Names and places could be furnished, but they will be omitted because it is the concept that needs to be discussed. A couple lost their two-year-old child, which is, of course, tragic. Probably no one can imagine the tremendous amount of grief the parents experienced unless they had been through a similar situation. So, no fingers will be pointed at them, but why would anyone tell them that they should pray for their toddler to be resurrected? Even if the idea was their own, why wouldn’t someone tell them that events like those we marvel at in the Scriptures no longer occur and that they are only leaving themselves open for more heartache?
Yes, Jesus restored the life of Lazarus to him, but the purpose was to convince people of the power and Deity that Jesus possessed—not just because his sisters were heartbroken. Jesus and the apostles raised others from the dead as well because they had the power of God and used it in such a way that it authenticated their claims (Jesus to be the Son of God, and the apostles to be His spokesmen). Never did Jesus or His apostles teach that raising the dead could be expected to occur as long as the earth stands. Some apparently believe that what Jesus did was a model for us, but the Scriptures do not so teach.
The church the parents belong to teaches that miracles are possible today. Undoubtedly, they have heard testimonials from some who have assured them the dead can still be raised. Jesus did defeat the grave and is the resurrection and the life (John 11:25), but He will raise people up at the last day—not now. The parents actually felt confident that their little one would come back to life. How tragic! Finally, they had to face the reality that no resurrection was forthcoming. Did their believing in a false teaching make the circumstance even worse? “Hope deferred makes the heart sick…” (Pr. 13:12). One can only speculate on the results of hope denied.
David understood what the death of a child meant. He would not see his son alive again on this earth. David said: “But now he is dead; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me” (2 Sam. 12:23). There were a few exceptions to this principle while Jesus and the apostles were alive (and previously with Elijah and Elisha); none have occurred since. Some wonder, “Does this mean that God has lost His power?” Hardly. He remains just as all-powerful as He always has. The miracles authenticated Jesus and His apostles. No one is being endorsed by God today. It has not been His will to do miracles since the first century. He will, however, demonstrate His power again when He comes from heaven with His holy angels in flaming fire to take vengeance on those who do not know Him and who have not obeyed the gospel. To see the departed child, the parents need to obey the gospel and remain faithful (1 Cor. 15:3-4; Rom. 6:3-5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Heb 5:9).
Recently, while reading some articles and publications stored away, I came across an interesting series written by B. J. Clarke, which was published in Power, which he was editing back in 2002. The articles were titled, “What’s Happening To Our Christian Colleges?” The second of these (from March of that year) included information about Pepperdine and Abilene Christian University. Clarke referenced the infamous article, “Christmas at Matthew’s House,” written by Abilene Professor, Andre Resner, and published in Wineskins in November, 1992. One wonders if Clarke or anyone else is writing a similar series today. One also wonders why certain “conservative” brethren are appearing on various lectureships with personnel from Pepperdine and Abilene. Has something significant changed in these institutions in the past seventeen years, or are conservative brethren just drifting in their direction? This article should remind us of some of the types of men on the faculties of those universities.
So many brethren complained against “Christmas at Matthew’s House” that a statement was made by Resner the following year (December, 1993). In it, the author claimed: “It was not intended to be seen as an attack on the doctrine of the virgin birth or the inspiration and authority of Scripture….” The reader will bear that in mind when reading what he wrote, along with his additional assurances:
…let me emphasize that I do believe very deeply in the divinity and virgin birth of Jesus—in his death, burial, and resurrection and in the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures. … I wrote the article because of my deep love for the Lord and his church, not to show a disrespect for either. I regret that the article left a wrong impression concerning these important matters for some.
