At Berlin, in 1841, he took the degree of Bachelor of Divinity and passed examinations for a professorship….. In 1843, he was called to become Professor of Church History and Biblical Literature in the German Reformed Theological Seminary of Mercersburg, Pennsylvania, then the only seminary of that church in America…. Schaff’s broad views strongly influenced the German Reformed Church….
Since he authored such a monumental work, it is worth noting briefly his own background. His first volume covers from A.D. 1 to 100; we are considering some of the topics of interest to the Christian about which Schaff writes.
The Resurrection
Anyone who discusses Christianity must realize that the resurrection is the most fundamental doctrine of the religion, setting it apart from all other religions. Paul said: “For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). Of course, His death on the cross that all who desire may have forgiveness of sins is validated by His resurrection. His claims of Deity were proven by all His miracles and unequivocally established by the resurrection from the dead. Naturally, this historical fact would be challenged by the enemies of Christianity—some of whom profess to be followers of Jesus.
There may be more currently than there were 150 years ago, when Schaff wrote, but he lists four possible views of the resurrection. The first one is the truth; he calls it the HISTORICAL view, which is “presented by the Gospels and believed in the Christian church of every denomination and sect” (1:175). (When Schaff refers to the Gospels, he means Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—the Gospel writers. Only one Gospel exists. He also apparently accepts the concept of denominationalism, which is not authorized in the New Testament and is expressly condemned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:10-13 and 3:1-4. It opposes the unity for which Jesus prayed in John 17:20-21.) In making this statement, Schaff stresses thoroughness of the acceptance of the resurrection of Christ among those who believe and obey the Scriptures.
Having affirmed the importance of the resurrection, Schaff acknowledges that there are difficulties in harmonizing all the details of the resurrection events, citing the “ten discrepancies” that have been discussed since the days of the heretic Celsus (1:176). He does not go into these, but all of them can be explained.
Second is the THEORY OF FRAUD, which means that the “apostles stole and hid the body of Jesus, and deceived the world” (1:177). The Jewish priests invented this story (see Matt. 27:62-66 and 28:12-15). It was repeated by other unbelievers and later adopted by Celsus, also. With the rise of higher criticism, various “scholars” in the 17th and 18th centuries repopularized it. This theory is clearly false, as only a little consideration of it shows. If all the soldiers were asleep, how do they know who stole the body—that they were the apostles? If some of the soldiers were awake, they would have prevented the theft. Even if they awoke while the apostles were making their exit, it should have been simple for them to overtake men carrying a body. And are we to believe that the disciples of Jesus boldly preached and gave their lives for a lie?
Equally untenable is the SWOON-THEORY, which is itself revived every few decades by some self-styled genius who thinks he has it all worked out. The idea they propagate is that Jesus did not actually die, but He revived in the tomb and continued to live—maybe with an Essene colony (1:178). Promoters of this notion cite cases in which some men have been thought to be dead but after a period of time came back to life. No one can argue that such occurrences did not and do not happen. But how many of them were scourged and had a crown of thorns placed upon their heads, which was afterward beaten into their scalps? Both of these actions resulted in a loss of blood, as did driving the nails through Jesus hands and feet. When the spear was cast into the side of Jesus, blood and water came forth, indicating that death had already occurred.
Yet Jesus allegedly revived in the tomb and with hands that had recently had spikes in them and feet also pierced by iron, He was able to summon enough strength to not only stand but to push away a stone so large that it covered the entrance to the burial cave and would have ordinarily taken two or more individuals to handle. Then He hobbled away in silence so that not a single soldier saw Him or heard Him one time say, “Ouch!” Such an event would be a miracle almost as great as the resurrection!
The final explanation offered at the time in which Schaff wrote was the VISION-THEORY (1:179), which involves the hypothesis that the apostles only imagined, dreamed, or had visions that Jesus had been resurrected. When the heretic, Celsus, grew tired of the apostles-stole-the-body theory, he originated this one in the second century. It was adopted by Spinoza in the 17th century but became popular in the 19th with Strauss and Renan. While Strauss credited the apostles with a resurrection dream in Galilee, Renan pinpointed Mary Magdalene as the source of it in Jerusalem. In his Life of Jesus, Renan asserts that “the passion of a hallucinated woman gave to the world a risen God!” (1:179).
