Okay, I’ve never counted them, but experts tell us that Psalm 118:8 is the middle verse in the Bible. The first verse is truly a significant one; the last one is a sentiment often repeated. Whether or not the middle verse could be expected to be important or not, well, it is. It contains one of the most important messages contained in the entire Bible, which is: “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man.” Why is this so crucial? It is a warning for everyone to go to the source, God and His Book, rather than to rely on someone or something else.
How many times have people uttered words like these? “My pastor said…”; “A friend told me…”; “My grandfather always told me….” The problem is that all of those individuals are fallible human beings. Look closely at their hands; not one of them have nail prints in them. As Paul asked the Corinthians on a different matter: “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:13). Jesus is the One Who died for us, and He is the one we must listen to. Jesus said: “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day” (John 12:48).
What the friend, the grandfather, or the spiritual leader think are irrelevant—if they disagree with the Lord. Here is one example. Jesus said: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved…” (Mark 16:16a). Whenever anyone says, “He who believes and is not baptized will be saved,” they are not to be trusted for they have said the exact opposite of the One Who died for us. Every teacher, preacher, relative, or friend must agree with the Scriptures that Jesus spoke—because we will all be judged by Him, not them. No one has the right to disagree with Jesus.
In I Kings 13, God gave an individual known only as “the man of God” instructions concerning what to say to King Jeroboam. They included two travel items. He was not to eat and drink within the city, nor was he to return from his visit by the same road he had entered (1 Kings 13:9). An older prophet assured him that an angel told him it was all right after all for him to have a meal in the city. The older prophet, in saying those words, lied to him. He died on the way back for not doing what God had told him. How many today are listening to spiritual leaders such as the “old prophet”—and losing their souls? No one should put confidence in man. Trust in the Lord.
[Editor’s note: The following exchange took place between Brother Boyer and a Catholic enthusiast. The arguments belong to the Catholic; Brother Boyer simply responds to them. Some edits were made—GWS].
Does the Catholic Church contradict the Bible with its practice of celibacy for Catholic bishops?
Catholic enthusiast’s first argument: Paul was a bishop and not married. We know he was a bishop because the Apostolic office is described with the Greek word episkope (Acts 1:20).
Connor: Was Paul a bishop? There is no doubt that Paul was an apostle. In fact, he often introduced himself at the beginning of his epistles as an apostle. He would refer to himself as such to demonstrate his authority: “Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ” (Titus 1:1). We know that Peter was both an apostle and elder because he said so, “I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder” (1 Peter 5:1). But is there evidence to say that Paul was a bishop? Broussard says that they are one and the same, but did Paul treat these offices as one and the same? Paul, when he writes to the church at Ephesus, makes a clear distinction between the office of a bishop and that of an apostle: “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11). In the first century, the term pastor was used interchangeably with the office of bishop or elder (see 1 Peter 5:1-4 [shepherd is the verb form of the noun pastor]. If the term apostle and bishop referred to the same office, why would Paul separate them distinctly in his list? Wouldn’t it have made sense and been easier to just say apostles or bishops? But Paul didn’t.
Though the offices are clearly seen as separate in Scripture, Broussard’s claim must be answered. The word episkope is used in reference to the office of the apostle, but it must be translated based on the context. Just as elder refers to an older man or an office, so episkope has more than one meaning. In Acts 1:20, Young’s Literal Translation says, “And his oversight let another take.” The very literal American Standard Version has: “His office let another take.” The vast majority of respectable translations simply translate it as “office.” And that’s what the word means in this context. It is referring to the work of an apostle, not a bishop (for which Paul gives qualifications in 1 Timothy 3).
It might surprise you to know that Greek words in the New Testament are like ours: some have one usual meaning, but others can convey different ideas, depending on the context, the gender, and the prefix or the suffix attached to the root word. The root here is episkopos. The word episkope is translated in four ways in the NASB—twice as “visitation,” once as “bishop,” and once as “office.”
To help prevent any potential confusion, think of some English words that sound the same, but vary in meaning depending on the context. For example, I might say, “I’ve been running,” and you would take this to mean I’ve gone for a jog, likely to exercise. However, I might say my refrigerator is running; this does not mean my refrigerator likes to jog with me, but that it is functioning properly. I might also say that my nose is running, which does not mean my nose likes to jog or that it is functioning properly. It actually means the opposite and likely indicates that I am experiencing a cold or, at the very least, allergies. However, you know what I mean, based on the context. The same applies to Greek words; the context determines the meaning.
Another issue with this argument is that the Catholic church does not apply this logic across the board. For example, some translations erroneously call Phoebe a deaconess instead of a servant (Rom. 16:1). Even if an inferior version were right, would that mean she holds the office of a deacon because the same root is used in both Greek words? This is the same logic Broussard uses to prove that Paul was a bishop. However, both the churches of Christ and the Roman Catholic church would agree that no office of a deaconess existed in the first century. The churches of Christ appeal to Scripture as evidence while Roman Catholics appeal to records concerning early councils.
Paul gives clear instructions concerning the office of a deacon, and in those qualifications he states that they must be men and also have wives (1 Tim. 3:8, 12). The church of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church both understand that everyone is required to be a servant (deacon) of God, but only certain individuals can hold the office of a deacon. Just because a similar word was used with Phoebe that is also used with deacons does not mean Phoebe held the office of a deacon. Likewise, just because a similar word is used in connection with apostles and bishops does not mean they are of the same office—especially since Paul lists them as separate offices (Eph. 4:11).
Catholic enthusiast’s second argument: Denying Paul’s bishopric also denies that Jesus is the guardian of our soul, because the Greek here for guardian is episkopos (1 Peter 2:25). Jesus was and is still celibate, and yet he is still the episkopos of our souls.
Connor: This argument has no merit. The word translated “bishop” has virtually lost its meaning in today’s world and is often only referred to men of high rank in certain “high churches” such as the Catholic, Anglican, and Episcopal church. Of course, there is the chess piece that can only move diagonally. The Greek word, episkopos, simply means “overseer.” One can be an
overseer in various respects. It is wonderful that Jesus is the overseer of my soul; as God, I expect Him to be. Just because He is an overseer in a heavenly sense, does that mean he is an overseer in an earthly sense? This is what is called in logic the false equivalence fallacy.
Catholic enthusiast’s third argument: The husband of one wife does not mean the husband of a wife. This is simply a limit of how many marriages a bishop can have in his lifetime.