So, what did Resner write in “Christmas at Matthew’s house”? He pretends that he is at the house of the gospel writer, Matthew, for Christmas, but what he actually does is analyze the way Matthew begins his account of Jesus’ life. Why he chose such an approach is best known to him—it probably has something to do with being “literary.” It really amounts to nothing more than furnishing him with a way to discuss the opening of Matthew’s gospel narrative. Since Matthew is one of two writers who discusses the birth of Jesus, Resner decided to tie it to the denominational concept of celebrating Christmas as a religious holiday (something faithful brethren refuse to do). The entire article is on the Internet. Type in Wineskins, “Christmas at Matthew’s House,” Andre Resner, and it should appear. We can only cite certain portions of it. Bear in mind he claims not to be challenging inspiration of the virgin birth of Jesus.
After calling Matthew sneaky, he discusses his genealogy as beginning with sexual scandals. He writes:
Before he can tell the scandal of Mary’s “immaculate conception,” he has to subtly remind us of other scandalous women. You remember Tamar, don’t you?
“Whoa!” Most Christians are asking, “Why is he calling Mary’s immaculate conception a scandal? We most certainly do not believe that it was. And why is her immaculate conception put in quotation marks, as though there is some other reason for her pregnancy than that of the Holy Spirit coming upon her (Luke 1:35)?” Those are excellent questions. But before he gets back to Mary, he wants to smear the other women in the genealogy of Jesus.
It is true that Tamar dressed as a harlot in order to entice Judah, her father-in-law, to produce in her a child because he had not given her the husband to which she was entitled, but what she did had nothing to do with lust. Judah acknowledged that Tamar had been more righteous than he had (Gen. 38:26). This one occasion was the extent of their relationship. Harlotry was not a way of life for her.
The second woman cited is Rahab who had been a harlot—but would not be one living among the Israelites. Resner even impugns the motives of the two spies: “You remember Rahab. Prostitute in the promised land. The first place, interestingly enough, that the Israelite spies went when they went to explore the land.” Really? He has turned a great Biblical event into a sordid situation. Rahab confessed that the Israelite God was God (Joshua 2:9-11). The spies did not go there for carnal purposes. To even suggest so is disgusting.
These words are immediately followed by besmirching the name of the virtuous and selfless Ruth:
And Ruth … “dear, sweet Ruth.” Well, just what was she doing out there at the threshing floor at Boaz’s feet? And why did he want her to stay there all night, yet leave before daylight, and not let anybody see her. Hmmmm.
Brethren, no amount of apologies can undo the damage inflicted by such a careless presentation of the situation! Although Bathsheba’s name is not mentioned in the genealogy, the fact that she is the wife of Uriah the Hittite is. She actually did commit adultery, but none of these women are mentioned by Matthew to prepare the audience for immorality on the part of Mary.
Resner thinks that Matthew is preparing the reader for “the most embarrassing scandal” of all. He writes:
Though we’re still quite surprised by Matthew’s covert statement, “she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit,” Matthew has set us up for it. It’s a sort of “Here we go again, folks….” Another sexually questionable woman.
No! There was nothing sexually questionable about Mary. Is it possible to misunderstand the tenor of this article? How about what Resner says about Joseph?
A dream that was real, yes, but still a dream. Could it have been a message from God? Or, could it have been his own imagination, wanting to believe her so much that his subconscious produced a nocturnal justification for marrying her, even in the face of such an outlandish excuse? But there’s Joseph, crawling into bed with her every night the rest of his life, relying on a dream, believing in her word, that she really hadn’t slept with another man and used him to cover her shame.
How is this article not blasphemous? Resner may claim to have been misunderstood, but he was not misunderstood. His problem was that brethren understood him only too well—and were indignant because of it. But these days do brethren have any indignation? It seems that many are more willing to fellowship than fight those who challenge the virgin birth or the inspiration of the Scriptures or other false doctrines. Or they fellowship those who do fellowship liberals. Perhaps someone can explain this rationale.
