In the 1960’s things changed for many religious people.  Situational Ethics was first popularized by an Episcopal priest named Joseph Fletcher, who wrote two books titled The Classic Treatment and Situation Ethics.  In the books he contended that the principle of Love (agape) was supreme, and sometimes situations necessitated a breaking of God’s law for the higher good of expressing love for another.  The concept was accepted by a large number despite its arbitrary, individualistic and subjective nature.  Its influence is the primary reason why the hue and cry of religious people today, rather than obedience to God, has become, “You have no right to judge me!”

It is also the reason why religious people have become so accepting of sinful action in our society.  Many believe that, depending upon the situation, lying, stealing, divorce, abortion, etc., may be excused by God.  At its core, the view makes man the final arbiter of what is right and wrong in any particular circumstance, rather than God.  As experience has shown, this is a slippery slope.

American Slavery

The institution of slavery is a horrific blight in America’s past.  It was allowed to flourish because of the attitudes popularly held by the white population of America from its inception as a nation.  The southern states needed cheap labor for the cultivation and harvesting of crops such as tobacco and cotton.  The African slave trade provided the labor force.  It was economically convenient, but would have been untenable if the populace had regarded black people as human.  The common view was (at the very least) that the black man was less human than the white man – less capable of self-government, of education, of civilization.  The prominent view had no basis in reality, but it was widely held.

In reading a recent biography of Andrew Jackson, this truth was clearly demonstrated to the mind of this writer.  Jackson as President (1829-37) was a champion of “the people.”  He fought for the rights of the common man, and ferreted out corruption in government that would harm American citizens.  Although he commonly wrote and spoke of the rights of “every man” to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it was obvious that his view of “every man” was not inclusive of either native Americans or blacks.  He was a slave holder, and during his Presidency he supported measures that robbed native Americans of their homelands and sovereignty. In all of this he considered himself to be a benevolent protector of these “lesser peoples.”  In correspondence with native American leaders he often referred to himself as their “great white father.”

The vestiges of these attitudes remain in the racial inequalities and racist views of many today.  In fact, one of the saddest realities of our culture is the racial segregation that is characteristic of our worship assemblies and churches.  Brethren, this ought not to be. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

The view that such a system of slavery would never be tolerated again is simple minded.  What would it take?  Simply that those who still hold that the black man is inferior to the white man be given sufficient voice to convince the majority that it is true.  This is why it is so important to educate people to the reality that skin color and cultural differences do not have a bearing upon the humanity or worth of any individual or group.

The Holocaust

More recently (within the lifetime of some of our readers) another example of such evil emerged.  As the Nazi party gained ascendancy in Germany in the 1930’s, Nazi propagandists began to claim a scientific basis for their proclamations of Aryan superiority.  The Nazis began a eugenics program.  Eugenics advocates the use of tactics designed to “improve” the genetic pool of a population.  Methods used by the Nazi party included the forced sterilization of 400,000 people, and the killing of 70,000 more under a “euthanasia” program called Action T4.

The Nazi party targeted individuals who were examples of “life unworthy of life” (Lebensunwertes Leben). These individuals included criminals, dissidents, those with mental or physical handicaps, and homosexuals.  The program also called for the extermination of “sub-humans” (Untermensch), a designation that especially included Jews.  This policy culminated in the Holocaust, where it is estimated that 6 million Jews (73% of all Jews in occupied Europe at the time), and a total of 11 million people overall were killed in concentration camps.

The Nazi regime used architecture, cinema, sports, and youth organizations to sway the populace to its view of Aryan superiority.  The efforts were very successful in leading the German people either to stand idly by or participate in one of the worst atrocities in the history of mankind.  To this day Holocaust survivors and their families plead with the world to “never forget”, and the German government prohibits the existence of Nazi organizations or the free expression of Nazi doctrines.  This is done because of the legitimate fear that allowing the Nazi voice to go unchecked could lead to such vile actions once again.

Abortion

While those who compare abortion to the Holocaust are immediately accused of contributing to uncivil discourse and division, there is a legitimate parallel with regard to the use of human reasoning to justify the practice.  The German phrases (Lebensunwertes Leven) “life unworthy of life” and (Unttermensch) “sub-humans” serve as perfect descriptions of the attitude pro abortion advocates have regarding a human fetus in the womb.  Depending upon the situation (the health of the mother being in some way threatened), the woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy.  It is important to note that when the Supreme Court ruled on the landmark Roe v. Wade case in 1973, it explicitly rejected the concept of personhood for the unborn child.  The majority opinion contended that a fetus is not “a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.”  Therefore, it did not have the right to life.

This ruling has remained the standard for roughly 37 years, and the impetus for the termination of an estimated 55 million pregnancies.  We, of course, contend this to be the killing of 55 million unborn children.  However, since the law arbitrarily determines that the unborn fetus is “sub-human”, or “not a person”, the practice continues unabated.  It is a practice that has been generally accepted as morally defensible, as the woman has a right to determine what will or will not be done to her own body.

The most morally reprehensible aspect of this situation is man’s view that he has the right to define personhood.  Our own President, Barak Obama, argued for this right on the floor of the Illinois senate in his role as a state senator in 2001.  In question was a proposed law that would require doctors to try to save a fetus delivered during a late term abortion, if it showed signs of life.  Obama argued against the law, stating:

Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.

Pro-life advocates argued during the 2008 election Obama was advocating infanticide.  Obama said they were lying.  How did he justify the claim?  By affirming that by law an aborted fetus was not a child, even if it was alive post partum.  Such language is identical to the Nazi propaganda of the 1930’s.  Who is human?  Who is a person?  Who is an infant?  Who is a child?  It is the one to which the state grants such a designation.  In order to justify the practice of abortion, we must deny that a human fetus has the inherent right of personhood.  Obama and others would (depending upon the situation) extend that denial to a point outside of the womb.

Infanticide

Is it surprising that some ethicists are now denying that inherent right of personhood to all newborn children?  In a recent article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, two so called ethicists, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, advocated what they refer to as “after-birth abortions.”  Consider the arguments they make:

“The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

“Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

By now the language is familiar.  A new-born baby may be a human being, but if we are allowed to define what a “person” is, those who fall outside of that definition can be “ethically” denied the right to life.  The authors contend that if a child is born with Down’s Syndrome or some other defect, it can constitute an “unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”  Since 36% percent of Down’s cases could not be determined with prenatal testing, they assert that the parents should be allowed to “abort” the child after it is born.  They prefer using the term “after-birth abortion” over “infanticide” to, in their words, “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus.”

One chilling aspect of such reasoning is that there is no moral repugnance in killing the newborn for any reason.  In fact, these ethicists contended that a practice of “after-birth abortion” should be viewed in exactly the same way that society already views abortion – that there is no moral difference between the two.

Some may argue that these two individuals are fringe lunatics, and that such reasoning will never be accepted by society as a whole.  In fact, the Journal was forced to defend the decision to publish their work.  Consider the defense made of the action by Julian Savulescu, the Journal’s editor:

As Editor of the Journal, I would like to defend its publication. The arguments presented, in fact, are largely not new and have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world, including Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and John Harris in defence of infanticide, which the authors call after-birth abortion.

The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide – the paper repeats the arguments made famous by Tooley and Singer – but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands.

Many people will and have disagreed with these arguments. However, the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises. The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible. The authors proceed logically from premises which many people accept to a conclusion that many of those people would reject.

The position advocated by these two is one that has long been argued.  It is even practiced in the Netherlands.  Perhaps the most cogent point made by the editor is the fact that these men are arguing logically based upon a premise that is accepted by many.  In other words, they are taking it to a logical conclusion.  What we see intimated in Obama’s arguments back in 2001 is being touted as the logical consequence in the present.  The only thing necessary to bring about the practice of infanticide in this country is time and a willingness to accept the consequences of concepts that have already been adopted.

Conclusion

Webster’s dictionary defines an ethicist as “one who specializes in or is very concerned about ethics.”  The term ethics is defined as “the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation.”  It comes down to this – an ethicist tries to figure out what is right, and what is wrong.  What we should do, and what we should not do.  As we have amply demonstrated, if such ethics are determined by human definition, we have an arbitrary and changeable standard that can lead to actions that future (and past) generations would regard as atrocities.

Each generation and society arrogantly claims that it has the ethical answers.  This was true in the antebellum American south.  It was true in Nazi Germany.  It is true today, as our society lawfully executes an average of 1.2 million unborn children each year.  And it will be true in the not too distant future as our society agrees to the killing of newborn babies while authoritatively proclaiming them to be Lebensunwertes Leven, “Life unworthy of life.”  Do you consider these the words of a provocateur?  We shall see.

“There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death”
(Proverbs 14:12)

Watchman Magazine began in January of 1998, and continued a regular publication schedule, for the most part, through 2004.  Toward the end of this initial iteration of the magazine, publication became more sporadic, as I personally dealt with a bad case of editor/publisher burnout.  After a hiatus of several years, publication resumed in January of 2010, with several changes.  Primarily, the magazine took on a blog format, rather than maintaining a monthly schedule.  With the advent of social networking, and powerful blogging software platforms, I believe this change to be a positive one.  It has made it possible for the Watchman writers to post articles on their schedule, and my editorial responsibilities have lightened.  It is nice to no longer be responsible for coding HTML, and fighting the compatibility problems of earlier years.

This new format has allowed the magazine to continue, despite the fact that my personal circumstances in the past two years have been rather challenging.  In addition to my local responsibilities as an evangelist for the West Side church in Fort Worth, TX, I spent much time helping my mother care for my ailing father.  Dad fought a long and hard battle with chronic leukemia, which evolved into a more aggressive cancer in the middle of 2011, taking his life in October.  Throughout his illness, trips were made to Dallas so that specialists could treat him.  Most often these were weekly trips, sometimes bi-weekly. On occasion a complication or infection would necessitate daily trips for a week or more.  My dad was a special man, and I greatly appreciated the opportunity to serve him by driving him to these appointments.  I will always treasure the time, conversations and companionship those trips afforded us.  Even in the midst of trial, God’s blessings flow.  If you haven’t read my tribute to my father (A Quiet Man of God), I would consider it a special favor if you would take the time.  He was a quiet man, but his goodness and kindness as a child of God is worthy of praise, and the grace he exhibited throughout his illness is worthy of emulation.

Though the magazine continued through this period, I was certainly not satisfied with it.  Watchman is not everything I want it to be, and it is my desire for it to improve in the future.  Articles have been relatively scarce for two main reasons:  1) I have not written as much as I have intended to write; and, 2) I have not done enough to solicit articles from other writers.  It is my intent to improve on both fronts in the coming year.

My thanks to the men who have written in the past couple of years.  There are some “self-starters” among them who have been diligent in making contributions to the magazine.  Men such as Jeff Smith, Heath Rogers, Marc Smith and John Robertson have written even when I was unable to do so.  Others have contributed as well.  For these efforts I am thankful, and I intend to search out others who are willing to contribute their pen to this worthy cause.  We have several young men who have expressed a desire to write.  Though their efforts may not be as polished as their more experienced brethren, I am anxious to give them a voice.  Writing is a wonderful discipline for the preacher, and the written word serves as a permanent and enduring witness for Christ.  Few works are more rewarding.  They will surely grow in scholarship and ability, and their efforts will greatly benefit you, the reader.

I recently read an article poking fun at the call for distinctive preaching.  Though the criticism raised in the piece was subtle, and though there were some valid points made, the general attitude expressed was disturbing to me.  I find that it is mirrored by many of my brethren today.  I have been preaching the gospel now for 34 years.  I have been in full-time local work for the past 27 years.  I have worked with the West Side congregation here in Fort Worth for over 22 years, and have edited Watchman since 1998.  I am less than four months shy of my 50th birthday.  I may not be the most perceptive among us, but I can say that I have seen a change in attitude toward God and His word in the brotherhood in that time.  Especially in the last several decades.

I have personal knowledge of brethren who do not respect the parameters God has established regarding spiritual fellowship.  I know of gospel preachers who defend the concept of stellar evolution, in advocating the Big Bang Theory as reconcilable with the Biblical account of creation.  I have heard and read teaching on the subject of grace that exhibits very little difference from classic Calvinism.  There has been an obvious drift toward the social gospel among some.  I fear that too often young Christians are pandered to, rather than challenged in their faith.  Emotionalism is being confused with spirituality.  Some are equating reverence with raised hands and lowered lights, and decry the respectful worship practiced in many congregations as dry and boring.  The list could go on and on, but it is obvious to experienced observers that there is a deleterious trend that can be seen in this generation.  Yes, I went there… a trend.  The term is most appropriate.  It means, “the general course or prevailing tendency; drift” (dictionary.reference.com).  Other shades of meaning include:  “to emerge as a popular trend; be currently popular”, and “to veer or turn off in a specified direction.”

The very fact that I mentioned a trend makes me objectionable to some brethren.  The phrase, “trend toward apostasy” has become a joke among some, and a sure sign to others that you are paranoid, a “watchdog”, and one of those judgmental types who are always spoiling for a fight.  Does it not matter that the Hebrew writer exhorted, “give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away” (2:1)?

The most destructive tactic used against those who are concerned about this present trend is rather passive in nature.  It is simply the view that these complainers are irrelevant.  The warnings are shrugged off, and the complainers are ignored.  If complaints are made about such treatment, it serves to establish that such are merely wanting attention, and are throwing a tantrum precisely because they are not relevant.  It is possible that this article and my voice will be considered a prime example of such petulance.  So be it.

I ask, however, that you consider Noah, whose preaching was ignored by all mankind.  Or perhaps Elijah, who in delivering the message of God to a largely uninterested nation, despaired to the point where he cried out to God, “I have been very zealous for the LORD God of hosts; because the children of Israel have forsaken Your covenant, torn down Your altars, and killed Your prophets with the sword. I alone am left; and they seek to take my life” (1 Kings 19:14).  In fact, all of the prophets of God, though their message was His, were rejected by rebellious Israel (cf. Acts 7:51-53).

Consider our own history in this nation.  The majority in the 19th century clamored for the instrument, and determined those who stood for truth to be irrelevant, and unworthy of serious consideration.  Those who opposed the innovation were marginalized.  The same thing happened in the 20th century.  In December of 1954, Gospel Advocate editor B.C. Goodpasture called for a “yellow tag of quarantine” to be placed upon all congregations and preachers who objected to the institutional practices that were gaining a foothold among brethren.  As time progressed, the calls for authority for such practices were ignored as irrelevant by the majority.

Was Noah irrelevant?  While he most certainly was ignored, his warnings were true.  What about Elijah?  The man who was charged by Ahab as being the “troubler of Israel” is acknowledged as one of the greatest of the prophets.  During the two great divisions in the restoration movement, were the faithful relevant or not?  It is a mistake to equate relevancy with popularity.  Relevancy has nothing to do with how many are listening.  It has to do with who is proclaiming the truth!

Consider the words of Paul, “As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.  For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ” (Galatians 1:9-10).  Our purpose is to serve Christ.  Any who does so successfully is relevant, whether he is heeded or not.

Perhaps the problem among some is that they confuse relevance with acceptance.  The popular way is seldom the way of God.  “…wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it” (Matthew 7:13).  I fully understand that popular is a relative term.  Even the most ear tickling preacher among us does not approach the popularity of a Joel Osteen, for example.  Please remember, though, that the standard for relevance and true acceptance is God and His word; not men.

So, we will continue to write, and invite others to do so.  We will write on myriad topics, seeking to declare the whole counsel of God.  We will not be hobbyists, but we will address the issues that trouble brethren, and we will deal with the error that endangers the souls of men.  We will not concern ourselves with how many deem us relevant.  We will try to get as many people as possible to read and listen.  We will soldier on in the spirit of Noah and Elijah.

