According to BBC News: “A French company has been found liable for the death of an employee who had a cardiac arrest while having sex with a stranger on a business trip.” No, your eyes are not deceiving you; a French Court made this decision. No information is available to know if the judges were actually sober at the time of the ruling. What were these justices thinking—that this could happen to them and they would want the court to compensate their families?
Okay, so what are the facts? The man who died was an engineer for “TSO, a railway services company based near Paris.” He was on a trip to Loiret. After work, he met a woman (maybe at a bar in the hotel where he was staying). He ended up in her hotel room. While he was thus engaged in cheating on his wife, he suffered cardiac arrest and died. This occurred in 2013. Six years later, a “Paris court ruled that his death was an industrial accident and that the family was entitled to compensation.” An “industrial accident”? Uh, he wasn’t in that industry. Nor can it be called “a workplace accident” by any stretch of the imagination.
“But under French law an employer is responsible for any accident occurring during a business trip,” judges said. Seriously? One might make a case for helping out his family if he were in a plane crash, a train wreck, or an automobile accident while traveling to or from his destination—but for something totally unrelated to his work or to transportation? If he contracted food poisoning at a restaurant and died, would that merit money for the man’s family? If he went into a small shop to buy a souvenir for his wife, and someone shot him during a hold-up, would the company have to pay for such an “industrial accident”?
The court said: “An employee on a business trip is entitled to social protection ‘over the whole time of his mission’ and regardless of the circumstances.” This is insane. It would not make much more sense if his death occurred while he was with his own wife, but in this instance, he chose an immoral action. What if he had been killed while robbing a souvenir shop? “But that’s an illegal act,” someone might protest. Oh, so engaging in immorality should be rewarded—but not illegal acts. Okay, then, what if he was struck and killed by a taxi while jaywalking? Walking is transportation, but crossing at the wrong spot is illegal. Probably rendering a decision on a matter this complex would strain the court. The point is, every sane individual knows the man did not die while engaging in work for his employer; the company is not responsible for his actions. Sometimes it appears that the only time a person will be held responsible for his behavior is on the Day of Judgment when sanity finally prevails (2 Cor. 5:10).
You may not see this fact anywhere else, but it was 243 years ago (1776) this very day that a noble patriot died. In order to help the colonists, Nathan Hale, a graduate of Yale, had volunteered to spy on the British, but he was caught. There was no trial; he was not allowed to see a spiritual advisor or even read a Bible. However, before they hung him, he was allowed to express one of the noblest patriotic sentiments ever recorded: “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.”
The young man, just 21, thus passed from this earth at a time when things looked bleak for the United States and without receiving any hint of this country’s glorious future. But regardless of the outcome of the war, Nathan Hale knew what he believed in. He knew that tyranny was wrong and that governments needed to derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed,” as stated in the Declaration of Independence. He paid the ultimate price for these beliefs. His few words are still remembered and honored, alongside those of Patrick Henry, whose moving speech ended with words that will forever ring throughout the corridors of time: “Give me liberty, or give me death!”
From where do such sentiments, which combine passion and truth, arise? Both Henry and Hale were reared at a time when the Bible was an honored book and a significant part of most people’s lives. Perhaps the commitment which they saw in the lives of Jesus and His apostles inspired them in secular matters as well. Jesus serves as the model for bearing witness to the truth—even when it was not convenient. The Sanhedrin convicted Him by His own words—His admission that He is the Son of God (Mark 14:61-62). Before Pilate, He also plainly spoke—even when it made the ruler angry at Him. Of course, Jesus did not need to give more than one life. One was sufficient: “Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12).
The Apostle Paul constantly put his life on the line. He once declared to some lackluster brethren, “I die daily” (1 Cor. 15:31). He said that he and all the apostles were treated as “the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things” (1 Cor. 4:13). And what about Christians in the first century (and afterward) who gave their lives for their Savior? They were not even guilty of spying; they had harmed no one. Yet they were put to death. They may have wished they could die more than once for Jesus. Is it the absence of the influence of the Bible that leads to a lack of conviction on the part of so many today for truth? Regardless, let all of us give the only life we have for Him Who died for us (2 Cor. 5:15; Gal. 2:20).
Sometime prior to April of this year (2019) a Jehovah’s Witness leaflet was distributed in this area (maybe nationwide). It’s about half the size of a legal sheet of paper with friendly folks shaking hands on page one. Underneath the picture, it proclaims: “You Are Welcome to Attend!” Page two has little printed on it. It begins with “On the night before he died, Jesus told his followers to commemorate his death. He said: ‘Keep doing this in remembrance of me.’ – Luke 22:19.” This formatting is theirs. They do not capitalize pronouns when referring to Jesus or place parentheses around Scripture references.