When I sent a response to the man who erroneously believes that there are two different gospels—one for Jews and one for Gentiles—I did not actually expect a reply. It is not unusual for someone to send an e-mail and then ignore what I say to them in return, but this fellow actually wrote a second time. He elaborated on the two-gospel theory briefly, claiming that teaching “a Gentile that salvation is based on more than faith” is “a heresy.” Gentiles, he claimed “are saved by faith and nothing else.” I did not yet respond to this untrue claim because he wrote something even more fundamentally false. Remember I had cited 1 Peter 3:21? He wrote back: “1 Peter 3:21 has NOTHING to do with water.” Yes, I know that everyone who is familiar with the Scriptures is yelling, “What?” Following was my answer to the writer.
Thanks for your response. There are several points I would like to make, but time seems to be at a premium for you; so, I will just deal with the first point you raise, which was “1 Peter 3:21 has NOTHING to do with water.” …it always helps to look at a verse in its context. Did you fail to notice that the last word of the preceding verse is water? The ark in which Noah and his family lived is being discussed. They were saved through WATER—not the Holy Spirit. That event served as the type, for which baptism (in water) is the antitype. The Holy Spirit is nowhere to be found in this context. It is hard to miss the water that is there. Where are you getting your information? Not from the text! I challenge you to pick up a commentary to see what it says. Try Barnes, or Clarke, or the Pulpit Commentary. Of course, the text decides it, but you will find that few, if any, commentaries agree with what you have postulated.
This seemed like a reasonable thing to ask the writer to do. First and foremost, the text of any verse is important. Anyone who has read 1 Peter 3:20-21 knows that the water of verse 20 corresponds to water baptism. Looking at the text is fundamental in studying the Bible. Those under the water in Noah’s day were drowned; those under the water in the Christian era are saved. The power is not in the water but through the resurrection of Christ (see Romans 6:3-5).
I had not looked up anything in the recommended commentaries when I gave the advice, but here is what they say: Barnes says in 13:2:150: “in like manner we owe our salvation, in an important sense, to water; or, there is an important agency which it is made to perform in our salvation.” Clarke agrees (6:862). Pulpit says that “the water that saves is the water of baptism” (22:1:137). Instead of checking on these and considering the passage, the writer sent back the following message the same day: “Wish you the very best. Have a good one.” That was it. Hmm.
A few weeks ago, I received a brief e-mail from someone whose name I did not recognize. Following is what he wrote: “We MUST rightly divide the Word. Learn that Jesus preached to the JEWS. Peter was a disciple for the JEWS. On the other [hand, GWS] Paul is the disciple for Gentiles. Baptism does nothing for salvation! Ye MUST be born again!” My reply was: “Five out of your six statements are true. Number 5 is false. See 1 Peter 3:21. How can baptism save us, yet do “nothing for salvation”? You contradict the Word.”
Some may not know what he was getting at, and he did not state it explicitly, which accounts for my brief answer. His position is actually this: Peter preached the gospel to the Jews; they needed to be baptized; Paul preached to the Gentiles, and they did not need to be baptized. This is what he means by “rightly dividing the Word.” The position is nonsense to anyone who knows the New Testament. In effect, he asserts there are two different gospels—one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles. Where does the New Testament teach such an idea?
If anyone ever needs to convince somebody of this faulty theology, the following Scriptures will disprove the error. First, when Jesus gave the Great Commission in Mark 16:15, He said to preach, notice, THE GOSPEL, to EVERY creature. He did not say there were two different gospels by which Jews and Gentiles would be saved. In fact, the phrase, the gospel (sometimes with modifiers), appears about 75 times from Acts onward. Similarly, Jesus told the apostles to be witnesses to Him “in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Nothing indicates the apostles would preach one gospel in Jerusalem and another gospel to the rest of the world.
In fact, the book of Ephesians stresses that Jesus broke down the middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile (2:14-16), who are now reconciled in one body. How? By having two gospels? This is the book that stresses unity—one Spirit, one Lord, one God and Father of all (4:4-6). There cannot, therefore, be two faiths—nor one baptism for Jews but none for Gentiles. We are all children of God “through faith in Christ Jesus,” and we all put on Christ through baptism (Gal. 3:26-27).