These theories are preposterous. The first question that comes to mind is, “All twelve had the same vision at once?” And if that is not incredible enough, how is it that 500 brethren had the same “dream” at the same time (1 Cor. 15:6)? Furthermore, one of the most familiar texts is in Acts 2 where Peter declares, “This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses” (v. 32). The resurrection was based in part on eyewitness testimony (not visions) but also on the fulfillment of a prophecy made by no less than King David (Acts 2:25-31)! Does it not seem logical that anyone seeking to attack the credibility of eyewitnesses must also assault any and all prophecies of the resurrection, including Jesus’ own confident predictions (Mark 8:31; 9:31-32; 10:33-34)? Schaff argues that visions would not explain the empty tomb; there would be multiple “pious fictions,” which all ceased simultaneously after 40 days (1:181-82). The fact of the resurrection remains intact. Either the writers of the New Testament or the witnesses must be impeached, but they stand.
Why Christianity Grew
This topic relates to the last one because if Jesus was not raised from the dead, how can anyone account for the growth of the church? Many people would cheerfully follow a military leader—especially to rebel against Rome, but how many people become devoted followers of a man who was crucified as a common criminal? People both lived and died for Jesus; why? Today’s critics of Christianity often downplay this issue, but people gave themselves up to be tortured and killed because they believed in Jesus and the resurrection. They faced wave after wave of persecution but only grew stronger in their faith. Schaff addresses the “Causes of Success.”
The number of Christians in the first century may have reached 500,000, but with some notable exceptions most congregations were small and probably not wealthy. By the time of Constantine, the number of Christians had grown from 500,000 to (despite persecution) between ten and twelve million (1:196-97). All this growth was achieved without firing a shot, engaging in a single military battle, or following the suggestions of a think tank or public relations firm. During this time thousands of Christians submitted to death. Under these adverse conditions, what can account for the great growth the church experienced?
Schaff quotes five reasons provided by historian Edward Gibbon in his six volumes of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. The reader should understand that Gibbon was critical of Christianity; thus, his reasons prove to be interesting. According to him, the reasons for growth were:
- “the intolerant but enlarged religious zeal of the Christians inherited from the Jews”
- “the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, concerning which the ancient philosophers had but vague and dreamy ideas”
- “the miraculous power attributed to the primitive church”
- “the purer but austere morality of the first Christians”
- “The unity and discipline of the church….”
The author adds: “But every one of these causes, properly understood, points to the superior excellency and to the divine origin of the Christian religion, and this is the chief cause, which the Deistic historian omits” (1:197-98).
The first of these is interesting. Gibbon calls the zeal of Christians intolerant. Why? Because they stand up for what they believe in? Because they insist that they know the truth? Because they are evangelistic? None of these are forms of intolerances. However, putting Christians to death for their beliefs actually was intolerant. It began with Stephen (Acts 7:1-8:4).
What did Gibbon mean about Christians inheriting zeal from the Jews? The Pharisees were quite zealous over their traditions, but Christians were not imitating that. True, they were also zealous of the Law of Moses, but they did not hesitate to violate it in order to kill Jesus. The Sadducees were scarcely zealous over anything. The zealots’ enthusiasm was all directed in a political way. The best zeal Israel had ever shown was in the days of Joshua, when they were careful to keep God’s Law. The reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah also saw a high measure of zeal, but it was not as thorough as in Joshua’s time as evidenced by how fast the mood of the country changed upon Josiah’s death.
But whatever Gibbon was referring to, Christians did not inherit it from the Jews; they received it from the same source. One cannot expect human beings to hear and know the truth and fail to be excited about it, especially when it concerns such wonderful issues as forgiveness of sins and eternal life, which brings us to the second point.