I have heard that some believe my magazine to be the center of an effort to control the brotherhood.  If so, it is a miserable failure!  But no, it is not, and never has been.  Watchman Magazine is one person’s effort to edify and teach.  I sit in my office, and write about things that I believe to be important.  I invite others to write as well.  That is all that it is – but that is enough for me, and I hope for the Lord.  I pledge to you that I will try to do it better in the months and years to come.

In writing to his brethren, John said, “You are of God” (vs. 4), and “We are of God” (vs. 6).  These statements were in contrast to those who “are of the world.”  They “speak as of the world, and the world hears them” (vs. 5).  In contrast, John commended his readers as those who know God and who would as a result heed John’s writings, “He who knows God hears us” (vs. 6).  This willingness to heed John’s writings was evidence that his readers, (in contrast to the worldly), possessed the “spirit of truth” (vs. 6).

It is in this context that John instructed his readers on the importance of love.  As did the acceptance of Jesus’ humanity, the presence of love set the true believer apart from the world.  “He who does not love does not know God, for God is love” (vs. 8).

Love is a characteristic of God’s people.  This is widely known, though often only superficially understood.  Throughout the text of 1 John, the Greek term translated love is agape.  Action is intrinsic in the word, at least as it is used by the Holy Spirit.  Love is not found in empty words, but in the uplifting actions of the benevolent.

In our text, John first established our motivation.  It is stated concisely in verse 19, “We love Him because He first loved us”; but is stated more fully in verses 9 and 10.  Also, the application is then made, “Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another” (vs. 11).  Three things are here established that we desire to examine carefully:  1) God’s love for us; 2) Our love for one another; and 3) Our love for God.

Motivation – God’s Love for Us

Consider John’s words, “In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.  In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:9-10).

God’s expression of love is not reciprocal.  In other words, He does not love us because we love Him.  His love predates our response to Him.  In fact, He loves us despite our showing ourselves unworthy of His benevolence.  The apostle Paul recorded the identical sentiment in his epistle to the Romans, “For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.  For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die.  But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (5:6-8).  In contrast, the love that we show toward Him, as indicated in verse 19 of our text, is reciprocal.  “We love Him because He first loved us.”

At this point it is appropriate to note the extent of that love of God.  It is seen in the fact that God acted on our behalf despite our sin.  Man has ever been “unloveable.”  Each man, when given the choice between obedience and disobedience, has at some point in time chosen to rebel against Him, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). The extent of His love can also be seen in the action itself.  The Father had a single “begotten” Son.  He sent him to earth to die in our stead.  It is this Paul referred to in Romans 5.  While some may sacrifice themselves for the righteous, Jesus died for the ungodly.  The Father sent the Son to die for sinners.  He did so, as John notes, “that we might live through Him”; and, “to be the propitiation for our sins.”  This expression of love boggles the mind.  It is unique, and the foundation of all our subsequent expressions of love both to God and our fellow man.

Obligation – Our Love for One Another

For the majority of his treatise on love, John emphasized that we are to show love for one another.  Why?

• “for love is of God” (7)
• “everyone who loves is born of God and knows God” (7)
• “He who does not love does not know God” (8)
• “we also ought to love one another” (11)
• If we love one another, “God abides in us” (12)
• If we love one another, “His love has been perfected in us” (12)
• “By this we know we abide in Him, and He in us” (13)
• “He who abides in love abides in God, and God in him” (16)
• “There is no fear in love” (18)
• If we do not love our brother, we are “a liar” regardless of our protestations of love for God (20)

While some of these phrases indicate that love is characteristic of the child of God, and gives evidence his profession is true, I would like to focus on the statement in verse 11.  “Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.”  This sentence establishes the love for brethren as an obligation of the child of God.  The word “ought” (opheileo), as defined by Strong indicates an obligation we are under.  Synonyms include:  must, should, indebted, owe.

This is not an expression that is easily understood.  I recognize a duty to my God as a result of His benevolence toward me.  But why does my debt extend to others?  Simply, because God created me for that purpose!  Note the words of Paul in Ephesians 2:10, “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”  Paul both proclaimed this truth, and lived by it.  His stirring words to the Romans declare the depth of this feeling of obligation toward others, “I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to wise and to unwise.  So, as much as is in me, I am ready to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome also” (Romans 1:14-15).  Remember, in order for a man to truly be a lover of God (“whom he has not seen”), he must show the capability of loving his brother (“whom he has seen”) (cf. 1 John 4:20).

Further, we must remember that action is intrinsic in John’s concept of love.  We love our brother when we actively seek his welfare.  Such love is seen when we pray, offering supplications on his behalf.  The practices of benevolence and hospitality are expressions of love.  Exhortation is as well.  In Hebrews 10, the command to assemble is given for the purpose of “exhorting one another” (vs. 25).  It is our concern for our brother in Christ that compels us to be present, and encourage him.  Even discipline is a demonstration of love, as it is beneficial to the erring one. “Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins” (James 5:19-20).

Reciprocation – Our Love for God

Late in the chapter, John wrote, “We love Him because He first loved us” (vs. 19).  Here we see that our love is reciprocal to the expression of God’s love for us.  However, the mere profession, “I love God,” does not make it so.  Contextually, as noted above, we must love our brother to be taken seriously in our protestations of our love for God.  “If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar” (vs. 20).

As stated, this love is an active desire for and seeking after the welfare of another.  In this case, the object of such love is God.  This raises an interesting question.  How can we “seek the welfare” of God?  God is perfect, and lacks nothing.  He has no need for us.  Paul stated in his address in Athens, “God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.  Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as  though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things” (Acts 17:24-25).  While it is true that God does not “need” us, it is equally true that we have been created to serve Him.  In that same address, Paul said, “He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth … so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him” (Acts 17:26-27).  So, we are still seeking what is best for, or rather, what is most pleasing to God.  What pleases God is our obedience!

John’s discussion of love, begun in verse 7 of the chapter, is not completed at chapter’s end.  In fact, the context continues at least into chapter 5, verse 5.  Twice in those verses John indicates that we love God when we “keep His commandments” (5:2; 5:3).  Fortunately, we are assured that “His commandments are not burdensome” (5:3).  Jesus said the same thing in John 14:15, “If you love me, keep my commandments.”  The juxtaposition of love and obedience is given an appropriate application in 1 John 4:21, one that brings the discussion full circle.  “And this commandment we have from Him:  that he who loves God must love his brother also.”

Conclusion

A careful reading and study of our text (1 John 4:7 – 5:5), is fruitful for the child of God.  The command to love is both fundamental to the Christian, and the most profound and mature expression of his faith.  We love God because of His love for us.  That love of God compels us to love one another, that we might please Him.  It reminds us of Jesus’ answer to the scribe’s question regarding the two greatest commandments. “Jesus said to him, ‘“You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” This is the first and great commandment.  And the second is like it: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”  On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.’”

God loved the world so much that He sent His Son to secure our Redemption.  May this realization motivate us to reciprocate that love with our own, and to fulfill our obligation to love one another.

The pig and the chicken walked down the street together.  Every restaurant they passed had signs in the window advertising, “Ham and Eggs.”

“See,” said the chicken, “We’re famous.”

The pig grunted. “For you,” he said, “a plate of ham and eggs is just a cackle. For me it’s the supreme sacrifice.”

In a more concise form it is observed that when it comes to such a breakfast, the chicken is involved, but the pig is committed!

Further, the difference between mere involvement and commitment can be seen in the dictionary definitions of the two terms:

• The appropriate definition given by Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary for the word involve as we refer to it in the above illustration: “to engage as a participant.”
• Webster defines the stronger term commitment in the following way – “the state of being obligated or emotionally impelled.”

So, again stating it concisely, when we are involved in a cause, we are engaged.  But, when we are committed to a cause we are impelled.

As our interest revolves around the spiritual, we note that scripture requires commitment to the Lord’s cause, rather than mere involvement in it.  There should be in us a sense of obligation, as the Lord clearly makes demands of His disciples.  The King James Version relates Paul’s sentiment in the matter in the following way, “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 3:14).

It follows that we must determine the extent of that commitment.  What it is that God requires?  Hence the title of this article, Commitment of Biblical Proportions.

You have heard the phrase “of Biblical proportions” used from time to time to refer to something awesome in scope.  A natural disaster might be referred to as a “cataclysm of Biblical proportions,” perhaps in allusion to the flood that destroyed the world in Noah’s time.  A personal tribulation may receive a similar description in an allusion to Job’s trials, or perhaps to the plagues that fell upon the Egyptians punished by God in response to the hard heart of their Pharaoh.

The term is appropriate in our discussion, as a careful reading of the New Testament reveals that God requires a big commitment from Christians.  The word ultimate does not state the case too strongly.  Consider the following words of Jesus, detailing what he requires of those who would be his disciples:

“But Jesus said to him [a potential disciple], ‘No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God’” (Luke 9:62).

“So He [Jesus] said to them [Peter and the disciples], ’Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life’” (Luke 18:29-30).

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.  For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’  He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:34-39).

The current trend toward a social gospel emphasizes fun and frolic rather than commitment.  This is true in the denominations, and in some churches of Christ.  The desire is to entice the populace to involvement, rather than to bring the lost to repentance and commitment.  Consider the following:

• The Redeemer Church in Fort Worth, TX invited those interested to attend what they referred to as Reformation Sunday on October 31st.  The activities, to be held at a local park following worship services, included, “your fill of food, fun and fellowship. The softball field is rented until 5 p.m.”
• The First United Methodist Church offered, in a recent bulletin, news of an upcoming Women’s luncheon, free weekly blood pressure screenings, and the monthly “Parent’s Night Out” for November.
• The University Christian Church offered on its events list in the past week (among others):  1) A light exercise class for all ages; 2) Lunch for college age kids in the Bible Cafe; 3) The weekly rehearsal for the locally famous bell choir; and 4) a meeting of the Weight Watchers organization, in their building.
• The Broadway Baptist Church is in the midst of various classes as a part of the “Broadway Academy.”  Among these classes are offerings in digital photography and healthy lifestyle secrets.  Also on the agenda was a Halloween costume skating party, and a retreat “for study and discussion, music, fellowship, good food and fun as we spend the weekend in this beautiful and peaceful country setting.”
• Members and visitors to the St. Andrews Episcopal Church are invited to the McFarland Lounge after the 10:00 am worship service for a “meet and mingle” with refreshments served.  Also on the agenda is an organizational meeting for an upcoming senior trip.
• Christ Chapel Bible Church is advertising a free concert featuring some well known singing groups on November 19, a Women’s Christmas Brunch on December 4, and offers a separate contemporary worship service that may be more appealing to younger members and guests.
• The First Presbyterian Church trumpets their Coffee Cart Fellowship, and their All Youth Dodgeball Party, held at the church gym.

The preceding took little research.  Just a simple internet search of Fort Worth churches, and a quick perusal of the Events List of the first seven churches found.  Obviously, examples could be expanded greatly.  Unfortunately, a search limited to “churches of Christ” would produce a similar list.

To be fair, there are other “events” – Bible Studies, Worship Services – included on the calendar of these groups.  However, these activities are still objectionable.  There is our first contention, that religious groups today are loathe to emphasize commitment or obligation, choosing rather to focus on food and fun.  There is the fact that such activities are without scriptural authority.  “Food and Fun” is not the work of the church, and true fellowship is found not on the softball field, but in the work and worship of the local church.  Finally, there is the perception that the visitor and the young will develop toward the church:  that the responsibility of the church is to cater to my needs, and to make me feel good about myself, rather than to convict me of my sin and save my soul.

Read again Luke 9, Luke 18 and Matthew 10, and then the list given.  The difference is jarring.  The discerning seeker will look elsewhere for spiritual growth and guidance.

As we accept that God expects a commitment of Biblical proportions from us, it is appropriate to consider where such a commitment will show itself.  Following are a series of applications of the principle.  These are by no means exhaustive, but serve to paint a picture of a life committed to the cause of Christ.

Attendance

The Hebrew writer admonished some whose “manner” was to forsake “the assembling of ourselves together” (Hebrews 10:25).  Assembling to worship is a hallmark of the committed.  Forsaking the assembly is likewise characteristic of the apathetic.  While some will quibble over the necessity of attending a gospel meeting or Bible class, it is not a matter of relevance to the committed disciple.  When an opportunity to worship God is made available to him, he will be there unless hindered.  He will fill his obligation to serve his God, and to edify his brethren, “exhorting one another” (cf. ibid.).  He will rejoice at his opportunity to “go unto the house of the Lord” (Psalm 122:1).  It will not occur to him to absent himself from his brethren as they raise their voices in praise to the Almighty.  He recognizes the nature of his commitment, and is willing to deny himself the pleasures of recreation or rest to gain the greater joy that accompanies the act of honoring his God.

Study

The writer of Ecclesiastes acknowledged that “much study is wearisome to the flesh” (Ecclesiastes 12:12).  Many who contemplate a careful study of the Bible are put off by the commitment such an undertaking would require.  Time must be set aside daily.  Study techniques must be developed to allow the Book to be understood correctly.  A period of meditation must follow the study itself, that application of the learned material might be made.  Some of the material seems to be complex, even incomprehensible to the uninitiated.  It is a daunting task.  The faithful disciple, however, is undeterred.  He is a “learner” of Christ.  He heeds the admonition of Paul to “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).  He knows that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” and that by studying it he will be made “complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  So, he dives in, learns God’s will, and “by reason of use,” has his senses “exercised to discern both good and evil” (Hebrews 5:14).

Giving

Money is a sensitive topic to many.  It is an area where some preachers fear to tread.  While the Bible teaches clear principles regarding the necessity of giving back to the Lord, the apathetic do not want to hear of their obligation.  They certainly do not want to hear that God expects of them a commitment of Biblical proportions!  The committed servant of God, however, remembers the example of the Macedonians, who “according to their ability, yes, and beyond their ability, they were freely willing, imploring us with much urgency that we would receive the gift and the fellowship of the ministering to the saints” (2 Corinthians 8:3-4).  He knows that the reason the Macedonians were so liberal with their giving is that they “first gave themselves to the Lord, and then to us by the will of God” (vs. 5). He carefully considers the admonition of Paul to give both sacrificially and cheerfully, “But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:6-7).  He remembers the stinginess of the Jews, recorded in Malachi 3:8, ““Will a man rob God?  Yet you have robbed Me!  But you say, ‘In what way have we robbed you?’  In tithes and offerings.”  The committed man of God understands that what he has ultimately belongs to the Lord, and conducts himself accordingly.

Discipleship

At the heart of discipleship is self-denial.  Jesus affirmed it, saying, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me” (Matthew 16:24).  Paul expressed it in his own life.  He wrote, “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me” (Galatians 2:20).  The apathetic servant struggles with the extent of this commitment, and falters.  The most obvious evidence of this is his struggle with worldliness.  Because his dedication is not total, there is a conflict that rages within him.  “For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish” (Galatians 5:17).  In contrast, the committed disciple heeds the words of John, “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 John 2:15).

• He is not motivated by possessions, knowing “one’s life does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses” (Luke 12:15).
• He keeps himself sexually pure, heeding the admonition of Paul to, “Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body” (1 Corinthians 6:18).
• He/She dresses modestly, choosing a chaste decorum rather than heeding the siren call of worldly fashion (cf. 1 Timothy 2:9-10).
• He guards his heart against worldly influences, making choices with regard the music to which he listens; the movies and television programs he watches; the books he reads; the internet sites he visits; and the friends he chooses; recognizing that “Evil company corrupts good habits” (1 Corinthians 15:33) and that “friendship with the world is enmity with God. Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God” (James 4:4).

In short, he is diligent in the practice of “pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father,” determined “to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27).