Miyamoto Musashi lived from 1584-1645 and is considered one of, if not the greatest, Samurai warrior of all time. In his book, The Book of Five Rings, he writes of the Way of the warrior, which encompasses the attitude, philosophy, and martial tactics a warrior must possess. In his book he writes that “the way of the warrior is the resolute acceptance of death.”
We can all plainly see the benefit of possessing this attitude. On the battlefield, when you are called to fight for your Lord, you must be willing to lay down your life for Him. You cannot be distracted by the thought of being slain by your enemy. You must give your all without a second thought. This is an attitude that perhaps only our military men can fully appreciate.
Christians know that this idea was promoted 1500 years earlier by Jesus, as He taught His disciples. Within the Gospel accounts we have this statement recorded five times in various ways, such as in Matthew 16:24: “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.” What does it mean when Jesus asks us to take up our cross? Historically speaking, it was common for individuals sentenced to crucifixion to be seen carrying their own crosses to the place where they would be executed. It was the equivalent of making someone dig their own grave.
Well, why would Jesus tell us that, if we want to follow Him, we need to carry our own cross? Because as the warrior resolutely accepts his own fate, so should we. Christians of the early church often were signing their own death certificate by committing their lives to Christ. Every moment of every day they had to be prepared to die, and many did for the cause of Christ.
Though the life of a New Testament Christian in the United States is relatively soft in comparison to the Christians of the early church, this attitude of carrying our own cross must still be kept. We may never have the privilege of glorifying God with our deaths, but we must be prepared in case we do. And even if our sacrifice may never be as great, whatever we must sacrifice along the way will be much easier with this mindset. If we have the courage to carry our own cross, all other trials will pale in comparison. For those who endure, Christ has promised us a home with Him; “He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne” (Rev. 3:21, NAS).
Wheel of Fortune has been one of my favorite syndicated shows for years—that and Jeopardy. Doing well on the Jeopardy questions is fairly difficult since they occasionally have entire categories I’ve never heard of, let alone the answers. But it’s a challenge, and it’s always a pleasure to get some correct that the contestants don’t know. And it’s not just the Bible category where that happens. Wheel is much easier, and I occasionally solve puzzles with only one letter showing. Once the category was TV Shows. It had five blanks followed by four blanks. Before anyone called a letter, I said, Happy Days, which was correct. Lucky guess? Maybe. The show is also worth a chuckle or two now and then. Earlier this year the puzzle was at this stage of being solved: _HE WO_DERS OF _A_URE. A contestant took a stab at the solution—THE WONDERS OF FAILURE. Uh, really? It not only doesn’t make sense; FAILURE does not fit into the spaces provided.
However, for the past two years, for us it has been Wheel of Torture. Disney owns the program, and they enjoy highlighting homosexuality—yes, even in some of their movies. Consequently, some of the players introduce their “partners” of the same sex before the final puzzle, or they talk about their male wife or their female husband during the interview portion of the program. So, every time we watch it, I cringe when the interviews occur. If they announce a relationship with the same sex, we just turn it off for that day. But a few weeks ago, it was just too much. The person who solved the final puzzle (an easy one, by the way) was joined on stage by his male “partner,” where they hugged and kissed.
That’s it. We have determined to watch the program no more. Why should we subject ourselves to such rude displays of perverted affection? Even though we enjoy solving the puzzles, there are plenty of other things to do with one’s time. Nothing says we must watch something so torturous. It is obvious that Disney desires to push the homosexual agenda, but we do not need to place ourselves under their sphere of influence. And the same is true with any other program that includes homosexual characters. Plenty of entertainment is available that does not glorify the grievous sin of homosexuality (Gen. 18:20; Rom. 1:26-28; Jude 7).