They try to be different in just about every way from anyone else. Toward that end they have their own Bible translation, which was put together by men who did not know Hebrew at all and very little Greek. The New World Translation is not to be trusted. Sometimes their errors are serious and will lead those who read it to eternal destruction. At other times, they are simply inept. They mishandled the verb in Luke 22:19. Jesus did not say, “Keep doing this”; He said, “Do this.” According to Bagster, the Greek word, poiete, is a second person, plural, present indicative, and imperative active. An imperative is a command and is correctly translated the way every major translation renders it—do this! “Keep doing this,” is incorrect.
But that’s not the main point. They go on (page 3) to invite all to join them “for the annual commemoration of the death of Jesus Christ.” Does anyone see anything incongruous about this? They mistranslated Jesus’ words to “keep doing this,” and they expect that people will understand that He was only referring to an annual event? Who does that? If someone says, “Keep up the good work,” are they referring to an annual burst of efficiency on the part of an employee? The church remembers Jesus the first day of each week (Acts 20:7). If Jehovah’s Witnesses want to have an annual event commemorating the Lord’s death, why don’t they provide a Scripture that it should be done that way?
They cannot call this event an Easter celebration because they know that was a pagan observance. Hmm. What to do? They have the “annual” non-Easter event on Good Friday (which is another unauthorized tradition of men), although they don’t call it that. As the song says: “Don’t you love farce?” So, in this tract, Jehovah’s Witnesses mistranslate Luke 22:19 to make it sound like Jesus wants His death remembered frequently (which He does)—and then they have an annual event instead on Good Friday, a day they do not observe. Hah! How much easier would it be to respond to Jesus Biblically by observing His death each week and ignoring entirely the traditions of men.
Driving to the office on August 28th, I heard a conversation on the radio from a local talk show. The host was saying that legalizing marijuana was probably going to be inevitable; so, we should save our resources for some other battle. Opposing legalization of marijuana was simply not a hill worth dying on. Hopefully, Christians will disagree mightily and do whatever we can to prevent such a disastrous day from coming to pass. It has been only about a decade ago that Floridians turned down Medical Marijuana. But thanks to the media and Morgan & Morgan, whose slogan is something like “For the Stoned People,” the medical version is now legal. Now a bill has been offered to make recreational marijuana available. Wow! Who could have seen that one coming?
Republicans have control of Florida’s state government. The radio personality urged them to pass the bill in order to get “credit” for bringing weed to Florida. They won’t get any credit from this voter if they do so—or support for office, either. The host rambled on, “They should legalize it and use the tax revenues for education or the environment.” Oh, there’s an original thought. Every state in the nation has used that same appeal for allowing casinos and gambling to invade their cities. So many taxes on sins have been raised for education that our children should be the smartest kids in the universe. Anyone want to bet on that?
“You’ve got to pick your battles,” goes the old saw. What battle are we waiting for? It’s nearly ninety years too late to keep alcohol illegal. Has anyone ever totaled all of the lives lost due to drunk drivers? We’re a little late on the battle to keep marriage from being redefined. Oh, and speaking of marriage we’re a little late to prevent divorce for any cause, aren’t we? More than 60,000,000 babies have been killed since Roe v. Wade. Of course, the Supreme Court never gave us a chance to fight that battle, having legalized the practice in one fell swoop, bypassing the legislative process. Perhaps the talk show host would like to tell us exactly what battle we are saving ourselves for. Those who are searching for a hill to die on will ultimately discover that the phantom hill is nothing more than a slippery slope to oblivion.
Recreational marijuana has been legal in certain states for a few years. Instead of theorizing on what the possible benefits might be to Florida if the bill is passed, how about giving us the data that shows how the states of Colorado and California have benefitted? What have the additional revenues purchased? How has work productivity soared? Please gives us an honest evaluation about the quality of life improving in those places. We’re waiting….
Perhaps, you may have seen the bumper sticker with the following message: “Heaven don’t want me, and hell is afraid I’ll take over.” What’s your response to such braggadocio? If it’s like mine, then you would be thinking, “Both statements are false.”
The first half of this tribute to Self is wrong because it contradicts 2 Peter 3:9: “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is long-suffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all shall come to repentance.” Since God does not want anyone to be lost, then, by extension, the realm which He governs (Heaven) will echo the same philosophy. The problem is not that Heaven does not want this soul who undoubtedly imagines himself to be clever; the crux of the matter is that he does not want Heaven. God is willing to bring anyone patiently along into the kingdom. Only the one who refuses to respond positively to Him will be excluded. Some of the worst human beings, who have done some of the most heinous acts, may one day be in Heaven. Why? The answer is that they came to a point where they realized what it means to be lost and how great God’s grace is. Heaven will not turn away those who repent and humbly obey from the heart the Gospel (Ps. 51:17).