Defense of Truth

The Bible clearly reveals the importance of defending truth.  One of the primary qualifications for one who will serve as an elder in any local church is the ability “by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict” (Titus 1:9).  Paul told the evangelist Timothy to “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 the themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.  But you be watchful in all things, endure affliction, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry” (2 Timothy 4:2-5).  The apathetic is here described as those who will not endure sound doctrine, and certainly describes a large number of those who claim to be Christians in our time.  Commitment, which can also be described as militancy in this context, is considered unseemly, and oft rejected.  However, the faithful man of God recognizes himself to be a soldier, a watchman, a defender of truth.  He heeds the exhortation of Jude to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

Conclusion

“Commitment of Biblical Proportions” is correctly defined as total commitment.  As a Christian you must love God "with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength” (Mark 12:30).  Paul declared Jesus to the be the Head of the church, and declared that in all things He must have “the preeminence.” (cf. Colossians 1:18).  This is certainly true with regard to our hearts and lives, a truth to which every Christian must submit for the sake of his soul.  You will not be accepted of God unless he has the first place in your heart and life.

For those who have made such a commitment, the reward is sure.  Paul wrote, “I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep what I have committed to Him until that Day” (2 Timothy 1:12).  It takes a commitment of Biblical proportions to be pleasing to God.  But those who make it secure for themselves a crown of righteousness, “which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to [us] on that Day” (2 Timothy 4:8).

Elijah gave Obadiah instructions to set up a meeting between him and the king.  The two were mortal enemies, and Ahab had been searching for him ever since Elijah had instigated a drought in the land in response to Ahab’s evil practices.  As Obadiah told him, “As the Lord your God lives, there is no nation or kingdom where my master has not sent someone to hunt for you; and when they said, ‘He is not here,”’ he took an oath from the kingdom or nation that they could not find you” (18:10).  Elijah was now ready to reveal himself to the king, and recruited Obadiah to set up the meeting.

A number of lessons can be learned by becoming familiar with these two men, and examining the conversation they had on that eventful day.

Elijah

Elijah is by far the best known of the two men.  The prophet garnered such respect among the Jews, and esteem from God as to be included with Moses the Lawgiver at the transfiguration of the Lord (cf. Matthew 17:1-13).

His legitimacy as a prophet is seen in the great signs accompanying his ministry in Israel.  Through prayer he precipitated the great drought in the land – and through prayer ended it three and one half years later (cf. 1 Kings 17:1; 18:41-46).  God protected him through the drought, first by sending ravens to feed him (17:6), then by miraculously replenishing the oil and flour of the widow of Sidon (17:16).  Perhaps the greatest demonstration of God’s power in Elijah’s ministry was in the contest on Mount Carmel.  Again at the prayer of Elijah, God brought down fire from heaven, proving Himself to be the great and sovereign Lord of all.  At this divine display the people “fell on their faces; and they said, ‘The Lord, He is God!  The Lord, He is God!’” (18:39).

James had an interesting point to make regarding the power of Elijah’s prayers.  He wrote, “Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain; and it did not rain on the land for three years and six months.  And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth produced its fruit” (James 5:17-18).  Though wonderful things happened when Elijah prayed, it was not because of anything unique to his person.  Elijah’s prayers produced because he was a righteous man, praying fervently and effectively (cf. James 5:16).  We have the same ability that he enjoyed, to receive God’s help through prayerful petition.

One important thing to note is Elijah’s tone in conversation and address.  He was an austere man and straightforward in dealing with the sin he witnessed.  Consider the following statements, recorded in 1 Kings 18 and 21:

• To King Ahab: “I have not troubled Israel, but you and your father’s house have, in that you have forsaken the commandments of the Lord and have followed the Baals” (18:18).
• In mocking the prophets of Baal: “Cry aloud, for he [Baal] is a god; either he is meditating, or he is busy, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened.” (18:27).
• Again to Ahab, in response to the King’s question, “Have you found me, O my enemy?”: “I have found you, because you have sold yourself to do evil in the sight of the Lord:  Behold, I will bring calamity on you.  I will take away your posterity, and will cut off from Ahab every male in Israel, both bond and free.  I will make you house like the house of Jereoboam the son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha the son of Ahijah, because of the provocation with which you have provoked Me to anger, and made Israel sin.  And concerning Jezebel the Lord also spoke, saying, ‘The dogs shall eat Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel.  The dogs shall eat whoever belongs to Ahab and dies in the city, and the birds of the air shall eat whoever dies in the field’” (21:20-24).

It is important to remember, the words of Elijah were supplied by God.  In preparation for the conversation with Ahab in chapter 21, Jehovah instructed Elijah, “You shall speak to him, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord:  “In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth, dogs shall lick your blood, even yours”’” (21:19).  In the face of today’s bent toward “political correctness”, and the weak stomach of many Christians who are unwilling to stand for the plain refutation of error and sin, we must recognize that there are times when stern condemnation of error is in order.  We must make “a distinction” (James 1:22-23), doing whatever is appropriate and necessary to save men.

Obadiah

Nothing is known about Obadiah aside from what is revealed in our text.  According to the ISBE, the name Obadiah was “common in Israel from the days of David to the close of the OT.” (IV, 2173).  There are 13 individuals named Obadiah found in the Old Testament, including the prophet who authored the book by that name.  The name means, “servant of the Lord”, so it is not surprising it would be a popular name.

Our Obadiah is identified as the individual “in charge of his [Ahab’s] house” (18:3).  In 1 Kings 4:6, Ahishar is identified as being “over the household” of King Solomon.  He is described in verse 2 of that chapter as being one of Solomon’s “officials.” The Hebrew term indicates a person of any rank who is “a head person”, and has been variously translated as captain, lord, general, governor, keeper, prince and ruler.  Obadiah obviously had the trust of Ahab, as he and the king divided the land between them to search for grass “to keep the horses and mules alive” (18:5).  It was on this excursion for the king that Elijah met him and made his request.

Though it could be said he was a faithful steward of King Ahab, there was a limit to Obadiah’s faithfulness to his master.  When Queen Jezebel began her campaign to purge the land of worship to Jehovah by killing the prophets, Obadiah took one hundred of them and hid them in caves to escape her wrath.  He fed them bread and water, caring for them despite the personal danger occasioned by such an effort.

Two applications come immediately to mind as we consider Obadiah’s actions.  First, our primary allegiance is to God.  There will be times our service to men may conflict with what God requires.  When that happens we must cast our allegiance with the Almighty.

Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego refused to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s idol, though the penalty for such disobedience was death by fire (Daniel 3:14-15).  Consider their answer to the King:

“O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If that is the case, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. But if not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up”  (Daniel 3:16-18).

Daniel himself chose the better part by continuing his practice of prayer to Jehovah despite the prohibition of the Median King, Darius.  The penalty for disobedience would be to be cast into a pit of lions.  Regardless, Daniel’s prayer continued, “as was his custom since early days” with no change nor any attempt to hide his actions. (cf. Daniel 6).  Because of his faithfulness, God spared Daniel, and we are told, “So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian” (Daniel 6:28).

In the New Testament, first Peter and John (Acts 4:13-22), then the rest of the Apostles (Acts 5:22-32) were threatened by the Jewish authorities for preaching the gospel of Christ.  Despite it being an act of civil disobedience, the apostles refused to stop, saying, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

The second application is a bit more difficult to nail down.  You may have noticed the scripture counted Obadiah as faithful, despite his being a chief servant of an evil King.  Of Ahab it is said, he “did more to provoke the Lord God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel who were before him” (1 Kings 16:33).  Christians often struggle with their necessary involvement, both with the evil world, and also with worldly individuals.  Such entanglements are inevitable.  Paul wrote that to avoid them, “you would need to go out of the world” (1 Corinthians 5:10).  Of course, as was Paul’s point, this is impossible.  For example, we are to pay taxes (cf. Matthew 22:15-22), despite the often ungodly uses made of such revenue.  We are to obey the laws of the land (cf. Romans 13:1-7), even when the government is made up of unprincipled and evil men.  We are to work to provide for our family (cf. 1 Timothy 5:8), even when such work is, as was the case with Obadiah, for an unscrupulous master (cf. also Luke 19:11-27).  Such necessary involvement with the world does not constitute an endorsement of sin!  If that were the case Christians could only work for Christians.  It would be necessary to refrain from interaction with any business, hospital, government, etc., that was engaged in any worldly activity, or manned by anyone not faithful to God.  As Paul indicated, “…those who are outside God judges” (1 Corinthians 5:13).  The only evil people I as a Christian am to unequivocally avoid is “anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner …” (1 Corinthians 5:11).

There is of course a limit.  I can pay taxes to an evil government, but I cannot engage in sinful activity.  I can work for a corporation that may by involved in certain unscrupulous business activities, but again, I cannot engage in such actions.  The government may fund abortions, but as a Christian I can not personally take an unborn baby’s life.  My boss may be a liar, but I can’t lie for him.  I must “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

I would never encourage a Christian to work for a company if in so doing he would violate his conscience.  Further, I am reluctant to seek the limit of this worldly involvement to ascertain at what point a Christian’s personal integrity is affected by his association with those who are not God’s.  However, I do know that Obadiah’s standing with God was not adversely affected by his service to wicked King Ahab.  Thus, I would hesitate to judge another so long as their employment does not involve them directly in sin.

The Conversation

When Elijah met Obadiah in the course of the steward’s duties for the king, he told him, “Go, tell your master, Elijah is here.” (18:8).  Obadiah knew that God would protect the great prophet, and thought it to be a death penalty to deliver the message. “And it shall come to pass, as soon as I am gone from you, that the Spirit of the Lord will carry you to a place I do not know; so when I go and tell Ahab, and he cannot find you, he will kill me.” (18:12).  At Elijah’s promise he would stay and present himself to the King, Obadiah delivered the message.

From this short conversation, consider the following important observations:

• Obadiah was respectful of the great prophet. When he saw the prophet, he said, “Is that you, my lord Elijah?” (18:7).  As Christians, it is important for us to be kind and respectful of one another, without exception.  However, some are worthy of special consideration.  Paul instructed young Timothy, “Do not rebuke an older man, but exhort him as a father” (1 Timothy 5:1).  We are given the responsibility to, “Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account.  Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you” (Hebrews 13:17).  Such respect and deference is to be shown to the teacher as well:  “Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches” (Galatians 6:6).  Wives are instructed to respect their husbands, “As Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror” (1 Peter 3:6); and children their parents: “‘Honor your father and mother’, which is the first commandment with promise” (Ephesians 6:2).  In this egalitarian society, such respect is often lacking.  Christians must heed God in this matter.
• Elijah accepted Obadiah’s testimony of his own faithfulness. The two men were very different, and in very different circumstances.  Elijah was at the forefront of God’s conflict with the idol Baal.  He made himself an enemy of the king through his words and actions.  To Ahab, he was an “enemy” and a “troubler of Israel” In contrast, despite Obadiah’s position as Ahab’s chief steward, he was accepted as faithful by the prophet.  Elijah did not judge Obadiah because of who he worked for, he simply called him to faithfully perform his duty as a servant of God.  It is easy to supplement our own righteousness for the righteousness of God.  In this we can be guilty of both being slack where God requires obedience, and also in binding where God has not.  The Jews were guilty of this in Paul’s day, and he wrote, “For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God” (Romans 10:3).
• Obadiah did not compromise. Though he was in the employ of the king, Obadiah could truthfully say, “But I your servant have feared the Lord from my youth” (1 Kings 18:12).  He put his life on the line, both in feeding and sheltering the 100 prophets during Jezebel’s purge (18:3-4), and in delivering Elijah’s message to the king (18:16).  We have noted the inappropriateness of judging a Christian who works for the ungodly.  There remains the opposite danger of taking Obadiah’s example, and doing violence to it by a compromise of personal integrity and righteousness.  Obadiah’s personal righteousness remained untainted by King Ahab’s sin precisely because Obadiah refused to become involved in it.  No man can appeal to Obadiah as justification for a compromise with sin.
• Elijah showed great courage. Through the entire duration of the drought Elijah had hid himself in accord with the Lord’s instructions.  In 1 Kings 18:1, “… the word of the Lord came to Elijah, in the third year, saying, ‘Go, present yourself to Ahab, and I will send rain on the earth.” Despite the King’s animosity toward him; despite Obadiah’s warning that Ahab had scoured the surrounding nations during the famine in an attempt to find and capture him; despite what would be grave personal danger; Elijah presented himself to the king.  Further, he challenged Ahab, calling him the true “troubler of Israel” in that “you have forsaken the commandments of the Lord and have followed the Baals” (vs. 18).  Elijah conducted himself with great personal integrity in keeping his Lord’s commandments.  It is a difficult thing to stand at the forefront of a battle against error or sin.  Elders, preachers and other Christians who do so should be encouraged and supported in their work, not criticized.

Is there Room in the Kingdom for both “Obadiahs” and “Elijahs”?

The obvious answer to this question is, yes!  Though the two men were very different in their personality and position, they were both righteous and obedient servants of God.  Further, they were respectful and accepting of each other, something sadly lacking among some Christians today.

This makes for a powerful application that is germane to the Lord’s church in our time.  I will communicate plainly here, feeling the present fractured condition among God’s people demands it.

The Elijahs of our day are heavily criticized. A militant defense of truth is too often criticized by Christians who favor tolerance over truth, and a “feel good” religion over a balanced profession of faith.  With reservations, as I do not wish to encourage such ungodly criticism, I acknowledge some self-professed Elijahs among us deserve criticism.  With that in mind, consider the following:

• An Elijah is not a sectarian. It is wrong for Christians to equate a militant defense of truth with sectarianism, as is too often done.  However, some are guilty of aligning themselves with a man or a group, defending us and all we do and teach, and criticizing them because they are not of us.  Our defense of truth must exist on its own merits.  In politics such partisanship is unfortunate and unthinking; in the practice of our faith it is sin!  Paul decried the sectarian attitude of the Corinthians, and called it carnal (1 Corinthians 1:10-14, 3:1-4).  He said, “Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one?  I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.  So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase” (3:5-7).  Sectarian associations and tactics have no place in a defense of God’s word.
• An Elijah is not arrogant. This is perhaps the root cause of the sectarian mindset mentioned above.  Because we stand for truth, and they do not, we are better.  The Jew of Paul’s day was guilty of such arrogance in his judgment of the Gentile.  Paul asked him, “And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?  Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?” (Romans 2:3-4).  It is dangerous to have a “better than thou” attitude toward others.  Paul warned, “For we dare not class ourselves or compare ourselves with those who commend themselves.  but they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise” (2 Corinthians 10:12).
• An Elijah does not compromise his personal integrity. Ad hominem attacks, misrepresentations and other carnal tactics do not further the cause of truth, even if the one guilty of such is in actuality holding a correct doctrinal position.  Further, truth has suffered because of the revelation of moral failings on the part of those at the forefront of controversy.  Men have done a disservice to truth because of their personal sin.  It is difficult to hear a message of light from those who are not expressing that light in their lives. “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.  Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.  Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:14-16).
• An Elijah is not improperly motivated. The purpose of exposing error and the errorist is to bring men to a standing with God.  Again, Paul (who could be described as an Elijah of his day) serves as an example.  His naming of Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom he plainly states as having “delivered to Satan” is an example of his militancy.  However, even in the midst of such a declaration, his purpose is clear, “that they many learn not to blaspheme” (1 Timothy 1:20).  The sexually immoral man of 1 Corinthians 5, whom Paul had “already judged” (vs. 3); and whom he commanded the Corinthians to deliver “to Satan” (vs. 5); is the same one whom he urged that same congregation, upon his repentance, to “reaffirm your love” (2 Corinthians 6:8).  Anyone who uses his defense of truth as a ruse to “run them off” rather than “renew them again to repentance” (cf. Hebrews 6:6) is worthy of the strongest censure.