Connor: So, if a man is widowed, then he cannot marry again and be qualified to be a bishop? Marriage is for life, but death terminates a marriage. If he marries again, he is still the husband of one wife. Also, a divorce of one’s spouse is allowed if she commits fornication (Matt. 19:9). If a man had an unscriptural divorce and remarried (which is unscriptural), he cannot even be in fellowship with the church, let alone be a bishop. But he can be a bishop with a Scriptural divorce. His first marriage was terminated, and he now is the husband of one wife.
Broussard says that, if Paul was trying to say that a bishop must be married, he would have written “the husband of ‘a’ wife.” This is an odd argument; Paul wrote precisely what he meant. He never indicated that this is a suggestion and not a requirement. In fact, nothing else in this list is a suggestion. As Paul begins the list, he says, A bishop must be…” (1 Timothy 3:2). The Greek word for must is dei, meaning, “it is necessary.” Paul makes it clear that these qualifications are necessary.
If a bishop could or could not have a wife, how do we account for the fact that his children must be “in subjection in all reverence”—and that this is a test to see how he will manage the church of God (1 Tim. 3:4-5)? It should be obvious that a bishop must be married.
Catholic enthusiast’s fourth argument: Paul’s strong encouragement of celibacy equates to making the marriage of a bishop optional.
Connor: Paul does encourage celibacy—because of a present distress (1 Cor. 7:25-38). But at the same time he makes it clear that no one sins in marrying. He writes: “But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:2, ESV). Marriage is a healthy outlet for sexual desires; in fact, most men and women need this outlet. Marriage is the institution, designed by God, to express this aspect of our humanity (Gen. 2:24). Paul even condemns those in a marital relationship who deprive their spouses—except by consent—for a short time, in order to guard against temptation (1 Cor. 7:5).
Paul does say that if one has the gift (of not having a strong need for sexual fulfillment), he would experience certain spiritual benefits by remaining unmarried. They include surviving the “present distress,” in which things were going to be very difficult for married couples. This could be a warning against upcoming persecution or perhaps refer simply to the hostile environment at Corinth. We know that the Jews in Corinth were hostile to the Christians, attempting to use the government to interfere in their spiritual walk (Acts 18:12-17). Whatever the distress was, Paul said at that time it would be better to remain unmarried because one’s attention can be wholly given to God (1 Cor. 7:32-34). A Christian could suffer much when distress comes upon him; however, when it came upon his wife or kids, it could be truly difficult to endure. For this reason, Paul says it would be best that they remain single for the current time, but he makes it clear that this is not a command but a suggestion (1 Cor. 7:38).
But are there benefits to not being married at all—even if one is not in a distressing situation? Yes. Jesus also seems to indicate that remaining unmarried is difficult and rare. But He mentions that some “made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God,” though not literally, but in the sense that they abstained from marriage (Matt. 19:11-12). This seems to have been something that Paul chose to do as a missionary. Paul moved from place to place all over the Roman empire in order to preach and teach; having a wife tag along would have been difficult, considering all the opposition he endured (stoning, imprisonment, et al.).
But does this have anything to do with bishops of the local church? No. Paul made it clear that not marrying was optional for single people. In reference to being a bishop, however, he chose the word dei (“it is necessary”) in reference to the qualifications for the office.
Can a Christian make a great missionary, preacher, or evangelist being celibate? Yes, of course. He can make himself a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of God! But that is not the role of a bishop. One thing to consider is that in the first century bishops worked in cooperation with other bishops in that congregation. In fact, they were selected from the same congregation they oversaw (Acts 14:21-23). These bishops would not be traveling from place to place or have the same difficulties a missionary would.
The second and main thing to consider involves the benefits of having a wife and children. In 1 Timothy 3:1-7, three of these seven verses are concerned with him being married or having children, which seems to (1) demonstrate to the church he is eligible to be a bishop. As Paul writes, “but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?”
(2) Peter says that bishops must rule as examples (1 Peter 5:2). Would it not be important for bishops to lead the families in the church as to the way to be a proper husband and father?
Finally (3), would not the bishop be able to teach better, if he had the experience of being husband and father who had to raise children and be faithful to God? Why else would Paul emphasize bishops being married men with children in both letters to Titus and Timothy? Why else would Paul make it a necessary qualification?
The New Testament teaches some very clear and important doctrines. Those include the way in which sins are forgiven, what constitutes correct worship, the way the church is to be organized, and various teachings concerning the way that Christians must conduct themselves. The New Testament is the only authority we have to determine what truth is.
Some try to reach back into the Old Testament,which God made with the Israelites, as a basis for us to follow today. As Paul points out in Galatians 5:1-4, anyone who does so is required to abide by the entire Law—and has fallen from grace. While some appeal to the Old Testament, many of us object, knowing that we have another covenant that God made with all mankind today through Jesus, who is the Mediator of a new and better covenant (Heb. 8:6-7).
Occasionally, some man tries to set himself above the Scriptures. It may be one who calls himself pope or the head of a cult, such as Joseph Smith or Jim Jones. Anyone who claims a higher authority than the Holy Scriptures (inspired) of God cannot be one deemed worthy to follow. We can all agree that the Scriptures teach truth; we cannot all agree on following a mere mortal that some group desires to set forward. The New Testament is our only authority; anyone who contradicts what it teaches is wrong!
Likewise, we cannot have confidence in, nor trust everyone who says, “I have a message from God.” Why not? The first reason is that anyone can make a claim regarding heretofore unrevealed truth. Can we believe all such individuals—especially since they contradict each other? God is not the author of confusion and obviously did not inspire men with conflicting messages regarding fundamental matters.
Joseph Smith, for example, claimed monogamy was the only valid form of marriage, but within a short period of time reversed himself to allow for polygamy—especially for himself. He claimed the Lord told him to take more wives. How convenient! Consider all of those who have made predictions concerning the return of Jesus. Every one of them has failed to occur. Yet some people mistakenly believed each prediction.
The second reason we can dismiss all modern-day “revelations” is that the New Testament teaches that “the faith” was delivered once for all to the saints—in the first century (Jude 3). No one has successfully added a single truth to the Bible’s teaching since then. God gave the church “all things” that pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). We can all agree that what the Scriptures teach is correct and profitable (2 Tim. 3:16-17); we will never achieve unity on what today’s claimants try to foist upon us. They cannot even agree amongst themselves concerning new “revelations”; are we supposed to share in their disunity?