The idea that Hell fears anyone is hilarious. This individual has highly overrated himself. Some of hell’s inhabitants are so much lower than most people can imagine. How many millions of innocent people did Stalin kill—twenty million? Hitler can’t even compare with that statistic. How many people has Darwin convinced to follow him to the infernal regions? On their wildest killing spree, Bonnie and Clyde could not even cause a shudder in any of Hell’s inhabitants. Every penny-ante dictator who ever lived craves the power that this motorist displays on his vehicle. Try as he might, he could never match the carnage created by seven “Supreme” Court justices in 1973 (well over 60,000,000 infants).
But none of these can compare with the one who is responsible for the majority of people who populate hell—Satan himself. Soul after soul he has deceived. Some of these were at one time on the road to Heaven, but he managed to find and exploit their weaknesses. He did not fear to entice the purest of individuals into lascivious lechers; he did not fear to inflame the contented soul into a covetous and greedy wolf. Furthermore, he feared not to oppose God Himself and lead a rebellion against the honorable angels. Is the devil really going to fear some pipsqueak with an over-inflated ego? Hah! Satan has no fear! And he eats the proud for breakfast.
(Continued from Article posted August 11, 2019.)
In the song, “Revive Us Again,” what do the words, Let each soul be rekindled with fire from above mean? Two weeks ago, we looked at Bible verses that mentioned fire coming from above and found them all to be detrimental; so, we guessed that the author was referring to Pentecost, where the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit, and there appeared above their heads cloven tongues as of fire. Another possible meaning has been suggested, but first it should be pointed out that nothing can be rekindled unless it was first kindled. No one can rekindle a fire that never burned in the first place.
Since the author has passed on, we can only speculate what the first kindling was—unless someone finds something written by him in the way of an explanation. The one passage we did not deal with in the previous article is what John the Baptizer taught in Matthew 3:11, when he promised that Jesus would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. Is it possible that the song writer was thinking that followers of Jesus would be baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire? And that, if we are not careful, we could quench the Spirit, and therefore need to be rekindled with more fire (and more Holy Spirit, too, presumably) from above? Whether or not these were the author’s views we do not know, but the fact is that some do believe this ideology.
However, they are not right in their thinking because they have misunderstood Matthew 3:11, which is nestled between Matthew 3:10 and 12. Below is the entire text of what John said.
“And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
Consider these verses carefully. Nothing positive is stated in Matthew 3:10. The trees that were not bearing good fruit were going to be cut down and cast into the fire. Verse 12 is a little bit better; the threshing floor will be cleaned out: the wheat will go into the barn, but the chaff will be burned with unquenchable fire. Hmm. In both verses 10 and 12 the fire is that of judgment. Why do people think the fire in verse 11 is a good thing when the fire in the verse immediately preceding it and the fire in the verse immediately after refer to the lake of fire—final judgment? Verse 11 parallels the other two. No one is going to want to receive this fire from above—rekindled or otherwise.
For many years, some commentators have explained Matthew 3:11 as referring to Holy Spirit baptism and the tongues as of fire. This interpretation has two problems: the first problem is the word as. The tongues did not have a consistency of fire; they only appeared to look like fire. Second, such an interpretation ignores the context (verses 10-12). Brethren have pointed out the correct interpretation from J.W. McGarvey in his Commentary on Matthew – Mark (1875) to Tom Wacaster’s The Majesty of Jesus (2018).
McGarvey wrote: “It is clearly the wicked who are to be baptized in fire, and the fulfillment of the prediction will be realized when they are cast into the lake of fire” (39). Tom Wacaster echoed those sentiments in his recent commentary:
When John speaks of the Lord baptizing in “fire,” he was saying that the One Who was to follow him would baptize some of them in the Holy Spirit, and some of them would be cast into the fire of judgment. The fulfillment of this baptism in fire will be realized by the wicked when they are cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15) (1:96).
Again, fire from above is not a good thing. Whatever the song writer was thinking was incorrect. Those who write songs are not infallible; their words often reflect their theology, which accounts for many of the errors in songs we are all familiar with. Our responsibility is to sing in spirit and in truth, which means evaluating the words and refraining from singing some songs or verses.