Christians can find better things to do. Isn’t our society overloaded with entertainment anyway? They market their products in expert fashion; meanwhile how many Christians cannot find Scriptures they have heard hundreds of times? How many cannot set up a Bible study? If we all took one-half hour an evening to develop ourselves spiritually (say, not watching Wheel of Fortune or something else), think of how much better off we would be.
Saturday’s Orlando Sentinel (November 16, 2019) contained three articles on page A12 that were of interest to the Christian. Two were letters to the editor, and one was written by a Sentinel columnist. One of the letters asked the question: “Is it only gay sex that is sinful?” He further asked if the only purpose for sex was to have children, wondering if all who otherwise engaged in it were earning tickets to the fiery pit if they failed to repent. Below is the response I sent to the newspaper.
Not that the majority of people care what the Bible says, but since the subject was brought up in Saturday’s (11-16-19) letter to the editor, “When is Sex Sinful?”, following is an answer. God authorized sex for both procreation and for pleasure. Most are familiar with, “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). However, the husband and wife owe due affection to each other and ought not to deprive one another, according to what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:1-5. This latter passage has nothing to do with having children but relates to a couple’s own mutual benefit.
Of course, procreation would not be achieved by two homosexuals; the second purpose can obviously be achieved; only in the two passages cited, the Creator of the Universe did not authorize two individuals of the same sex to engage in the practice. He speaks of only one male and one female—just the way He created them.
A second article referencing the Scriptures dealt with two issues. In response to whether Catholic priests could be married, the writer answered from Genesis 2:18. “It is not good for man to be alone.” Then he added “No discussion! God’s word is clear.” Okay. That may seem abrupt, but we agree that God designed marriage for man and that few can do without it.
However, in another paragraph he said that “the ordination of women to the priesthood is not quite as clear.” Obviously, he does not know that all Christians are priests (1 Peter 2:5, 9). But we have Scriptures dealing with response to the subject of women in leadership roles. He said he had “no deep feelings on the subject.” Good! Then our answer to him is in the same style he issued previously. 1 Timothy 2:11-12 says: “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” To quote him: “No discussion! God’s word is clear.”
Recently, via e-mail, someone moving to this area for employment sent eight questions to ask what we believe with respect to them. Frequently, people call and ask if we use musical instruments, and when I assure them that we do not, they usually breathe a sigh of relief. Occasionally, some will call and ask if we support orphans’ homes or have a kitchen in our building. But frankly, these are the most unusual questions ever to come our way. That does not mean they are unimportant—just different. The answers follow below and on page two. To maintain the person’s anonymity, the name Phyllis (not the real name) has been selected.
1. Do you wait for one another when you partake of the Lord’s Supper as it states in 1 Corinthians 11:33? An indicator of this to me would be one service or a willingness to change the time, if necessary, so that all could partake at the same time.
The brethren in Corinth were indeed told to wait for one another, but they were all coming together at the same approximate time—say, 7:00 or 8:00 in the evening. Society and culture were far different in the first century than to-day. In many instances, people now have jobs in which the employer is in operation 24/7. Sometimes nurses work all night long. Policemen and firemen are frequently on duty some part of the Lord’s day. Restaurants and factories can also operate around the clock. Therefore, if someone finishes work barely in time to attend Sunday evening at 6:00, should everyone else stay home and refrain from meeting until then? Then what about brethren who cannot drive at night due to their eyesight? Or what about those who must report in to work on Sunday at 4:00 P.M?
Trying to find a time that all can meet together proves impractical in today’s society. Most congregations have two opportunities on the Lord’s day for brethren to partake of the Lord’s Supper—one in the morning and one in the evening. In this particular congregation, there are only a handful of Sundays in a year’s time where no one needs the Lord’s Supper on Sunday evening. Phyllis may also find that the job she is seeking in this area may require her to work Sundays and holidays. God has given us flexibility as to the time of day that we meet, but in metropolitan areas it is unrealistic to expect to find a time where we can all partake of the Lord’s Supper at the same moment. We do the next best thing we can. Those on Sunday evening are served as part of the worship assembly while the rest of us wait on them.