The Obadiahs of our day receive their share of criticism as well. We live in a time of extremes, and the problems among God’s people are not slanted in a a single direction.  While I again do not want to encourage the ungodly criticism of men and women who are serving God acceptably in the role of an Obadiah, a similar acknowledgement is needed.  Some self professed Obadiahs among us are deserving of criticism.  Consider the following:

• An Obadiah is not a sectarian. A preference of us over them goes both ways.  Years ago a résumé of Paul made the rounds in the bulletins of various congregations. (Here is a man who desires to work with our congregation as an evangelist.   He is a rabble rouser, who calls names, makes enemies, has been imprisoned on numerous occasions, and some “brethren” speak evil of him.  We can’t have someone like “him” work with “us.”) It is shameful, but true.  Some congregations will not have a man work with them, whether in meeting work or as an evangelist in their midst, because of a paper he has written for, or the feathers he has ruffled, or the names he has called.  It matters not that he stands for truth, maintains the highest personal integrity and righteousness, and has as his sole motivation the saving of souls.  He is not of us, and we want nothing to do with him.  Consider in this the commendation of Gaius by John because of his loving reception and help of those who “went forth for His name’s sake” (3 John 7).  He is contrasted with Diotrephes, who refused to accept the apostle and his fellow ministers, “prating against us with malicious words” (3 John 10).
• An Obadiah is not arrogant. Paul’s admonition of the Corinthians is again relevant here.  Too many Christians accuse one who exposes sin as being judgmental, self-righteous and arrogant.  But, Paul accused the tolerant Corinthians of that very sin!  He said, “you are puffed up” (1 Corinthians 5:2), and “Your glorying is not good” (vs. 6).  It is just as easy to consider yourself to be better than your brother because of your tolerant attitude toward sin.  And it is as surely condemned by God.
• An Obadiah does not compromise truth, nor fellowship false teachers. It is very good to call for Christians to be loving, merciful, longsuffering and kind.  It is wrong to equate the toleration of error and false teachers with the tender mercies present in every faithful Christian.  It is not Christ-like to compromise with error.  Our Lord described the errorists of His day in this way, “These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.  And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:8-9).  It is likewise not acceptable to receive those who advocate error. “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 10-11).
• An Obadiah does not compromise with the world. Some Christians have become strangely quiet on moral issues.  It is becoming more and more common to hear of Christians openly going to “R” rated movies; listening to music with profane and sexually explicit lyrics; swimming in public places, often wearing immodest attire; engaging in social drinking; playing the lottery; dancing and attending dances and proms; and dressing in short shorts, tight jeans and revealing tops.  Because pulpits are silent, and elders and parents look the other way, young Christians are living lives that are scarcely dissimilar to those of their worldly classmates and peers.  Sacrifice and devotion are lacking, with ball games, concerts and school activities given precedence over worship assemblies. The concept of nonconformity is given only lip-service.  Christian devotion is relegated to a superficial profession of faith, with no lack of “Praise God’s”, and “Hallelujah’s”, but precious little transformation of life.  It is one thing to wear a WWJD bracelet, and a far different thing to actually live your life by our Lord’s righteous example and standard.  Paul wrote, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.  And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God” (Romans 12:1-2).

Conclusion:  An Application

I desire now to supply an example of the type of fracture present among brethren today.  All of the principles I have supplied in the material above I believe to be applicable in this instance.  Having said that, I freely admit the following to be my own subjective perception of a problem that exists among us.

While certainly not the only “fracture” among Christians, I believe it possible to identify a conflict between what we might refer to as the “Truth Magazine” crowd, and the “Florida College” crowd.  Some may object to this example, but a person would have to be completely tuned out or naive to not recognize its reality.  Further, some may object to these labels, and what is an intended negative representation, but this is chosen for a purpose that will be presently evident.  While it would be simplistic to contend the parallels are total, it serves our present premise to equate those of the “Truth Magazine” crowd as being professing Elijahs, and those of the “Florida College” crowd as being professing Obadiahs.  I say professing, because conflict does exist, and no conflict was present between the actual persons, Elijah and Obadiah.

As one who is currently on the “outs” with both crowds, I have a few observations I would like to make regarding this situation.

In my opinion, some of the fault lies in the leadership of both groups. Specific examples, in the context of this treatment, would be counterproductive.  Such would rightly necessitate copious documentation, and would undoubtedly be met with great objection and an alternate interpretation of actions and intent.  For the purposes of this article a few simple admonitions (that surely can be accepted by all) are in order.

For those who have written for Truth Magazine, are involved in any way with the organization that publishes that magazine and plans the lectureships, or are involved in any way either directly or tangentially with those who are — Please examine yourself, to determine if you are guilty of any of the following:  1) A departure from sound doctrine; 2) A sectarian mindset; 3) Pride; 4) A lack of personal integrity; 5) An improper motivation.  “Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? –unless indeed you are disqualified” (2 Corinthians 13:5).  If there is a need for repentance, do not delay.

For those who are involved with Florida College, teach there, are a part of the administration, plan the lectureships, are active alumni, or are involved in any way either directly or tangentially with those who are (and by the way, some might feel that the former Christianity Magazine could here be substituted for Florida College) — Please examine yourself, to determine if you are guilty of any of the following:  1) A departure from sound doctrine; 2) A sectarian mindset; 3) Pride; 4) A compromise of truth or a fellowship of false teachers; 5) A compromise with the world.    “Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you? –unless indeed you are disqualified” (2 Corinthians 13:5).  If there is a need for repentance, do not delay.

In my opinion, the greatest fault lies with the followers who make up the two groups. By definition, if you have the us versus them mentality, you are guilty of a sectarian spirit.  Interestingly, the preachers mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1 were all faithful:  Paul, Apollos, Cephas and Christ.  Those men were not guilty of any wrongdoing, and were not responsible for the division of the Corinthians.  I find it completely reasonable to consider the possibility that there are men, perceived to be in one “group” or another, who are completely above reproach.  And yet, lesser men tout them and claim allegiance, leading to strife.

The apostle Paul warned those in Corinth, “… that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (1 Corinthians 4:6)  All the self-examination mentioned above is appropriate for every Christian, with this added admonition, “that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.”

The most disturbing aspect of this fracture to fellowship is it has at its center organizations that are completely irrelevant to the pure expression of Christian faith.  To please God, I need only my Savior, my brethren, and my circumspect walk.  I do not need any college, paper or lectureship program.  Setting aside any question regarding their right to exist or the good work they do, for God’s people to be divided as a result of associations and attitudes surrounding these institutions is indefensible.  The fact that such a division exists portends eternal consequence.

Are you guilty of following men?  Do you excuse the failings of your guy, and excoriate those whom you feel are of them rather than us?  Do you allow only those who write for your paper, or who support your school are heard in the pulpit where you attend worship?  Are only those who have a certain style of teaching acceptable, and are those who do not conform described as soft, or conversely, guilty of being watchdogs?  Do you feel the same about congregations?  Are some acceptable only because we fill the pulpit, where others are not because they preach there?  Are you guilty either of consigning the great majority of churches to be unfaithful congregations just because of this sectarian mind; or conversely are you willing to marginalize some congregations as irrelevant because we are so much more numerous than them?  If so, there is a need for repentance — please do not delay.

One final point.  Some of us have no association with either of them.  We are uncomfortable with some of the things that they are doing.  We question their motivation, integrity and think that we need to band together so that their influence will lessen and ours will increase.  Yes, you are correct, we are guilty as well.

Perhaps Elijah and Obadiah can teach us this wonderful lesson: Faithfulness to God is all that matters. When we consider who we will fellowship, who we will endorse, and who will be in our group, may the only question we have be this, “Are they accepted by God?”  Brethren, please consider without rancor and prejudice these principles of truth, and my humble attempt to address a schism that must surely disappoint our God.

“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. (vs. 16-17)

The Greek word used in verse 16, translated “inspiration of God” is found nowhere else in scripture.  It is the term theopneustos. Vine gives the etymology of the word: (Theos, God, pneu, to breathe) and says that it, “is used in 2 Tim. 3:16, of the Scriptures as distinct from non-inspired writings” (Vines, Volume II, page 263).

In my view, this term is poetic.  God Breathed.  The document that we call the Bible is not the product of men, but of the Almighty.  As such it should be recognized as unique in the world, and worthy of our undying respect and careful scrutiny.

It may be that familiarity breeds contempt.  The Bible is ubiquitous.  You can find a copy in every motel room.  It is found on coffee tables or in bookshelves of most households in the United States.  It is believed that up to 6 billion copies of the Bible have been printed, making it the most widely distributed book of all time.  The Bible is available to 98% of the world’s population in a language with which they are fluent.  It was the first major work printed by Johannes Gutenberg on his newly invented mechanical printing press, in 1455.

Yet, most are ignorant of its contents.  They either have only a superficial knowledge of God’s word, or they lack the ability to “rightly divide” it (cf. 2 Timothy 2:15).  Occasionally I have watched the game show Jeopardy!, when the Bible was used as one of its categories.  It is always interesting to note that these contestants, who are chosen because they have shown an aptitude for answering questions on a wide variety of subjects, consistently are thwarted by the simplest of Bible queries.

While an abject ignorance of God’s word is the norm in our society today, it certainly ought not to be so among God’s people.  It seems inconceivable that those who claim to be disciples (learners) of Christ have little awareness of or interest in His philosophies, desires, objectives or will for them.

The nation of Israel was likewise, in its history, cursed by an ignorance of God’s word.  The people of Hosea’s time were guilty of disregarding His instructions.  God described their abject state and gave them a severe admonition, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being priest for Me; Because you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children” (Hosea 4:6).  The prophet Isaiah records a similar description, “Therefore my people have gone into captivity, Because they have no knowledge; Their honorable men are famished, And their multitude dried up with thirst” (Isaiah 5:13).

Though infrequent, there were times of great zeal in Israel’s history.  It is interesting that one characteristic of this zeal was their respect for and interest in the word of God.  For example, when Joshua read the law of Moses to the people at Mt. Ebal, (Joshua 8:30-35), and when Ezra read the Law to the remnant who had returned from Babylonian captivity (Nehemiah 8:1-8).

During the reign of Josiah in Judah, the young king led such a renewal.  Apparently, the law of God had been lost completely.  The people were ignorant of God’s word, and had been led into ungodliness by Josiah’s father, Amon, and his grandfather, Manasseh.  But Josiah “…did what was right in the sight of the LORD, and walked in all the ways of his father David; he did not turn aside to the right hand or to the left” (2 Kings 22:2).

When Josiah was 26 years old, while the Temple was being repaired at his command, the high priest Hilkiah reported that the Law had been found.  Josiah was immediately aware of the significance of the find, and grieved that the Law had once been lost.  He said, “…great is the wrath of the LORD that is aroused against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us” (2 Kings 22:13).

Consider what the young king did next:

“The king went up to the house of the LORD with all the men of Judah, and with him all the inhabitants of Jerusalem-the priests and the prophets and all the people, both small and great. And he read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant which had been found in the house of the LORD.  Then the king stood by a pillar and made a covenant before the LORD, to follow the LORD and to keep His commandments and His testimonies and His statutes, with all his heart and all his soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people took a stand for the covenant”  (2 Kings 23:2-3).

Because of the influence of this good young king, the people “took a stand.” During the rule of Josiah, it is recorded that “…All his days they did not depart from following the LORD God of their fathers” (2 Chronicles 34:33).

From his example we can learn two important things:

1. God’s law must be respected. The veneration shown for the book of the law by King Josiah is wonderful.  These were not the words of men, but the words of God.  The people listened intently to His commands, and were moved to obedience.  May we have the same attitude toward God’s word as that expressed by the Psalmist, “Blessed is the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, Nor stands in the path of sinners, Nor sits in the seat of the scornful; But his delight is in the law of the LORD, And in His law he meditates day and night” (Psalm 1:1-2).
2. God’s law must be studied. It is not enough to venerate His word.  In order for us to please God we must obey His word.  In order to obey His word, we must be familiar with it.  The Hebrew writer criticized his readers for being slack in their study of God’s word.  He described them as having become “dull of hearing”, and admonished them, “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe.  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” (Hebrews 5:12-14).

The Bible contains the words and will of the Almighty God of heaven.  It is the product of inspiration, being literally, “God breathed.”  We are so blessed that God has expressed Himself to us.  It is through this we know what He expects of us, and also of the reward He has promised to those who “obey Him.” (cf. Hebrews 5:9).

What about you?  What is your attitude toward the Bible.  Have you looked at it as a dusty old book filled with ancient stories written in antiquated English?  Has it served more as a repository of family memories (cards, letters and pressed flowers) than as a daily guide for you in your life?  Or, do you count it as precious, and study and meditate on it daily.  Consider the words of the prophet Jeremiah:

“O LORD, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jeremiah 10:23).

We must know God’s will to prosper in this life, and in the one to come.  How privileged we are to have access to the mind of God, revealed in His holy Scriptures!

This can be demonstrated anecdotally.  We see it every day, even recognize it in our own lives.  If our consciences are tender, we strive always to do good.  However, from time to time we choose wrongly, and our conscience is pierced with guilt.  Those who choose to do evil again and again have their consciences hardened (seared), and feel guilt no longer.  Regardless, we always maintain the ability to choose.

Our judicial system is based upon this ability to choose.  If a man takes the life of another, the law of the land recognizes it as a choice made, and punishes him accordingly.  He knew what he was doing.  He could have chosen not to commit the crime.  He chose to do it, and must endure the consequence of his decision.  If on some rare occasion the man is determined by authorities to be insane or mentally incompetent, exceptions may be made; but these occasions are rare rather than the rule.

The Bible explicitly and implicitly reveals both the ability of man to exercise free will, and that God holds him accountable for his choices.  In fact, every time obedience is demanded in scripture (and the Bible is replete with such demands), there is the implicit assertion that men have the freedom to choose whether they will or will not obey God.

Consider how ridiculous the following passage from Ezekiel 18:4-9 would be if man was not a free moral agent:

“Behold, all souls are Mine; The soul of the father As well as the soul of the son is Mine; The soul who sins shall die.  But if a man is just And does what is lawful and right;  If he has not eaten on the mountains, Nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife, Nor approached a woman during her impurity; If he has not oppressed anyone, But has restored to the debtor his pledge; Has robbed no one by violence, But has given his bread to the hungry And covered the naked with clothing; If he has not exacted usury Nor taken any increase, But has withdrawn his hand from iniquity And executed true judgment between man and man; If he has walked in My statutes And kept My judgments faithfully-He is just; He shall surely live!” Says the Lord GOD.

If a man’s actions are predetermined, it would be unfair of God to condemn the sinner and bless the just.  After all, the man who sins is doing only what he is compelled to do, he has no choice.  In fact, this is the exact issue that God addressed in Ezekiel 18.  The Israelites had adopted a proverb to explain away their responsibility for their own sin.  The proverb (vs. 2) states, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children’s teeth are set on edge.”  We hear similar sentiments expressed in our time.  A man can’t be held responsible for his bad choices because of the way he was raised; i.e., the sins of his father.

While it can be said that some have an advantage in the way they are raised, we are all capable of overcoming evil influences to serve God acceptably.  And God expects exactly that.  Consider young king Josiah, son of the evil Amon, and grandson of the despicable Manasseh of whom it was written, “he has acted more wickedly than all the Amorites who were before him, and has also made Judah sin with his idols” (2 Kings 21:11).  Despite the abominations committed by both his father and grandfather, Josiah ruled righteously in Judah.  “And he did what was right in the sight of the LORD, and walked in all the ways of his father David; he did not turn aside to the right hand or to the left” (2 Kings 22:2).

