“Whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. To him belong glory and dominion forever and ever.  Amen” (1 Peter 4:11, ESV).

Does that verse say what I think it says? Whatever it is we do or say, the purpose is to insure God gets the glory. “…in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ” is the text. That word “everything” is no slip of the tongue. The Holy Spirit knew what He was inspiring to be written and preserved throughout eternity. He said everything and He meant everything. We are to do, and God is to get the glory for His revealing to us what it is we are to do.

In studying the Bible, too often we approach it with a preconceived idea of what it is supposed to say, and then base every conclusion on that preconception. One example of this is verses three thru ten of Matthew 5, which we call the Beatitudes. They are so labeled as that word relates to a state of being blessed, which is the first word of each of those piercing statements. In some dictionaries, the emphasis word used to define the state of being blessed is “happy.” Is Jesus really saying that if we master the art of making peace and thus show our discipleship, that He will grant to us that we will be happy? Did he do what He did so we can be happy? Happy! Happy! Happy! Does anyone really believe this? Yet, how many times do we read or hear that the word “blessed” means “happy” simply because the dictionaries and lexicons say that is what the word means? Jesus was promising us that if we attained to the selfless righteousness described in such terms as poverty of spirit, meek, merciful, and mournful, we would indeed be elevated among men as children of God, able to enter the kingdom of Heaven, satisfied, comforted, and able to see God Himself. While I would consider such experiences as producing great happiness, the elevated state of blessing goes far beyond mere human pleasure.

What is the impetus of Luke 16:19-31? Is Jesus providing for us the end all discussion of eschatology? Is His teaching intending to illuminate us on what happens between the time we die and the time we are raised? Are we really supposed to care? Before labeling me as blasphemous, read on. If it is in God’s word, we are to care. Some things the story of the rich man and Lazarus does not say:

How did the rich man acquire his wealth? Do we know? Are we supposed to care? Does the story tell us? The “implication” is that these two men were rewarded and punished based on their physical prosperity. Could that be true? Is there anything stated in the text that tells us of their character or their relative faith or obedience to God? We have to assume the rich man was unscrupulous and that the poor man was meek and filled with faith, but the text nowhere says that. Does God reward or punish men based on their earthly state of wealth? We know that is not the case.

Is Abraham the guardian of paradise? Jesus attributes the response to the begging of the tormented man to Abraham. If this account is the end all discussion most apply it to be, then Abraham would be a simple resident of this place as he was just a man who lived and died in faith. His statement to the rich man explains only that the poor man suffered in life and the rich man fared well in life and that the roles are reversed in this so-called by man, “state of the dead.”

The text also does not tell us that this is intended to be a discussion of all we need to know about life after death. Yet, any time you read or hear anyone talking about life after death, we run to Luke 16.

Is it not a preferred understanding of the text to let is say what it says? It says that there is a division after death and that there is no way to bridge that separation.  “And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us” (Luke 16:26). When does Jesus teach us that the separation of the righteous from the wicked will take place? “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.  Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.” (Matthew 25:31-32). People want to think of us “safe in the arms of Jesus” at the moment of our death. While that is quite comforting, it just is not Biblical.

“But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope.  For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.  For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.  For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.  Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.  Therefore encourage one another with these words” (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, ESV).  Certainly these are encouraging, and, as in most translations, comforting words. We ridicule the premillenialist for making this passage say what it does not say. Their contention is that this speaks of a “rapture” to usher in the period of the 1,000 year reign of Christ on the earth. Do you see the word rapture here? Is that a biblical word? Will there be a 1,000 year reign of Jesus on a throne in Jerusalem? Is there scripture to support an affirmative answer to any of these questions? Let the Bible say what the Bible says. While the claim of the premillenialist is deemed ridiculous, would not the same be true if “we” do not allow the Bible to simply say what it says?

The truth of Luke 16 is that Jesus relates an account to teach a lesson. The focus of this lesson is that sin sick man would have the opportunity to escape eternal punishment by hearing the words of a man who had been raised from the dead. That man was Jesus Christ. I know the text does not say this, but is there another man raised from the dead whose words could lead to eternal life? Abraham’s lament was that if people would not read and hear the words of Moses, neither would they hear the words of the man raised from the dead. Moses wrote of Jesus. “Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope.  If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me” (John 5:45-46). Abraham told the tormented man the same thing. “He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead’” (Luke 16:31).

Many have said that division among God’s people has occurred more on what the Bible does not say rather than what it says. May we never be so guilty as to make such a mistake of making the Bible say what it does not. If any man speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. Otherwise, we do not need to hear it.

Response From Marty Pickup

June 9, 2004

Dear brother Roberts:

Yes, you continue to grossly misrepresent me. I did not say, nor do I believe the false idea you attribute to me: “We should consider the account of the serpent was a pagan myth.” I never said in my FC lecture, nor do I believe, that the serpent of Genesis 3 might be a pagan myth. I never said, nor do I believe, that the serpent of Genesis 3 might be mythological. Such views are just as repugnant to me as they are to you.

I asked you to read the clarification statement I posted on the Watchman website and published in Truth magazine, yet you never referred to it in your letter. If you have read this clarification statement, I fail to see why you still do not understand what I meant in my lecture. I have enclosed a copy of this statement for you to read again. I don’t see how I can make it any clearer, but let me try once more: I meant that the language Moses used to designate the one who tempted Eve - the name “the serpent,” a “beast of the field” – may have been the name that the people of Moses’ day used for Satan. Ancient literature suggests that people of that time used such terminology as a name for a wicked spiritual being. I was never suggesting that the serpent of Genesis 3 or anything else in Genesis was mythological.

Your letter sounds to me like you are unwilling to accept my word about what I meant in my lecture. I would hope that my repeated clarifications would enable you to understand what I meant, but in the final analysis, brother Roberts, whether or not you understand what I was saying shouldn’t matter. What matters is the fact that I, your brother in Christ, am affirming to you before God that I do not believe what you have charged me with. I do not believe the serpent of Genesis 3 was a pagan myth and I was never suggesting that it was! That should settle the matter. Please be good enough to accept me at my word.

The same thing is true about your attempt to defend your statement that “[Marty Pickup] raised the question of the canonicity of 2 Peter and Jude in another lecture.” My entire lecture was a refutation of those who question the canonicity of 2 Peter and Jude. I discussed how post-apostolic Christians had concerns about whether Peter and Jude were the actual authors of these documents because forgeries in the name of Peter and other apostles and prophets of Jesus were circulating in the 2nd century (e.g., the so-called Apocalypse of Peter, the Gospel of Peter, etc.). My entire lecture was a response to this issue and a refutation of the view that 2 Peter and Jude were also forgeries. (If you listen to a tape of my lecture you will see all of this.) It is therefore unfair and dishonorable for you to pluck out a paragraph from that lecture and make it appear to your readers that I espoused the other view. Again, please be good enough to accept me at my word. Brother Roberts, a fellow child of God deserves better treatment than this.

In Him

(Signed) Marty Pickup

Response from Tom Roberts

June 30, 2004

Address omitted

Dear brother Pickup:

I am at a loss to understand your inability to reconcile what you have written with our quotations of your writings. Words are vehicles of meaning and your words convict you.  All the protestations of misrepresentation are ineffective against the cold, hard evidence of what you have taught. Though there may be those who will accept your word without investigation, I cannot ignore what you have written. You simply cannot have it both ways: saying in one sentence that you have been misrepresented and in the next sentence repeating what you previously affirmed. If you wish to repudiate what you have written, we would be happy to start all over in our discussion, but you simply cannot have it both ways.

In your previous letter, before you asked me to read your clarification statement on the Watchman website, I had already done so. What I had already become aware of was that you clearly refused to state to brethren Gibson or Osborne that there was a “serpent,” a beast of the field snake, in the garden. I understand the gyrations you made concerning the “name” as it applied to “Satan.” But you evaded the main issue. Let me put it clearly, so there can be no misunderstanding.

In Genesis 3:1, the serpent is an actual, physical beast of the field.

Yes ____________No ____________

(Sign your name to the statement you accept)

What you said, in contrast:

“It is also worth considering that the account of these events may be, to some degree, accommodative and symbolic. Genesis may use the serpent motif because it is borrowing the imagery from the mythological culture of that day regarding a cosmological foe of deity. Old Testament writers commonly take features of well-known pagan myths and rework them in order to present the truth of Israelite monotheism… It is possible, therefore, that Genesis recounted man’s primeval fall using the language and symbology that was best suited for its original audience. Since ancient creation myths gave a serpentine form to the being who opposed the order of creation, it was fitting that the tempter in the garden be depicted in this way (Boyd 156). Such a literary device may have been quite obvious to the original audience of Genesis” (Marty Pickup, “The Seed of Woman” 2003 Florida College lecture book, pp. 49-78; “Identifying the Serpent” pp. 55-62).

We have no trouble understanding what you teach. You teach that we should “consider” that the account of the serpent is “accommodative and symbolic,” a “motif,” rather than an actual, real, beast of the field. You teach “the possibility” that the “symbol” of the serpent is “borrowing imagery from the mythological culture of that day,” that the account of the serpent is “symbology,”  “a literary device.” You state in your letter of June 9 that “the language Moses used to designate the one who tempted Eve - the name ‘the serpent,’ a ‘beast of the field’ – may have been the name that the people of Moses’ day used for Satan.” It is clear that you use “such terminology” about Satan, but it is equally clear that you dodge around the issue. You refuse to state that “serpent” is more than a name for Satan! You refuse to say that it was a literal, actual snake! That is the issue brother Pickup.

You ask me to accept your word as a fellow Christian about what you meant in your lecture. You say, “whether or not you understand what I was saying shouldn’t matter.” I could just as well ask you to accept me at my word, as a fellow Christian, that I have not misunderstood you. But you, as a teacher (especially of young college students), should recognize the importance of speaking so as to be understood. If many other brethren have read your material and have come to the same conclusion as I, you should recognize that the lack of clarity lies with the writer rather than the reader.

The fact of the matter is that others have understood you to say exactly what you said and have written you about it. Your patent answer is “I am misrepresented” or “misunderstood.” However, great care has been taken by your brethren to accurately represent and understand what you have said.

In the following correspondence with another brother, you make even clearer what you have previously written to me. You say,

The serpent of Genesis 3 is to be identified as Satan… There is a legitimate question, however, about Moses’ use of the term “serpent” (Heb. nahash) to describe the one who tempted Eve in the garden. Did Moses mean by this terminology that an actual snake talked to Eve? Perhaps.  Since the NT writers identify the serpent with Satan, the usual explanation most people give along this line is that Satan came to Eve with the body or with the appearance of a snake. But another possibility is this: evidence from ancient Near Eastern literature suggests that in Moses’ time, the word “serpent” (nahash) may have also been used as a symbolic term for an evil spiritual being. If so, then Moses may not be using nahash in Genesis 3 to mean that a snake talked to Eve, but that an evil spiritual being talked to Eve.

So, the serpent is “terminology;” it is a “term;” it describes the one who tempted Eve. But is it an actual snake? “Perhaps,” you say, and then add another possibility that “serpent” is a symbolic term and that Moses may not mean that a snake talked to Eve, but that an evil spiritual being talked to Eve. Was it a real snake or not? But to be sure the entire context is available, the letter is reproduced below.

On May 13, 2003, you responded to inquiries by Aaron Erhardt of Louisville, KY, about your material:

[Personal comments opened the letter, tr]

I appreciate your contacting me. I don’t understand why you would have had “obvious concerns” with what I wrote in my FC lecture, but you certainly have misunderstood me if you think that I was suggesting that Genesis 3 is an unhistorical, figurative story. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, that’s the very liberal view that I refute throughout the section of  the lecture entitled “Identifying the Serpent” (pp. 55-62). I suggest that you reread this entire section; see particularly p. 56.

But let me explain here, perhaps using clearer language, what I was getting at in my lecture. As I showed there, there is no doubt that the serpent of Genesis 3 is to be identified as Satan; the NT writers make this quite clear. There is a legitimate question, however, about Moses’ use of the term “serpent” (Heb. nahash) to describe the one who tempted Eve in the garden. Did Moses mean by this terminology that an actual snake talked to Eve? Perhaps.  Since the NT writers identify the serpent with Satan, the usual explanation most people give along this line is that Satan came to Eve with the body or with the appearance of a snake. But another possibility is this: evidence from ancient Near Eastern literature suggests that in Moses’ time, the word “serpent” (nahash) may have also been used as a symbolic term for an evil spiritual being. If so, then Moses may not be using nahash in Genesis 3 to mean that a snake talked to Eve, but that an evil spiritual being talked to Eve. If so, then the NT writers may simply be acknowledging this sense of  the term when they explain that the serpent who beguiled Eve was Satan (see Rev. 12:7-9; Rom. 16:20; 2 Cor. 11:3-15; John 8:44, et al.) Now I personally am not sure which of the above interpretations is correct. For most of my life I have only thought in terms of the first view, but I can see nothing in what the biblical writers say that would negate the second view as a possibility. That’s why I mentioned the second view in my FC lecture.

Don’t read into my lecture anything beyond what I’ve just said. This is all I meant. Any idea that I was suggesting that Genesis 3 might be a figurative, unhistorical myth is a gross misunderstanding of my meaning. As I tried to explain in the lecture, some of the literary evidence for the second view of  the term “serpent” comes from ancient mythological literature, but that in no way suggests that the Genesis 3 narrative is unhistorical myth. Again, that false idea is the very thing that I refute throughout the lecture.

I hope this clears up matters for you.

[Personal comments closed the letter, tr]

All the best,                                M. Pickup

Brother Pickup, nothing is more clear than your statement that “most of my life I have only thought in terms of the first view, but I can see nothing in what the biblical writers say that would negate the second view as a possibility.” The “first view” that you held “most of [your] life” is the view that I now hold and defend. You have accepted a “second view” in this part of your life and will not forthrightly admit it. You teach it and when we understand what you teach, you retreat and cry “misrepresentation.”