Christianity is neither vague nor dreamy. The soul, upon death, resides in the Hadean realm—either in the blessed side known as Paradise or Abraham’s bosom or the side of torment. After the Judgment Day, Christians will be rewarded, and the ungodly will be cast into the lake of fire. These are specific.
Jesus did miracles, and His followers also had the ability to heal the sick and raise the dead. Specific instances are provided in the Scriptures in which Peter and Paul both did such amazing things. When the apostles laid their hands on Christians, they too had spiritual gifts which were exercised in the church. The power they possessed was not merely alleged or attributed to them; they actually had and used such abilities. Of course such things as speaking in tongues, prophecy, and healing illnesses could not go unnoticed. People were drawn initially to examine Christianity because of these special powers.
The reason that many people start something new relates to what they can get out of it. Why do youngsters desire to be movie stars, great athletes, or politicians? Often it is about sexual opportunities, money, fame, or power. Christians did not receive anything akin to those things. Apart from a man and a woman being married to each other, sexual relationships are forbidden. The desire for wealth was condemned (Luke 12:15-20). Earthly fame does not generally accrue to one striving to please God. As for power over others, Christians are taught to walk humbly before their fellow man.
Unity did exist in the beginning (Acts 2:42-47) and could today, also, if men would follow the same teachings as the first Christians. God exercised the first discipline with Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-12), but the church was commanded to exclude those who practiced sin (1 Cor. 5). As Schaff pointed out, people believed these truths because they were convinced that these teachings came not from men—but God.
THE HOMOSEXUAL WHOPPER
Marvin Weir
As one can see on the rainbow colored wrapper, this special burger is called, “The Proud Whopper.” Although it was sold only at a Burger King in San Francisco, it was planned and sanctioned by the company. The wrapper also contained this inscription: “We are all the same inside.” Gag! It is enough to make a normal person lose his appetite!
The senior vice president of global brand management for Burger King said, “It shows how we, as a brand, believe in self-expression.” A two minute video depicting “the proud whopper” is to be shown on the You Tube channel. The VP went on to say, “The inspiration behind the unusual burger wrap and video is Burger King’s localized efforts to put into motion actions that support its recently-tweaked slogan, ‘Be Your Way.’”
Burger King was a sponsor of San Francisco’s gay pride parade. All Proud Whopper sandwich sales, according to the company’s VP, “will be donated to the Burger King McLamore Foundation for scholarships benefiting LGBT high school seniors graduating in spring 2015.”
One homosexual activist sings praises to Burger King in saying, “Whenever a company comes out in support of gay people, it makes a difference. But when it’s done right—when it’s done with a campaign that shows the company understands diversity and really believes in the profound acceptance of other people—that sort of marketing can change minds and hearts at the deepest level.”
That’s it, folks! Sodomites know that companies can make a difference. Companies realize they can jump on the bandwagon and make a difference. Doesn’t it sound nice? It is about changing minds and hearts to accept other people! The truth is, none of these campaigns are about accepting red, brown, yellow, black, white, male and female as human beings. It is all about conditioning and forcing everyone to accept abominable, sinful, and ungodly behavior as a normal and wonderful thing!
Do the activists and companies who support homo-sexuality truly believe in equality and the “Be Your Way” slogan? Why do these companies not create a special wrapper praising Christianity and godly morals? Can you imagine the media rage and public outcry from those bereft of morals if a company did such? No, it is not about acceptance of others as human beings—it is about accep-tance of sodomy and sin!
Nothing is more destructive to humanity than the accep-tance and practice in morality of anti-God and self-centered slogans like “have it your way” and “if it feels good, it must be right!”
Feeling good while living in sin does not make it right (Prov. 14:12; Rom. 6:23; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21)! Choose God’s way — not man’s (John 14:6)!
[Source: Burger King & ETUSA article by Bruce Horo-vitz]. [This article by Marvin Weir was published in The Reno Record on July 20, 2014. All of this information can be verified on the Internet.]