Third, if revelation had continued since the first century, then why is there no collection of those sacred writings for all to study? People today are not bashful about saying they received messages from the Holy Spirit; why are such revelations not collected into book form and distributed for the edification of all? The answer is simple; they do not exist—despite frantic efforts to convince the public that they do. The charismatic movement has existed for more than five decades, and they claim spiritual gifts, as do various “Pentecostals,” who have been around twice as long. Yet no one has dared print a volume of such Scriptures,” for they know full well how much trouble they would be in when such a presumptuous work was scrutinized.
Defense of Denominationalism
One of the most fundamental teachings of the New Testament regards the followers of Jesus. He prayed that all of His disciples—even those who became such through the apostles’ teaching—might be one (John 17:20-21). He did not have in mind some so-called unity-in-diversity gimmick; Jesus desired that Christians be as united as the Father and the Son, which is complete agreement. If anyone thinks otherwise, perhaps he could tell us what matters the Father and the Son disagree over.
Paul continued this same line of reasoning in 1 Corinthians 1:10 when he exhorted a congregation divided in many ways “to be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” As it was, they were claiming to follow different men such as Paul himself, Peter (Cephas), and Apollos (1 Cor. 1:11-13). Since these facts are unarguable, therefore the challenge is offered for anyone to defend the concept of division that currently exists in “Christendom.”
Not only do various denominations exist, most of them are quite proud of their history. Some of them are just arriving at their 500th birthday, which is impressive—until one realizes Jesus established the church nearly 2,000 years ago. Half a millennium is not nearly old enough! Therefore, the challenge is repeated: Who has an argument? Who has a defense of the division Jesus prayed would not occur? Let’s see it! Who will refute the teachings of Paul? Who dares to set forth a logical argument, the conclusion of which is, “It is acceptable to God to have dozens, if not hundreds, of denominations—all of which Jesus established and which He heartily approves of”?
No one will hold his breath in anticipation of ever seeing such an argument because it would contradict a fundamental teaching of the New Testament—namely that Jesus established His church. On what basis can anyone disagree with the following teachings of the New Testament? Each point is accompanied by the passage that teaches it.
The Church
1. Jesus prophesied that He would build His church (Matt. 16:18). Note that the word church is singular and that no hint of various churches can be found in the text.
2. Paul taught that Jesus purchased the church with His own blood (Acts 20:28). Nowhere does he indicate that this church is some sort of conglomerate of different religious groups with doctrines that disagree with each other. The church is as singular here as in Matthew 16:18.
3. Paul taught that Jesus is the Head over the body, the church (Eph. 1:22-23). Notice the consistency of the Lord’s body being called the church. Does someone really want to affirm that by the church Paul means dozens of religious groups, each with their own creed, manual, or catechism?
4. Just a few verses later, Paul teaches that all Christians must strive for unity and lists seven reasons why that unity must exist. The very first one listed is that there is one body (Eph. 4:4). The body, as noted in Ephesians 1:22-23, is the church. What kind of a plea for unity would Paul be making if the one body really consisted of 25 denominations scattered throughout the Roman empire? And if there were even three different “churches” when Paul stated unambiguously one, how many different Lords would “one Lord” be? How many different baptisms would “one baptism” imply? How many different “faiths” does “one faith” suggest?
5. Just a few more verses later Paul proclaims that Jesus is “the Savior of the body” (Eph. 5:23). How many bodies does Jesus have? He promised to build one church, purchased one church with His blood, is Head over one church, and will be the Savior of that one body (the church).
Who Can Be That One Church?
Can any religious body be that one church today? It would be hard to imagine anything other than two possible answers to this question—yes or no. If the answer is no, what does that mean? It would mean that Jesus built and died for the church—but that no one can be a part of it. Does anyone actually believe that? It would be absurd to make such a claim. The New Testament would have no meaning to us. If the gospel can still be preached, and people can still obey that gospel, then they can still be added to the church (Acts 2:38, 41, 47).
Surely, all must agree that the church for which Jesus died still exists and that people can become a part of that body which He will save. But what of all the religious groups that claim to be a denomination and are content to be divided? Jesus did not die for that, and He did not pray for it, either. Since division violates the very purpose of the church, it can’t be right.
Therefore, all who want to be Christians must seek out the church. How can that church exist? No church can provide a continuous history going back to the first century except Catholicism, and it is the apostate church bearing no resemblance to the church that Christ established. However, no one needs to trace themselves back to the first century through times where true brethren were persecuted and killed and historical records were destroyed.
Another way of being the church Jesus built exists, and it is not complicated. First, don’t try to be a denomination, recognizing that such thinking runs counter to the Lord’s expressed will. Throw away man-made creeds and be governed by the New Testament. Some will call this action forming a new denomination, but these remarks lack honesty and will come from people who are content in a denomination though they cannot defend it. When people decide to abide simply by the teaching of the New Testament, they are seeking nothing other than to be the one church Jesus established.
Second, teach what Jesus and the apostles taught concerning salvation. The Bible contains no sinner’s prayer. That idea was developed about a century ago. Some have become spiritual contortionists in an effort to get out from under the clear teaching of Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, and Acts 22:16. Jesus said, for example, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” They say, “He who believes and is not baptized shall be saved.” Which one is right? Is it right to contradict the verse?
Third, worship God in the way the New Testament describes. The church in the New Testament did not put on shows. Worship was directed to God. The Word of God was preached. Each Lord’s day, brethren met to honor the death of Jesus for their sins (Acts 20:7). No congregation used instruments of music. How many denominations fit this pattern?
Fourth, let the church be organized the way New Testament Scriptures describe it. Elders (notice the plural) and deacons were appointed (Acts 14:23; Phil. 1:1), and their qualifications are given in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. No one was called, “The Pastor.” Why don’t religious groups go by the teaching of the New Testament today? Where is the authority for dioceses or positions greater than elders? Where do we find annual conventions authorized in the New Testament?
The Church
Many of us are trying to avoid denominationalism and simply be the church of the New Testament. We believe if we follow the teachings concerning salvation, worship, church organization, and so on, we are that church Jesus built. Why doesn’t everyone else try to do the same thing? Many are too caught up in a long denominational history with traditions they are not willing to forsake. Many cannot bring themselves to humbly accept New Testament teaching. Many do not have a love of the truth (2 Thess. 2:10). The truth is not out of reach—but some men’s hearts are.
The week of July 11th the Jeopardy quiz show had a category in which the contestants had to name something concerning the weekend. One of the clues yielded the answer, “Your Sunday Best.” According to Wikipedia, the definition “traditionally refers to fine clothes reserved for church attendance.” If the current trend continues, this expression will soon be added to the scrap pile of archaic expressions, like, “Far out,” and, “You’re the ginchiest.”