Will you at least consider the possibility that you have been giving too much credence to “ancient mythological literature,” or “Near Eastern literature” and not enough to the word of God? Nothing in Genesis 3 hints at symbology or literary devices or a motif. It plainly says, “Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made” (Gen. 3:1). “And the serpent said to the woman…” (v. 4). “…And the woman said, ‘The serpent deceived me’…” (v. 13).  Paul added, “As the serpent beguiled Eve…” (2 Cor. 11:3). Why is it incredulous to accept the fact that Satan used the actual body of a serpent to tempt Eve?

Brother Pickup, do you believe that an actual serpent, a beast of the field, of the same nature as that “which the Lord God had made” during the seven days of Genesis one, was in the Garden of Eden, and that he tempted Adam and Eve? Yes or no?

Once again, you ask me to accept at face value your word that you defended the canonicity of 2 Peter and Jude. But which word shall we accept? The one in which you state that your discussion was a “refutation” of the view they were forged documents or the one in which you were asked: “Now Marty, are you just totally certain about that?” Your response in this instance is to say, “No. Have to be honest. In fact my Lord Jesus demands that I be intellectually honest. I can’t be a follower of Jesus and not be. And I think the evidence tips the scales in favor of their authenticity. And that’s what I would argue, that’s what I’ve tried to argue here. But I would have to say, I can’t just be dogmatic about that, I’m not a hundred percent certain about that” (The Canonicity of the General Epistles, Florida College Annual Lectures, [8 Feb. 2000]. When one invokes the name of Jesus to testify of his honesty and claims, in that honesty, to deny that you are “totally certain,” or less than “dogmatic” and “not a hundred percent certain,” about their authenticity, shouldn’t we take that word as well? Why is it a misrepresentation of your position to note that your defense of 2 Peter and Jude carries the caveat that you are not “totally certain” or “not a hundred percent certain?” I note that you did not address my analogy using Acts 2:38. If you taught that you “could not be dogmatic,” “not a hundred percent certain,” and not “totally certain” about Acts 2:38, would this equate to raising questions about Acts 2:38?

May I suggest that there are enough critics of the Bible in the world who cast doubts on the integrity of God’s word without brethren raising questions about the text? Preachers of the gospel are to make a “certain sound” (1 Cor. 14:7-8), not an “uncertain” one. If you employ a hermeneutical principle by which you reject a literal serpent in Genesis 3, how do you limit the use of that principle to the serpent alone and not to other persons in that chapter? How can one fail to be totally certain or dogmatic about the inspiration of 2 Peter and Jude without raising questions about their use by brethren? Proper use of the field of evidence does not demand that we abandon faith in the literal text of the Bible or that we acquiesce to every quibble of the revisionists. “Heaven and earth will pass, but My words will by no means pass away” (Matt. 24:35).

Our proposals for open discussion of these issues remain for you to consider.

Yours for truth, Tom Roberts

Editor’s Note:  Brother Roberts edits the Forest Hills church of Christ Communicator, a monthly mail out bulletin.  This article appeared in the May 2004 issue of that paper.  While local references are made, the principles are timely and important for all Christians to note.  As such, we appreciate the opportunity to give his article an even wider reading in this issue of Watchman.

“Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?”
(Galatians 4:16)

Jesus, the wise and perfect Master Teacher was not gladly received by all who heard him. We must realize that Jesus always had the right attitude, chose the right words, expressed the truth, and spoke with clarity. But some resented the truth that he taught. “Therefore many of his disciples when thy heard this, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can understand it?’ When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured about this, he said to them, ‘Does this offend you?’” (John 6:60-61). Without debate, we can conclude that the fault lay with the listeners, not the speaker. Jesus taught the truth and some hated him for that very reason.

In the title text above, the apostle Paul acknowledged that some among the Galatian brethren also resented him. The Judaizing teachers who did not want the Gentiles to be included in the church fought the gospel and resented Paul deeply. We can know assuredly that Paul taught the truth and that the animosity displayed against Paul was wrong and sinful.

From these facts in the life of the New Testament, we can know with a certainty that when the truth is lovingly and plainly taught, those in error will have certain reactions. They will either “gladly receive the word” and repent (Acts 2:41), turn a deaf ear to it (Mt. 13:14-15), or fight against it (Acts 7:54).  In every case, truth will prevail because it cannot be denied. Resentment, animosity and fighting against the truth only reveal the flaws in those who oppose the gospel. “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words will by no means pass away” (Mt. 24:35). Anger against one who tells the truth is misplaced!

“The Communicator” is being mailed to approximately 1900 addresses in the Tampa Bay area (including a few hundred across the nation). While other efforts are underway to address the needs of the lost in our community and to “preach the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27), this bulletin has a more narrow focus. It is mailed to members of the church of Christ with the goal of opening communication about errors which are currently being taught that have the capacity to, and are, leading Christians into apostasy. We recognize that the subjects being discussed are controversial and that many are reluctant to deal with such matters. But every time truth and error collide, controversy will be a necessary ingredient and we must not be timid when souls are at stake. Every effort is being made to be kind, considerate and loving, but, in the end, truth must be taught and error identified. We make no claim to perfection with regard to attitudes, but insist that we are mad at no one, do not resent anyone, have no hidden agenda, and are open and willing to discuss these issues publicly and privately. We love the truth, love the church of the Lord, and love our brethren, individually. We have no desire to divide churches, alienate brethren, create confusion or inflate matters of no consequence. But, make no mistake, error is being taught and practiced in our area and the truth will open it to the light of examination. Error crosses congregational lines and truth must have the same right of way.

Many brethren in local churches do not know what the issues are all about. Apostasy is quietly being advanced in certain places, changes in doctrine are slowly being advocated, moral issues are adapting to worldly standards and many good brethren do not have a clue about what is going on. Fellowship with error and those who teach it has become widespread, hidden behind a friendly façade of brotherly love and acceptance of familiar names of well-known preachers. The church has gone to sleep and error is creeping in!

Some of the worst culprits among us are preachers. “My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment” (Jas. 3:1).  God is going to look more severely at those of us who teach and preach and we better not forget it. If we fail to speak out against error, if we fail to raise our voices when danger confronts us, if we love popularity more than the truth, we have a certain future of judgment from God. Are we moral cowards or bold preachers of the gospel? Do we allow sin to pass by unchallenged or do we speak out, regardless of the cost? Where are the watchmen of God?

“Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul” (Ezekiel 3:17-21).

All of us are to “watch” (Mt. 24:42-43; 25:13; Acts 20:31; 1 Cor. 16:13; 1 Thes. 5:6; 2 Tim. 4:5). Not all watchmen are prophets, as was Ezekiel. Parents are to watch out for their children. Elders are to watch on behalf of the church. Christians are to be watchful for one another. And preachers are to watch in their work as evangelists. The sober warning given by Ezekiel about the responsibility of a watchman needs to be learned by our generation. God is going to require it at our hands if we allow sin to pass into the church without raising our voice. Be assured that this is as much your responsibility as anyone else.

What Dangers Will A Watchman See?

How does one recognize danger? The Bible tells us: “But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil” (Heb. 5:14). If you are a careful Bible student, if you know scripture, if you are familiar with the truth, you will recognize error when it appears. Can you tell the difference? Can you discern between good and evil?

In past issues of “The Communicator,” we have been documenting areas of concern. Note again what we have been saying.

Error is being taught about Creation and Genesis 1-2. Shane Scott and Hill Roberts have advocated that the “days” of Genesis 1-2 “cannot be literal” but are figurative, allowing time for the “big bang” theory, stellar evolution to occur, and eons of time to pass before man appeared in Eden. When Hill Roberts passed out a CD-ROM at his Florida College lecture advocating this error, the administration not only allowed it to happen but have not, to this date, exposed his views as the error it is. Instead, Scott and Roberts have been defended and supported by the Bible faculty and administration.  Did you know this?  Does it disturb you?

Error is being taught about Genesis 3. Marty Pickup taught in the 2003 FC lectures that we should at least consider that there was no real serpent in Genesis as a beast of the field. Rather, we should consider that the entire story was a pagan myth inserted by Moses to explain the existence of Satan and the origin of sin. Marc Gibson (Lakeland Hills church) and Harry Osborne (S. Livingston  church) pressed him on this error and he refused to state that a literal serpent was present in Eden.  He has also raised the question of the canonicity of 2 Peter and Jude in another lecture.  Were you aware of this?  Does it disturb you?

Error is being taught about fellowship with sin. Bob Owen preached at the Temple Terrace congregation in a lectureship in Sept. 1993, clearly advocating fellowship with the error being taught on the divorce issue. Though he disagreed with Hailey’s views (among others), brother Owen taught that we should not make such error a test of fellowship. Earl Kimbrough’s tract, “How Shall We Treat Brethren With Whom We Disagree” (which advocates continued fellowship even when we differ) was distributed and commended.  He stated: “I’m talking tonight about fellowshipping. And I’m doing it in a context of a series of discussions on the marriage question.”  He further stated: “So let me suggest in the Scripture there are some cases discussed in detail where brethren had some differences of conviction.  They differed in their belief.  They differed in their practice.   And yet they not only could continue to fellowship, but they were taught by Paul, the Lord through Paul, that they should continue to fellowship.”  In Concord, NC in  February 1995, He taught (concerning Romans 14): “So in Rome and in Corinth you had brethren who differed in what they believed.  You have brethren who differed in their practice.  One believed it was a sin to eat meats that had been sacrificed to an idol, so he wouldn’t eat them.  Another believed that those meats were acceptable and he did eat them.  Now the fellow who thought it could be a sin to eat those meats had to look at the other fellow and think he was sinning.  Had to.  In Rome, the fellow who thought it was a sin to eat any kind of meat would have to think you sinned if you ate a piece of meat.  And yet Paul taught them that they should accept each other.”  This view of fellowship with error is based on his erroneous view of Romans 14 and it has been widely accepted in this area. Attempts to have a public discussion on this subject have been ignored or rejected.  Are you aware of this?  Does it disturb you?

Error is being taught about Romans 14. Romans 14:1 through 15:7 contains a discussion about matters of liberty (1 Cor. 8:9; 10:23). Such matters of liberty are neither commanded nor forbidden to be practiced, but allowed, if expedient. The text identifies such matters as “clean” (v. 14), “good” (v. 16), and “pure” (v. 20), not inherently sinful. But many (such as Ed Harrell and Bob Owen) are willing to include sinful practices, such as doctrinal error on divorce and remarriage, in this context and “receive one another” (v. 1). The effect of such error will be to allow many sinful practices to be received and false teachers to be fellowshipped.  Are you aware of this?  Does it disturb you?

Error is being taught about unity in diversity. Christianity Magazine (no longer published) contained a lengthy series of articles by Ed Harrell in which he defended fellowship with brother Hailey and advocated “unity in diversity”. Notice: “Within certain limits, God grants to Christians the right to a private conscience in matters of ‘faith.’ I believe that right is discussed in Romans 14. However, whether or not one accepts my exegesis of that passage, honest minds must acknowledge the reality of a past and present Christian world that tolerates contradictory teachings and practices on important moral and doctrinal questions.” (“The Bounds of Christian Unity,” May 1990, 134) In past decades, Carl Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett advocated this same error. It led them into complete apostasy and fellowship with denominations of every kind.  Are you aware of this?  Does it disturb you?  Are you ready to embrace unity in diversity?  Many in this area have accepted it fully.

Are You Watching Or Have You Closed Your Eyes?

Much documentation can be supplied as to the reality of these dangers. If you want to verify the truthfulness of these charges, look at Watchman Magazine on the internet (www.watchmanmag.com) and research these issues. Congregations in the Tampa Bay area (and around the nation) have encouraged these dangers by allowing error to be taught and having fellowship with those who are advocating unity in diversity. The facts are there for all to see if blindness does not close our eyes.

We continue to invite readers to read and study the word of God, investigate these issues with discernment and not be influenced by anything other than the word of God. Be of the same sentiment as the Bereans of old who “searched the scriptures daily to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). Truth has nothing to fear from honest investigation. We remain open to brotherly discussion of these issues. May we hear from you?

“What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law.  Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame” (Romans 9:30-33, ESV)

People stumble over the simplest of things. We stub our toes on the bed frame or the coffee table. We trip in the parking lot over a pebble. We sprain our ankles tripping over a small cavity in the back yard. People stumble.

The children of Israel had everything going for them. God had promised Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3) a land, a nation and a blessing for every family on the earth. The Israelites were direct descendants of Abraham and beneficiaries of the promise. Isaiah the prophet foretold (Isaiah 40:3) of a messenger who would prepare the way for the coming of the Lord. The messenger turned out to be John the Baptist. “For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, ‘The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight’” (Matthew 3:3).  John fulfilled his mission. “The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29).  “And he looked at Jesus as he walked by and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God!’” (John 1:36).  They had Abraham. They had Isaiah and the other prophets. They had John. They all told the same story of one from God who would do everything they really needed to be done for them. What was the problem?

Paul attributes the problem to a lack of faith (Romans 9:32). They could not get it done due to a lack of faith. Seems like nothing has really changed, doesn’t it?

The Gospel is simple. It takes no great intellect to read the story of Jesus, and realize that after His resurrection, He had a message for the entire world that needed to be and would be carried across the lands.   “And he said to them, ‘Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.  Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned’” (Mark 16:15-16).   “And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,  teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age’” (Matthew 28:18-20).  Friends and brethren, that is not hard to understand. One would have to try real hard to make it difficult to understand. One would have to work diligently to remove preaching from the process. It is there. It cannot be removed. “Preach the gospel….” “Make disciples….” The message must be communicated by men. “For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe” (1 Corinthians 1:21).  It may be folly to some, but it is anything but folly to the Savior of the world. Men are to preach the gospel to those who do not know it and to those who need to grow in it (2 Peter 3:18).