The Jews of Ezekiel’s day did not appreciate the Lord’s admonition, and cried out, Not Fair!  Their view was that they were not responsible for their sin, their fathers were the culprits.  Therefore, it was unfair of God to condemn them for their actions when they had no personal responsibility.  God’s answer:

“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ Hear now, O house of Israel, is it not My way which is fair, and your ways which are not fair? When a righteous man turns away from his righteousness, commits iniquity, and dies in it, it is because of the iniquity which he has done that he dies.  Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness which he committed, and does what is lawful and right, he preserves himself alive.  Because he considers and turns away from all the transgressions which he committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die.  Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, is it not My ways which are fair, and your ways which are not fair?”

“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways,” says the Lord GOD. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin.  Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel?  For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord GOD. “Therefore turn and live!” (18:25-32).

Put simply, the fault was their own, not their father’s.  It is fair to hold a man responsible for his actions.  If a man chooses to sin, he will be condemned.  This is fair.  If a man repents of that sin, he will be forgiven.  This is fair.  God does not deal capriciously with men.  He does not condemn them for choices for which they are not responsible.  He does not arbitrarily condemn some and save others.  He deals with men fairly.  “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, says the Lord God.”

Calvin’s Fallacy

This simple and plain understanding of free will is contradicted by the predominant theology of John Calvin.  Most prominent denominations have been influenced by his teaching, and his misconception of God’s sovereignty.

Calvin’s theology issues from his view of God’s sovereignty.  Notice a quote from his pen, taken from his tract, The Eternal Predestination of God, dedicated on January 1, 1552:

…the hand of God no less rules the internal affections than it precedes the external acts, and that God does not perform by the hand of men those things which he has decreed without first working in their hearts the very will which precedes their acts.”

Calvin’s view is that if God is sovereign then everything that happens on earth must be His will.  Nothing is the result of choice, even our own wills are molded by Him.  In effect, we are but puppets to the Divine.  Notice the following from his seminal work, The Institutes of Christian Religion.

“God’s eternal decree, by which He compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man” (Inst., Book III, Chapter 21, Section 5).

Again, put simply, if you act in a righteous way it is because God has made an agreement with Himself that you would act righteously, and therefore would gain Heaven.  Conversely, if you act in an evil way, it is because God has agreed with Himself to condemn you for eternity.

This theology does violence to the entire context of Ezekiel 18, where God clearly states that His condemnation or acceptance is not based upon His agreement with Himself, but upon the choices made by man.  That is the very reason why God is fair!

But what is Calvin’s answer to the claims that his theology makes God capricious and arbitrary in his dealing with man?  Note the following quote:

“Therefore, when it is asked why the Lord did so, we must answer, Because he pleased. But if you proceed farther to ask why he pleased, you ask for something greater and more sublime than the will of God, and nothing such can be found. Let human temerity then be quiet, and cease to inquire after what exists not, lest perhaps it fails to find what does exist.”(Inst. III, 23, 2).

In effect, Calvin has no answer.  Rather than answer the question, he squelches it.   He says, “I don’t know, and you should not ask!”

While we agree on the importance of limiting temerity when it comes to questioning God, we are more bold to question the bankrupt and destructive doctrine of Calvin.

Sovereignty and Free Will

First, it is important to define the term sovereign as it relates to God.  The word is not found in the King James translation of the Bible, though the word “sovereignty” is found a single time in the New King James version.  It is taken from the Hebrew word lakad and is found in 1 Samuel 14:47.  It relates to King Saul’s consolidation of his rule over all Israel.  “So Saul established his sovereignty over Israel.”  The word is defined by Strong’s:  “to capture or occupy; to take” and is most often translated “took” in the Old Testament.  In fact, the KJV reads as follows in 1 Samuel 14:17, “So Saul took the kingdom over Israel.”

Though the word sovereign is not used in the Bible with respect to God, the concept of sovereignty is certainly present.  Webster defines sovereign:

1a: Possessed of supreme power <~ruler>  b: unlimited in extent : ABSOLUTE  c: enjoying autonomy : INDEPENDENT.  (New Collegiate Dictionary)

From this definition we find that sovereignty relates to power and position.  God is sovereign because He is powerful.  Because His power is supreme (greater than the power of any other), no one can challenge His standing and will.  Therefore, whatever God wants, He gets.  This, in essence, is what it means to be sovereign.

In fact, God’s power is not only without equal, it is without limit.  He is omnipotent (all powerful).  This truth is demonstrated in His creative work, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).  It is also directly declared, “And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty thunderings, saying, ‘Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns!’” (Revelation 19:6).  The consequence of God’s omnipotence is simple, no one can override His will.  He is sovereign!  This is why it is such a blessing that our God is benevolent and full of grace.

There are many examples in scripture where men (and nations) have this lesson demonstrated to them.  Remember the words of Pharaoh? “And Pharaoh said, ‘Who is the LORD, that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, nor will I let Israel go’” (Exodus 5:2).  For his impudence he saw his land plagued, his firstborn die, and his army drowned in the waters of the Red Sea.

The Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar learned the lesson as well.  He had exalted himself, and proudly proclaimed, “Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for a royal dwelling by my mighty power and for the honor of my majesty?” (Daniel 4:30).  Because he did not acknowledge that he had been blessed by God, he had his kingdom taken from him, and was “driven from men and ate grass like oxen; his body was wet with the dew of heaven till his hair had grown like eagles’ feathers and his nails like birds’ claws” (vs. 33).  Nebuchadnezzar learned the lesson well, and when God granted him his senses once again, he proclaimed, “All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth.  No one can restrain His hand or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’” (vs. 35).

The Difference Between the Possession of Power, and the Exercise of that Power

While it can rightly be said that God’s sovereignty assures that He can control every aspect of man’s existence, it is going too far to say that His sovereignty demands that control.  Man has free will precisely because the sovereign God of heaven granted it.

This can be illustrated simply.  As parents, though we are not omnipotent, it can be said that we have control of our children.  We make decisions for them, forbid certain behaviors, determine where they will live, and generally regulate their lives.  We also often allow our children to make choices for themselves.  In fact, we recognize it to be beneficial to the maturation process, and get great satisfaction when our child, when given the ability to choose, makes a proper choice.  We set guidelines, give our children liberty, and if those guidelines are ignored, we mete out appropriate punishment.  This is good parenting.  And yet, we deny God the same privilege.

Consider the events in the Garden of Eden.  God created Adam and Eve, imbuing them with a privilege unique in creation; the right to choose.  Man is different.  “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27).  God set the guidelines (what He required) when he told Adam, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:16b-17).  Man chose to ignore God’s instructions, and suffered the consequence.  “So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life” (Genesis 3:24).

Calvin’s fallacy is found in his failure to understand that sovereignty does not require the exercise of omnipotence, only the possession of the same.  He is not the only one who makes that mistake.

The Atheist’s Folly

A favorite argument of the atheist is centered in what he considers to be an unexplainable paradox.

The Christian asserts that God is both wholly good and omnipotent.  However, evil exists in the world.  Therefore, one of three possibilities exists.  1) God is not omnipotent; 2) God is not wholly good; or 3) God does not exist.  Otherwise, evil would not exist.

Consider the following quote attributed to philosopher Robert Maynard Hutchins,

If it is heresy to deny God’s omnipotence and omniscience, then nothing remains outside the all-encompassing scope of divine providence, nothing happens contrary to the divine will, no future contingency is or can be unforeseen by God.  If, on the other hand, to deny that man sins freely means that God must be responsible for the evil that man does, then it is a heresy to deny free will, for that imputes evil to God.

Many philosophers thus contend that God’s sovereignty and evil can not co-exist.  The fact that evil demonstrably exists proves that an omniscient righteous God does not.

Again, however, these secularists do not give sufficient weight to the concept of free will.  When God granted man free will, He gave him a wonderful gift.  What parent does not thrill to hear a child refuse a sinful choice – not by saying, “My parents won’t let me” – but rather, “I choose not to because it is wrong.”  God created man to be worshipful and obedient.  These things would be meaningless – both to God and man – if God had not granted man the freedom to choose.  This is most certainly a part of God’s creating man “in His own image”, and separates man from the rest of God’s created universe.

However, there is a logical and necessary consequence to free will.  It is the ability (and inevitability) to choose wrong over right.  Sin and evil are not in the world because of something lacking in God.  Sin and evil exist because man chose not to obey Him.  “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12).

Truly we must, “Beware lest anyone cheat [us] through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8).

Conclusion

The theories and philosophies of men have conspired to make the simple, difficult; to make the plain, obscure.  Both Bible and logic present the same truths concerning God and man:

1. God is sovereign.
2. God is good.
3. God gave man free will.
4. Man sometimes chooses to do evil rather than good.
5. Evil is the result of man’s disobedience, not a failing or limitation of God.

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.  But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.  Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death (James 1:13-15).

Two observations suffice as we seek to apply these truths.  First, God will hold you accountable if you live your life as an evildoer.  Second, God will reward you if you choose to follow His will.  The apostle Paul wrote to the church in Thessalonica, seeking to comfort the disciples during a time of persecution.  He noted that they would be protected by God, and those who persecuted them would be judged.  Consider his words, “It is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.  These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed” (2 Thessalonians 1:6-10).  The choice is ours:  To obey, or not to obey.  God be praised that He has given us such a wonderful blessing.

In the previous iteration of Watchman, we sought to maintain a regular monthly publication schedule.  There was no real reason for this other than it mimicked our paper based cousins, and it gave me as the editor a deadline for the preparation and publication of material.  It also wore me out!  As editor and publisher, it was my responsibility to both to correct and prepare manuscripts, and then to code them into HTML for publication on the web.  With some authors, this was fairly simple, but with others it was a real chore.  I must confess that the process became ever more daunting to me.  Though I am proud of all the material that has appeared on Watchman, I think it obvious that the first four years or so of the magazine were consistently of high quality, and that the efforts were a bit more inconsistent after that.  Without going into great detail, the magazine ceased publication as a result of editorial burnout on my part.

I am back, refreshed, and hopefully a bit smarter this time around.  With this version of Watchman Magazine, I am relinquishing the title of “Editor”, and instead consider myself “Author”, “Publisher”, and “Webmaster.”  In other words, our new and talented staff of writers are responsible for the editing and submitting of their own content.  My only function other than writing material myself, is to supply a location (Watchman Magazine) for others I have invited to submit their own material.  I will assist them with the technical aspects of publishing to the site, if needed, but otherwise the first time I will see the material they write is when it is posted to the site.

That does not mean that I am not concerned with what is published on Watchman Magazine.  I have invited a number of capable men, who I trust will stand for truth, and will write meaty, scriptural and relevant articles for our readers.  I have given these men detailed instructions regarding what I expect of them as writers for the magazine.  If they violate these guidelines I have reserved the right to rescind their privilege to write for the magazine.  Further, I will continue to follow the editorial policy long established with this magazine, and will review or will appoint another to review any error that is taught on this site.

Another large difference between version 1.0 and 2.0 is the fact that there will be no set publication schedule.  Each author is free to write as often, and publish on whatever schedule they so desire.  It is my intention to supply two to three substantial articles each month.  I am hopeful that the other authors will be sufficiently prolific to provide a total of 12-15 articles, minimum, each month.  This would equal a typical edition of Watchman several years ago, and will mean that new material will be posted to the site throughout each month.  I would suggest you check back to the site often, or use an RSS aggregator to bring the articles to your desktop.

One simple way this can be done is to post Watchman Magazine’s RSS feed to your homepage.  If you have a MSN, Google, or Yahoo home page, you can have a module put on the page much like the news, sports and entertainment modules that frequently are found.  The steps are simple, but if you have questions you can email me and I will supply you with directions.  Some email clients also double as RSS aggregators, so you could, in effect, have every article written in Watchman sent directly to your inbox.  The RSS feed can be found at the top of the right sidebar.

You can also join our mailing list.  It is my intent to send out one post a month, detailing the articles that have been added to Watchman Magazine.  To join the list, click on the “Join Our Mailing List” link at the top of the page.

Enough with the technical stuff!  I have invited a number of talented and capable men to write for Watchman Magazine.  The magazine writers, at present, have a decidedly regional flavor, but I trust that the fact that we all reside in Texas will not be too much an obstacle for our readers to overcome!

Our 13 presently active authors, in alphabetical order:

• Kyle Campbell:  Kyle works with the Loop 287 congregation in Lufkin, TX.
• Stan Cox:  Your editor and publisher.  I preach for the West Side congregation in Fort Worth, TX.
• Lewis Deen:  Lewis is a long time friend and a member of the Woodland Heights congregation in Brownwood, TX.  He is an intelligent and studious man, and I am confident will do a fine job of writing.
• Jerry Fite:  Jerry is the evangelist for the Parkview congregation in Pasadena, TX.
• Chip Foster:  Chip Foster is the preacher for the Old Granbury Road congregation in Granbury, TX.
• Scott Gilmore:  Scott is a fine young preacher.  He also is presently a “tentmaker”, and is a member of the Cash church of Christ in Cash, TX.
• Steve Locklair:  Steve preaches for the Highway 290 church in Brenham, TX.
• John Robertson: John is the evangelist for the Floral Heights congregation in Wichita Falls, TX.
• Heath Rogers:  Heath is the preacher for the Robison St. church in Edna, TX.
• Dennis Scroggins:  Dennis preaches for the Key Avenue Church of Christ in Lampasas, TX.
• Jeff Smith:  Jeff is our one returning staff writer from the previous Watchman, and is the preacher for the Woodmont congregation in Fort Worth, TX.
• Marc Smith:  Marc is the evangelist for the Sun Valley congregation in Hewitt, TX.
• Scott Vanderwood:  Scott is a young evangelist, presently working with brother Kyle Campbell in Lufkin, TX.
• Luis Zamora:  Luis preaches at the South Austin church of Christ in Austin, TX.

One of the realities of the internet in the year 2010 is SPAM.  In order to spare our authors the misery that accompanies the publication of their email addresses, we ask that any correspondence directed to them be sent to my Watchman Magazine email address, where it will be forwarded to the appropriate writer.  If the correspondence is in regard to a particular article, please include a reference to the article in question.  For my email address, please click on the “Contact Us” link at the top of this page.

Again, welcome to Watchman Magazine 2.0.  We trust that you will benefit from the efforts of our writers, and will come back to visit our site again and again.  We ask for your prayers in our efforts, that God’s word will be proclaimed and defended in such a way that He may be glorified by these humble efforts.

Background

While Joshua Mahendranath was working in Kuwait, he determined to use his time away from his family to study for himself the truth of God’s word.  He signed up for many correspondence courses over the internet, and from them found that those courses he received from churches of Christ were different.  They were challenging and Bible based, and from them he learned the truth.

He requested information regarding any Christians who might be in the area, that he might be baptized into Christ.  Marvin Dotson who now is a member at the Northside congregation in Mansfield, TX, was at that time employed as a pilot for the Royal family of Kuwait, and the two were able to meet.  Marvin was able to teach and baptize seven Indians (including Joshua) before returning to the states.

After his time in Kuwait, Joshua returned to Bangalore, India, where his wife’s parents and brother live.  He and his wife Aruna continued to grow as Christians, spending a great deal of time corresponding with Bobby Holmes, who many know is the evangelist for the Northside congregation where brother Dotson attends.  Joshua and Bobby became very close, and when Joshua asked for him to come to India and help establish the church in the Bangalore area, Bobby could not refuse.  He asked me to accompany him, and the trip was planned.

Highlights of the Trip

While in India we had an opportunity to preach to hundreds of people, both Christians and members of various denominations.  While I believe that the Hindu population of India would be a a fruitful field to harvest, (80% of Indians are Hindu), our time on this trip was spent in preaching mainly to those in "Christian" denominations, and Christians who were involved in Institutional practices in the Bangalore area.