The current trend is that of “Casual Sunday.” More and more congregations that one visits finds the “Sunday Best” concept to be passe. Obviously, many no longer believe, “Clothes make the man,” a phrase that has its origin centuries ago. More recently Mark Twain wrote: “Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.” Of course, this quip is more humorous than logical. Clothing is still influential for many. Why else do people believe what evolutionists say, if not because of the white lab coat that makes them look “official”?
Some may say that the idea of wearing your “Sunday Best” is not in the New Testament. Probably, it’s somewhere in 3 Timothy near where Paul admonished the young evangelist not to enter the assembly without a tie. The point, however, is that different cultures have different expectations. The Bible doesn’t forbid wearing an AC/DC T-shirt and shorts while serving on the Lord’s Table, either, but hopefully brethren have enough sense to know better. The Bible does teach that Christians abide by a certain decorum. In Corinth, the women needed to wear veils in public so as not to be confused with temple prostitutes. While no one would make that association today in this country, it was necessary for ladies to include that as proper attire in that city.
God is not going to speak the Ten Commandments to us personally when we come together for worship on the Lord’s day, but on the occasion when He did give the commands to Israel, He told Moses, “Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes” (Ex. 19:10), which they did (v. 14). They made themselves ready for the Lord (Ex. 19:11, 15). Is there some reason why we should not be equally prepared for worship today—in mind, body, and dress? We are to give Him the best we have, are we not?
As news commentator Paul Harvey used to say, “This is a strange.” A brief news item appeared in the Orlando Sentinel on Sunday, February 24. An editor/publisher of an Alabama newspaper wrote an editorial that appeared on Valentine’s Day in his paper. Reportedly, he called for mass lynchings and advocated that the Ku Klux Klan needed to “clean out” Washington. What? Surely, the date of this story should be April 1st. No one in his right mind would print something so hideous, so preposterous, so anti-American, so unchristian, would he? It must be a joke in poor taste, right?
No state government would allow such a thing, let alone the federal government. And even if they would, citizens (of all colors) would be in the streets protesting like nothing this nation has seen in a long time. And how logical can it be to ask the KKK to clean up Washington? It’s not as though they hold any power or have any elected authority. Probably 99% of the population is opposed to the racism they represent. No one would take any of their efforts seriously or follow them in trying to take over the government. We change things by ballots—not bullets. One is tempted to ask the editor, “What have you been smoking? What drugs are you on?” And yet, according to the newspaper, when he was challenged, he said he was sticking to what he had written.
Who is this guy? Everyone might have formed an image by now. Those who are thinking it might be an older guy are right; he was born in 1939. He took over the newspaper from his father nearly 40 years ago. And he was once suggested as a candidate for the Pulitzer Prize. Why? In 1998, he had the courage to publish a series of articles that “exposed corruption in the Marengo County Sheriff’s Office,” according to Wikipedia. Probably none of us would have suspected that. At the time, he received various awards for his good work. It is doubtful that he will receive any for this Valentine’s Day editorial.
Was he trying to be funny? If so, no one laughed. The entire editorial is on line for anyone who wants to read it. It sounds somewhat incoherent. Well, the guy does turn 80 this year; perhaps his thinking is confused. Although he sounds racist to the core, he hired a young black woman to work at the paper at the beginning of this year. One can only imagine how she felt when she saw the editorial. She was planning on resigning when a strange thing occurred.About a week after the editorial was published, the owner resigned and turned the newspaper over to her, telling her “she could carry on the legacy of his family by taking the paper in a ‘new direction’” (A6). Does anyone understand this event? Truly, it is a strange.
Okay, the details of the following description here may not be accurate; I only saw the video for a brief moment. Perhaps someone else viewed it and can provide more information. The brief clip showed one woman savagely beating another alongside her car. Whether she pulled her out of her car or the woman voluntarily left it, I cannot recall. But the one relentlessly punched and kicked the other. Someone called the police; the beating was taped on a cell phone (fortunately).The woman meting out the punishment had obviously lost control of herself. When the police came to inquire of the incident, the woman guilty of the assault said without hesitation that the woman lying on the ground half dead had “started it.” Her mother backed her up. Both lied.
The victim of another human being’s rage survived to tell the truth of what had happened. A few frightening things concerning this event present themselves. First, if the woman had died, the other side of what occurred would be quite sketchy. Second, without the video, the police may not have been able to arrest anyone. It might have been chalked up to a street fight with conflicting testimonies. Third, that an innocent motorist could be beaten in broad daylight is disconcerting. Could anyone be susceptible to such an attack? Fourth, in how many people does such anger reside? She did not know her victim. Was the true object of the woman’s wrath a boss who had recently fired her—or a boyfriend who beat her? We don’t know, but no one should possess such fermented bitterness to unleash on a fellow individual made in the image of God.
Perhaps it was another manifestation of her explosive anger, but the fact that she so willingly lied to shift the blame on the helpless soul she had pummeled indicates an absence of morality, Christian thinking, and conscience. The fact that her mother corroborated her lie may explain where she got those values. Why didn’t her mother try to stop her? Did she not have any compassion whatsoever? Such extreme selfishness on the part of both should never be imitated. Is what happened here a demonstration of Darwin’s “survival of the fittest”?
Is this event a harbinger of what is to come as many children today are reared apart from Christian teaching? Each decade that passes finds more and more young people who know little about the Bible, God, and Jesus. The information is available, but teachers and various college professors mock holy concepts. In older movies, one could often observe some of the main characters worshiping on Sundays, but such scenes rarely can be found these days. God and His ways have no place in the public forum. So, is this what’s coming—more displays of thuggish behavior by heartless souls devoid of self-control?
While many chapters in Proverbs combine unrelated gems of wisdom, some of the earlier sections contain several verses dealing with certain subjects. Proverbs 3 is one of these, and the first eight verses serve as a unit. It begins with Solomon writing an admonition to his son in the form of a parallelism:
My son, do not forget my law,
But let your heart keep my commands (3:1).
How often did God command Israel to do the same thing? In Deuteronomy 4:9, God warned Israel to “take heed” and “diligently” keep themselves lest they forget what they had seen and depart from their God. A few verses later they were cautioned to “take heed” to themselves lest they forget the covenant God had made with them (4:23). Similar passages are found in Deuteronomy 4:31, 6:12, 8:11, 14, 18; et al. Deuteronomy 8:1 also expresses the positive principle: “Every commandment which I command you today you must be careful to observe….”
For length of days and long life
And peace they will add to you (3:2).