Of course, many of those who call themselves Christians believe in one of the versions of Calvinism or Arminianism, but these doctrines have been infiltrating the church for a few decades now, also. Brother Daniel Denham called attention to some in the “church” who were teaching Calvinism in his chapter, “Calvinism’s Influence On The Church” (389-410) for the 1994 Bellview Lectures, edited by Bobby Liddell. In 2005 he wrote a similar chapter, “Liberalism and Calvinism” (504-23), for the Bellview Lectures edited by Michael Hatcher. Quotes from these books will be noted by the date and page number.
In the 1994 book, some were already teaching forms of Calvinism. Liberals among us may not have been parroting “the sinful nature,” but they were teaching forms of Calvinism, such as Jack Exum’s insistence, “One hundred percent of salvation is by grace! We don’t deserve any of it. We can’t earn it, buy it, or in any way merit it…” (1994, p. 397). The last two sentences are true. We can’t earn God’s salvation, and truly, we don’t deserve it, but the first sentence is false. Does it occur to anyone else that, if salvation is 100% by grace, then we really don’t need to discuss the matter? It would be 100% up to God to save us; so why bother to even discuss it. God decides if we’re saved or lost and if we will receive His grace or not. Such an idea contradicts Titus 2:11: “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.”
The fact is that the offer of grace is 100% God’s doing; whether we receive it or not is 100% our decision. Another quote from Norman L. Bales objects to the idea that “grace is God’s part in salvation and that obedience is man’s part” (1994, p. 400). Again, if salvation is by grace alone, then we have no need to discuss it or try to convince each other concerning which view is correct. If God extends His grace toward us, then we can be saved; otherwise, we are lost.
A few men were teaching, especially in the 70s and 80s, like Richard Oster of Harding Graduate School, that “when one is baptized in water, he then also receives Holy Spirit baptism” (1994, p. 402). Since the mid-90s, Mac Deaver, a former student of the truth, has joined this gaggle of liberals, much to the surprise of most brethren. Rubel Shelly is so in harmony with Calvinistic thinking that he “ridiculed the idea of there being steps in salvation” (1994, p. 403). He continued by quoting someone who has obviously influenced him: “Dead men do not climb ladders.” What he basically means is that, since all people are dead in sin, they cannot climb a ladder of steps leading to salvation. Brother Denham points out that this is not from the Scriptures but from Calvinism’s total depravity and its “grace only” doctrine, adding that “dead men do not have faith either! Dead men do not repent!” (1994, p. 103).
Shelly’s thinking is based on Ephesians 2:1-2, where Paul writes that the Ephesians had been dead in trespasses and sins. Thus, man is unable to respond to God because he is dead. But Shelly teaches we must have faith and repent (2005, p. 520). How? If we are totally dead, then would we not need for God, by His grace, to choose to enable us to respond? Dead men (if Shelly was right about what Paul meant) cannot decide to obey the gospel. Obviously, Paul spoke of something other than what Shelly attributes to him.
The Holy Spirit
Every false doctrine regarding the Holy Spirit may not be linked to Calvinism, but both Calvinism and current errors on the Holy Spirit involve the Spirit operating on us directly. Mac Deaver, for example, has been defending the idea of direct involvement of the Holy Spirit upon man for more than two decades (2005, p. 518). A speaker at Freed-Hardeman just a few years ago took essentially the Deaver position, and Spiritual Perspectives spent three weeks refuting the errors presented at that time. These views are being taught now even in a Ladies’ class book, as the article on the front page notes (“Do Not Quench the Spirit,” August 18, 2019).
The So-Called “Sinful Nature”
Whether or not Pamela Stewart’s comments on the Holy Spirit in her book, Evangelistic Women, are related to Calvinism or not might be debated. What cannot be debated are some of her other comments included in her third chapter, “What Hinders Our Ministry?” Her main thesis is correct—that unrepented sin will keep someone from being an effective Christian. She does not use Psalm 66:18, but that Scripture is certainly relevant: “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear.”
However, consider the way she tries to establish that truth: “The Holy Spirit can’t live in a body that continually practices a sin, one that is controlled by the sinful nature” (27). What? At this point the reader may be confused. She is talking about Christian women—women who have been washed, sanctified, and justified (1 Cor. 6:11). Yet these women still have a sinful nature, and that sinful nature can still control them! Of course, they never had a sinful nature to begin with, but according to these words, the alleged “sinful nature” does not seem to ever go away.
God did not talk to Cain about a sinful nature. He did not say, “You killed your brother because you were born a fallen man. You will always be a slave to your sinful nature, you poor pathetic human.” No, God told him he had the ability to choose to do right. He could either do right or give in to the enticement of sin and do wrong (Gen. 4:7).