Our first week was spent in Banglore, studying with Joshua and Aruna during the day, and preaching in the evenings to Christians who met in the area.  There is a preacher in Bangalore by the name of Jacob Chukka who was educated at the Sunset School of Preaching in Lubbock, TX, and has spent about 25 years establishing congregations and preachers in South India.  Unfortunately, he has cultivated a great influence, and the social gospel has a strong hold in the area.

While Jacob was initially receptive to us, and encouraged his members to come hear us preach at Joshua’s home, when we questioned his practices and teaching regarding institutionalism and the social gospel, he became very angry, and cut off any further contact.

However, due to our efforts in Bangalore, a congregation consisting of 5 adults now exists.  Too, there have been several other visitors who have indicated an interest in placing membership and working with the Bangalore church.  As Joshua has an opportunity to contrast the appeal of the pure word of God with the institutionalism and social gospel preached by Jacob and his band of preachers, we are confident that others who have a love for truth will repudiate the error that has held sway in Bangalore for so many years.

While in Bangalore (the final two weeks of our stay), we also had opportunity to study with Aruna’s family.  Her parents, brother and sister-in-law were very receptive, and we are hopeful that they too will soon accept the truth of the gospel.  At present they are members of the Church of South India (a denomination which has a strong Anglican influence, as it had its origin through British Missionaries). 

In week two we traveled to the small village of Caddupah, where Joshua’s sister Padma and her husband Bhaskar live.  We preached to many in the days there, and Padma and Bhaskar obeyed the gospel.  Bhashar was able to travel to Bangalore late in our stay, and we spent some time grounding him in the truth.  Too, Joshua has since traveled back to Caddupah to study and worship with them.

We also traveled in week two to Kurnool, where Joshua’s parents live.  His father, Abhishekem, is a retired pastor for the Church of South India.  We perhaps did our most effective work while here.  We had the opportunity to speak to over 100 people each day for a three day meeting, including about 20 denominational preachers on the final day.  Interest was good, and many questions were asked.  Joshua’s father was very impressed, and admitted that what we taught was the truth from God’s word, (even though we dealt with infant baptism and instrumental music, among other practices that are characteristic of his denomination).  He has asked for more materials, and we are hopeful he will accept the truth.

While in Kurnool, we met fifteen preachers from an institutional background who traveled many miles to hear us preach.  We took the opportunity each night after the preaching was done to invite them into our hotel room for further study.  As a result of our efforts, all fifteen of them have repudiated Institutionalism, have taken the materials we have given them on the subject of authority, and have gone back to their congregations and taught the truth.  Of course time will tell, but we are confident that their efforts are sincere, and Joshua is in contact with many of these men to continue to establish them in the truth regarding these issues.

One note about these men.  Most of them are struggling mightily.  They rightly desire to preach the gospel, but the congregations where they preach can not fully support them.  Many of them have families.  If any individuals or churches have an interest in supporting them in their stand for truth, much good could be done with only a few dollars.  Money goes a long way over there, and even $100 dollars a month could make the difference in a man being able to feed his family and care for them as he preaches the gospel.  Any who are interested in knowing more can contact me or Bobby for more information.  We will be glad to do what we can to facilitate the support of these men.  We believe them to be worthy of our help.

The final two weeks of our stay were spent back in Bangalore.  We had opportunities to study with Joshua and Aruna, and Joshua’s brother Ravi, who had come back to Bangalore with us from Kurnool.  As a result of our studies, Ravi was baptized into Christ.  He has since returned to Kurnool to study with his wife and parents, and to establish the Lord’s church in that city.

We also had an opportunity to preach to two institutional congregations.  Jacob Chukkah had invited us to preach at two of the three congregations where he preaches each Sunday.  After a Sunday where we laid the groundwork to address our differences, Bobby Holmes preached on the following Monday night on the subject of apostasy.  In pointing out the errors which led to divisions in America, he asked the church there for authority for some of their practices, including a sponsoring church arrangement they were a part of, and their practice of eating together as a congregation immediately following worship services.

This was when Jacob became angry, and accused Bobby of sin because he had not talked with Jacob privately before preaching the lesson.  As we sought to reason with him he became more angry, and rescinded his invitations for further studies the rest of the week.  He did this unilaterally, without any discussion with the other men of the congregation.  It became obvious that he dominates these churches and many of the other preachers in the area through his personality and will.  He reminds me of Diotrephes, (cf. 3 John 9).

Again, though we were not allowed to preach any more in those churches, the contrast between truth and error was made.  Those who have an honest heart, and are interested in faithfulness rather than the social gospel now have a choice in the Bangalore area.  We are hopeful that much good will come as Joshua continues his efforts in that area.

The Bottom Line

The following was accomplished in our trip November 2004:

• Churches were established in Bangalore, Caddupah and Kurnool.

• 3 souls were baptized into Christ, with potentially many more baptisms to come.
• Hundreds of people heard the gospel of Christ preached, in its purity, for the first time.
• Joshua’s brother Ravi, and his brother-in-law, Bhaskar, received much needed instruction to ground them in the faith that they might establish and grow churches in their home towns.
• Joshua himself received further grounding in the faith.  He is a very special individual, who has a lot of talent, and an insatiable thirst for truth.  He has a strong will to contend for the faith in that community.  As a result of his influence I have no doubt that many souls will be saved in the future.
• Fifteen other preachers have been instructed more perfectly.  They have repudiated liberalism, and their preaching is being received well by the congregations where they preach.

What is Needed

There are so many areas in the world where the gospel needs to be preached.  Reports from those who are working in the Philippines are a good example of the power of the gospel when it falls upon honest hearts.

While I can not say that the work in India is more important than any other, it surely has a special place in my heart.  These are good and faithful Christians, and the potential for the salvation of many souls is very clear.  As is always the case, "The harvest truly is plentiful, but the laborers are few" (cf. Matthew 9:37).

Brother Holmes’ health is a bit tenuous, and it is likely that the trip in November will be his final trip abroad.  There is the need for faithful men to make the investment in time and money to spend a few weeks in India helping the brethren there.  There is a need for churches or individuals to support the native preachers who are faithfully laboring in the country.  There is the need for articles and sermons to be translated into various Indian dialects for the purpose of teaching.  There is the need for daily prayer for our brethren in India, and for the millions of lost souls in that country.  It is my prayer that some who read this report will consider the challenges, and determine to do something to help the Lord in the work being done in that country.

If I can be of any help in expediting such efforts, feel free to contact me.

Because God is holy, supplicants who approach Him must be holy as well.  Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, profaned themselves before God when they offered up strange fire by way of sacrifice.  In punishment, God took their lives. “And Moses said to Aaron, ‘This is what the Lord spoke, saying:  “By those who come near me I must be regarded as holy; and before all people I must be glorified.”’  So Aaron held his peace” (Leviticus 10:3).

This call to holiness is fully realized in the term sanctification.  The term sanctification is used, as pointed out by Vine, of (a) separation to God; (b) the course of life befitting those so separated. (pg. 317).

The first point, that we have been separated to God, is indicated clearly in 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, “But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.”  God chose us to be separate from the world, and called us by his gospel.  Paul stated this clearly in Ephesians 1 as he indicated that God chose us in Christ “before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love” (vs. 4).  Those who respond to the gospel of Christ, through baptism, die to sin and are reconciled to God.  They are sanctified.

The second point, that our lives should befit those who are separated to God, indicates a need for holiness, which is intrinsic in the term.  As the apostle Paul pointed out in calling the Thessalonians to moral purity, “possess [-ing] his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God”, when he wrote, “For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness” (1 Thessalonians 4:4-5, 7).  Because we are called to God, we should live holy lives.  As Paul wrote, “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age” (Titus 2:11-12).

Such a call to live holy lives is not arbitrary, it is founded in God’s character.  “But as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, ‘Be holy, for I am holy’” (1 Peter 1:15-16).   Too often in our time the concept of morality is considered arbitrary and antiquated.  Some reason that it may have served man in times past, but in our enlightened time, we have no need of unchanging standards based upon religious faith.  To these foolish people, morality is situational, and virtues such as honesty, modesty, humility, and temperance are to be utilized only as they serve the whim of the individual.  In response to such thinking the prophet Jeremiah wrote, “O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jeremiah 10:23).

Because God is holy, his call for man to be holy is proper. “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your reasonable service.   And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God” (Romans 12:1-2).

We are to live moral lives because God is holy.  We are to conform our teaching to God’s will because God is holy.  We are to dress with propriety and modesty because God is holy.  We are to be reverent before God in worship and demeanor because God is holy.

Every aspect of our lives is impacted by God’s holiness.  The perfect sinlessness of the Son of God should ever be fefore us.  “For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: ‘Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth’” (1 Peter 2:21-22).  The holiness of God is awesome, and should inspire in us a quiet reverence, and a holy life.

“But the Lord is in His holy temple.  Let all the earth keep silence before Him” (Habakkuk 2:20).  

Reilly mentioned that more and more youth leagues are beginning to have their athletic activities on Sunday.  It is a time when coaches and parents are off of work, and as the emphasis on organized youth sports increases, time becomes more precious.  A time period which was once off limits (Sunday morning) is now routinely filled with regularly scheduled softball, baseball and soccer games.

And, as Reilly put it, we can’t really expect the officials and coaches to take the lead in changing the trend.  It happens more and more often because of the parents!  After all, if the parents did not allow their children to play on Sunday, there would be no games, no matter what the league or coach wanted.

In the article a denominational preacher told the coach that his son would not be able to play in the game scheduled that Sunday.  The coach seemed amazed, and so the father said, “You are acting like this is the first time anyone ever told you that.”  The Coach’s response?  “It is the first time anyone has ever told me that!”

I don’t have the article in front of me now, but Reilly finished it in his typical humorous fashion.  He said, in effect, to go ahead and play on Sunday if you want… but if at the end of the game, with only a second left, little Suzy is on the foul line needing to make the two shots to win the game, who is going to answer your prayers?!

What is interesting is that the article is another example of a worldly person recognizing a truth which Christians sometimes are unwilling to admit.  When we allow such recreational activities to come before our service to God, we are forsaking Him.  It doesn’t matter if it is “just one time” or habitual, we are part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.  This is an evil trend, a trend toward secularism and away from God.  The Christian should not be contributing to the trend.

I will never forget when my daughter first had to miss a tournament softball game to come to worship services.  She approached one of the older ladies in the congregation, and said, “I had to miss my game to come to church.”  I appreciated so much the answer given.  Rather than saying, “I’m sorry”, the good sister said, “I am so proud of you!”  My daughter walked away beaming at the praise, and with an appreciation of what it means to sacrifice for the Lord.

We can’t expect the world to become more accommodating to our desires to serve God.  The trend is what it is, and as time progresses it will become more difficult, not easier, to juggle these conflicts.  Where once it was an occasional “make-up” game on Wednesday night, it is now a continual bombardment almost every single Sunday.  Reilly mentioned that the trend has become even more pronounced in the past two years, though in our area softball leagues have scheduled Sunday play at least since my own daughter began playing 10 years ago.  As Christian parents, we must determine not to be swayed by our children’s immature desires, and the fear that we might “disappoint” the other kids or parents.  We must remember that our devotion to God must be singular and complete.  As Paul wrote to the Colossians, “And he is before all things, and in Him all things consist.  And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he may have the preeminence” (1:17-18).

In the church, Christ must always come first.  If we have truly counted the cost, we know this.  Our lives should mirror this recognition.  It should be evident in our own actions, and in our instructions to our children, as we seek to bring them up “training and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4).

Remember the words of our Lord, as he instructed a lawyer who had asked him, “Which is the greatest commandment in the law?  Jesus said to him, ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’  This is the first and great commandment” (Matthew 22:36-38).

We are likewise gratified that we have been able to archive the material, and that every article written in the previous six years remains available to this day, free of charge, to our readers.  We have never sought to limit the reproduction of this material, and again repeat our desire that the articles get a wide reading.  We ask  only that the articles are reproduced completely and faithfully, and appropriate recognition is given to the author and the Magazine.

At present the magazine is published on a bi-monthly basis.  While I wish for it to be a monthly, and many have expressed their desire that the magazine revert to a monthly publishing schedule, my schedule at present simply does not allow it.  I am able to keep faithfully to the bi-monthly schedule.

Many men have written for the magazine.  Some who have served as regular feature writers no longer serve in that capacity.  Others have joined our effort.  All of the writing they do is consistently on a high level.  They are to be commended.

The technological side of the site is the most troublesome to me.  From time to time I have to learn (or relearn) how to do a particular computer related task.  Too, we have migrated to 3 different servers in the past 6 years, as the internet has grown and changed.  While I enjoy learning more about the internet and maintaining a web site, I must admit to dreading certain of the tasks that come with maintaining the site.  For example, for several months now, the forms I use to enroll readers on the mailing list, and to receive data for the church listings, have not worked.  I know they don’t work (and appreciate those who have written to let me know), but every time I decide to buckle down and figure out how to fix it, something more important comes up.  Please bear with me in this, and I will try to get to it soon.

Last issue I did not set up the section of the magazine that allows access for our PDA users to view the magazine offline.  Again, my apologies.  You will be glad to know that this issue has been set up for PDA reading.

Finally, I thought you might be interested (6 years later) to know how the idea came to mind to publish Watchman.  It is especially relevant in light of some who seem to think there is a conspiracy, or society set up, using Watchman Magazine as its “propaganda arm.”

While in Germany early in 1997 (holding a meeting with the congregation where our White Unto Harvest feature writer, Steve Wallace, preaches), I began considering a quarterly publication on the internet.  At that time I was aware of Warren Berkley’s and Jon Quinn’s Expository Files, but was not aware of what was then referred to as a WebZine, published by brethren.  At the time, I did not contemplate anything on the scale of Watchman, was not considering purchasing a domain name, and had nothing more in mind than soliciting a few articles from faithful men, and publishing them to the web four times a year.

After returning to the states, I talked with brother Tom Roberts, who agreed that the effort was worthy, and I began fleshing out what came to be Watchman Magazine.  Not having a name known to many, I asked brother Roberts (who I believe to be a man widely known by Christians to be a man of honesty, integrity, and faithfulness) to serve as an Associate Editor.  I also asked my dear friend and faithful preacher Larry Fain to assist me as an Associate in the task of publishing and editing the paper.  I thank these men for their help and support over the past several years.  My thanks also to the feature writers for their wonderful work.  I look forward to publishing the magazine for many more years.

The magazine is largely a one man effort.  Though I seek and consider carefully the counsel of others when problems arise, or wisdom is needed, the content of the magazine, themes chosen, tone of writing, etc., are as they are due to my editorial decisions.  As I do all the editing and publishing myself, the typo’s, glitches, and broken links are likewise my responsiblity.  Please be kind, as I take full responsibility, and pray God’s guidance as the years continue.  I carefully read criticism, and pray for an open mind to apply changes where warranted.

As we begin our seventh year, we ask that you continue to read and profit from the materials available to you in Watchman.  May God Bless you in your studies.

Stan

In this issue of Watchman there appears a debate between Tom M. Roberts and Vance E. Trefethen which was originally published  in Guardian of Truth magazine in November 1994.  The debate is reprinted with the permission of both authors, and we are gratified to have had a part in making it available in electronic format.

In a recent email to me, brother Roberts indicated that the debate came about in response to material brother Trefethen had published in a booklet entitled “Confusion or Consensus.” In that booklet he affirmed “There is no pattern for men-only business meetings and a clear pattern for congregational (men and women) decision-making assemblies” (p. 12).

The materials were sent to me in electronic format, and have been reprinted here with no changes.  Any mistakes are unintentional, and if found, will be corrected immediately.

I am aware of some disputes regarding this issue which are rather current.  Other articles have been written on the subject, and may appear in future issues of the magazine.  However, the debate stands on its own merit in this issue of Watchman.