On this occasion promises attend the exhortation. Of course, keeping God’s laws always provides His followers various blessings, but it is helpful to have it spelled out sometimes.
Let not mercy and truth forsake you;
Bind them around your neck,
Write them on the tablet of your heart,
And so find favor and high esteem
In the sight of God and man (3:3-4).
Without a doubt, every man needs to be the recipient of mercy, as well as finding the truth (Pr. 23:23), but the point here is to extend those qualities to others. A person should not need to strain himself to be merciful if we recognize our own need of it. “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy” (Matt. 5:7). We must also avoid deception and lies as we speak to others (Rev. 21:8). These attributes must be part of our character, and they will cause us to be held in high regard both by God and man.
Keeping God’s commands are beneficial to us; so is the possession of mercy and truth. But the centerpiece of our spiritual life is found in Proverbs 3:5-6:
Trust in the Lord with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall direct your paths.
No one should be persuaded to give up his obedience, mercy, and grasp of the truth because of various forms of adversity. One must maintain his faith.
Does it seem as though things are not working out? Does the devil appear to be winning? Is there pressure to throw in the towel and either ignore or participate in all the various forms of ungodliness? Discouragement comes easily; faithfulness requires effort.
Christians know the fundamentals are true. None of us can seriously question the existence of God or the Bible being from Him. The evidence is overwhelming to an honest heart. We know that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, because of the “many infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3). But the majority of people are not paying attention to these truths. We therefore simply don’t understand either people or events—especially those that have an adverse effect on Christians. John wrote the entire Book of Revelation to deal with that problem. In the final analysis, we are “more than conquerors” (Rom. 8:37). So, when things do not seem quite right, and we have no explanation, we should not lean to our own understanding. Our goal must be to trust in His providence—even when events are confusing. He always knows what He is doing. Or do we think we know more than God? Verses 7-8 address that notion.
Do not be wise in your own eyes;
Fear the Lord and depart from evil.
It will be health to your flesh,
And strength to your bones.
No matter how cleaver we might fancy ourselves, God stands high above us in knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. We cannot compete with omniscience. We cannot allow a lack of understanding on any point to lead us back into sin; nothing can justify such an evil choice. As in verse 2, the right character has advantages. Health and strength are similar to long life and peace. God also grants prosperity to those who trust completely in Him.
Honor the Lord with your possessions,
And with the firstfruits of all your increase;
So will your barns be filled with plenty.
And your vats will overflow with new wine (3:9-10).
The last holdout some may have in their dedication to God is their money. Although exceptions exist (the Pharisees, for example), when a person is willing to give generously, he usually has given himself totally to God. In fact, it is often the case that the more one has, the harder it is to part with it. Consider the selfishness of the rich man, who could not spare anything for Lazarus and the rich farmer with a huge “I” problem (Luke 16:19-31; 12:15-21). The rich young ruler desired to be perfect—until Jesus told him to give away all that he had, promising him treasure in heaven (which would be far greater than what he would have given away) (Luke 18:22). The man was sorry to hear Jesus say those words because he was very rich (v. 23). His trust in God did not allow him to cross the wealth barrier.
My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord,
Nor detest His correction;
For whom the Lord loves, He corrects,
Just as a father the son in whom he delights (3:11-12).
Of course, sometimes when things do not go well, we might consider that it is our own fault. Perhaps we have committed a sin unwittingly—and then defended our actions. Or maybe we did know it was a sin but thought we could get by with it. No. Because God loves us, He chastises us. It may not even be our sin—but rather that of someone in the family or someone in the congregation. All Israel was punished for Achan’s sin. Whatever the problem is, it needs to be discovered and corrected.
Proverbs 3:13-26 is a section which pleads for all to seek wisdom. The early chapters of this book often list tributes to wisdom. The great charge of 4:5 is: “Get wisdom! Get understanding!” Verse 7 adds: “Wisdom is the principal thing….” Chapter 8 records an extended praise of wisdom. Perhaps the greatest comment in our text is 3:18: “She is a tree of life to those who take hold of her, and happy are all who retain her.” The idea of the tree of life refers to that which refreshes, but it also sustains. We can live by wisdom, and she will not disappoint. God denied access to the tree of life in the Garden of Eden once Adam and Eve sinned, but it exists symbolically as described in this verse, and it will be part of heaven itself—to sustain us eternally (Rev. 22:14).
Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due,
when it is in the power of your hand to do so.
Do not say to your neighbor,
“Go, and come back, and tomorrow I will give it,”
When you have it with you (3:27-28).
After the section on wisdom, the last nine verses may serve as examples of it in the way we treat one another. Verse 27 reminds us of three important verses in the New Testament. The first is the Golden Rule: “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the prophets” (Matt. 7:12). Would any of us appreciate it if someone had the power to do good to us but refused? Hardly. We would be saddened and greatly disappointed. How, then, will others feel if we are equally hard-hearted?
The second verse is James 4:17: “Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.” Again, if we have the opportunity to do good to someone, we ought to do so, as Galatians 6:9, the third passage, indicates. The illustration may refer to the prohibition of keeping a person’s wages overnight (Lev. 19:13; Deut. 24:15). Despite the specific application, however, we must honor the principle.
Do not devise evil against your neighbor,
For he dwells by you for safety’s sake.
Do not strive with a man without cause,
If he has done you no harm (3:29-30).
These verses expand the idea of wrongdoing. It is bad enough to withhold from someone what is owed, but now we see that some people actually go out of their way to devise evil. This is not just taking advantage of a circumstance; it involves seeking a way to do harm, which is the opposite of loving one’s neighbor. Each neighbor depends on the other to have his back. We do not expect, should thieves come by to rob someone, for a neighbor to offer to lend a hand to the thieves! He is there for protection. We trust our neighbors that way. So it is evil to do him harm. One who would extend ill will to someone who never did him wrong violates both loving God and his neighbor—and it puts the aggressor and his family at risk. “Whoever rewards evil for good, evil will not depart from his house” (Pr. 17:13).
Do not envy the oppressor, and choose none
of his ways, for the perverse person
is an abomination to the Lord (3:31-32a).
Why would anyone envy an oppressor? Is this an Old Testament variation of the Stockholm Syndrome? According to Wikipedia, only 8% of people who are kidnapped form a bond with their captors. Is it possible that, when people see injustices, a certain percentage of them want to emulate the one committing the wrong? Apparently, but no one should because God does not respect him, nor will He save him.
But His secret counsel is with the upright.
The curse of the Lord is on the house of the wicked,
But He blesses the habitation of the just (3:32b-33).