Stewart continues: “Sometimes it is hard to harmonize the marvelous grace God extends to us, who live by the Spirit but sin out of weakness, with a person who is controlled by the sinful nature” (27). Has the author been engulfed with Calvinism or the NIV—or both? Women studying this book might wonder what she is supposed to do about this alleged sinful nature that Christians purportedly have? We are warned against Satan who “walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8). We know that we must exercise self-control (Gal 5:22-23; 2 Peter 1:5-7) in order to resist him, but exactly what is a Christian supposed to do about this “sinful nature”?
Stewart continues by saying that if the Christian is not practicing sin, God’s grace can cover that. “However, if we are controlled by the sinful nature and our attitude is that God’s grace will cover whatever we do, we are in trouble” (28). This is now the third time in this one paragraph that the writer has invoked the sinful nature. Any woman studying this book should be asking herself, if she believes in this sinful nature, “Hey! How do I get rid of that accursed affliction?”
Unfortunately, there is not much help offered. The writer cites David from Psalm 51 and then advises everyone to repent, be cleansed, and be restored (28). Okay, that is what we would all say, but how does that affect the sinful nature? Christians, in order to become a child of God, already repented and were cleansed. If that didn’t do away with the sinful nature, why will it work any better now?
The only other suggestion involved an illustration of a Christian woman who refused to give up her sin until someone told her, “According to the Scripture, you are committing a willful sin. You won’t go to heaven unless you repent” (28). That’s all it took—one frank, honest statement—and the sinful nature was vanquished! The woman was restored!
The obvious point is that mankind does not need a sinful nature to explain any of these events, and certainly nothing is suggested as a remedy beyond what we have always taught. So why insist that we all have a sinful nature to begin with? Is it intentional—or just from too much immersion in the NIV?
And why did her husband not say anything about these things when she wrote them? Bill Stewart, at the time the book was written, was an instructor at Bear Valley, and Pamela taught “Women’s Ministries and Evangelism” classes. Didn’t any of the women in her class think this teaching was peculiar? Did none of the preachers know anything about this doctrine being taught? Or was it taught to the men, also? What about the faculty members? Do they all agree with her that Christians have a sinful nature, or are they totally unaware of what is being taught? Calvinism seems to be slowly creeping into the church and spreading. When it turns up (quite unnecessarily) in a women’s class book, it is probably later than we think. It seems we are being influenced by denominationalism.
“Power from the Indwelling Holy Spirit”
The above title is the second chapter of Mrs. Stewart’s book. She writes: “When we become Christians, the Father sends His Holy Spirit to indwell us” (15). These words provide no problem because many brethren believe precisely the same thing. However, much more is added. Since the Holy Spirit is living in our hearts, what “greater power could we imagine?” (16). Is that what the Scriptures teach—that the indwelling Spirit provides great power to us?
She writes that non-Christians try to be good on their own with limited success, but “the person who has the indwelling Holy Spirit has the capability to put to death the sinful things” (16). Wait a minute! If it takes the Holy Spirit living within a Christian to put away sinful things, then how do non-Christians repent? After the sinner believes, he repents, which is to put away sinful things. How can the non-Christian do that, but Christians cannot without the help of the Holy Spirit?
Oh, wait. She has an answer to this question: “The decision to put sin to death must be made before baptism (repentance), but the power to so do comes from the Holy Spirit that indwells us” (16). So, we don’t actually change before being baptized; we just make the decision to change. After we are baptized, then we get the power to repent. However, the fact is, if we don’t have the power to change before baptism, then we have not repented. Repentance is not just feeling sorry for our sins (although we need to do that, also), nor is it a promise to change after we get Holy Spirit power.
When Jesus told the Jews, “…unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3), did He actually mean that they could only intend to repent now but would have to wait until Pentecost to have the power to repent? How did David ever repent without the power of the Holy Spirit? Or Manasseh? Or the prodigal son?
She also writes that “God’s Holy Spirit living in us should make a difference in everything we do: the way we act, the places we go, the way we dress…” (16). If she means the knowledge of the Spirit’s indwelling should cause us to be careful in the way we represent Jesus, most would probably agree—but not if she means that the Holy Spirit is going to cause us to live differently. From other things she writes, it is difficult to understand what she means by this statement.
To be fair, she also credits the Word. Proclaiming the truth that the Word was given by inspiration, she declares that it “gives us everything we need to be powerful women of God” (20). We agree totally, and if she had just written these words, no criticism would have been forthcoming. But what are we to make of all of the verbiage about “the sinful nature” and the power of the Holy Spirit helping us (directly, by implication)? Her views on the Holy Spirit are not necessarily Calvinistic—except that they both hold that the Spirit operates directly upon us. When combined with the “sinful nature” comments, it appears that Calvinism is creeping into the church.