In George Orwell’s book, 1984, the term doublethink is used, referring to something being so ambiguous as to be taken two different ways. What, however, do people think of when they hear the term doublespeak? Although a lack of clarity may come to mind, one may think of someone speaking out of both sides of his mouth or thinking in two opposite directions—something James refers to: “he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways” (1:8).
According to a Townhall story by Todd Starnes (October 4, 2019), “the school district in Appleton, Wisconsin” now requires students and faculty members alike to submit their public speeches (such as at a graduation ceremony) two weeks in advance of its presentation. Apparently, the school district will okay the speech—and make the person swear not to add anything to the text. Starnes quipped that he wondered “if they are going to make folks swear that oath on a copy of the Holy Bible or a copy of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.” Below is what the Appleton Area School District wrote:
The opportunity to speak at a school event is a privilege, not a right. These guidelines do not restrict or regulate individual speech or expression. However, individual speech and expression may still be subject to other restrictions or limitations that are imposed by law or that the District may lawfully enforce through other policies, rules or practices.
Does anyone have a problem recognizing this tripe as doublespeak? Essentially, it says we are not restricting or regulating free speech, but we are going to regulate and restrict all speaker’s speeches. God does not appreciate such statements because they were adopted to prevent the speakers from, say, referring to Jesus Christ, as one Christian board member did the previous year. Besides removing references to Deity, their statement contradicts itself, which means they intentionally lied, and God says (unambiguously) that all liars have their place in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone (Rev. 21:8).
One wonders if students could read aloud the Declaration of Independence, or would the school district eliminate this sentence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”? Would they censor the word Creator? Apparently, what was self-evident to the founding fathers is not to the Appleton Area School District. Their policy defies one of our most precious documents, and their doublespeak offends their Creator.
Many unsolicited publications arrive in the mail; occasionally, one of them contains an article of interest, such as the recent one in One Kingdom (this is not a recommendation of that magazine). One of the writers calls attention to a recent survey done by George Barna that was given to “believers.” See how well you do in answering the following questions listed in Volume 3, Issue 2, of this year (2019).
1. Do absolute moral truths exist?
2. Is absolute truth defined by the Bible?
3. Did Jesus Christ live a sinless life?
4. Is God the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe and does He still rule it today?
5. Is salvation a gift from God that cannot be earned?
6. Is Satan real?
7. Does a Christian have a responsibility to share his or her faith in Christ with other people?
8. Is the Bible accurate in all of its teachings?
Does anyone have trouble answering yes to all eight questions? Consider each one. God gave to mankind the moral truths that exist. They are stated in both the Old and New Testaments. If anyone believes in God (and all should—Romans 1:18-20), then he cannot logically deny that all truth—including moral truth—comes from God. The Bible defines absolute truth. It has always been available (Pr. 23:23), and we need it to be saved (John 8:31-32).
How could anyone be a Christian and not believe that Jesus lived a sinless life—a fact declared by an inspired apostle (1 Peter 2:22)? Likewise, no one can deny the reality of Satan, as the Bible presents him. We have all seen too much of the damage he has done. The Bible is correct in describing both Jesus and Satan—and, in fact, all else. God’s nature has not changed, either. The Holy Spirit inspired the Word. If the Bible is not accurate in all of its teaching, then where is it wrong? And how will anyone determine what passages may be relied on and which ones are faulty? No way out of this dilemma exists.
No, we cannot merit salvation. And, yes, God expects us to be evangelistic. These propositions have been demonstrated time and again; it would be hard to imagine anyone who would deny them. Yet, according to the article, only 9% of the “believers” polled answered yes to all eight questions. Can anyone explain that result?