In the middle part of the 19th century, the research of Phillip Schaff (1819-1893) on the history of the Christian church was published; volume 1 is dated 1858. The other seven volumes followed, but quotations here were copyrighted 1910 and reprinted in 1994. The first tome of 871 pages covers up to A.D. 100; it therefore coincides with the inspired history recorded in the New Testament. The author begins by commenting on some of his sources—the works available to him—as well as other preliminary matters. In these articles observations on topics of interest shall be noted.
Anno Domini
“It was a great idea of Dionysius ‘the Little’ to date our era from the birth of our Savior” (1:56). Although we abbreviate Anno Domini as A.D., it means (and is properly translated) “In the year of the Lord.” When this designation became universally accepted, it showed to all mankind a tremendous contrast of history prior to Jesus versus the age of Jesus’ influence on the world. Schaff says that He is worthy of this position of prominence because He is the “Christ, the God-Man, the prophet, priest, and king of mankind….” He calls Jesus “the sun of the moral universe,” also, which is certainly true. Christians today would argue that the morality of Jesus transcends and is higher than what God put into the Law of Moses (cf. Matt. 5).
Unfortunately, in the last century, Jehovah’s Witnesses decided that they preferred their own designation and began using B.C.E. and C.E., meaning “Before the Christian Era” and the “Christian Era.” Now, aca-demics are using the same terminology as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, but they have changed the meaning to “Before the Common Era” and the “Common Era.” Christians ought not let “scholars” change and diminish the fact that all history is divided by the birth of Jesus. Every adult and student ought to reject and oppose the new designation which is designed to minimize Jesus.
The Three Sects of the Jews
In order to understand the New Testament, Schaff provides the background of the development of the Jews into three categories, but he also compares them to the Greeks during the Inter-Testament period and the Muslims of his day. He suggests that the three schools of the Greeks were the Stoic, the Epicurean, and the Platonic. The three divisions of Mohammedanism are the Sunnis (who are traditionalists), the Sheas (today, the Shias, who adhere to the Koran), and the Sufis (or mystics).
Among the Jews, the Pharisees were the Stoics. “They represented the traditional orthodoxy and formalism, the legal self-righteous, and the fanatical bigotry of Judaism” (1:64). Although the people respected them for their piety, Jesus pointed out that they elevated their traditions over the Word of God so as to make the Scriptures of none effect.
The Sadducees were “skeptical, rationalistic, and worldly-minded, not unlike the Epicureans” (1:65); they rejected oral traditions and most of the Old Testament except for the Pentateuch (the first five books of Moses). They did not believe in angels, spirits, or the resurrection. Many of them were rich and influential (since many of them were part of the Sanhedrin). Caiaphas was a Sadducee.
Historians Josephus and Philo inform us that there was a third group which is not mentioned in the New Testament—the Essenes. They were “a mystic and ascetic order or brotherhood, and lived mostly in monkish seclusion in villages and in the desert Engedi on the Dead Sea” (1:65). Although some have challenged the idea, it is generally thought that the Dead Sea Scrolls had belonged to the Essenes. They only numbered about 4,000. They practiced “communion of goods, but rejected bloody sacrifices and animal food.”
Heathenism
When Jesus entered the world, He found these conditions among the Jews, but what about among the pagans? Schaff describes their theology as involving a “corruption of the moral sense, giving the sanctification of religion to natural and unnatural vices.” He further explains that the religion of Greece
utterly lacks the true conception of sin, and consequently the true conception of holiness. It regards sin, not as a perverseness of will and as an offence [sic] against the gods, but as a folly of the understanding and an offence [sic] against men, often proceeding from the gods themselves… (1:72-73).
Schaff observed that Homer “puts a devilish element” into his deities, which the Roman gods also replicate. The concept of holiness is all but absent. He continues his description of man-made deities:
The gods are born, but never die. They have bodies and senses, like mortals, only in colossal proportion. They eat and drink, though only nectar and ambrosia. They are awake and fall asleep. They travel, but with the swiftness of thought. They mingle in battle. They cohabit with human beings, producing heroes or demigods. They are limited to time and space….