The “Thee / Thou”  Issue

In the last (October) issue of Watchman, I wrote an editorial entitled “Binding Archaisms”, noting that some individuals advocate the King James Version to be the only English translation acceptable for use by English readers, and that some are binding the use of the pronouns, Thee, Thy and Thou in reference to Deity.

In a few days, I received second hand a long article written by Richard Fox in response to the editorial.  The sender indicated that brother Fox had given permission for me to run the article in Watchman, which we have done this month.  While the article was sent to me very quickly after the October issue was posted, a busy schedule on my part, and a desire to keep a standard publishing schedule (bi-monthly), delayed the posting of brother Fox’s response and a rejoinder until the December issue of the magazine.  In the interim, I became aware of a response to brother Fox’s material, penned by Joe Price.  Brother Price did a fine job in his rejoinder, spending more time and effort that I had intended to do myself.  Rather than duplicating efforts by fashioning my own rejoinder, I commend brother Price’s article to you.

As the reader examines the material by brother Fox, he may note indications that brother Fox believes my editorial was written as a direct examination of his views.  For example, he denies that he binds the King James Version as the only one acceptable, including the American Standard Version to his list of acceptable translations.

I want to clearly state that the article was not a direct examination of brother Fox’s views on the subject.  In fact, I had no knowledge of whether brother Fox took the view that the King James Version is the only acceptable English translation.  In researching the article, I ran across numerous web sites on the internet authored by “KJV only” advocates, and noted them in my article.

That is not to say that I did not have brother Fox’s teaching in mind in crafting my editorial.  In fact, the article came about directly in response to a request made by personal friends who have been adversely affected by brother Fox’s teaching on the use of “Thee” and “Thou” in addressing God in prayer.  They asked for an article dealing with the issue in general terms, and I was happy to oblige them.  Perhaps this is the reason for brother Fox’s statement:

“Writing is not my ‘cup of tea’ – however, after some have took upon themselves to ‘coach’ with the writings of those who must be uninformed or unlearned; I feel compelled to put some thoughts in writing concerning, versions, (or in some cases perversions) of the Bible; reverence, modernism, phariseeism and authority.”

I am not sure what he means by that sentence.  He may be calling me uninformed and unlearned because of my article.  He may be referring to Donnie Rader, who wrote on Legalism in his article on authority, and mentioned the “Thee/Thou” controversy as an application of brethren being guilty of binding where God has not.  (I will leave it to the reader to determine if brother Rader is either uninformed or unlearned. By the way, brother Rader had no idea that I was writing my editorial.  I had not spoken with him at all about brother Fox’s teaching, and have no idea if he is even aware of who Richard Fox is.  In his article he simply noted examples of legalism, as I had asked him to do).  If brother Fox has reference to those individuals who asked me to write on the subject as being uninformed or unlearned, then his sentence is poorly structured.  I am willing to attribute that to his admission that he is “Not A Writer.”

Regardless, the reader will note that brother Fox is the one who personalized the issue.  He called both brother Rader and myself modernists because of the position we have taken.  That’s fine.  Though I’m not sure I have been called a worse name, I have certainly been called names which are just as bad by others in the time I have edited Watchman.  Not too many have the distinction of being known by some as a member of the “Flat Earth Society” and a “Modernist” at the same time!

Further, I was informed that brother Fox was in the process of answering brother Price’s material, but doubted that I would be willing to post the material in Watchman.  While we have not received a copy of that material, we wanted to take this venue to clearly state what we are willing (and not willing) to do in this matter.

First, I do not believe the issue to be worthy of much space in the magazine.  It is our policy that if an article in the magazine is responded to, the response and a rejoinder will be published in the magazine, completing the exchange.  This policy has been followed consistently in the past, and we see no compelling reason to change.

Second, I have no desire to further the agenda of hobbyists.  Though I believe brother Fox to be wrong in his assertions, I admit that he is prolific.  Past experience has shown me that with such individuals, rejoinders spawn responses, ad nauseum.  So few hold to such an extreme position, it hardly seems worthy of an extended discussion in this periodical.

However, it remains true that brother Fox’s teaching is troubling brethren.  As mentioned before, personal friends of mine have been adversely affected by brother Fox’s teaching.  As such, if brother Fox is interested, we are willing to devote space in the magazine to a more structured discussion of the issue.  A written debate on the subject would serve to formally examine what the Bible teaches, be benefical to those brethren who are troubled by Richard Fox’s teaching, and serve to give closure to the discussion in this venue.

In order for such a discussion to take place, brother Fox must fashion an affirmative to his position.  It is important that he be specific.  Without imposing an affirmative on him, (he can write his own), it must be that the proposition begins with “The scriptures teach…” and includes his specific contention that English speakers use “Thee” and “Thou” when addressing deity.  We all agree that we must be reverent in addressing God.  The issue is whether the use of such archaic pronouns are necessary for a prayer to pass muster as “reverent.”

If brother Fox is willing to affirm such a proposition, we assure him that we are willing to open up the pages of Watchman for the discussion.  The details of the debate could be worked out easily.  We will keep our readers informed regarding progress in this matter.

“The study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible)”

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

In his introductory comments in his book on the subject, Hermeneutics, Professor D.R. Dungan said:

Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. It is derived from the Greek Hermes, the messenger of the gods and the interpreter of Jupiter.  Every Hermeneus was, therefore, an interpreter, as he was supposed to inherit some of the mystic qualities of this god of philology, this patron of eloquence.  Sacred hermeneutics is the science of interpreting the Scriptures.  Exegesis (from ex, out, and egeisthas, to guide or lead), means to lead out.  It is the application of the principles of hermeneutics in bringing out the meaning of any writing which might otherwise be difficult to understand.

(Hermeneutics, page 1)

In this issue of Watchman Magazine, we intend both to examine the Divine Hermeneutics, and to warn of some present departures from that hermeneutics.  When we use the term Divine Hermeneutics, we refer to the “methodological principles of interpretation” which are established by God.  In other words, the principles established in this series of articles are divine mandates.  They are not “man-made” principles as is commonly contended by some.

Certain fundamental principles must first be understood, and form a basis for the issue.  These are:

1. The Bible is the inspired word of God. God has revealed His will to man through the scriptures.  “And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:19-21).
2. The Bible is sufficient. In the scriptures we are supplied with all we need to completely fulfill our obligations to God and man.  “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 3:16-17).
3. The Bible can be understood. “For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles; if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)” (Ephesians 3:1-4).Though some deny this truth, the validity of this point can be established with simple logic.  God created man.  God revealed His will for man through the Bible.  If the Bible can not be understood by man, this means that God’s creation of either man or His word was flawed.  Such a position impugns God’s perfection, and makes him capricious, as we are told by our Lord, “the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day” (John 12:48).
4. The Bible must be understood. As in the statement of Jesus noted above, the scriptures clearly and consistently demand that we be obedient to his word.  It is obvious that to obey, we must understand.  The fact that God demands obedience means that God demands and understanding of His word.  Though we admit that our lack of spiritual maturity can sometimes make this understanding difficult, it does not excuse us.  Peter said of Paul, and the rest of scripture, “…Consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures“ (2 Peter 3:16-17).  Contrary to popular thought, it does matter what you believe.

The Divine Hermeneutics

The special articles which make up the theme of this month’s issue establish positively the Divine methodology for interpreting the Bible.

• Larry Fain, in his article “All authority resides in Christ”, establishes the fact that Christ, as the son of God, is the final messenger from God.  As Christians, we are obligated to follow his will in our lives.
• Jerry Fite, in his article “How to Establish Authority” gives us a primer on how God’s will is established.  He skillfully points out from the teachings of our Lord Himself that expressed statements, approved examples and implication are all legitimate examples of the way God reveals his will to man.
• Steven Deaton, in his article “Expediency” notes a “trouble area” regarding the establishment of God’s will.  Many who have departed from God’s will claim they are merely practicing expedients in fulfilling God’s commands.  Deaton clearly shows the difference between choices inherent in what God has authorized, and departures from His will.
• Larry Fain weighs in again in his article “Silence Never Authorizes”, another “trouble area”, as some make the adolescent argument, “It doesn’t say I can’t do it!”  Fain ably shows that silence does not permit free reign.  Rather, we are bound to respect God’s silence as well as His revealed word.

Departures from the Divine Hermeneutics

It can rightly be said that every apostasy which has taken place since the establishment of the church had its genesis either in a misunderstanding of, or rejection of, the principles of divine authority.  Whether we refer to the gradual changes of the first several centuries which led to the establishment of the Catholic church, the imperfect efforts of the Reformers, the failures of the Restoration movement as it splintered with the introduction of the Missionary Society and instrument, or the embrace of human institutions in the 1940′s and 1950′s, the digressions came as men set aside the authority of God for their own designs and innovations.

The modernist who denies the inspiration of scripture has rejected the Divine Hermeneutics.  The denominationalist who tolerates multiples belief systems with the attitude that sincerity is sufficient has rejected the Divine Hermeneutics.  Those who augment the word of God with creeds, whether written or unwritten, have rejected the Divine Hermeneutics.  Those among our brethren who are clamoring for a “new hermeneutics” do so because they have rejected the patterns established by the Divine Hermeneutics.

All of these are worthy of exposure and refutation.  However, there are other prevelant attitudes which strike closer to home among the people of God.  These are addressed in the second section of our theme issue.

• Donnie Rader, in his article “Legalism” documents and refutes a common departure from the Divine Hermeneutics.  Some brethren, under a false guise of conservatism, do as the Pharisees and bind the traditions of men upon others.  To do so is as sinful as the liberal error commonly noted as a depature from the authority of God’s word.
• Marc Gibson, in his article “Modernism” not only notes the obvious modernist depatures observed above, but also documents a dangerous trend which can be referred to as incipient expressions of modernism, which exists among Christians.  As brethren become more enamored of higher education, replacing the simplicity of the gospel with the theological flights of fancy that are so prevalent among the “elite” of our society, this danger will become ever more prevalent.
• Jeff S. Smith, in his article “A Gospel/Doctrine Distinction” documents the rise of “Neo-Calvinistic” thought among Christians, who seek to make a distinction between Gospel and Doctrine.  Though the words are not the same, the idea that the two things, gospel and doctrine, are disparate entities is not true.  Some seek to make the distinction in an attempt to practice a broader fellowship than that allowed by God.  Smith refutes this error in his fine article.
• Finally, Dennis Reed, in his article “Passivism” points out the dangerous apathy among Christians which leads to a toleration of religious error.  Satan is at his strongest when he can convince Christians to ask, “Who cares?”  As brother Reed notes, such an attitude has gained ascendency among some in the church today.

On behalf of our readers, I extend my thanks to these men for their fine work in defending the Divine Hermeneutics, and warning against departures from God’s word.  I commend their efforts to you.

It can be said that no other translation of the Bible has had a greater influence upon literature than the King James version.  The translators were careful to respect the plenary and verbal inspiration of the original autographs, and yet managed a work that is almost poetic in its reading.  Though the English language has changed in the ensuing 400 years, the Bible remains usable and desirable to many believers.

The changes in the English language, however, have made the King James version of the Bible a bit more challenging to read and understand.  The words “avouch”, “bruit”, “collop”, “durst”, “emerods”, “concupiscence,” “greaves” and “wist” all appear in the text, and no doubt are not well understood by the majority of English speakers today.  A search of the Internet revealed a computer based “King James Dictionary” with over 860 archaic or difficult words which can be looked up for definitions and context.

Newer versions of the Bible are challenging the King James version for popularity.  Some of these versions are competent, some are not.  They represent more modern attempts to do the same thing that the translators of the King James did, which was to translate God’s word into a common tongue.  Though some of these efforts do not mirror the careful and respectful treatment of the original tongues that characterized the scholarship that produced the King James version, some do, and are worthy of consideration.

It must be recognized that the term Authorized Version, commonly used for the King James Version of the scripture, simply indicates that the version was the one authorized by the King of England, and has no special standing as the acceptable or preferred English version before God.  In fact, as the language changed, the King James version itself underwent several revisions.  The two most significant revisions took place in 1762 and 1769.  A recent revision, which was finished in 1982 has resulted in what is now referred to as the New King James Version.  In the preface of the New King James Version, the translators stated the following:

“Students of the Bible applaud the timeless devotional character of our historic Bible.  Yet it is also universally understood that our language, like all living languages, has undergone profound change since 1611.  Subsequent revisions of the King James Bible have sought to keep abreast of changes in English speech.  The present work is a further step toward this objective.  Where obsolescence and other reading difficulties exist, present-day vocabulary, punctuation, and grammar have been carefully integrated…”

Further, regarding the New King James version, the translators stated:

“Readers of the Authorized Version will immediately be struck by the absence of several pronouns: thee, thou, and ye are replaced by the simple you, while your and yours are substituted for thy and thine as applicable. Thee, thou, thy and thine were once forms of address to express a special relationship to human as well as divine persons.  These pronouns are no longer part of our language.  However, reverence for God in the present work is preserved by capitalizing pronouns, including You, Your, and Yours, which refer to Him…”

The explanatory comments, as well as the changes themselves are indicative of a simple truth — that living languages change.

An Unfortunate Reality

Unfortunately, some are rather superficial in their understanding of these matters, and are guilty of binding upon men the archaic language of the King James Bible.  We are aware of some who exalt the King James version as the only acceptable English version of the Bible.  There is no legitimate argument for this, but tradition can be a strong motivation for binding the opinions of men (cf. Matthew 15:9).

It is interesting that the translators of the King James version did not consider their work to have any ascendant place.  Following is a quote from The Revised New Testament and History of Revision, Edited by Isaac H. Hall:

“The title-page speaks of this version [the 1611 KJV, SC] as being ‘with the former translations diligently compared and revised.’ In their address to the readers, the translators themselves say: ‘Truly, we never thought, from the beginning … that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one.’ Speaking of this acknowledgment, Dr. Krauth, of the present version committee, says: ‘Without this confession, the Authorized Version would tell its own story. It is only necessary to compare it with the older versions, to see that with much that is original, with many characteristic beauties, in some of which no other translation approaches it, it is yet in the main a revision. Even its original beauties are often the mosaic of an exquisite combination of the fragments of the older. Comparing it with the English exemplars it follows, we must say it is not the fruit of their bloom, but the ripeness of their fruit.’”

To today give special ascendancy to the King James Version is to reserve for it a place its translators never intended for it to have.

Additionally, we are aware of the occasional contention that pronoun references to God must be in the archaic forms of the past, i.e. Thee, Thy and Thou, which are characteristic of the King James version.  Appeals are made to reverence and respect, and may serve to sway the unlearned to bind such traditions upon others.  While the arguments may have some emotional appeal, a careful examination of them shows them to be specious.

We agree that the terms have a certain poetic and reverential connotation.  We would not discourage their use in prayer as we address our Father, either by young or old.  However, to take the further step of binding their use upon others is to go too far, as some have done.  To illustrate this point, note the following anecdote.

As a young man I remember well a challenge made by a peculiar man after a gospel meeting at the old Westridge congregation in Odessa, TX.  He had attended our meeting, and asked to speak with the men after the congregation, to correct us in an unscriptural practice.  After the service was over, a few of the men stayed, and he spoke to us, contending that we were disobeying God by not addressing Him by His Hebrew name, and His Son by the same.  His contention was that the correct pronunciation was “Yah-Weh”, rather than Jehovah, and that God would accept no other pronunciation.

Brother Jay Bowman, conversant with the Hebrew language, noted that the Hebrew language was devoid of vowels, (the Hebrew equivalent to Jehovah would be found in the consonants YWHW), and so the actual pronunciation would be unknown to modern man.  The man persisted in his contention however, basing his pronunciation upon the preface of his Bible, where the commentator opined that the above pronunciation “might have been” the way ancient Jews pronounced the name of God.  In effect, the man was basing his entire argument upon the opinion of man.  He was binding where God had not.