The Pulpit Commentary suggests that secret counsel means that God sits together with the upright. In other words, God communes and fellowships them. He approves of them (though they are not perfect). But they are not persecuting others for their own advantage. Solomon presents two different types of people who receive two different responses from God. He enjoys blessing the upright, but the house of the wicked receives no such favor. In fact, all they can expect is a curse, which includes the youngsters in the family who grow up to be like their parents.
Surely He scorns the scornful, But gives grace
to the humble. The wise shall inherit glory,
But shame shall be the legacy of fools (3:34-35).
Wisdom should cause us to act in certain positive ways while avoiding behavior that is unacceptable to God. The chapter begins with praising the obedient one who practices mercy and truth, while trusting in God completely. Here it ends by defining more fully the way to treat others, especially neighbors. We reap what we sow (Gal. 6:7-8). God scorns the scornful; they receive back what they gave, and God can repay them perfectly. The humble and wise receive grace and glory, which is the way God chooses to reward imperfect human beings who are nevertheless trying to please Him. Only a fool would prefer a legacy of shame, which not only follows him but spills over to his offspring. His unconcern demonstrates his unbridled selfishness.
Who would issue such a statement as the claim made in the title of this article? The answer is that a Baptist Church in this area not only would but has done so. It is from “Session 1” of a handbook given to those who decide to be members of that particular Baptist Church. The title of this section is: “Baptism and Church Membership.” Underneath this main heading is the following sentence: “After a person receives Jesus as Lord and Savior, God commands him/her to be baptized and join a local church.”
No Scriptures are provided for this point, but the claim is made that one is baptized after he receives Jesus as Lord and Savior. Apparently, receiving Jesus is the equivalent of being saved. Only when this has been accomplished does one need to be baptized and join a local church. The Bible teaches that one is saved WHEN he is baptized (not before) and does not speak at all (in any of the verses cited later) about joining the church.
Ordinarily, when citing materials produced by others, only the most pertinent comments are repeated, but in this case every word will be cited just to make certain that the reader knows nothing significant has been omitted. Section 1 includes two sub-headings, the first of which is BAPTISM. Immediately under the heading are the following words:
Baptism does not save us (give us or keep us in a relationship with God), but it is the first step in obeying our Lord.
Have these Baptists never read what Satan did in the Garden of Eden? God told Adam that in the day that he ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he would surely die (Gen. 2:17). Eve knew of this command because she repeated it in Genesis 3:3. Satan told her, “You will not surely die.” When a statement such as this one is completely reversed in meaning, most of us call it a lie.
1 Peter 3:21 says: “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us….” Yet the Baptists say, “Baptism does not save us….” To contradict the Scriptures in this way is just as much of a lie as what Satan told. Jess Whitlock used this comparison in a debate once. The entire audience could see the difference between the words now and not. Does baptism save us now? Is it part of the process of having sins removed, as Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16 teach? Or does it have nothing to do with salvation?
Most people would absolutely dread directly contradicting a verse of Scripture, but Baptist leaders do not hesitate to do so. Nor can this be an honest mistake—not when it is as clear a lie as the devil’s. No one can claim sincerity when they add not to a command of God. Such an act is intentional.
The truth is that baptism does put us in a relationship with God because we connect to the death of Christ through baptism. We are united with Him in that watery grave (Rom. 6:3-5). His blood washes away our sins at the time we are immersed. For this reason both the blood of Jesus and baptism are said to wash away our sins (Rev. 1:5; Acts 22:16). Baptism is not the first step of obedience; it is the last step in the salvation process, following faith, repentance, and confession (Mark. 16:16; Acts 2:38, Acts 8:37). Rejoicing always follows baptism (Acts 8:38-39; Acts 16:33-34). In the Scriptures, no one ever believed, rejoiced in his salvation, and then was told to be baptized. Not once! If the Baptists had a single example of such an occasion, they would present it for everyone to see. Such a turn of events does not exist.
Baptism Is Commanded
Roman numeral I is titled The Importance of Baptism. It consists of an A, B, C, and D. A is very brief: “The last command Jesus gave his followers.” This is followed by Matthew 28:18-20, and that is the entire point. This passage does teach baptism—but not the way Baptists do. Jesus said to go and “make disciples of all nations.” Now an inquiring person might wonder, “How does one make disciples?” There is a twofold answer: 1) “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”; and 2) teaching them to observe all things” that Jesus had commanded the apostles (Matt. 28:19-20).
One is baptized as part of the process of becoming a disciple. Neither this verse nor any other verse says that one is a disciple before being baptized. He cannot be because he is not saved until baptism. But watch carefully how Point B is stated:
After 3000 people were saved on the Day of Pentecost, they were immediately baptized and made members of the local church.
Following this statement the Scripture passage of Acts 2:41-47 is cited. This is all there is to point B.
The discerning Bible student must ask, “Where in this passage does it say that anyone was saved?” First of all, they did not start with the correct verse. They should have started with the question that the people asked Peter on the Day of Pentecost after he convinced them that the Jesus they crucified was, in fact, the Christ (Acts 2:36-37). They asked what they should do, and Peter answered in the very next verse:
“Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).”
Why Were They to Repent and be Baptized?
Notice that the people have not responded by verse 38. They had asked what to do in verse 37, and Peter is just now answering their question. If they want to do something about their sins (specifically, crucifying Jesus, but all others as well), they must repent and be baptized. Notice that these acts bring them forgiveness of sins (remission). Why did the Baptist booklet fail to mention the answer Peter gave the people?
But he is not through. He continues to speak to them in verse 39: “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” At the end of verse 39, no one is said to be saved yet. They are still listening to Peter’s answer to their question. However, the apostle is still not through: “And with many other words he testified and exhorted them saying, ‘Be saved from this perverse generation.’”
Notice that nowhere does the text say they were saved. In fact, not one of them was yet because Peter was still pleading with them to save themselves! Yet the Baptist booklet provides none of this background. It simply says 3,000 were saved and then baptized, advising their readers to begin reading with verse 41, which does mention 3,000—but still says nothing about being baptized after they were saved. In fact, no one has responded yet to Peter’s urgings to be saved, but they will in verse 41. Consider it carefully.
“Then those who gladly received his word were baptized….” This is the crowd’s response. Peter told them to be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins, and now we see that they are. Nothing is said about them being saved before this point. This is the way they are saved—by being baptized. They gladly received his word regarding repenting and being baptized.“…and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.”