The gods are involved by their marriages in perpetual jealousies and quarrels. They are full of envy and wrath, hatred and lust, prompt men to crime, and provoke each other to lying and cruelty, perjury and adultery (1:73).
They sound more like corrupt human beings with special powers than anything that might be thought of as Divine. Why was that? Two reasons come to mind. The first is that man “changed the truth of God into a lie,” according the Romans 1:25 (KJV). We cannot, therefore, imagine that whatever kind of Deity men invented to replace the true and living God would ever come close to the original concept. About the only trait that was kept was power greater than that of mortal men.
The second principle is stated in Psalm 50:21b: “You thought that I was altogether like you.” Even with Jehovah, people imagined Him to be like mankind; how much easier was it for people to concoct deities and ascribe to them human characteristics! So the gods are jealous, spiteful, lustful, adulterers, and so on—all the things that men are. Men want the gods to be just like them, and when mankind creates gods, they create them in their own image—corrupt and given to sin. The true and living God is genuinely higher than man in every way (Isa. 55:8-9). He possesses true holiness and true righteousness. He never allows Himself to be tainted with corruption, and He cannot be tempted to sin. The God of the Bible is not like man; He is purer than man and above sin altogether.
In recent decades, mankind is at it again, trying to pretend that God and Jesus are corrupt. Reported on June 30th of this year (2014) was that singer Elton John believes that Jesus would support homosexual marriage today. This flaky idea is nothing more than man wanting God to approve of sin, but the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit will have no hand in anything so sordid. God already defined marriage “in the beginning,” and He will not change the definition just because man has become perverted in his thinking and affections. In order for men to justify their own actions, they must degrade the nature of God. If that does not work, then they invent deities who have no power but will let them behave as immorally as they desire, which is heathenism in action.
Jesus
Having set forth the religious background of the time into which Jesus was born, Schaff next begins his description of Jesus:
Jesus Christ came into the world under Caesar Augustus, the first Roman emperor, before the death of king Herod the Great, four years before the traditional date of our Dionysian aera [sic]. He was born at Bethlehem of Judaea [sic], in the royal line of David, from Mary, “the wedded Maid and Virgin Mother.” The world was at peace, and the gates of Janus were closed for only the second time in the history of Rome (1:101-102).
Of course, Schaff is correct about the date of Jesus’ birth being four years off. The idea of dividing the history of the world by the birth of Jesus was a good one, but the timing of the precise date was off by at least four years. Probably, the year selected as the birth of Christ was chosen by the best means available at the time, but we have better information now.
The author includes some strange endorsements of the fact that Jesus is God. One comes from Rousseau, the 18th-century philosopher who influenced the world toward liberalism and lived immorally himself (Schaff refers to him as an infidel) acknowledged: “If Socrates lived and died like a sage, Jesus lived and died like a God” (1:107). The second comes from the Emperor Napoleon, who made an argument for the Deity of Jesus:
I know men, and I tell you, Christ was not a man. Everything about Christ astonishes me. His spirit overwhelms and confounds me. There is no comparison between him and any other being. He stands single and alone (1:110).
Jesus is not Divine, however, because of these two endorsements, as interesting as they are—but because of the claims He made and the evidence He offered to substantiate those claims (His widespread use of miracles). Critics may constantly challenge and deny them, but they cannot explain, then, why thousands believed Jesus to be the Son of God.
Herod and Quirinius
One of the arguments still used by atheists to disprove the accuracy of the Bible is to object that Quiri-nius (Cyrenius, KJV) was not governor which Luke recorded him as being in 2:2 Scholars could find historical records confirming that Quirinius was the governor of Syria beginning in A. D. 6—ten years after the birth of Jesus, which had to be prior to the death of Herod the Great in 4 B.C.; thus, they assumed that Luke was wrong. However, archaeological research independent of religion discovered that Quirinius was twice governor of that region—once from 4 to 1 B. C. and again from A.D. 6-11 (1:122). What this discovery in the writings of Tacitus (confirmed by an inscription on a monument) means is that Quirinius was governor two times.