Secondly, it is impossible to remove baptism from this commission and from the process of salvation. Making disciples includes “baptizing them” (v. 19). Once the gospel has been preached, Jesus said that believers and those who are “baptized will be saved.” Baptism cannot be removed from the salvation process.

Baptism is one of those little pebbles over which people keep stumbling. And when people stumble over baptism, which Jesus commanded, those who stumble are actually falling down face first over Jesus. A five (or six) step process of salvation is too simple. (Number six being the faithful life of a Christian). From preaching to baptism, it all makes sense, if you simply let Jesus and His prophets say what they said.

Most of my audience, if you are still with me to this point, will agree with everything I have written to this point. Let us make some applications.

Christianity is simple.

Authority is simple.   “And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Colossians 3:17).

The work of the church is simple. Evangelism, Edification and Internal Benevolence – Can anyone please find justification for broadening the work of the church? I have been looking all my Christian life, but it just is not there.

Congregational worship is simple. Singing (not playing) psalms, hymns and spiritual songs is authorized, even commanded. Praying, Teaching and Preaching, Local congregational collection for the work of the local church, and, 1 Corinthians 11:18, when the church comes together “as a church” they are to observe the Lord’s Supper, 1 Corinthians 11:24-25, on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). People have been and will continue to violate every hermeneutical principle used in every walk of life to pervert the scriptures to alter that pattern of worship. They want to justify playing of instruments, humming, being silent during singing, and it cannot be done. The simple pattern of prayer done “decently and in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40) is twisted to make it babbling (they call it “tongues”), group chants, chain feel good sessions, et. al. The observable command to preach the gospel has seen its simplicity obliterated to expand to the erection and support of human institutions of higher learning. The “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) is not preached in many pulpits today for fear of the people. The local congregational collection on the first day of the week (1 Corinthians 16:1-2) has been abandoned to include yard sales, raffles, collections at every service, and just about anything else imaginable to raise money for projects undertaken by the local church. Christians do not “come together as a church” for the Lord’s Supper, but choose to take it on the beach, in their car, in a State Park, in a hunting lodge, in a motel room, whatever suits their convenience. Divinely approved worship is not that hard. Book chapter and verse authority will work every time.

Creation is simple. “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day” (Genesis 1:5). What is hard about that? Nothing.

Divorce and remarriage is simple.  God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16). Jesus allowed it in one very specific circumstance (Matthew 19:9). That is not hard.

In writing this article, I, in no way, seek to demean anyone who does not understand the gospel.  I do, however, desire to expose false teachers who prey on the tender hearts of those who seek the truth by filling those tender hearts with confusion and lies.

Dear reader, please understand that the Lord Jesus who died to save your soul did so out of love. He wants you to be saved. He does not want you to be confused. It is just that simple.

Is the church of Christ immune to error? Should we not have the same attitude of urging our own brethren to read their Bibles, examine our own practices and question the preaching of those who do not provide book, chapter and verse for what we believe and practice? It was said of the Bereans that they “were more noble (fair minded) than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11). Do we get a free pass to believe and practice whatever we want since we are “the church” and “our traditions” are beyond question?

It is evident that a certain mind-set exists among some that refuses to read, refuses to study, refuses to consider whether or not we can be wrong, refuses to consider that maybe, just maybe, the members of the church need to open their minds to see what is going on, where we are headed, what is (or is not) being taught today. We recognize that people in denominations sometimes have their allegiances misplaced: to a favorite preacher, to a college, to a publication, to a certain party or sect. Could that happen among us who are Christians? Could I be blinded to error because “my preacher” is well known and has a reputation among brethren? Do I have a blind allegiance to a college regardless of what it teaches? Am I so satisfied with the people that I associate with that I have become blinded to their drift away from truth?

Many who are members of the church of Christ today were won away from error in denominationalism because you had an open mind in the past. Someone asked you to study the Bible and religious subjects and you were willing to do so. You left denominationalism because you loved the truth and were willing to study to see what the Bible taught. Some of you left institutional churches because they were practicing things for which they had no authority and a friend or fellow Christian challenged you to study “the issues” and you gave up some unscriptural practices.

Is the need for Bible study over? Is there no danger of error among brethren today? Remember the words of the apostle Paul: “Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables” (2 Timothy 4:2-4).

Brethren, is this a present danger or is it only a historical reference without meaning today? Can we have an attitude where we will not endure sound teaching? Can we have itching ears? Will our teachers turn away from the truth and lead us to fables? Do you even consider the danger of drifting away from the truth of God’s word?

Maybe it is time for us in the church to “Ask Our Preachers” some questions!

“Preacher, why do you have fellowship with those who teach moral and doctrinal error?” The scripture is crystal clear on the subject: “Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them” (Ephesians 5:11). “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds” (2 John 9-11). The church at Cork, Florida used Homer Hailey for years in gospel meetings though it was known everywhere that brother Hailey taught error on divorce that will send souls to an eternal torment. Certainly that congregation has been willing to fellowship error! But, brethren from many places disagreed with brother Hailey, used him, encouraged him and defended his right to teach his error (which he did, as long as he lived). Has the Cork church ever renounced that error? Does the Cork church continue to hold the same views on this error? Fellowship with Hailey and others (who teach different, but equally erroneous errors on adulterous marriages) was defended by Bob Owen, Ed Harrell and other brethren. Christianity Magazine was used in a long series of articles to defend fellowship with brother Hailey under a misuse of Romans 14. Ed Harrell was willing to “tolerate contradictory teachings and practices on important moral and doctrinal questions.” Reader, I challenge you to ask your preacher if he agrees with this statement. Does your preacher approve of fellowship with those who teach error on divorce. Please note that they may not teach the error which brother Hailey taught. But do they believe in extending fellowship to those who teach error? Is your preacher willing to “tolerate contradictory teachings and practices on important moral and doctrinal questions?”

“Preacher, why don’t you preach more against dancing, drinking, gambling and immodesty?”  We need to recognize that sometimes a preacher is known, not so much by what he preaches, but by what he doesn’t preach. Many no longer preach sermons against wearing short shorts, drinking beer or wine, or sermons which condemn the evils of dancing. We have a generation of young people who have been raised without ever hearing such things condemned in clear, unequivocal terms. How long has it been since you heard a sermon against mixed swimming and short shorts (immodesty)? How long has it been since you heard about the evils of gambling?  The works of the flesh (Galatians 5:16-21; Colossians 3:5-11, et al) are “manifest” and “those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” A number of preachers have decided to allow each member to define modesty for themselves and they poke fun at those who describe exposing the thigh (Exodus 28:42; Isaiah 47:2-3) as nakedness. No, I am not advocating that these kinds of sermons must exclude sermons that edify or that every sermon must oppose something. But one cannot preach the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) without teaching against moral sins that will send souls to hell. It is not unusual to hear members say that they know other members who drink, who go to proms and dances, who buy lotto tickets and wager on sports. Yes, these things go on among congregations today. Does your preacher sound a clear warning against these sins?

Ask your preacher if it makes a difference what one believes about the days of creation. It has been taught by Shane Scott that the six days of Genesis 1 and 2 “could not be literal.” Hill Roberts teaches that the “big bang” occurred and “stellar evolution” took place before the earth cooled enough for man to be created, much later than “the beginning” (Mt. 19:4). When this issue has been discussed, the usual phrase to dismiss the question is, “What difference does it make.”  Larry Ray Hafley has written explaining it thusly:

“It Matters Because:

“(1) Twice, Moses argued that since the Lord created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh day, so Israel was to work six days and rest on the seventh day (Exodus 20:8-11; 31:12-17).  If the days of Genesis one were not six days, in the same sense that the days of Exodus 20 and 31 are six days, the basis of the argument for the Sabbath rest is eroded.  Does that matter?  If the days of Genesis one were “eons of time,” does it matter that the props are knocked out from under the argument of Exodus?

“(2) Jesus said that Adam and Eve were created “in the beginning” (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4, 8).  “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6).  However, if the days of Genesis one were multi-millions of years, and since God created them on the sixth day, they could not have been created “in the beginning of the creation,” but, rather, toward “the end of the creation.”  Does that matter?  Does it matter that the Lord was wrong about it?   Does it matter that male and female were not created until “eons of time” after the beginning of the creation, if it be so that the days were hundreds of millions of years in duration?

“(3) Jesus spoke of “the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world” (Luke 11:50, 51).  Then, he named Abel as the first–”from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias.” If, though, the creation days were “eons of time,” and if Abel was not born until after those “eons,” how could it be said that the blood of prophets had been “shed from the foundation of the world”  Hence, the Lord was wrong about their blood being shed “from the foundation of the world.”  Does that matter?”

Does it matter what you believe about this? I challenge you to ask your preacher to see if he says, “What difference does it make?”

How far have we gotten from old-fashioned Bible study? How far have we gotten from a “thus saith the Lord?”  Do we yet speak “as the oracles of God” (1 Peter 4:11)? Do we “speak where the Bible speaks and remain silent where the Bible is silent?” We have always said that “truth has nothing to fear from investigation.” Is this really true or have we been mouthing platitudes all these years while we chide denominationalism for their closed minds? Is your mind open? Will you study these vital issues?

Ask your preacher. See what he has to say.

“The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?’” (Matthew 19:3).  The question, we all realize, is a simple one. It is the answer over which we have such a debate. “Is it lawful?” Even those Pharisees who asked the question with impure motives recognized that the law had to do with reason. What is the reason behind taking such radical action as the putting away or divorcing a mate?  “‘For the LORD God of Israel says That He hates divorce, For it covers one’s garment with violence,’ Says the LORD of hosts. ‘Therefore take heed to your spirit, That you do not deal treacherously’”  (Malachi 2:16).  God hates divorce. Enough said. Men are still asking the question, “Can we not do it anyway?” If we are going to do what God hates, we had better have a pretty good reason before we do it.

The answer Jesus gave the Pharisees was a peculiar one in that he said no, but still offered an exception to his denial of the right to do what God hates. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9). The people asking the question did not ask for a definition of adultery. They knew what adultery is. They just wanted to know if they could lawfully divorce their wives. Jesus answers, though, by saying if you do that thing which God hates, in this case divorce your spouse, you are committing adultery in every case except for one, “except for sexual immorality.” And he says not only is it not lawful, but in fact it is adultery for one to marry another person after a divorce for any reason except immorality. Jesus said it was adultery.

When Moses descended Mt. Sinai with the stones upon which God had written the ten commandments, one of those commandments was, simply stated, “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14).  Was there any confusion on the part of the Israelite nation as to what God meant when he uttered that command? I contend there was none. Everybody there knew that God was regulating the behavior of His people in their sexual acts. “You shall not commit adultery.” No explanation needed. Everybody knew what God said and what God meant.

Do people really have a problem understanding what Jesus meant? I doubt it. But, as in most cases when people want to do what they want to do and not what God wants them to do, the problem is in the application. Easy to understand, difficult to apply. Difficult only in the sense that, as Jesus said to Saul on the Damascus road, “…It is hard for you to kick against the goads” (Acts 9:5).  We kick against that which we know is right.

What is it when we add another exception which the Lord did not allow? Is it lawful? NO! It is adultery. We can kick against that fact all day if we like, but that will not change anything. It is adultery. Jesus said so. Clean, pure and simple, it is adultery. May the guilty party in a divorce for immorality marry another? Did he divorce his mate for that sin? NO! If he marries another, it is adultery. Anyone who says the guilty party can remarry and be pleasing to God is promoting adultery. May those who erroneously say that Matthew 19:9 does not apply to “whoever”, even though Jesus said it, the conclusion being that God’s law on divorce only applies to Christians, be accused of anything short of promoting adultery among non-Christians? They do not see themselves as promoting adultery, but if you divorce your mate for another reason and marry another, is it not adultery? Jesus said it was. So, if you teach that you may divorce and remarry at will before you are baptized and keep that mate after baptism, you are promoting adultery. Did Homer Hailey and the myriad who have followed after him in this doctrine of advocating fellowship with those who teach such a doctrine think that the end result was the promotion of adultery? Absolutely not. But what is it when one marries and divorces not for sexual immorality and marries another? Jesus said it was adultery. I did not say it. Jesus did.

Most people do not like bottom line preaching. When you get to the bottom line, there are only two choices given to all people: the narrow way that leads to life and the broad way that leads to destruction. That is the bottom line. There is no tolerance on the bottom line for “what if’s?” or maybes. We either teach the truth or we are promoting adultery. There are only two choices. Which one will you make?

There is a sure and certain conflict of interest between academic freedom and Biblical accuracy. Those who endorse academic freedom insist on the right of every position on any issue to have equal weight. Those who believe the Bible to be the inspired and inerrant word of God endorse only “the faith” (Jude 3) which is inspired by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13). When conflicts arise between so-called “science” and Biblical accuracy, Christians cannot endorse total academic freedom.

Within educational circles, colleges may well examine and postulate different theories on economics, languages, mathematics and the arts. Such disciplines of education are human and not divine in origin and they normally do not involve a dispute with scripture. But when the field of Biblical truth is under consideration, when Divine revelation is discussed, there can only be one position, one truth, one way that is right (John 14:6; 1 Peter 4:11; Jude 3). This is true, even when science and the Bible are compared. While understanding that all positions of error may be studied and compared, the final emphasis of those who are children of God must be that truth is defended without equivocation, compromise or ambiguity. In many colleges, academic freedom has swept away Biblical accuracy. The right to teach denominational error, religious diversity, evolution and humanistic philosophy has long since taken control and one does not attend a state or secular school with the intent of finding defenders of the faith on the faculty. However, many people view Florida College differently. They look at Florida College as an educational institution with a Bible department in which every professor is a Christian and in which the Bible is defended in its inerrancy and accuracy, even when fields of science are considered. In the past, this has been the stated position of the administration. Today, it is different. Statements by the current and recent administrators and faculty indicate a different approach which elevates academic freedom above defense of the faith.  Florida College is at a crossroads. Where will the emphasis be placed in the future? Friends of the college (emphasis on friends) do not want academic freedom to smother Biblical accuracy. There are precious few institutions of higher learning where the Bible is elevated and defended as the word of God. The administration and faculty of Florida College need to make it abundantly clear which road the college will pursue in the future. Will it follow the path of most colleges and slide into liberalism and modernism in biblical studies or will it insist on a clear and unequivocal position? Inquiring minds want (and need) to know.