The series on “Creeping Calvinism,” provides more information about the book, Evangelistic Women, which also contains errors concerning the Holy Spirit. The author erroneously states: “We hinder our ministries when we suppress the Spirit,” which is followed by the following quote from 1 Thessalonians 5:19: “Do not put out the Spirit’s fire.” The author does not say what version she is using, although two dozen could be listed that she did not reference. She assures her readers that another version uses quench. Actually, most translations have quench because that is the meaning of the Greek word. However, she adds that it means to “put out the Spirit’s fire” (26).
The fact of the matter is that the Greek word translated “quench” is found eight times in the New Testament. The first time it refers to Jesus not quenching a smoking flax (Matt. 12:20); the second reference is to the five virgins whose lamps had “gone out” (Matt. 25:8). Three times Jesus referred to hell as a place where “the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:44, 46, 48). In Ephesians 6:16, the shield of faith is able “to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.” In Hebrews 11:34, heroes of the faith “quenched the violence of fire….” None of these refer to the Holy Spirit; the fires referenced are all different. The idea that Paul is writing that brethren should not “put out the Spirit’s fire” is not the meaning at all.
The only passage that comes close to saying such a thing is Jeremiah 20:9; the prophet was so discouraged about preaching that he had determined to quit. “But His word was in my heart like a burning fire shut up in my bones; I was weary of holding it back, and I could not.” The key word is like. In 1 Thessalonians 5:19, what is being held back is inspiration, which is a compulsion—like a fire. Kittel writes the following: “Paul is rather warning of a deliberate suppression of the extraordinary operations of the Spirit in the congregation…” (VII:168).
The author of Evangelistic Women instead thinks of the quenching that the “people who do this know the Spirit lives within them, but the Spirit does not affect them because they keep Him suppressed” (26). This was not the meaning when Paul wrote it, nor is it the meaning now. Brother Thomas B. Warren likewise believed that quenching the Spirit referred to a refusal to use miraculous gifts in the first century. He further comments: “Today, the Holy Spirit speaks to no one in a miraculous way, but only through the Word (the Bible). Today, one can ‘quench’ the Spirit by rejecting the Word…” Studies in 1, 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, edited by Dub McClish (199). The only way Christians can quench the Spirit today is by rejecting what He revealed in the Word.
The idea that babies are born depraved is not a very popular doctrine—even among those who attend Calvinistic churches. For those who may be unaware, Calvinism is the theology of Augustine (354–430) that Reformer John Calvin (1509–1564) reworked and popularized. The first tenet of Calvinism is that every child is born depraved, meaning that he comes into the world already corrupted, perverted, degenerate, and debased. He cannot have a single good or decent thought unless the Holy Spirit performs a work of grace upon him. Most parents look at their baby, pure and innocent, and say, “Nah!”
So, while their theology teaches total hereditary depravity, their personal experience tells them it is not so. Now if children came into the world as teenagers, the concept would be more credible. But the fact is that it takes time for children to become corrupt; they are not born that way.
However, the more an error is repeated, the more likely it is to be believed. Denominational authors, therefore, are constantly calling attention to this doctrine of depravity. For example, in Joe Dallas’ book, Speaking of Homosexuality, he makes the following statement: “Paul then listed twenty-three other behaviors springing from our fallen nature (1:29-31)…” (190). [For information on this book, listen to the sermon, “Did Jesus Teach Anything Concerning Homosexuality?” at our website, cocwp.org. This sermon is listed under Video (seen at the top of the page).]
Romans 1:29-31 does not say anything about 23 forms of bad behavior emanating from our “fallen nature.” These behaviors were the result of: 1) the people under discussion giving up God; and 2) God giving them up. Paul begins this passage by saying that no one can be excused for not knowing that God exists because the Creation declares His presence (Rom. 1:18-20).
In fact, the people who lived after the Flood knew God, but they did not glorify Him as God, nor were they thankful to Him for having given them a cleansed earth on which to live. They became futile in their thoughts. Now notice this next clause: “…and their foolish hearts were darkened.” The Greek word, skotos, is translated “darkness” all 32 times in the King James, including people being cast into the outer darkness (Matt. 8:12). As a verb, skotizomai is translated “be, shall be, was, or were darkened.” In other words, something is in the process of being darkened, whether the sun (Matt. 24:29) one’s eyes (Rom. 11:10), or one’s heart.