The Baptist booklet is wrong to say they were saved and then baptized. Peter admonished them to save themselves, and this they did by repenting and being baptized. Whoever wrote those words in the booklet deliberately misrepresented this text. They can read and understand the text as well as anyone, but their doctrine does not match the truth; so they just twist the truth and hope no one will read the text carefully. Below is a synopsis of the text.
1. Peter preaches the resurrection of Christ, which he established through fulfilled prophecy and through eyewitness testimony (Acts 2:22-36).
2. The people ask what they should do (verse 37).
3. Peter tells them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…” (verse 38). He then encourages them and exhorts them to save themselves (verses 39-40). Nothing has been omitted in this summary.
4. Those “who gladly received his word” (about repenting and being baptized) “were baptized.” What is so difficult about understanding this point (verse 41)?
5. These 3,000 “were added to them” (verse 41). Added to whom? The apostles who had been doing the preaching.
6. It is not until later in verse 47 that a more explicit answer is given about that to which the 3,000 were added. All who had been baptized were “praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.”
The reader may not have noticed the discrepancy between the introductory paragraph and the wording of Point B. The introductory paragraph says a person should be baptized “and join a local church.” That is not what the Scriptures teach; they stated it correctly in point B when they said the 3,000 were “made members of the local church” (the only local church in existence, as a matter of fact). God makes those who are baptized members of the church. No one joins the church. But even if they did, there was no Baptist Church to join in Jerusalem. The only church in existence is the one that belonged to Jesus, which He promised to build (Matt. 16:18). The church does not belong to men; it belongs to Christ, Who is the Head over it (Eph. 1:22-23).
Acts 8:12-13; Acts 10:48
Point C cites the above passage after making this brief statement: “All believers in the local church were baptized.” However, if you read verse 12, it does not say the Samaritans were already saved. Instead, it describes their conversion: “But when they believed Philip as he preached on the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, both men and women were baptized.” They were not in the church first, but when they believed they were baptized, just as Jesus taught in Mark 16:16. Notice the text does not say, as the booklet does: 1) believe; 2) saved; 3) in the church; 4) baptized. Two and three are missing. When they believed, they were baptized.
The final verse on baptism that is cited is Acts 10:48. The accompanying sentence states: “Because baptism was expected after a person was saved, Peter commanded these new believers to be baptized.” The only trouble is that the text does not teach this error. Where does any verse in Acts 10 say that Cornelius and his family were saved prior to baptism?
Roman numeral II is titled The Meaning of Baptism. It begins with these words: “Baptism is symbolic,” and closes with: “Baptism is only proper when it follows conversion.” The first question is, “What Scripture says baptism is symbolic?” Where can we read that in the Bible? It is not there. The second question is: “Where does the Bible teach that baptism follows conversion instead of being part of conversion?” Baptist assumptions cannot take the place of Biblical evidence.
“Jesus speak,s to me personally and directs me .he choose me to tell all about his love . And with his holy spirit help i will.” Those are the actual words given in response to a seven-page letter showing what the Scriptures teach on this subject. No one has any idea what this person thinks Jesus is saying to him, but He certainly is not telling him how to write, or there would not be 6 obvious grammatical mistakes in only three sentences (not counting the failure to capitalize references to Deity). Since God knew the Hebrew and the Greek, He can surely handle modern English.
So how can the Christian challenge the claims of someone who asserts that God is speaking to him? One could rightly say that the individual who so alleges is obligated to offer proof, but it is doubtful that he will feel compelled to comply. One could point out that anyone can say God is speaking to him. Muhammad averred that Allah spoke to him. Joseph Smith said he translated plates (which no one ever saw) by God’s inspiration. Cult leaders declare all the time that God speaks to them. So have some mass murderers. Obviously, such claims have no validity.
There is only one way to inject any kind of objectivity into this situation—and that is for the person claiming Divine communication to write it down. David wrote down what God said to him in the Psalms, just as Solomon did in Proverbs. Moses wrote God’s covenant with Israel so that all generations coming afterward could keep His commandments (Deut. 10:12-13). Jesus and His apostles not only spoke the word of God orally; their words were recorded by Divine inspiration. Had they not been written down, we would not have the Golden Rule and hundreds of other bits of information that we need. We would not have Divine inspiration’s explanation of the way Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in the New Testament.
Therefore, all of those who think that God is speaking directly to them (instead of through the Word that He gave us) owe to the world the wisdom that God has imparted to them. If it was important enough to tell one person, then it needs to be communicated to all of us. Isaiah and Jeremiah did not keep their prophecies to themselves—or their denunciations of the nations of the world. John did not keep his revelation to himself. And neither should anyone else. All of those claiming that God speaks to them must write down their meditations and prophecies so that we may all evaluate the “Divine” wisdom they allege they have received.
Windows is a publication of the Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Austin, Texas. The title of this article is an observation that the president of this institution has seen regarding modern practices—one with which he agrees. Older, easily identifiable religious denominations have been losing ground, and he is all for the new “street-level look” that is coming into view across the country. He refers to it as “evidence of the expanding visions of the church in our time.” (2).
In his article, “Preparing Leaders,” this same president praises the “church emerging in front of our very eyes” (9). As this reviewer began to consider the thoughts in this issue, an appropriate title suggested itself for all that is expressed in it: Gobbledygook. According to the dictionary, this term means: “unclear, often verbose, usually bureaucratic jargon.” In other words, the language is high-sounding and perhaps well-intentioned, but substance is lacking.
The seminary and its president are supportive of new expressions of worship that take place outside of church buildings, which seems to be the main thesis. One article talks about the “Nones” and the “Dones.” These individuals are “spiritually curious but institutionally suspicious” (10). To be more descriptive, the “Nones” have no religious affiliation (and perhaps never have had) and the “Dones,” referring to those who have left institutional churches. (Do they also have “clones”?) Others are included, such as those who
seek new, reforming visions for their expression. We meet in coffee shops and restaurants to talk about spirituality, life experiences, and the teachings of Jesus. This is sacred, convening ministry. It is certainly holy ground (10).
A better name for it would be shared ignorance. Does any of this remotely sound like what the Bible describes in the pages of the New Testament? Institutions like the Presbyterian Church left the teachings of the Bible when they became man-made institutions. Now they are in a culture that no longer is interested in those old, staid, and disappearing groups; so they are desperately trying to find a way to reach people. Instead, however, of returning to the Scriptures, they are following the tastes and dictates of the current culture in the name of relevancy.