Florida College in the Past

What caused many brethren to have confidence enough in Florida College to send their children there for education (an extension of the home responsibility), was expressed by James Cope, past president. Notice what he stated very succinctly:

“(5) Point of emphasis. Florida Christian College proposes to not only declare emphasis on the Bible but it intends to make that declaration true. Either the Bible penetrates every fibre of school life or it merely takes its place as just another study in our curriculum. God being our helper, we do not intend the latter to happen now or later. Every student must receive at least one lesson in God’s word every regular school day. Not only so, but we aim to make the Bible the chief consideration in every activity. If we fail in this, we shall fail in the purpose for which the school was founded.”  (Letter to Gospel Guardian, published June, 1949)

Brethren, there has been a change in the last fifty-five years. The administration has changed and the policy has been changed. Brother Cope said that if the college failed to “declare emphasis on the Bible” and to “make that declaration true,” “we fail” (emp. mine, tr).

Florida College Today

Compare the noble sentiment expressed by James Cope with the statements of current and recent administration and faculty and guest speakers.

Shane Scott, while on the faculty of the Bible department expressed his settled belief (which was expressed in debate format) that the days of Genesis 1 and 2 were figurative and not literal. In Sentry magazine (Vol. 21, No. 1), brother Scott said,

“Some Bible believers insist that the world, according to Genesis 1, was created in six twenty-four hour days. I believe, however, that the days of Genesis 1 should not be interpreted literally.”

The next section of his article is entitled, “The Days Cannot Be Literal.”

As to his methodology of teaching classes on campus, rather than “make the declaration true” as brother Cope insisted, brother Scott said:

“In my one lecture I present at FC on Genesis 1, I present four basic interpretations and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each. This is exactly how I was taught when I was at FC. I only tell the students which view I prefer if I am directly asked…” (emp. his)

“On the exam in which I test the students over the material in Genesis 1, the questions (sic) I ask is this: ‘Choose one of the four interpretations of Genesis 1 and defend it.’ I do not ask my students what view I take, and I do not test my students over things I don’t present in class. Further, they are not graded on the basis of which view they choose. They are graded on their ability to defend their own view.” (A Response to the Open Letter)

This is a “study in our curriculim” approach and not sound Bible teaching! Would it work on Acts 2:38? Should the teacher only teach four views of Acts 2:38, discussing the strengths and “weaknesses” of that passage, then allow the student to defend one of the four views he chose? Should he only “tell the students which view [he] prefers if [he is] am directly asked…”? Should a student be graded well on his ability to defend an erroneous view? Though Shane Scott is no longer at the school, is this the academic freedom that is promoted in Bible classes?

Brother Caldwell, the present president, commented about brother Scott’s teaching in the following manner:

“This particular discussion is done as a part of only one lecture on one day in one course. …he does not present a conclusion in class and does not discuss it publicly…”

Again, academia rather than sound teaching. A conclusion is not presented in the curriculum on Genesis 1, and this is defended as proper teaching. But Shane did discuss his view publicly in Sentry Magazine, decidedly stating his conclusion. Brother Caldwell further stated:

“While I do not concur with all his reasoning and/or personal conclusions, this teacher has a humble spirit, a tender heart, and a sincere desire to know and teach only the truth of God. Shane has great potential for good in the kingdom of God. He has a commitment to the Word that cherishes both the content and spirit of Truth. He has not, to my knowledge, taught error in the classroom of Florida College.” (“The Days of Creation” – Some Things to Consider)

But the fact of the matter is that brother Scott believed and taught error and his right to teach was defended by the Bible department as his academic freedom.

During the 1999 lectures at Florida College, brother Hill Roberts (who spoke that year) distributed a compact disc which contained his material from the “Lord I Believe” seminars, including articles entitled A Harmonization of God’s Genesis Revelation With His Natural Revelation and Genesis and The Time Thing. These essays deal extensively with brother Roberts’ support for a non-literal view of the creation account as well as his support for an evolutionary explanation for the inanimate world. He advocates the “big bang” theory and “stellar evolution.” in which vast eons (billions and billions of years) were required for the universe to cool enough for human habitation on the earth.

In early June, 2000, an open letter signed by 67 preachers (of which I was one) was sent to brother Caldwell to indicate our concern over these events on the campus. His response concluded:

“I appreciate your concern for Truth and your desire to warn of departure from it when there is a real threat. In this case, there is none” (letter dated June 30, 2000).

Again, brother Ferrell Jenkins, then head of Biblical Studies, defended the right of Hill Roberts to distribute his material on campus, saying:

“That’s what education is about; making people think and allowing us to come to conclusions based on our study of the Word of God.” (The Creation Controversy and Florida College.)

If allowing error to be freely distributed is equated with “education,” then there has really been a shift in Florida College. Some perceive this shift in a complimentary way.  One defender of Shane Scott wrote,

“I support and applaud Florida College for allowing academic and religious freedom in its classes and at the lectureship. You label academic freedom and religious freedom ‘false teaching’ and ‘false views.’ However, I must insist that during Florida College’s ‘golden age’ of intolerance and indoctrination, it taught error and false doctrine. In order to protect the students of the college from the imposition of a religious creed and indoctrination, it is absolutely essential that Florida College allow religious and education (sic) freedom, as well as freedom of speech.” (David Matthews, email correspondence with Stan Cox, editor, Watchman Magazine).

Which shall it be: academic freedom or biblical soundness? While respecting an educational institution’s right to explore, think, challenge and investigate different disciplines, there must never be a compromise of truth. There must never be an “uncertain sound” (1 Corinthians 14:8) in Biblical studies, even by brethren who operate a college. When men who hold false views appear under the auspices of a lectureship in an atmosphere of fellowship and tolerance, there is an inherent danger to young and/or impressionable minds. When sound brethren are criticized for opposing false views that are openly advocated and when reasonable requests for discussion are dismissed and ignored, a signal is being sent that change is in the air. When an administration allows dissemination of error without making provision for presentation of truth to be equally presented, a dangerous precedent is being set.

When all is said and done, the Lord’s church is not dependent on any human institution. Florida College has always correctly stated that its existence is not “church related” but to be seen as an extension of the home and its education of young people. Many colleges operated by brethren have gone the way of digression and have ceased to be effective in their original purpose. Nevertheless, the church continues on in its divine mission as the body of Christ, seeking the lost and edifying the saved. If Florida College insists on academic freedom to the extent that it overshadows biblical soundness, it will be a tragic change. We insist on the right to uphold truth wherever it is found and to confront error to the same degree. We address this danger because many families entrust their children to Florida College for an education. We hope it can achieve a balance between educating our youth even while demanding that the faculty remain true to the word of God. If this cannot be achieved, we will note the change and oppose it with sadness.

If you say, “Nothing, it is the Lord’s church, and I am satisfied with what the Bible reveals about it,” you might be in a minority position. Many are ready to change the work, worship and structure of the church of Christ, including its identity as the “church of Christ.” Are you aware of what is happening?

We have been through decades in which many have sought to change the Lord’s church into something more tolerant and imitative of denominational theology. The exclusiveness of truth and those characteristics that identify God’s people from those of the denominational world are being eroded in many places. We see the evidence of it in the Tampa Bay area and around the nation. Consider some of the issues that the Lord’s people are facing:

Delete “Church of Christ” From Signs.  A number of brethren have decided that the phrase “church of Christ” is too denominational and has become so identified with doctrines peculiar to “us” that it is considered prejudicial to wear that designation. Thus, we see brethren putting up signs that say “Christians meet here” instead of “church of Christ.” While we realize that the Bible uses different designations for the Lord’s people, “Christians meet here” does not address the congregational aspect of the church. You could put that sign up at your house when you have family times of prayer! Let us hope that the name “Christian” does not become too denominational! If “church of Christ” has become too identified with “us” so that it is prejudicial and denominational, maybe we should decide to meet on some day other than Sunday (the first day of the week – Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2) because most denominations meet on Sunday too. Maybe we shouldn’t meet at all on “Easter Sunday” lest people suspect that we observe that holiday. Some churches have decided that Bible correspondence courses and other evangelistic methods should not incorporate “church of Christ” in their message. The end result is that some people are entering the church unaware that it is the “church of Christ” (Rom. 16:16). One of the largest “non-institutional” churches in Texas has an evangelist who will not tell contacts for conversion that he is with the church of Christ. When they are baptized, they still do not know that they are members of the church of Christ. He states that he wants people to “have a relationship with Jesus.” We are made to wonder how one can just have a “relationship with Jesus” without having a relationship with His body. Are you ashamed of the church of Christ? Many are, and “change agents” are determined to effect such changes that will make the Lord’s church more acceptable to the world. Recently, the Oak Hill church of Christ in San Antonio, Texas where Max Lucado preaches dropped “church of Christ” and incorporated the name “Community Church” at the same time they incorporated instrumental music into their worship. “Other churches known to have added instrumental services — besides 3,800-member Oak Hills — include Northwest, Seattle, the largest in that region; Amarillo South, Texas; Farmer’s Branch, Texas; and Southlake Boulevard, in the Dallas/Forth Worth area.” “Mac Lynn, longtime church statistician, sees a shift in church attitudes of which instrumental music is only one indicator. ‘Many churches are less concerned with historic markers that distinguished Churches of Christ. A half century ago, those indicators of true Christian practice included a cappella music, baptism for remission of sins, weekly communion, church organization and men in leadership. Today, the distinctives are eroding, as the culture impacts the churches. Most of the markers are still in place, but the attitude toward their essentiality has changed.’” (taken from Oct 12, 2003 Reason For Hope bulletin from South Livingston church of Christ, tr) Though not a prophet, I predict that this will happen more and more as people express their disappointment at the “tradition” of the “church of Christ.”

Adopt a More Tolerant View of Doctrinal Error.   The worship of God’s people has always been different from denominational churches that feel free to “go beyond the doctrine of Christ” (2 Jn. 9-11). But some seem to be embarrassed by plain preaching that contrasts the Lord’s teaching with such error. “Don’t call names.” “Don’t preach against instrumental music.” “Be more positive in approach.” “What difference does it make if Genesis 1-2 are literal or figurative?” “What difference does it make if the serpent in Genesis 3 is literal or a pagan myth?” Many have accepted that we should “tolerate contradictory teachings on important moral and doctrinal questions”. Some are willing to receive a teacher of error into the congregation in gospel meetings if he will not preach his error in that particular meeting. Even the meaning of “false teacher” is being redefined so as to allow a man to hold and teach error so long as he is “honest.” Thus, preachers who hold to soul-damning error on adulterous marriages are invited to preach in gospel meetings or write for publications, so long as they do it “somewhere else” and not in the local meeting. Fellowship with false teachers is being expanded even while those who oppose the error are ostracized and demonized for speaking out against error. Many preachers have adopted a code of silence toward error. They never preach against anything. A generation of people has been allowed to grow up without error being identified. A sense of false security is fostered by preachers who make members “feel good” without engaging in a fight with Satan and the “doctrines of demons” 1 Tim. 4:1ff; 2 Tim 2:3-4; Eph. 6:10-20). The “bold speaking” mentioned by Paul in these verses is anathema in such churches. Brethren, it is dangerous when sound teaching on doctrinal issues finds discontent among people in the pew. Anything less that the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) is insufficient to get the job done.

Immorality Has Become Acceptable Among God’s People.  When is the last time you heard condemnation of social drinking, immodest apparel, mixed swimming, dancing, gambling, or such like? There is an identifiable discontent with bold preaching against immorality. If the truth is told, many know of situations in local churches where teenagers go to proms, wear the typical low-cut prom dress, and attend the prom dance. And if the truth is told, many parents and elders turn their heads the other way and ignore it and preachers fail to preach against it. In fact, you can even see preachers who wear short shorts today, so it is not surprising to see members in mini-skirts, bathing suits and short shorts. It is not at all unusual to hear of members who drink at home and who drink socially. It has become common for Christians to attend R-rated movies in which promiscuous sex is the common theme. Is it any wonder why divorce is so rampant among us? I can name some congregations where the preacher and elders know of dancing and drinking among the membership but who turn a blind eye to the practice. We all know of the expression, “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” Well this has become common among Christians as well. The consequence to an immoral life style is that those who practice it do not want strong preaching against it. Moral cowards who are “hirelings” (Jn 10:12) will not preach against such practices – thus the weak preaching goes hand in hand with increasing immorality.

Among non-institutional churches, there has arisen a certified discontent against sound preaching that identifies the error and those who propagate it. Many preachers have adopted a code of silence about controversy and error that keeps members in the dark and ignorant of issues that are leading us into digression and apostasy. Many have never heard of the push for unity in diversity because their preachers don’t preach about it. They also don’t preach about the controversy about Genesis and the creation or the literal serpent. They don’t talk about Romans 14 and the push to “receive” sinful practices. They don’t talk about the error advocated about the deity/humanity of Jesus. This code of silence displays a discontent with preaching the truth! Decades of such discontent is having its effect. There is weakness in knowledge among God’s people. There is weakness in identifying error. There is weakness in morality. The will to “fight the good fight” (1 Tim. 6:12) has vanished. Members are calling for shorter sermons and sermons with less scripture and more worldly wisdom. “Book, chapter and verse” preaching has given way to discussions on how to manage your money, what every husband needs to know about his wife (pop psychology), how to be happy, how to be fulfilled, etc., etc. Gospel meetings now give way to youth rallies that have “lock-ins” with clowns and bowling and entertainment (such as the events at Coppell, Tx). Singing is divided between “contemporary” and “traditional” songs to accommodate a changing youth culture that is being isolated from their elders. Books from denominational authors such as the “Purpose Driven Church” are recommended to younger preachers to develop “outreach”  programs. Evidently, Paul didn’t know enough about grace and evangelism to keep us informed!