Question: If all are born depraved, they have no light in them; so how can their hearts grow darker? Can someone become depraveder than depraved? If, so, how is that possible? This one verse by itself demonstrates that people are not born depraved.
Dallas goes on to say just five lines later: “Paul called homosexuality the result of a fallen nature…” (190). The Apostle Paul said no such thing. What Paul said was that, since people changed the glory of the incorruptible God into idolatrous images, God gave them up to uncleanness (Rom. 1:21-24). At this point, they began practicing homosexuality (Rom. 1:24-27). However, if people are born depraved, as bad as they will ever be, then how do they get worse?
The point is that one cannot talk about our depraved sinful nature and at the same time find that man is becoming progressively worse after the introduction of idolatry. Dallas closes this paragraph by affirming “Man’s nature is hopelessly corrupt,” citing Romans 1:28-32. But when did it become so—when man sinned in the Garden of Eden or when, after the Flood, man chose to invent and worship idols? The answer is neither. Man cannot be totally depraved and also become totally depraved.
Free Will
In the last chapter of his book, Dallas makes suggestions as to the way we might approach the subject of homosexuality with practicing homosexuals. He first reminds the reader that the world is “in rebellion against God” (Eph. 2:2) and then says: “Add to this hostile environment the sin nature we’ve all inherited…” (226). He cites 1 Corinthians 2:24, Romans 3:10, and Romans 7:18.
According to Calvinism, we became totally depraved when Adam and Eve sinned; and we cannot make any right choices until the Holy Spirit cleanses us so that we can believe. Without this action (which they refer to as “irresistible grace”), we can neither think nor act properly. So then, why does Dallas tell us to reason with such depraved individuals? He actually says, “A heart that’s softened toward God receives the truth and conforms to it” (227). What? How does a totally depraved heart become softened? If the answer is that the Holy Spirit has changed it, then it would not just be softened but pliable and interested in truth.
He then says that homosexuals can become convicted to give up their sin. How? It is the result of “a combination of our biblical words, the hearer’s conscience, and the Spirit’s inner prodding” (231). Whoa! What conscience? Totally depraved individuals have a conscience? Why? What do they need one for? They have no power to choose what is right—if they are totally depraved. And why would Biblical words have any effect on them? A totally depraved heart cannot accept them. It must be that Dallas is a soft Calvinist, a modified Calvinist, or Arminian, which is difficult to understand. If a person is not born totally depraved, what is he—partially depraved? How does that work? How does he have both a sinful nature and a free will?
And what does Dallas mean when he refers to “the Spirit’s inner prodding.” Is he telling us that the Holy Spirit is living inside someone with a sinful nature? Really? This suggestion is simply too preposterous, and it is not the way Calvinism works. According to it, the Holy Spirit would need to do an operation on the sinner’s heart, thus allowing him to be converted and give up the sin of homosexuality. (If Dallas does not mean the Holy Spirit is prodding from within, what does he mean?)
Only those who believe in free will know that the Scriptures have the power to change men’s minds (Heb. 4:12) and that all people have consciences. Dallas believes in a sinful nature, but argues like those of us who believe in free will.
“Sinful Nature”
We are scarcely surprised to see Calvinism (in some form) expressed by denominational authors, but now we are seeing it in the Lord’s church. How did it get there? It probably results from two sources: 1) Brethren playing footsies with denominationalists (reading books by Calvinists); and 2) Brethren using the NIV. Some preachers use the NIV, and some congregations have NIVs as pew Bibles. It is almost as if no one had ever read Foy Wallace’s A Review of the New Versions or read numerous warnings from Brother Robert R. Taylor on the subject. Many brethren have cautioned against the translation—apparently to no avail. This writer penned a chapter on the NIV for A Handbook on Bible Translation edited by Terry M. Hightower in 1995. Part of that chapter provides one argument against such a translation, which is reprinted below from pages 757-58:
The Implications of a “Sinful Nature”
Why protest this unfortunate rendering of “sinful nature”? It has long been held a matter of logic that any teaching which implies a false doctrine is itself false. What ideas does “a sinful nature” suggest? If man has a “sinful nature,” where did he get it? The first choice is that God created us that way. If so, then He can hardly expect us to do anything other than sin. If we all possess an uncontrollable urge to sin, and God put it there, how can He accuse us of choosing wrongly? Does anyone condemn a crippled man for not walking or a blind man for not seeing? Likewise, if God put within us an unfailing desire to sin, how then can we be justly blamed and condemned?
The Bible teaches that when God finished the Creation (including man), it was very good (Gen. 1:31). Such could not be said if man were created with a “sinful nature.” In such a case, sin would have been waiting for a chance to express itself. Rather, we were created with free will, which allows sin to be an option, but not a necessity.