However, a problem still remains, and Schaff was honest enough to admit it, although he was confident that an explanation would eventually be found. This second problem is that the first time Quirinius became governor, Herod the Great had not yet died. Someone else was governor over the region until after Herod’s death; then Quirinius became governor. The explanation for this apparent discrepancy is that the word governor has more than one meaning. The Greek word is used twice as a verb but 22 times as a noun. Usually as a noun, it is translated “governor,” but it is rendered “princes” in Matthew 2:6 and “rulers” in Mark 13:9 and Luke 21:12. Thus it can refer to one of the political leaders of a region and not always refer to the office of a governor. Quirinius was certainly one of the leaders of the region prior to being made governor in 4 B.C., and that could be the reason Luke chose that term.
Dates
Concerning the birth and death of Jesus, no precise months or years are given in the Scriptures, except for making approximations. Generally speaking, the shep-herds were not out in their fields at night in December, January, or February, which means that Jesus was probably born in some other month. Some notable names defended the 25th of December even so; among them are Jerome (the author of the Vulgate translation used from about A.D. 400 until the 1,500s) and Augustine. No one observed that date, however, prior to the 4th century.
Clement of Alexandria reported that some Christians regarded May 20 as the Lord’s birthdate; others believed it was April 19th or 20th (1:119). Several months have actually been selected, but the fact is that no one knows the date for certain; if God wanted us to know the date or celebrate the birth of Jesus, He would have told us when it was. We know the time of year for the crucifixion more precisely because it occurred during the Passover week. It would have occurred from March 22nd to April 25th, and the year was probably A.D. 29. God did not intend for the followers of Jesus to observe either day, or Christians would have clarity in the matter—not confusion.
Geographic Notes
Schaff wanted his readers to have some knowledge of the geography of the region, since “Jesus spent His life in Palestine.”
It is a country of about the size of Maryland, smaller than Switzerland, and not half as large as Scotland, but favored with a healthy climate, beautiful scenery, and great fertility of soil, capable of producing fruits from all the lands from the snowy north to the tropical south; isolated from other countries by desert, mountain and sea, yet lying in the centre [sic] of three continents of the eastern hemisphere… (1:137-38).
In a footnote on page 137, the author adds that Palestine averages 150 miles in length, and the average width from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea varies from 80 to 90 miles. Probably as we read and study the cities and the battles fought in the Old Testament (and the number of men killed), we might envision something of greater size. Of course, our states today would seem much larger if everyone walked where they went and interstates were absent.
At the time of his writing, the town of Bethlehem was still present, and the shepherds were “still watching the sheep,” and children could be “seen gleaning after the reapers in the grainfields,” just as Ruth once did. Tourists visit the traditional spot in the fast-flowing Jordan River, a few miles from Jericho, where it is believed that Jesus was baptized (1:139, 141). According to the scholar, Ernest Renan (a contemporary of Schaff’s),
Nazareth was a small town, situated in a fold of land, broadly open at the summit of the group of mountains which closes on the north the plain of Esdraelon. The population is now from three to four [probably five to six] thousand, and it cannot have changed very much (1:141).
The wheat fields of Shechem (between Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal), where Joshua once read the Law of Moses to the Israelites (Joshua 8:33-35), are still white unto harvest (John 4:35) (1:142). Schaff describes the city of Tiberias, built by Herod Antipas as a dirty place and then comments on the oft-mentioned cities of Capernaum, Bethsaida, and Chorazim, where Jesus did many mighty works, as having utterly disappeared from the earth (1:143).
The temple that Herod constructed on Mount Moriah, “once the gathering place of pious Jews from all over the earth, and enriched with treasures of gold which excited the avarice of the conquerors, has wholly disappeared” (1:144). What a tragic thought! God has shown, however, that when His people depart from Him, He will depart from them after repeated warnings. He allowed Babylon to destroy the original temple in 536 B.C., and He allowed Rome to destroy Herod’s temple in A.D. 70. Jesus also warned a dying church that He would remove their candlestick (Rev. 2:5). Do we ever learn?