However, some faithful Christians are taking a stand. It is a stand for “preaching the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15) that appeals to the “whole counsel of God” to boldly proclaim the gospel. In some congregations, the principles of truth and righteousness are taught and the identity of error and those who espouse it are exposed. Some are content with the church as God built it through Jesus Christ and want all the lost to be saved. They are content with the doctrines of the New Testament. They are content with the morality revealed in the scriptures. They are content with the worship revealed in God’s word. They have no desire to promote unity in diversity or to dilute sound doctrine in order to be more appealing to the denominational world. They have no intention of abandoning the “church of Christ.” They believe the creation account in Genesis 1-2 is literal, as well as the serpent in chapter 3. They stand opposed to every effort to accommodate “science” by those willing to change literal truth to “figures” or “motifs”. They are calling our brethren back to the “old paths” which many have forsaken for the more popular and “broad way” that only leads to destruction (Mt. 7:13). What about you? Those who will not stand for anything will fall for everything; those who will not stand for the truth will fall for error. Will you take a stand?

An Invitation to Communicate.  Without apology, we speak out against innovations that would change the Lord’s church into another denomination. We speak plainly and boldly because it is past time to do so.

However, we would like to be clear that we are open to Bible study, to brotherly communication about any or all questions that face us today.  Please do not confuse boldness of speech (Eph. 6:19) with arrogance or closed minds. We seek to be as the Bereans of Acts 17:11 and “search the scriptures daily to see if this things are so.” We invite communication from those who might disagree with us. If you find us in error, please don’t let us go politely into torment without seeking to change our direction.

We are facing an increased tolerance for false doctrines and are speaking out against it. Are we wrong?

We are facing the fact that brethren are less informed about the Bible than ever before. Are we wrong?

We are facing the fact that brethren are becoming more worldly today. Are we wrong?

We are facing the fact that many are content to drift with the crowd and are ashamed to stand for truth. Are we wrong?

“Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might.  Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.  For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.  Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.  Stand therefore…” (Ephesians 6:10-14).

This admonition from the beloved apostle Paul should not be taken lightly.  He knew, because the Holy Spirit had told him “expressly” (pointedly, specifically) that some would “depart from the faith” (1 Timothy 4:1).  He also told the Ephesians that some would be “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine” (4:14).  This warning by our brother Paul is not for his generation only, but will be as true for us as it was for them.  “Winds of doctrine” will blow across the brotherhood and we must “take a stand” or be swept away with them.  While there are those who are content to bury their heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the strange doctrines that are blowing in our day, those who pay attention to the word of God realize that winds are blowing as much today as they were in apostolic times.

As in ancient times, there are those who will scoff at the idea of apostasy, or error, or of blowing winds of doctrines that oppose the truth.  Jeremiah warned of those who cried “Peace, peace; where there is no peace” (6:14).  Such timid souls are either afraid to raise their voices against error or are willing to keep quiet to avoid controversy.  Today, churches are full of people who are unaware of swirling issues of apostasy because their preachers are unwilling to take a stand.  The fad of “accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative” has robbed God’s people of the truth when they need to hear it.  Paul warned that some members would want to have their “ears tickled” and would find teachers willing to do it (2 Timothy 4:1-4).  During the 50′s, many churches were led blindly into institutionalism and modernism because preachers would not take a stand.  Members never heard the “issues” because some preachers didn’t want to take the heat that comes with exposing error.  A generation grew up not knowing what was wrong with institutionalism, the missionary society or the social gospel.  The pressure to please the crowds led to gymnasiums, fellowship halls, youth programs, entertainment and recreation instead of solid gospel preaching.  Today, these people have been ripe plucking for Max Lucado, Rubel Shelly and others who have proudly led a host of brethren into denominationalism.  Few preachers would take a stand and the results were quite predictable.

But, brethren, what do you think is happening today?  Again, few preachers are willing to take a stand and those who do are ridiculed and demonized by every kind of sarcasm and slander.  Even while error is being trumpeted from the rooftops, too many elders and preachers sit back in complacency and allow error to encroach into congregations.  Efforts to alert brethren to the dangers of apostasy in our time, such as this magazine, are shunned, avoided, and ignored.  I never cease to be amazed at the venom that is directed toward faithful preachers who try to “teach the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15) by calling us back to God’s word.  While false teachers are applauded and encouraged, those who take a stand against error are treated with the utmost contempt.

Winds of Doctrine are Blowing Today

Are you aware that error is being widely taught today and that many are unwilling to acknowledge its existence?  Are you aware that issues of grave concern are facing God’s people and that many preachers are too timid to deal with them?  Are you aware that many preachers in the Tampa Bay area are saying, “What difference does it make?” Error is creeping in, winds of doctrine are blowing, and many are asleep at the helm.  Attacks are being made on the Bible itself and some are so complacent and pliable with it that they are not at all upset until a voice of objection is raised.  Then, their anger is stirred, not against those who teach error, but against those who object to the error!  Brethren, it is time to take a stand.

It is Time to Take a Stand Against Those Who Teach Error About Creation

Are you even aware of what has been taught about Genesis 1 and 2 and the six days of creation?  Has it been kept silent where you worship?  Has your preacher spoken clearly about the six days of creation or does he say, “What difference does it make?”  You see, Shane Scott, Hill Roberts and others have boldly stated that the six days of creation are not literal days, but eons of time and that creation was really started by the Big Bang and that billions of years later, man was created.  (You can read detailed reports of this controversy on Watchman Magazine: [click here] under “Open Letter.”)  No matter that Moses wrote:  “and the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1:5), “…second day” (vs. 8), etc.  No matter that Moses also wrote in Exodus 20: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day, and hallowed it” (vs. 11).  No matter that Jesus said, of the creation of man:  “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning…” (Matthew 19:4).  What difference does it make if Jesus told the truth when he taught that Adam and Eve were created “at the beginning” but Shane Scott and Hill Roberts teach that they were made billions of years after the beginning?  Do you care that many preachers are saying that they cannot be sure whether creation took place in six literal days or eons of time?  In the Tampa Bay area, those who have taken a stand for the truth about creation have been ridiculed and ostracized, slandered and mauled by those who are unwilling to take a stand.  It is time — and past time — that these matters be addressed and that brethren everywhere take a stand for the Bible account of creation.

Dear reader, we encourage you, also, to stand.  Be unyielding to error.  Have conviction about the word of God and what it teaches.  Don’t give in to compromise and weak preaching.  Stand!

The keys to be used in entering the kingdom, or church, would also involve inherently that which fits in the figure of a kingdom, that of rule, or authority. The possessor of the keys would have power to bind and loose. That is a function of law, to restrict behavior or to allow behavior — binding and loosing — restricting, allowing. Law permits or prohibits behavior. Such is the basic premise of law. Those that want to contend that the kingdom and church are not the same neither understand law, construction, or grammar, much less the scriptures. Why would the Lord promise to build His church and then promise the keys to something else? When builders complete their construction, they turn over the keys to those who will use that which is built. Jesus promised to build His church and then promised to turn over the keys to that church to those who would use it first, the apostles. Peter opened the door of the kingdom, church, to jews first at Pentecost and then to Gentiles in Caesarea when he preached to Cornelius and his household. The same thing happened on both occasions. The keys were used, the door of opportunity was opened, and penitent, faithful believers went through the door through baptism into Christ. Acts 2:47 affirms that those entering the door were added to the church.

Some people have a problem with law. They prefer not to have restrictions placed on them or they dislike others having permission to do certain other things. Given those personal dislikes, some even try to change the law. Reference Matthew 7:21-23. Jesus there said that those who behaved outside the authority of law would not be allowed to enter the kingdom, the church. This would come as disastrous news to those who thought they had lived an exemplary life of self serving rituals in the name of religion. It will also come as similarly disastrous news to those who bind where God has not bound and loose where God has not loosed.

The Lord and His apostle Paul both spoke of unity. Jesus prayed for it while Paul pleaded for it.  “I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; “that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me” (John 17:20-21).   “Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Corinthians 1:10).  The unity here is complete, just as is the unity between Jesus and His Father described by Paul as of the “same mind and the same judgment.” This is not a unity of pretense or a unity of convenience. This is unity of purpose, unity of mind, unity of faith.

Conservative and liberal are interesting terms. Some see them as describing binding and loosing, where conservatism is binding and liberalism is loosing. Such is not the case. Conservatism is leaving things the way they are and have been. Liberalism is the concept of change for no good reason. The reason for change is perceived as good. We never want to question motives. Ultimately, however, liberalism is always lawlessness, action without authority (1 John 3:4).

Some sins are viewed, erroneously, as missing the mark on the “conservative” side. Historically there are to be found issues where “brethren” have erred, binding where God has not bound, and having that be called “conservative.” Illustrations: the “one cup” position is viewed as a conservative issue as it binds the use of only one container in the distribution of the fruit of the vine in worship. I know of no one who would say that the use of one cup would be sinful, but that attempts at binding that behavior definitely would be missing the mark of scripture and therefore sin. Again, “brethren” have erred seeking to bind the position that a local church is prohibited from employing the services of a located preacher to carry out its mission to evangelize and edify. Certainly a local church does not sin if it does not employ such men, but withholding fellowship from those who do is extreme. Again, it is viewed by some as a conservative departure. Thirdly, some hold the position that there is no exception in the law for Christians in regard to divorce and remarriage. What is the basis for such a position? And why is that called “conservative”?

The problem with each of these issues is that they seek to bind where God has not bound. The container issue is a non-issue. The scripture does not exist that instructs us on containers.  Any other issue drawn into the discussion of containers is moot. The Bible is silent. The command is to drink (1 Corinthians 11:25). We drink that which symbolizes the blood of Christ and reminds us of it being shed for us for the remission of our sins.

The work of the church includes, but is not limited to, preaching the word. Paul was supported to do this work, (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:8).  He cites the command of the Lord,  “Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:14).  So who is it that can come along and say that such is sinful? Is that conservative? Does it seek to conserve that which is written? “Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other” (1 Corinthians 4:6).

The final illustration is that of those who say the innocent victim of adultery in a marriage has no recourse of divorce. The real issue here is the heart of the problem in all these issues. To contend that the exception cited by Jesus in Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:32 is not applicable to all men is simply to deny the truth that Jesus spoke the will of God that will judge all men in the last day (John 12:48). Never can we say that the words of Christ do not apply to us or any other man and call that conservative.

Often times when issues such as these are raised, some will cry “irrelevant” or “boring.”  Why do we really need to study history? I asked that question of my father when I was in the seventh grade. He was right then and now that we must learn the principles of history so that we can learn from both the failures and successes of those who lived before us so that we can be better people. Improvement is always the goal.

We have issues today that plague us that go back to the very principles of the instrumental music question, the missionary society question, premillenialism, the one cup, the no Bible class question and on and on. I remember when I was a new Christian in the early sixties in Texas hearing great men of God speak of the divorce issues. I actually heard them say that we in Texas did not really have to worry about that as it was a “coastal” issue and would not make it to the middle of the country, not in the Lord’s church anyway. Those good men could not have been more wrong in their prognostications. Who would have ever dreamed that so-called “gospel preachers” would ever say and preach that the days of Genesis one “could not be literal”? That same adolescent child who wondered about studying history would get bored when a sermon on evolution was introduced. Who believes that stuff? Why preach on that? Everybody knows that, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).  If the Bible said it, it had to be true. Oh to be naïve and 14 again.

Twenty seven years ago, when I began to preach the gospel, I knew life would not be easy. I did not want it to be. I wanted to serve the Lord with all the abilities with which God had seen fit to bless me. Oh to be naïve and 24 again. I believe that most can relate to the sentiments of Jude when he said in verse three of his short epistle, “…I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation…” It would certainly be great if we could spend our time writing and basking in the joy of our common salvation, but, like Jude, we find “…it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” Creation; fellowship; adultery; the deity of Christ; and now we are even being told that hell is not eternal and the serpent was not really what the Bible says. Who could have ever imagined the depths of sin to which “brethren” would sink?

When men want to bind what God has not bound or loose what God has not loosed, there is sin involved. Call it liberal or call it conservative, the Bible calls it sin. If it is not right it is wrong, and if it is wrong it is sin, and if it is sin, it separates us from God (Isaiah 59:2), and if we die separated from God, a Devil’s eternal hell will be our home.

“In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea…” (Matthew 3:1). John had a message and he proclaimed it widely and publicly — “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (v. 2).  Not everyone liked what John had to say, but he was communicating the will of God. Luke tells us that “the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him” (7:30). Experience and history tells us that communication is sometimes a one-way proposition, though it is intended to be an exchange of ideas.

It is said of Jesus: He “went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom…” Matthew 9:35. But He knew that “The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priest and scribes” (Luke 9:22). The Master Teacher was unable to reach many of His day and they turned a deaf ear to the proclamation of the Good News. They crucified Him even while He was willing to communicate God’s will.

Jesus warned that many would have closed minds. Referring to Isaiah’s assessment of ancient Israel (and its fulfillment in His day), He said: “Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, and seeing you will see and not perceive; for the heart of this people has grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears…” (Matthew 13:14-15). By failing to listen, they turned away from the truth.

Should We Expect Any Different Treatment?

We should expect no different treatment in our generation when we preach the same message that Jesus and the apostles preached. Jesus warned: “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for a disciple to be like his teacher, and a servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they call those of his household?”  (Matthew 10:24-25). But it still comes as a shock that many people have little spiritual interest. In light of the importance of eternity and the sureness of Judgment, each of us should be concerned that we understand what God has communicated. But just as in the parable of the sower, some seed falls by the wayside, some on stony ground, and some among thorns (Luke 8). It is that rare person that is of a “good and honest heart” that listens and meditates on God’s word (Psalms 1).