That we have free will is the reason we are encouraged to make the right decision. God calls for us to obey (Mat. 11:28-30; Rev. 22:17). We still have the choice to obey or disobey—even as God’s people. Joshua commanded the people to choose whom they would serve (Jos. 24:14-15). If we fail to please God, it will be our fault. Freedom of choice is that which allows God to hold us accountable. Animals won’t be judged; they cannot help being what they are; humans can.
The second way that man might have obtained a sinful nature is through the “fall.” Somehow, when man sinned, he became depraved and incapable of doing good. The nature of man changed at that moment, Calvinists say. But there are a few problems with this theory. The first is that hereditary total depravity is unnecessary to explain why people sin today. Ask a Calvinist for the reason, and he will answer: “Depravity.” Then ask: “Is that why Adam sinned?” “Oh, no; Adam was made in the image of God. Mankind only became depraved after the ‘fall.'” If Adam did not need depravity in order to sin, why do we? Free will explains both situations; depravity explains neither.
Also, the “fall” rationale carries with it the same basic problems the first theory has. How is mankind benefited if Adam was not created depraved, but we are? We still would not be able to help it; our sinfulness would not be our fault. God could still not hold us accountable. Besides, God told even Cain (after the “fall”) that he had a choice: he could do well or give in to sin (free will). Someone could perform a real service by polling the NIV translators. It would be interesting to find out how many of them believe in the tenets of Calvinism and how many of them think that man is born in a depraved condition. Where else would they get the idea of “sinful nature”? Their repeated use of this phrase disqualifies the NIV as a reliable, accurate, or unbiased translation.
One More Thought
If all human beings have “a sinful nature,” then why didn’t Jesus have one? “Oh, but He was fathered by the Holy Spirit.” Yes, but his mother was Mary, and Jesus would have received “a sinful nature” from her. Jesus called Himself the Son of God but also the Son of Man, meaning that He was fully human. If all human beings are tainted by the fall, then Jesus was tainted by it as well. The Word became flesh (John 1:14).
Oddly enough, the New International Version (NIV) does not translate the Greek word sarx as “sinful nature” when it pertains to Jesus. They use the word they should have used in all the passages—“flesh.” Jesus did not abolish the enmity between the Jews and the Gentiles in His “sinful nature” (Eph. 2:15). He did so in His flesh (to be continued).
In the song, “Revive Us Again,” the last verse contains the words: “May each soul be rekindled with fire from above.” Congregations have been singing these words for decades, but what do they mean? Where in the Scriptures do we find fire coming from above? One might think of Nadab and Abihu, but the fire is not said to come from above, but rather “out from the Lord” (Lev. 10:2).
Prior to that even, the Lord rained down brimstone and fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:24). Fire was mingled with hail as it fell from heaven in Exodus 9:23-24 as one of the Ten Plagues God brought upon the Egyptians. The Lord descended upon Mount Sinai in fire. “Its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace…” (Ex. 19:18). The text does not say the fire descended upon the Israelites, however. If it had, would it not have consumed them? Another text says that the “sight of the glory of the Lord was like a consuming fire on the top of the mountain…” (Ex. 24:17). In Numbers 11:1-3 the fire burnt among Israel at Taberah, but it is not described as having come from above (see also Numbers 16:35).
In 1 Kings 18:38 fire from above consumed the sacrifice that Elijah had prepared and doused with water. The fire did not come upon the people, however. Fire from above fell on two captains, each with the 50 men (2 Kings 1:10, 12). Jeremiah writes: “From above He sent fire into my bones…” but it refers to judgment on Israel (Lam. 1:13). The effect in this instance was not good—not something one would want to experience. In short, fire from above is usually a symbol of judgment—as in 2 Thessalonians 1:8, where Jesus descends from heaven with His mighty angels “in flaming fire, taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ” (see also Revelation 20:9). As the writer of Hebrews declared: “For our God is a consuming fire!” (Heb. 12:29).
So why would we ask God in song to fill us with fire from above, since it usually represents destruction and consumption? The writer of the song may (and this is a guess) have been thinking of Pentecost when divided tongues, as of fire, sat upon each one of the apostles (Acts 2:3). If so, he is asking for a Pentecost experience to come upon those singing the song, which is not possible since what happened on Pentecost was the fulfilment of a promise. Today, we do not receive either the baptism of the Holy Spirit, or the gift of speaking in tongues. So, why do we sing this verse? There are four other verses; perhaps we ought to stop with them.
(Continued in Article posted August 25, 2019.)