The Church
Jesus established the church (Matt. 16:18), and brethren met without church buildings erected by great architects. Christians understood that the church consisted of those who were saved rather than referring to bricks and mortar. It is not wrong, however, to have a permanent meeting place, but the emphasis on the building itself seems to have displaced the idea that brethren could meet anywhere.
Worse than that was departing from God’s organization for the church. The Presbyterians and just about every other group made the church a man-made institution, which they controlled, rather than the blood bought body of Jesus Christ. The Lord, through His apostles, explained the structure of the church. Jesus is the Head (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18). Each individual congregation is subject to Him (as hinted by the fact that He personally had John write letters to seven of His churches in Revelation).
Within each congregation, however, qualified men are to lead that particular group of Christians. These are overseers (bishops), pastors (or shepherds), and older men in the faith (presbyters) (see Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:1-4). Deacons serve under these men (1 Tim. 3:1-13). No one, however, serves over these men except the Lord.
In other words, no one is over a region like Seminole County, in which all the churches would be subject to him or them (if it were a council). No individual or group would be over a state or an entire nation. Each group of Christians would be self-contained, autonomous. No national councils, synods, conferences, or conventions would exist if God’s plan in the New Testament were followed. All visitors would find anywhere would be independent churches under elders.
Now people are no longer interested in these old denominations and their unscriptural ways, but their solution is to become “relevant” rather than go back to the Scriptures, drop their denominational (and therefore divisive) names, and find out what the Bible teaches about salvation and acceptable worship.
Some Flaws
Considering some of the things we have seen thus far in the various articles in Windows, they are flawed as well. What are the “expanding visions of the church in our time”? The church’s work is described in the New Testament. Brethren (when persecuted) went everywhere preaching the Word (Acts 8:4). Perhaps old institutions are crumbling because they had a different pattern from what is presented in the Bible. They developed a professional clergy with degrees that qualified them for…what? Many Christians know more Scriptures than these “professionals” do. They may be skilled in procedures, in church doctrine, in their own hierarchies, in history, in musical programming, and in fundraising, but if they were skilled in the Word, they would not be professional clergymen in the first place (Matt. 23:8-10)! The only visions of the church that matter are the ones Christ has for His body of believers. The “church that is emerging in front of our very eyes” is not the church for which Christ died. Is there some reason to think that “Nones” and “Dones” are qualified to know about the church?
“Church” Growth?
Another article deals with “experiments in church growth.” According to an article on this subject, in the 21st century, the three pillars of church growth are: worship, discipleship, and dialogue” (12). These are all Biblical, depending on the way one defines the terms. For example, discipleship is what Christianity is all about. Jesus trained many to be His disciples, but the definition was not coming to worship and sitting in a pew an hour a week, which is the way old institutions have misrepresented it. A disciple was a learner and a follower (Luke 14:25-35).
Worship can be offered to God anytime and anywhere (as opposed to thinking one must have a church building for it to be “official”). But the church must meet on the first day of the week to offer up its collective worship to God. Paul certainly had dialogue—and debates—with Judaizing teachers, as well as pagan philosophers. But what do these people mean by these terms? What Windows means by dialogue can best be described in the following quotation.
We begin by sharing our respective names and belief systems. Tonight we are: an evangelical, a gothic agnostic, a pagan, a couple of mainline Protestants, a self-identifying dual Christian and Buddhist, one religious “seeker,” a Latter-Day Saint participant, and a imam as our special guest….
Tonight an agnostic is selflessly encouraging a young Christian struggling with how to faithfully interpret her Bible readings (12).
Say, what? Can anyone honestly have the faintest expectation that any truth will emerge from this hodge-podge of religious debris? This is not the dialogue we read about in the New Testament. Meetings such as these will not bring anyone to a knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is only religious opinion-sharing with no common ground or basis of authority.
These people are obviously desperate to get anything going—even if it resembles the Star Wars cantina segment filled with spiritually-odd persons. A Christian Buddhist! Really? Didn’t Jesus say, “No man can serve two masters” (Matt. 6:24)? And how, exactly, does an agnostic encourage someone in the faith? The really strange thing is that those involved in these programs don’t even see anything unusual.
Here’s the latest idea to reach people. Watch for this one to grow in popularity—a “drive-in prayer” ministry. At certain times a church member stands on a median as traffic drives by in front of the church building. He holds up a sign, asking people to come into the parking lot and pray with them. (At least they’re not asking for money.) They pray for their families, their jobs, for peace (or maybe for the traffic to abate?), and so on (9). This may be good public relations, but it is not evangelism, as defined in the New Testament.
No Biblical Message
The problem with this new approach to society is that it leaves them no distinctive message. The new leaders in the seminary are characterized by its president as being altruistic, passionate about social justice issues, tolerant, and enthusiastic about diversity (8-9). Is this supposed to be better than what Paul charged Timothy with, when he said, “Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you” (1 Tim. 4:16)?
In fact, one gets the idea that doctrine is passé. The president noted that “they are not interested in perpetuating the divisive churchly arguments and prohibitions that my generation vigorously suited up for….” (8). Does that mean that they will not defend their own teachings? Good, since Calvinism is full of error! But the downside is that they are not interested in doctrine of any kind, which means they are not concerned about truth, which makes it hard to be a disciple of Jesus, since He linked the two concepts together (John 8:31-32).
The president affirms that these new seminary students are “led by the Spirit” (9). This must be some new kind of definition because in the Bible those “led by the Spirit” followed God’s will and taught His doctrine. The attitudes these young people possess and the activities they are engaged in bear no resemblance to what was done in the New Testament. Practically all “Christians” today claim to be “led by the Spirit” when in reality they are only following their feelings.
What is missing in this issue of Windows, which describes what is currently happening in religion are some crucial elements of Christianity. A few Scriptures were cited in its 21 pages—maybe two or three. This precedent by itself shows the lack of emphasis on the Word of God in favor of what feels good or what is the “in” thing. God gave us a book filled with principles which, if followed, will cause people to want to become Christians (Matt. 5:14-16).
Nothing was said with respect to fearing God and keeping His commandments. One will look in vain for a single reference to holy living or forsaking sins or repentance. Are people not interested in “dialoguing” about such matters? The sad fact is that many people want to go to heaven without being part of the church, without worshiping correctly, or forsaking sin.
Comment
A copy of this magazine was sent to me by the Preaching Brother (P.B.) in another state, who has shared some really interesting materials. The magazine was delivered to him by mistake; so he took a look at it before sending it back on its way. He commented that the contents explain “why religions are failing and why they are literally mixing so much they are losing their old identities for new ones.” He believes that if this trend continues, they will become “one massive group of confused people.” Amen.