Controversial Issues

• John dealt with controversy and was unyielding, even with those in high places. He proclaimed to all Judea that Herod was living in adultery and lost his life in the process.
• Jesus was no stranger to controversy and dealt forthrightly with the scribes and Pharisees, using great plainness of speech (Matthew 23). He, of course, was crucified.
• The apostles dealt with issues of their day: Gnosticism, racism, immorality, philosophy and idolatry. They suffered many persecutions and, except for John, were all probably martyred.
• Early disciples were scattered by persecution, but they “went everywhere, preaching the word” (Acts 8:4).

Should we be any different?

Jesus said, “If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you” (John 15:20). Also, “Woe to you when all men speak well of you…” (Luke 6:26). If Jesus and the apostles were willing to speak out and be heard as they communicated the saving message in the first century, we dare not fail to do the same thing today. Are we equal to the task? Will we preach plainly, boldly, fearlessly what the world needs to hear? Are we “ashamed of the gospel of Christ” (Romans 1:16)?

Sinful Issues of our Day Need Addressing

Our society is becoming more carnal, material and sick. Abortions are a common practice. Divorce and adultery are rampant. Homosexuality is more acceptable. Immodesty is blurring into nudity. Music is nothing if not suggestive (and “country” is no exception). Movies have become gutter filth. TV is still a wasteland. And our streets and homes are filled with violence. Friends, the gospel of Christ addresses these issues and supplies the answers. The “works of the flesh” are contrasted with the “fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:16-24). We must speak to a world that has no direction and help them to  “walk by the Spirit”  and not “fulfill the lust of the flesh.”  These deadly sins must be dealt with forthrightly in order that souls will be set free from sin (John 8:32). Do you hear preachers dealing with these issues today? Are they preaching “smooth things” (Isaiah 30:10) to those who have “itching ears” (2 Timothy 4:3), promoting a “feel good” philosophy instead of penitence? What do you hear from the pulpit where you worship? Is sin identified and cried out against? Has Hell been air-conditioned out of existence by your preacher? When is the last time you heard a sermon that taught that “sin is black and Hell is hot?”

Are Churches of Christ Immune?

Even among churches of Christ, major changes are taking place. We cannot point the finger at others without being honest enough to realize what is taking place among ourselves. Yes, immodesty is strong among Christians today — even in worship services. Yes, members are known to drink alcohol socially and elders look the other way. Adultery is common place and where is John and his sort today who cry out against it? Many churches are filled with those in unlawful marriages and not a word is said. In fact, error on divorce and remarriage is taught plainly and the only ones criticized are those who expose false teachings on divorce (Matthew 19:1-12). New interpretations on basic Bible themes are publicly taught regarding creation and the “big bang” theory and many say, “What difference does it make?” We are told that we must consider that there was no real serpent in Genesis 3, but that Moses borrowed a pagan motif to explain the origin of sin. Is there an outcry of alarm when such a theory is proposed? No more so than when renowned preachers tell us that eternal judgment does not really mean eternal judgment, but that sinners will be annihilated rather than punished forever in Hell. There seems to be an abundant elasticity in fellowship toward those who teach error, but only acrimony and criticism for those who expose error.

Are We Communicating?

With John, Jesus and the apostles, communication was often a one-way street: they preached, but not everyone listened or agreed with what they had to say. I know this is also true today because we get an occasional message to “remove my name from your mailing list”, as a result of the teaching we do in our mail out bulletin at Forest Hills. Of course, we will do so. But what does it cost to read and study? The truth is needed today as much as it ever was and it is available to all who “hunger and thirst after righteousness” (Matthew 5:6).

The Gentile world had previously rejected the knowledge of the true God and had invented idols and philosophy which elevated man against God. When Paul wrote to the Roman church, in the heart of the empire, he reminded them that "although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened" (1:21). Please note that mankind, without divine revelation, descends into the depths of immorality. Paul said, "Professing to be wise, they became foolish" (v. 22). Their foolishness was most vividly portrayed in a wicked lifestyle that included every vile thing. Paul’s list of their sins begins in verse 29: "…being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them" (vv. 29-32).

It is worth repeating: mankind, without divine revelation, descends into the depths of immorality. It was so in the days of Rome; it is true today. Apart from the wisdom that comes from God, mankind becomes filled with immorality. The Bible, and the Bible alone, contains the wisdom of God that directs our ways and elevates man out of darkness. There can be no more evidence of wisdom than that of depending on divine revelation in our preaching. It is not wise to use human creeds as a basis for doctrine. It is not wise to use philosophy as a basis for human morality. It is not wise to use science as a basis for faith. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17).

We Need The Bible For Guidance

Jeremiah, the prophet, said, "It is not in man that walketh to direct his steps" (10:23 ). The Psalmist added: "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path" (119:105). In an age of advanced technology and science, many may find it difficult to admit that man needs guidance in any area of his life. But unless we are careful, the more knowledge we have, the less advanced we really are. It is possible to worship at the altar of technology and become idolatrous in our intelligence. We can make the same mistake as the ancient Gentiles and give up the knowledge of God in exchange for a lie: that man does not need God! For example: man has the medical science at his fingertips to practice abortion right up to, and including, the final trimester of pregnancy. But what does it say about us when over one million abortions take place each year without regard to the moral issue of taking innocent life? How can anyone be so warped in mind and soul that protestations are made against killing dolphins and whales while encouraging abortions of innocent babes? Why is it moral to kill a baby in the womb, but immoral to kill an animal for food? We need divine guidance to see the value of the soul. "For what is a man profited if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matthew 16:26)? Those who espouse humanism and atheistic evolution have turned away from God and divine revelation and have a strangle hold on education in America. All references to moral values in public schools have been excised to the point that children are without moral direction and guidance. The result is chaos in the class room and the street. Truly, we need the wisdom of God for guidance in these troubled times.

The Result of Biblical Wisdom

David acknowledged the source of his wisdom: "I have more understanding than all my teachers, for Your testimonies are my meditation" (Psalms 119:99). Thus, those who trust in the Bible have access to wisdom far above that of man. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isa. 55:9). If we would be wise, we should seek wisdom from the word of God: "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him" (James 1:5).

The person who trusts in God’s word is led by a wisdom greater than his own. How foolish for people to trust "Dr. Phil" or "Dr. Ruth," when they spout pop-psychology which is often slanted to enhance television ratings. Is the true standard of morality a TV guru of the moment, or the Bible? Shall we entrust our souls to a television personality or to Jesus Christ? What is the origin of man? What is his destiny? What happens to man when he dies? Is there life beyond the grave? What shall we do about our sins? Can we really have eternal life? How do I find the answers to these awesome questions? How can I be sure to find the right way? The Bible, and the Bible alone, has the answers to these vital questions. You can "know the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:32).

The Bible Answers the Issues of Life

What is the origin of man? Science can only speculate and postulate about theories, but is unable to give us the absolute beginning of man. On the other hand, the Bible reveals by inspiration that "In the beginning, God…" created all things (Genesis 1, 2). In the six days of creation, God exercised power and wisdom in successive creative acts that culminated with the inhabited earth. Man was the highest act of God’s creation, given life instantaneously and miraculously.

What is his destiny? God made man to live in the Garden, to flourish, and to "replenish the earth" (Genesis 1:28), but man went astray from God’s purpose by the temptation of Satan (chapter 3). When they ate of the forbidden fruit, our fore-parents died spiritually (separated from God’s fellowship) and began to die physically. The explanation of human suffering is explained by the intrusion of sin into the human race. But death is not our destiny, if we are willing to accept the gracious offer of God as given in the prophecy of the "seed of woman" (3:15), a reference to the coming of Christ. What we have lost in Adam, we regain in Christ, through His sacrificial death on the cross. As Jesus was able to raise Lazarus (John 11), he can raise us at the last day (John 5:28-29) and give us eternal life. The poverty of evolution is seen in its inability to give no promise of everlasting life. Friend, which gives you more hope: evolution which promises only a tombstone over your grave, or Jesus Christ who died that you might live?

What happens when he dies? Is there life beyond the grave? All of us have felt the utter futility and helplessness of witnessing a loved one’s death. But from death’s moment, science is totally ignorant as to the disposition of man. Is death the final end? Does life continue after death? Where does the spirit of man, if one exists, go? Is there life beyond the grave? Human "wisdom" (such as the utter nonsense of those like Shirley McLaine) might postulate recycling of the soul through reincarnation. Or some of the eastern New-Age religions suggest a loss of personality into Nirvana. But they cannot know, for sure. Science, with all its technology, and philosophy, with all its vaunted knowledge, stand mute at death’s bedside and can tell us absolutely nothing beyond the final breath. Only the Bible has the answer! Jesus, who "tasted of death for every man" (Hebrews 2:9), is the only One who has been there and back, and who can tell us what really takes place. We find the curtains drawn back and the mystery revealed in such places as Luke 16:19-31, where the death of Lazarus and his destiny is revealed, along with that of the rich man. Matthew 25:31-46 brings to our view the final judgment when Christ will judge all men, both good and evil. 1 Corinthians 15:12-58 assures us of the resurrection and Revelation 21-22 describe the glories of heaven for the saved of God.

What shall we do about our sins? Can we really have eternal life? Science and philosophy cannot tell you what a "sin" is or what to do about it. Science cannot put "sin" in a test tube and analyze it for weight and molecular structure. Philosophy is helpless in addressing sin because there is no absolute standard for morality. There is no agreement among men as to what constitutes "sin." As one Supreme Court judge said, "I cannot define pornography, but I can recognize it when I see it." Relativism and situation ethics blur the definition of sin and are absolutely helpless in its presence. Only divine revelation describes and defines sin and tells you what its consequences are and how to escape the dreadful punishment that sin merits.

"Sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4). Thus, the Bible is the revelation of absolute truth and relativism is cast aside. What is right and wrong? God’s word decides that! Galatians 5:17-21 contrasts the "lusts of the flesh" with the "fruit of the Spirit" (vv. 22-23). The Bible reveals how deadly sin is: "The wage of sin is death" and the "soul that sins shall die" (Romans 6:23; Ezekiel 18:4, 20). We are likewise informed that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). Those who understand the guilt of sin, like Paul, before his conversion, can state: "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" (Romans 7:24). Man’s helplessness in the face of his sins is apparent. We are in bondage in our sins and hopeless without God’s help to escape.

It is at this exact point that the necessity of gospel preaching is clearly seen. "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" The gracious response is found in the next verse: "I thank God – through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (v. 25).

Is it any secret, then, that this message must be preached? "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:18-20). Is it any wonder that this is called the Great Commission?

Can we really have eternal life? Yes! You can be saved from your sins and, "though it is appointed unto man once to die" (Hebrews 9:27), we can have eternal life in Christ Jesus, our Lord.

Is Anyone Preaching The Great Commission Today?

Faithful churches of Christ are actively preaching the Great Commission and are reaching out to the community around them with its saving message. We are attempting to communicate the "good news" (gospel) of Christ today, just as it was delivered in the first century.

The gored ox problem is the problem of tolerance. We love to hear sin condemned from the pulpit, as long as our ox is not being gored, meaning that our sin is not being condemned. The employment status of many preachers, including this author, has changed when we have gored the wrong ox. (Wrong as it relates to the possessor of an ox, not wrong as in the eternal Judge of the universe). I personally have never owned an ox, nor do I desire one. It might end up being gored, and I might have to change my position on sin, God forbid, since my current position is that revealed by the Psalmist, Psalm 119:104, “Through Your precepts I get understanding; Therefore I hate every false way.” And Psalm 119:128, “Therefore all Your precepts concerning all things I consider to be right; I hate every false way.”

David, that psalmist quoted in the previous paragraph, had an ox. He was an adulterer. He was a murderer. When Nathan, his closest and dearest friend, told him about his sin in parable form, David was all ready to condemn the man in the parable. “Then David’s anger burned greatly against the man, and he said to Nathan, ‘As the LORD lives, surely the man who has done this deserves to die. And he must make restitution for the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing and had no compassion.’ Nathan then said to David, ‘You are the man! Thus says the LORD God of Israel, “It is I who anointed you king over Israel and it is I who delivered you from the hand of Saul”‘” (2 Samuel 12:5-7)(NASB). Did Nathan tell David something he did not already know? Was David not fully aware of the fact that he had committed adultery with Bathsheba and sent her husband to battle to be killed to cover up his own sin? Nathan did not reveal any new facts. He simply made the application.

In recent times, I must confess that I have gored an ox or two. I was a signer of the infamous letter which exposed the false teaching which was being done and supported by the administration of Florida College. I even wrote an article which appeared in this journal expressing my views, based on personal evidence I might add, as to why that academic institution has chosen to follow the course it is now following. Several men, some near and dear friends, chastised me for taking on that ox in such a manner. The evidence notwithstanding, their view was that I had no right to gore their favorite ox.

In 2002, I gored the ox of men who were prominent in the local church of which I was a member and to which I was a servant in the preaching of the gospel. Those prominent men were once avid supporters of my preaching the truth. When men who would pervert the gospel on issues that would endanger the church sought an audience, no audience was allowed. The truth was upheld. False teachers were renounced, and God’s word and only God’s word was allowed to be preached. Then, without such specific intention, I gored the ox of those prominent men. I preached against a sin they were committing. I was dismissed, they were vindicated in the eyes of the local church, and a new servant will soon have his chance to see if he can preach the whole counsel of God without goring any oxen and losing his job. Something is wrong with this picture.

I still love David. What a man! I do not praise him in his sin, nor did God. David, however, did not dismiss Nathan, when Nathan delivered that ox slaying stroke, “you are the man!” David went to God in confession and repentance. He went to God with remorse for his sin. He accepted God’s punishment, the death of the bastard child. Was it easy for Nathan to gore David’s ox? Only love for truth and love for God and love for David could have motivated Nathan to approach his dear friend, risking that relationship. We learn from that, however, that no personal relationship on earth is worth a man’s soul. David, as king, could have had Nathan killed just as he had Uriah. Nathan did not care. He had to follow the course of truth and love.

Dear Christian friend and brother, when you are faced with the option of ignoring the sin of one you love or goring the ox of that loved one, pull out your sword (Ephesians 6:17) and gore that awesome beast. You may suffer the loss of friends. Maybe so, and maybe not. You will for certain maintain the love of He who is your eternal Friend, our Lord, our King, Jesus Christ.

In case you may wonder about the sin which I condemned in the lives of the prominent men, it all had to do with justifying a practice based on book, chapter, and verse biblical authority. Is that such a terrible thing? Maybe it is for some, but since a warm summer’s night in Houston, Texas, when James Wilson plunged my adolescent body under the water for the remission of my sins, the only authority I have ever known comes from God’s word. I have selfishly forgotten that authority at times and sinned often (Romans 3:23; 1 John 1:8-10). I would, however, never say that such selfishness is all right with God. We have no need for the oxen of sin. Let them all be gored. Let them all die. Let personal relationships never stand in the way of our standing up for what is right. May our voices be heard over all the clutter and clamor for tolerance. When it gets down to it, the voices of compromise will tolerate anything but that which condemns their unauthorized tolerance of sin.

“You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin; and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons, ‘My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor faint when you are reproved by him; for those whom the Lord loves he disciplines, and he scourges every son whom he receives.’ It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness. All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness. Therefore, strengthen the hands that are weak and the knees that are feeble, and make straight paths for your feet, so that the limb which is lame may not be put out of joint, but rather be healed. Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord. See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled; that there be no immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal. For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.” (Hebrews 12:4-17) (NASB)

Whether it be a bowl of beans, a large endowment, or a dear and beloved friend, nothing is worth the loss of our souls. “For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? For what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” (Mark 8:36-38) (NASB)

It does not depend on whose ox is being gored, it all depends on how much we love the Lord who shed His precious blood for the salvation of my soul and your soul. He who has an ear, let him hear.

That is why communication is so important.  God wants to communicate to us and does so through the Holy Scriptures.  But if we don’t study, if we don’t read, God is not able to communicate. If God had chosen to do so, He could have written His will across the sky. But He didn’t. He could have spoken to us in some mysterious way that is "better felt than told." But He didn’t. He could have impressed His will into man as He has with animals (instinct). But He didn’t. He has expressed His will to us through the Holy Scriptures. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16). Are you aware that God is communicating with us through the Bible?

The History of Mankind

Have you considered what God is communicating to us?  Genesis 1 and 2 tells us of our origin: we are made in the image of God. But Genesis 3 tells us that man soon went astray after creation and sinned against the Creator. They died spiritually when they sinned, and began to die physically as a direct result of their disobedience (Gen. 2:17), no longer permitted to eat of the tree of life (2:9). Though we do not inherit the guilt of Adam and Eve (Ezekiel 18:4, 20), we suffer the consequences of physical death and, when we sin, we suffer spiritual death also (Romans 3:23; 6:23).  We need salvation because we have sinned.

Soon after Adam and Eve sinned, God promised a Savior (Genesis 3:15).  He was to come as the "seed of woman," and this was realized when Mary, though a virgin, gave birth to Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 1:18-25). From Genesis 3 onward, through all the Bible, God has communicated how He planned our redemption in Jesus. It is vital that we understand what God has said about being saved from our sins and that we learn of Jesus’ sacrifice for our sins. But we only understand as we read – if we do not read the Bible, we will never know of God’s grace.

Old Testament – New Testament
Two Covenants

In the book of Genesis, God related how He chose Abraham because he was a man of faith (15:6) and decided to bring Jesus into the world through Abraham’s genealogy.  God made promises to Abraham and made a covenant with him concerning Jesus (Gen. 17:1-7; 22:18). The descendants of Abraham ultimately became a nation, dwelling in the promised land, being guided by the Law of Moses (Exodus 20, et al). This law, also a covenant, continued in effect with Abraham’s descendants (later known as "Jews") until the death of Christ. After Jesus’ resurrection, He gave another covenant and the old covenant was taken out of the way (2 Corinthians 3:6-13; Colossians 2:13-14; Hebrews 9:11-15; et al). This new covenant was given, not just to Jews, but to all mankind the world over. Hence, the Great Commission states: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:15-16). All mankind, you and I, are included in this new covenant and will be saved from our sins if we accept Jesus. This is why the New Testament message about Jesus is called the "gospel" or "good news." The old covenant was added "because of transgressions" (Galatians 3:19); the new covenant was added to bring salvation (Romans 1:16). This is wonderful news and needs to be communicated to the entire world.

"Go Into All The World"

It is God’s will that the story of Jesus be told so that all may be saved. Every person needs to understand what to do to be saved, just as the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:30).  But how is the message to be communicated? Friends, the gospel must be preached (1 Corinthians 1:21) so that faith may be generated (Romans 10:17). "And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing you may have life in His name" (John 20:30-32). The New Testament is a written record of salvation through Jesus Christ. Jesus died, was buried and rose from the dead to prove that He was the Son of God. He died that we might live! Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (the gospels), reveal the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. The book of Acts reveals how the church was established and that it is composed of those who are saved (Acts 2:47). The other books of the New Testament were letters written by inspired men to tell them of the teachings of Christ (Acts 2:42; 1 Timothy 3:14-15).

This is written to communicate with you concerning the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ. Have you accepted Jesus by faith (Hebrews 11:6)? Have you repented of your sins (Luke 13:3)? Have you confessed your faith in Jesus (Matthew 10:32; Romans 10:9-10)? Have you been baptized for the remission of your sins (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; Romans 6:1-7)? Are you following Jesus as a faithful disciple (Revelations 2:10)?

It will be our pleasure to study with you and communicate the gospel message. Do you understand the message? Are you willing to obey the gospel?

When I was a young boy, I remember a man who worshipped with the church at home whose wife was a member of a denomination. Each week the family would leave home in separate cars, the man and wife going to different places of worship. Their daughter was pulled between the two.

My own father was not a Christian and he either remained in bed on Sunday morning while we all went to worship, or, as often was the case, expressed his displeasure at our going. The fact that he was not saved tore at our hearts and kept us from being a close family. There was a barrier there that was never removed and sin finally tore the family asunder.

It takes strength and character to keep a family together in Christ. There are strains and stresses that would pull it apart if possible. A husband has problems that are different from a wife’s and understanding is required. And there must be a common bond that binds stronger than the stresses that would tear apart. A family that has Christ as its center is stronger than a family without Him. I admire Joshua’s attitude when he said, “As for me and my house, we will serve Jehovah” (Joshua 24:15). I admire Cornelius who gathered his household together and said, “We are all here present in the sight of God, to hear all things that have been commanded thee of the Lord” (Acts 10:33).

Husbands and fathers have a special responsibility before the Lord. They are to be heads of their households and guide the family in the way it should go. When a man abdicates this place and fails to lead his family in God’s way, he will have much to answer for in the Judgment. Men, are you facing up to your place of responsibility?

Women are often the strength in the family. Especially is this so when the men are not Christians. But even where men are Christians, it is often the woman who determines whether or not a family will be faithful. It is often left up to the wife to prepare breakfast, get the children ready, and do the multiple chores that are necessary if a family is to be able to attend. When a wife sleeps late, doesn’t prepare, or doesn’t want to attend, it is extremely difficult for the husband to get everything ready and leave. He can do it, but it is hard. Wives, are you helping or hindering your family in its service to God?

Children can make worship pleasant or a chore. If they are allowed to dominate a family with their whims and dislikes, an hour or two in worship becomes a battle. It is hard to get them ready and then wrestle with them when they had rather stay home and play. As children get older, sullenness can set in and a poor attitude can destroy any worshipful attitude. Young people must come to realize that they are spiritual as well as physical and it is wrong to spend all their time on purely physical pleasures. They must be taught to feed the soul. Young people, do you help matters at home by your attitude or are you part of the problem?

If you haven’t been doing so let me encourage you to worship together as a family this Lord’s Day. Read this article in the presence of the entire family and discuss your hindrances. If each of you will determine to put the Lord first, you can be closer to one another. Don’t let the problems of life short-change your happiness, now or hereafter.

Husbands, wives, children: serve God as a family. Which member(s) of your family are you content to see drift into hell? Do you sit across the breakfast table from a loved one who is lost? Talk humbly and lovingly to him (her) about it. Let them know that your love for them won’t let you sit idly by while they are lost. Do you have young people who are drifting away? Let them read this so they will know you care. Reach out. Fight. Don’t give up. Don’t stop caring. Shed some tears. Pray about it. Determine to remain faithful all alone if you have to, but let them know you don’t want to. You want your family to be in the Lord’s family.

Again, as a young boy, I remember the first Bible class teacher I had, long before I became a Christian. She was faithful but her husband was not a Christian. Year after year, she taught class and lived as she should, teaching her children until they all became Christians. It took over thirty years, but she lived to see the day her husband became a Christian. Thirty years means somewhere in excess of 1,500-1,600 Lord’s Days when she went to worship without her husband. But she lived to see him baptized into Christ. And that is what she wanted all along. Do you want it badly enough to do the same?

Editor’s Note: Brother Roberts is presently preparing for a move to the Tampa, Florida area, to work with the Forest Hills congregation.  As such, I have taken the liberty of reprinting an article Tom wrote for the West Side Weekly, a bulletin published by the West Side church in Fort Worth, TX in the time brother Roberts preached for that congregation.

The date of the article is November 20, 1977.  At that time, brother Roberts was dealing with the error of “Neo-Calvinism” in the Dallas, Fort Worth area.  Among other criticisms he and others received in their defense of truth was the charge that they were “meddling” in the affairs of other congregations.

While the illustration is dated, (typewriters instead of computers and the internet),  the argument used to refute this quibble is the same.  Truth does not violate autonomy! We commend his article to you. (Stan)

One hears a lot of objections these days to the use of bulletins by churches.  They are used, it is said, to meddle in other churches’ affairs and to ruin the reputation of preachers who deviate from orthodox positions.  I believe we need to consider these charges.

A bulletin, properly used, is simply a teaching medium of a congregation.  It is used in much the same way that a radio program is used:  to expand the teaching area that can be reached by the local church.  A bulletin can be as versatile as gospel preaching in that it can be used for local members or for those not Christians or for a combined audience of Christians and non-Christians.  In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with a church using a bulletin, nor a radio program, nor any other means to proclaim the truth.

Wherein, then, lies the objection to church bulletins?  Must it not be an abuse of their use (real or imaginary)?  If church bulletins are scriptural as a method of teaching (and I believe them to be so), we should not object to them but to their abuse.  In this, I see a parallel to debating.  Many object to debates themselves, while debates are eminently scriptural.  But what many object to, with foundation, is the abuse of debates where such become an harangue and occasion of egotistical strife.  We might as well object to gospel preaching itself simply because there are preachers who have abused their place and brought dishonor to their work.  Let us learn to distinguish between that which is right and proper in itself and an abuse of that same thing.  One is right and the other is wrong.

But there is another thing to consider.  Some might object to bulletins simply because they are doing a good job of teaching the truth.  I have seen people in the denominational world object to bulletins (and tracts and radio programs and debates, etc.) simply because their error has been exposed.  They cry long and loud about “hard preaching,” “evils of debating,” “hate sheets,” when their position is examined and exposed.  Liberal churches frown on debates now that they occupy an indefensible position.  They refuse to debate institutionalism but will still debate denominationalism.  In other words, some people object to criticism only when their cause is weak.

Down through the years debates, radio programs, and yes, bulletins, have done an immeasurable amount of good.  Each of these methods of proclamation of truth has been, and can continue to be, used to good advantage.  A church would be foolish indeed not to be able to distinguish between a good method and an abuse of the method.

Is exposing error an abuse?  One preacher recently ridiculed a preacher who “runs to the church typewriter” as soon as he can to “destroy” those who disagree with him.  But he said little about other preachers who use bulletins as a constant medium of teaching and springboard for error.  In other words, let a false teacher have his typewriter. …let him write at will. …let him spread any teaching he chooses, but those who disagree occupy the safe course only by ignoring him.

I want the scripture where this is approved as a safe course of action.  Do you see Paul ignoring those who taught error?  Do you see Peter standing meekly back while teachers of error stood unopposed?  Does the New Testament really teach that we are to keep quiet in the face of false teachers?

Local Autonomy

I recognize the problem of local autonomy being respected while writing for a bulletin.  But so also can the same problem exist where a radio program is used or where personal work is active.  A bulletin, a radio program, personal work or any other medium of teaching should not be construed as a “brotherhood” work.  This bulletin does not speak for area churches nor for brotherhood churches.  But neither does a church stand as an island in the world.  It must influence, even as it is influenced by others.  Local members who receive bulletins from other churches will be influenced.  Local members who visit gospel meetings in other churches will be influenced.  Who can say this always bad or even wrong?  Teaching cannot be limited to a geographical area but such does not negate local autonomy automatically.

Conclusion

My conclusion is that a church may use a bulletin and its influence may be widely felt without invading another church’s independence.  Let us not be critical of any method or medium which a church uses so long as care is used to respect local autonomy.  And finally, let us extend the same courtesy to those who stand for the truth as for those who constantly agitate.  Don’t call for one to cease while allowing the other to continue.  Common fairness and decency demands this much.

Children are often too impatient to attempt to see the wisdom behind rules. They are not looking at events from the mature standpoint that only years of experience can bring; they are viewing events through the impatience and immaturity of youth. Such immaturity seldom seeks to find the wisdom behind a rule, particularly if it interferes with the immediate gratification of a desire. The guiding light of youth is expressed in the sentiment, "I want…" and "I want it now…" Consequently, when any restricting rule is enforced which inhibits or restricts, a young person who has no respect for experience or for the Biblical injunction of obedience will rebel. Whether the rule is a curfew on dating nights, attendance at worship services, homework, housework or personal grooming guidelines, compliance is grudging, if at all.

Adding to this problem is the fact that young people are encouraged in rebellion by their peers at school, by a lawless generation and by lyrics of music which teach and propagate a rebellious spirit. Parents are portrayed as old-fashioned, over-the-hill, "out of it" and unfair. With a wave of the hand, all experience of a preceding generation of parents is dismissed if it interferes with "doing your own thing." And not too subtly, the mistakes of the older generation are used to show the irony of anyone "telling me what to do." However, if, with all our experience and regulations we have made such a botch of things, what will a generation do that refuses to respect experience or be restricted? Already we are reaping the terrible results of this philosophy in broken homes, abortion, drug addiction, increased crime rates and a multitude of problems. Unlicensed restraint surely is not the answer!

Understand the Consquences

But if our young people get their way, if they overthrow all restrictions, and if they get out on their own, they need to realize something. They really are on their own!

If I know the intentions of most parents, it has been their purpose to provide a kind of life that will prepare their children to be on their own and to prosper. Parents lay down rules and regulations so that when their children leave home, they will be prepared morally, spiritually and educationally to meet the challenges of life and be productive. These are the basic reasons for rules in the home. It is inevitable, given the normal course of events, that children leave home. The question is, "Will they be prepared when they leave home?" As parents, we fully agree with our children that, when they leave home, "you are on your own." In fact, we realize it more fully than our children!

• You are on your own spiritually. No longer will the parents be held accountable for the actions of the children. For a time when children are young, the Lord holds parents responsible for the teaching and training of their offspring. But a time comes when a child ceases to be the ward of another and becomes an adult in his own right. At that time responsibility for actions ceases to be that of the parent and passes, irrevocably, to the child. Beyond this point you answer to God at the judgment for what you do. Truly you are on your own.
• You are on your own morally. While you were at home, there were restraining teachings about fornication, drinking, companions, movies, books, magazines, etc. Now that you are "on your own," there are no restraints. You will be able to do as you please, when you please and where you please. But you will also be accountable for these actions. As Solomon said, "But know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment" (Ecclesiastes 11:10).

Yes, my friend, you will be on your own, to stand or fall, for good or bad. There will be no one to blame but yourself. Your mistakes will be yours and no guilt can be handed back to your parents any longer. And there is an additional thought worthy of consideration: when you have children, you will be faced with the same responsibilities your parents had. If you love your children, if you want their life to prosper, if you want them to grow up respecting others and being prepared to face life, you will have to set some rules. And the cycle will have come full circle! You will be the parent and your children will be saying, "Boy, when I leave home and get on my own, I’ll do what I want to do." And when you hear these words (probably not before then), you will appreciate what your parents went through to raise you. The next time you want "out on your own," think about it.

"For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words." (1 Corinthians 2:10-13, NASB)

From this passage we learn that God has revealed Himself through the work of the Holy Spirit to the chosen apostles of Christ. The apostles are said to teach in words, “…not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit.” It is only reasonable to assume that the revelation of the mind of God in words are words that man can understand, and understand these words in the same way that God understands them. The issue of understandable language gets to the very heart of the issue of faith. Do we believe the Bible? Is it God’s word? Is the Bible God’s complete and final revelation of God to man? Does Hebrews 1:1-2 mean what it says about God’s speaking to man in these last times? "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world" (NASB). When you break down this statement without all the modifiers it says that God has spoken, that God has spoken to man, and that God has spoken to man through His Son. What do we believe?

"For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles– if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace which was given to me for you; that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. And by referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (Ephesians 3:1-6, NASB) The primary focus of this reference is that Paul said that when we read we can understand. What do we understand when we read? Paul said it was the revelation made known to the holy apostles and prophets of the Lord. Is there confusion in this revelation? Is it possible to understand the words? Does God speak to us in His Son in words which are not understandable?

I want to look at some words and just see if God understands language and see if we can’t understand also the language of the words God has revealed.

Tabernacle. There is nothing inherently religious about a tabernacle. It is a tent. One could speak of the great tabernacle God commanded Moses to build according to the pattern revealed to him on God’s mountain, or of a tent that teenage boys might pitch in their back yard under which to sleep after an adventurous night in the neighborhood among their friends. A tabernacle is merely a tent. God utilized the word to describe the portable structure the children of Israel were to use as a place of worship as they wandered.

Church. Again, there is nothing inherently religious about the word church. As it is translated from the Greek ekklesia, it is nothing more or nothing less than an assembly of people called out of where they were into that assembly for a particular purpose. The Greek word was a common word to describe an assembly or meeting of people. Jesus used the word to describe His people. “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it” (Matthew 16:18, NASB). That over which the gates of Hades would have no power was not the ekklesia which was dismissed in Acts 19:41. That ekklesia was a riotous mob in the city of Ephesus protesting the preaching against idolatry which Paul and his company were doing.

In order to make the proper application of the use of the word church, or any other word for that matter, there are certain rules of language to which we must adhere. One of the primary rules is to view the word in context. A serious word study of the word church will bear out that when the word is used to describe God’s people, it is used in either a local sense, as in a congregation (1 Corinthians 1:2), or in the universal sense to describe all the saved (Acts 2:47). The church of God at Corinth to which Paul addressed himself was an identifiable known entity. It was a finite group at any given time. When the incestuous fornicator was ordered to be marked in chapter 5, Paul spoke of his readers as being “assembled together.” The specific audience of this writing was the local church at Corinth. It was this finite identifiable church which had to deal with the sinner.

God understands language, and we have an obligation to do the same. The worn out claim that “the church is the people and the people are the church” that many use today to cloud the work of the local church is in direct violation of the uniqueness of the membership of a local church. When you have a group of Christians who all meet under a tree some place when they are all on vacation, you do not have a church. There is an assembly, but it is not a local church and it certainly is not the universal church. It is nothing more than a group of Christians.

Baptize. Here is a word that is used in the Bible that is real easy to define. The word means to bury or immerse. When I would visit friends who lived in the country, by that I mean outside the city, one of the common chores was to take the perishable garbage away from the house and bury it in the ground. By definition, it could be said that we were baptizing that garbage. The illustration is clear. If we were to sprinkle or pour a little dirt on the garbage, it would not be a burial and it would only take a few days before our noses would fully comprehend that there had been no burial of the garbage.

The religious use of the word baptize and its various forms has reference to the burial in water of a sinner in order to have his sins washed away. Neither the sprinkling nor pouring of a littler water could be called a baptism just as in the garbage illustration. Baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) is the act of burial in water (Acts 10:47-48; Acts 8:38) of the sinner to be raised from that water, just as Christ was raised from the dead, to live a new life (Romans 6:3-4). Baptism is not inherently a religious act, thus the reference by Peter in 1 Peter 3:21 to the putting away of the filth of the flesh. One could be buried in water to wash away dirt. One could be buried in water in some sort of water sport. But in order for ones sins to be washed away, baptism must be an act of faith by the authority of Christ, in water, for the remission of sins, an act of obedience in submission to the will of God (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 22:16).

Day. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day" (Genesis 1:1-5, NKJV). Why do we now have a problem in the church understanding what a day is? What an evening and a morning comprise? Is this word so hard to understand? “You shall march around the city, all you men of war; you shall go all around the city once. This you shall do six days” (Joshua 6:3, NKJV). How long did the children of Israel march around the city? The command was to do it once for six days. For the seventh day there was a different command. For the six days, the command was the same: “march around the city … once.” Does anyone have a problem with how long the people marched? No. There is no problem as this record does not infringe on the faith or claim of any group of people, be they scientists, religious leaders or academic leaders. Why do we now in the church have such a controversy over Exodus 20:11? "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it" (NKJV).

God understands language. If He wanted us to believe that the “days” of Genesis 1 were eras, God understands enough about language to tell us that the evening and the morning were the first million years. Give God enough credit to give us the words by which when we read we can understand (1 Corinthians 2; Ephesians 3; see above).

If sprinkling were sufficient, He would never have said to baptize. If any group of Christians, with or without any organization or definition could do the work the Lord specified for the local church to do, He could have told us in language clear enough to understand. If He intended to allow us to play an instrument of music as we sang praises in worship, God is sufficiently skillful in language to have included some reference in the New Testament to the playing of a musical instrument. He included no such reference, thus we are not at liberty to assume He approves of the playing of an instrument in worship (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Colossians 3:17; Ephesians 2:10).

The plea is for simple adherence to just what the Bible says. We do not have to change the words, the meanings nor the applications. Provide book chapter and verse authority for all we do, and with that, God will be pleased (Matthew 28:20).

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9).

With the current condition of the world (a reflection of what has always been so from the sin of Adam), it is amazing that God continues to allow this old world to stand. When we think about all that goes on around us (and we see but a fraction of the world’s evil), we are led to marvel that God does not say, "Enough! I will tolerate no more."

For a few thousand years now the history of man has been a history rejecting God. Beginning with Adam and continuing through every age of our history, each period of time is a story of dismal failure. True, there have been a few Abrahams and Noahs along the way, but the vast majority of mankind has "refused to have God in their knowledge" (Romans 1:28). As Paul looked at this same thought, he concluded (with the prophet) in Romans 3:10ff: "There is none righteous, no not one; There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God; They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable." If this be so (and it is), why does God allow the world to continue? This is a question worth our consideration. And yet the very condition of wickedness that abounds on every hand but magnifies and declares the answer: it is the longsuffering and mercy of God that continues to grant lost men and women time to repent and turn to Him before Judgment.

In Noah’s day this tenderness of God toward the lost was declared in that He permitted Noah so many years of preaching to the lost while the ark was being built. Genesis 6:3 declares, "My Spirit shall not strive with man for ever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years." With all the wickedness abroad in the land in Noah’s day, God yet granted men 120 years with Noah’s preaching to remind them that they should turn to God. You know the sad conclusion: man did not repent and God destroyed that ancient world.

By the mercy of God, Jesus Christ died on the cross of Calvary that men might be freed from the guilt and burden of sin. The church was established so that we might live in a saved relationship with God and serve Him. Yet men continue to spurn the truth and corrupt pure worship to this day. All the while, God’s mercy continues. We are told that God "hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained: whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead" (Acts 17:31). Friends, we are moving inexorably toward that Day of Judgment. It is fixed and sure. The intervening days, wherein the gospel is preached around the world and the church is the "pillar and ground of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) declares God’s longsuffering and mercy. Right now, today, you have time and opportunity to repent and turn to God. With the condition that the world is in, God could righteously condemn it today, this moment. But because He loves and wants to see none lost (our text, 2 Peter 3:9), God spares the world, entreating man to turn to Him.

Friend, God is surely longsuffering and full of mercy. But remember that God’s spirit "will not always strive with man" (Genesis 6:3). The Day of Reckoning will surely come, just as the rains descended in Noah’s day. Will you ignore God’s mercy? Will you outlast His patience? Will you refuse to obey the gospel?

“By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?” But Jesus answered and said to them, “The baptism of John–where was it from? From heaven or from men?” (Matthew 21:23-25; NKJV)

Bible Authority
How Do We Get It And Use It?

• The Nature Of Bible Authority Is Positive
• Bible Authority Is Permissive
• We Cannot Act So As To Please God Without His Approval

Bible Authority
How Do We Get It And Use It?

How Do We Know This?

What Are The Alternatives?

• 1 Peter 4:11
• Colossians 3:17
• 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Bible Authority
How Do We Get It And Use It?

What This WILL NOT Allow!!

• Any Form of Negative Authority!!
  • Leviticus 10:1-2
  • Hebrews 7:13-14

Bible Authority
How Do We Get It And Use It?

• What This WILL NOT Allow!!

“Where does it say in the Bible I can’t do this?”

• Response:

“Where does it say in the Bible I CAN???”

Bible Authority
How Do We Get It And Use It?

• What This WILL NOT Allow!!

“I Know I Don’t Have Book Chapter and Verse, BUT…”

• Response:

Ephesians 2:8-10

Bible Authority
How Do We Get It And Use It?

• Application:
  The Work of the Church
  Evangelism
  Edification
  Internal Benevolence

What Else Is There?

Bible Authority
How Do We Get It And Use It?

• Application:
  The Worship of the Church
  Singing
  Bible Study
  Prayer
  The Lord’s Supper
  Local Congregational Collection

What Else Is There?

Bible Authority
How Do We Get It And Use It?

• Application:
  The Worship of the Church

Singing – Authorized both Individually and Congregationally

• James 5:13
• Ephesians 5:19
• Colossians 3:16

Bible Authority
How Do We Get It And Use It?

• Application:
  The Worship of the Church

Bible Study – Authorized both Individually and Congregationally

• 2 Timothy 2:15
• Acts 20:7

Bible Authority
How Do We Get It And Use It?

• Application:
  The Worship of the Church

Prayer – Authorized both Individually and Congregationally

• James 5:14-18
• 1 Corinthians 14:16

Bible Authority
How Do We Get It And Use It?

• Application:
  The Worship of the Church

The Lord’s Supper – Authorized ONLY as an Individual act performed in a Congregational Setting

• Acts 20:7
• 1 Corinthians 11:18-22

Bible Authority
How Do We Get It And Use It?

• Application:
  The Worship of the Church

Local Congregational Collection– Authorized ONLY as an Individual act Performed in a Congregational Setting

• 1 Corinthians 16:1-2
• 2 Corinthians 9:7

Bible Authority
How Do We Get It And Use It?

The real question here is, “Does it matter?”

Does It matter if we have Bible Authority for everything we do?

(2 Corinthians 5:10) For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. (NKJV)

Bible Authority
How Do We Get It And Use It?

“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. For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. And I know that His command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told Me, so I speak. (John 12:48-50; NKJV)