The Pharisees of the New Testament did the same.  They established their own traditions, and bound them upon others.  Jesus said of them:

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.  Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.” (Matthew 23:13-15).

Stated clearly, there is no scriptural instruction regarding the use of pronouns in the English or any other language.  Further, we have the divine example of Jesus and His disciples utilizing the common translation of their day, the Septuagint [Greek version of the Old Testament].  Any argumentation to the contrary has as its basis what men have determined or decided.  To acquiesce to their faulty reasoning  is to allow them to “to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus” (cf. Galatians 2:4).  Those who seek to bind their conscience in this matter upon others are subject to the same condemnation as that given by Jesus to the religious legalists of his day:

“And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matthew 15:9).

Conclusion

There are numerous parallels from scripture which show the invalid nature of binding the traditions of men.  The Pharisees believed the disciples of Jesus to have been “irreverent” in eating with unwashed hands (cf. Mark 7:2-8).  It was in this context that Jesus condemned their vain worship, “For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men” (vs. 8).  The Judaizing teachers likewise sought to bind (circumcision) where God had not.  Paul would not stand for it, saying, “Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you” (Galatians 2:3-5).

If it is that you are constrained by conscience to continue to use these archaisms, fine.  “Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves” (Romans 14:22).  However, “Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand” (Romans 14:4).  Therefore, “…Let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way” (Romans 14:13).

The series initially was printed in the local bulletin I edit for the West Side congregation here in Fort Worth.  Because of the format of the bulletin, the articles were not long, and it was not my intention for them to be particularly “in-depth.”  I was aiming for a general, concise discussion of the issue, and judging from the generous feedback I received concerning the material, some at least were satisfied with the effort.

Many of our readers are no doubt aware of a facet of the issue which is currently being discussed.  Jeff Belknap and some of like mind have accused Ron Halbrook, Harry Osborne and others of teaching error.  Belknap has his name associated with the single issue, at the following URL:  jeffbelknap.com.  A debate took place between Bill Reeves and Joel Gwin in Hopkinsville, KY in mid-July.  Reeves charts and the entire debate in audio form are available at Tim Haile’s, Bible Banner site.  Gwin has published his 52 debate charts at Belknap’s site as well.  Our readers are encouraged to examine the material. As time allows I assure you I intend to carefully examine it myself.

It is not surprising that in light of such current dispute, the negative response I received to my writings surrounded two articles in the series, entitled Mental Divorce and A Race to the Courthouse.  Interestingly, I received criticism  from both sides of the issue.  I could state (disingenously) that since individuals from “both extremes” have criticized, that I must have gotten it right in my articles.  We all know that is not necessarily true.  However, it may be!  In any issue that divides brethren, it is necessarily true that someone must be wrong.  Truth is objective, and if one brother is affirming a particular position, and another denies it, both cannot be right.  However, both can be wrong.  We must be careful that we do not allow ourselves, in response to perceived error, to be taken to an opposite extreme that is likewise without scriptural merit.

No one has asked to review the material I published in the June issue of Watchman.  One brother kindly took issue with me in a private post, and I am at present carefully studying his letter to me.  Another brother, after considering my offer to publish a rebuttal, responded, “I’ve decided against responding to your article, at least for now.  The reason is that though we differ on what constitutes a divorce, that is not the critical issue.”  A third individual, David McKee has posted a response to my material on Jeff Belknap’s website.  I will note his response further later in this article.

In the 45 issues we have published of Watchman Magazine,  I am aware of four which have had as their theme the Divorce & Remarriage dispute.  In August of  1998 brother Larry Fain edited a general treatment of the subject.  In May of 1999 brother Dennis Reed wrote an article introducing a series of sermon transcripts preached in 1958 on the subject in Palatka, FL.  Among those sermons where truth was preached, Homer Hailey advocated his false position as well.  The transcripts were published in the issue.  The January 2002 issue of Watchman contains a written debate between Harry Osborne and Terance Sheridan on the facet of the issue we referenced above.  Finally, the last issue of the magazine contains my treatment of the subject.  Other single articles, and references within articles constitute a good representation of teaching on the issue.  I try to make sure that Watchman is balanced, and contains articles which will constitute a teaching of the “whole counsel” of God.  I doubt that I am able to do so to the satisfaction of all (such is the lot of the editor), but surely it can not be said that this particular subject has been neglected.

Some have desired that I expound further on the current dispute.  I think perhaps some are more desirous that I endorse a position, rather than being satisfied with what I have written.  After receiving the criticism, I have looked again at the material I penned, and am confident that I have been consistent and forthcoming.  As forthcoming as I believe I can be regarding what the scripture teaches.  I have no desire to engage in speculation regarding processes and possible scenarios.  I will succinctly recount here the positions I advocated in those two articles.

Mental Divorce

The “mental divorce” position as it has been traditionally defined is not defensible from scripture.  I used material from brother Donnie Rader’s book, Divorce and Remarriage:  What Does the Text Say as an example of the position.  In the book, brother Rader does a fine job of refuting the position. A debate proposition that brother Rader published in his material, which “mental divorce” advocates  had defended is as follows:

The scriptures teach that the innocent person (free of fornication) who has been put away without God’s or his/her approval and against whom adultery has been committed may remarry.

I believe the proposition to not be in accord with the scriptures.  In the article I called for a respect for the silence of scripture.  In the last paragraph I wrote, “As there is nothing said in scripture of the put away person remarrying, we must not advocate it in our teaching and practice… May we all respect God’s word on the matter.”

Race to the Courthouse

In the article Race to the Courthouse, I discussed the specific position which Terence Sheridan defended in his written debate with Harry Osborne (Jan. 2002 Watchman).  The proposition Sheridan affirmed is:

The scriptures teach that biblical putting away is synonymous with the civil procedure for divorce in one’s respective society and that the innocent one must secure that civil divorce in order to have a right to remarry.

Brother Osborne, in my estimation, did a fine job of refuting Sheridan’s proposition.  In my article, I pointed out three things which show the logical and scriptural fallacy of such a position.  It: 1) Subjugates the Divine to the Civil; 2) Confuses the Cause with the Procedure; and 3) Demands a Specific where God has not specified.

Additionally, I contended that a rejection of the above proposition did not make an individual a “mental divorce” advocate.  Further, while I recognize that some could not in good conscience remarry if they had not initiated the procedure itself, I called for tolerance (cf. Romans 14:12) as each responded to their own conscience in the matter.

Honor in Controversy

Whenever a Christian makes known his position on any controversial issue there are consequences.  It matters not if the position is truth or error.  False teachers are rightly exposed and refuted, and opponents of truth will often excoriate those who uphold the scriptures.  Our Lord suffered death at the hands of the Jews though he was sinless.  It is to be expected that the worldly will engage in such ungodliness.  However, whenever Christians disagree all should behave honorably.  Too often this does not happen.

When brethren behave dishonorably, the one who is the object of such treatment is put in a difficult position.  If he remains silent, the treatment goes unanswered, and some are influenced to believe the attacks of the dishonorable.  If he complains about the treatment, he is perceived as a whiner who “can’t take the heat.”  If he answers the hobbyist, he is likely to end up as did Brer Rabbit who got all entangled in the tar baby.  For every paragraph he writes, he is answered by a fusillade from the man and those like him.  To the sectarian (cf. 1 Corinthians 3), by not lining up with Paul, he is lining up with Peter.

David McKee, titled his response to my series of articles, “One Man, One Woman, For a Lifetime, With One Exception” (The wolf in sheep’s clothing).  In his review, he wrote:

I invite the reader’s careful attention to the following statement: “One man, one woman, for a lifetime, with one exception.”  On the surface, one might think the statement deserves a hearty, “amen” as it accords with the will of God.  But upon examining the writings and teachings of some who are making this statement, it becomes clear that while the statement may be in accord with the will of God, their teaching is not.

The phrase “One man, one woman, for a lifetime, with one exception” should indeed be “amened”, because it does accord with truth. The rest of McKee’s statement is fair enough.  If he believes me to be teaching error, then he has the right to characterize my teaching in such a way.  Also fair is the fact that he takes issue with my contention that the term “put away” in scripture is not tied inextricably to the civil procedure in any particular society.  This is a legitimate area of disagreement between us.

He is unfair, however, in several claims he makes about my position.  In fact, he attributes positions to me that I do not hold; positions that are, in fact, opposite of those I took in the very material he is reviewing.  Note the following paragraphs in his review:

What brother Cox would have us accept is the belief that since the actions of sinful men and women cannot alter “God’s established rule for marriage” – “one man, one woman, for a lifetime, with one exception,” then their actions can be ignored.  What he would have us end up believing is that the innocent wife who is put away against her wishes, who maintains her marriage obligations, may put away her ex-mate upon his subsequent fornication and remarry.  Brother Cox would argue that she followed the rule and the man did not, so his actions do not count and are not to be recognized.  Unfortunately for the woman, and contrary to what brother Cox argues, our Lord recognizes the husband’s action as sinful and identifies her re-marriage as adulterous.  (Underlining emphasis mine, SC)

In reality, I do not argue this, and in fact argued the opposite.  Note what I wrote in my article entitled, Mental Divorce.

“For those who have divorced (without just cause, SC) there are only two possibilities, celibacy or reconciliation.  The mental divorce advocates champion a third position, the “waiting game”, which is unsubstantiated from scripture.  That is, if I divorce without cause, I can wait for my former sopuse to remarry, divorce her mentally, and then remarry.”

“As there is nothing said in scripture of the put away person remarrying, we must not advocate it in our teaching and practice.  This position, as the others mentioned previously, all do violence to the basic principle of God’s law on marriage, one man, one woman, for a lifetime.  May we all respect God’s word on the matter.

What McKee writes I “would have us accept” and “would argue”, I, in fact, have never argued and don’t believe.

You may note also that at the end of the quote, McKee writes:

“Contrary to what brother Cox argues, our Lord recognizes the husband’s action as sinful and identifies her re-marriage as adulterous.”

In fact, what I actually argued:

“Thus, if two individuals divorce and remarry, the bond is not broken.  They do not have the right to their new spouses, as they are still bound by God to one another… For those who have divorced there are only two possibilities, celibacy or reconciliation.”

There are several possibilities that may explain why brother McKee would make these false claims about my material.  One is that he did not carefully read the material.  Perhaps he looked only at the article Race to the Courthouse, and assumed that I believed what he attributed to me.  However, that would not explain why he would claim I argued a position I never argued.  Perhaps brother McKee does not have the maturity to rightly discern the positions taken.  Perhaps he has the sectarian mentality.  He may consider himself part of a party, and believe that since I am not of his party, I must be of another.  He may be a disreputable fellow, unconcerned with the rightness of tactics, determined only to smear, destroy and obfuscate.  Regardless, I can not imagine a single honorable reason for such treatment.

Why do I bring this up?  Let me state clearly.  First, not to gain sympathy.  I care not what men think.  As Paul said, “For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ” (Galatians 1:10).  If I stand righteous before God, it matters not what others think about me.  Second, not to gain apology.  I had a conflict with brother Belknap in the past, as he used likewise unrighteous tactics in his altered publication of the debate between Osborne and Sheridan.  I called upon him to repent of his tactics at that time, and encouraged those who believed as he did to admonish him for his inappropriate actions.  None did, rather dismissing the complaint out of hand.  I do not harbor any allusions that McKee will apologize, though the misrepresentation is blatant.  Rather, I publicly reveal the misrepresentations in order that others may know that his claims are false.  If I am to be admonished as a false teacher, I wish the doctrine to actually be mine.  To be accused falsely and suffer the commensurate loss of effectiveness in preaching our Lord’s gospel is something I wish to avoid.

A Direct Application

I can almost hear some out there saying, “But what about you!”  I am aware of the claims of misrepresentation, unfair treatment and schismatic behavior of the “watchdogs.”  Some have claimed that there is a “Watchman Society”, and that those who are holding the line against error are guilty of “biting and devouring.”

My only answer to that is, “Show me where such mistreatment has taken place.”  It may be that you can.  If you can find in the archives of Watchman examples of misrepresentation, document them and we will make acknowledgement.  If you can find arguments “against the man”, where we impugn motives or make personal attacks, show us where.  If you can show where in dealing with controversy, and refuting error, we have acted dishonorably, we will repent publicly.  However, understand that controversy in the defense of truth is an honorable practice.  Jude said, “I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (vs. 3).  Such a “contending” is right.  It is right to point out the inconsistencies in a man’s argument.  It is right to name those who poison the minds of the brethren with their error, (as did Paul).  It is right to contend publicly with public error and sin.  It is not always pleasant, but it is right.

In contrast, it is never right to impugn the motive of any man.  It is not right to falsely accuse, and attribute positions which have not been argued.  Anger is inappropriate, as is hatred, pride and arrogance.

I am convinced that the men who are the most visible in their treatment of such error have acted righteously.  They have been careful in documenting charges, centering on the issue rather than the man, and speaking plainly in love.  It may be, however, that others have not followed their lead.  If that is so, those who have acted in a dishonorable way should be ashamed.  They have become a hindrance to the truth.  They are worthy of admonition.

No matter the issue.  No matter the position.  No matter the “side” you find yourself on.  As Christians we must act with honor.

“Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation” (1 Peter 2:11-12).

“For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men; as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king” (1 Peter 2:15-17).

Another area of disagreement is found regarding the true designation of a false teacher.  Some limit the term to those who are dishonest in heart.  They take the description of the false teacher in 2 Peter 2, which describes false teachers as being willful, and deceitful, as excluding a brother who teaches error, but who himself is sincere and honest.  Others, rightfully I believe, identify the false teacher by his doctrine, and believe God desires us to judge his works rather than his heart (cf. Acts 17:11; 1 John 4:1).

Those conversant with the controversy are aware of its genesis in the defense of Homer Hailey in the late 1980′s.  Ed Harrell, in the November 1988 issue of Christianity Magazine, gave his written, "personal defense of Homer Hailey as a man who has earned the respect and esteem of the Christians in our time."  He rightly described Hailey as one who "believes that those who are baptized into Christ may remain in their present marital state."  Of course, that statement would be inclusive of those who have divorced and remarried outside of the parameters set by Jesus in Matthew 19:9.  Harrell wrote of Hailey, "I judge him to be one of the most godly and learned men I have ever known.", and with that estimation of Hailey’s character wrote, "In my mind, that is not the stuff of which false teachers are made."  Harrell attempted to give a scriptural rationale for his defense in his series of articles, beginning in February 1989, entitled The Bounds of Christian Unity.

Though it might be a matter of dispute as to whether the present views held by many in regard to fellowship are a direct result of thinking too highly of a particular individual, it is rather obvious that the genesis of the issue centers  upon the defense of Hailey as a man worthy of Christian fellowship.  Many stubbornly held to their fellowship of the man until the time of his death, despite his subsequent published work on the subject, The Divorced and Remmarried Who Would Come to God, publihsed in 1991.

After Hailey’s death, another manuscript has been published, God’s Judgment and Punishments, Nations and Individuals, in which Hailey has taken the position that the soul of the wicked ceases to exist, as it is destroyed in hell.  This false position (cf. 2 Thessalonians 1:9), is another example of a departure from God’s Word by this well respected man.

As the years have passed, a mindset has developed among some Christians that is very tolerant of doctrinal error, and critical of those who would publicly expose it and stand against it.  Some mimic Harrell, claiming such refutation of error as being "unheroic" attacks against godly men.  Others simply do not want to hear about it at all.  Some go on the attack themselves, talking about "secret watchdog societies", a "new Phariseeism", and judging the hearts of those who defend truth.  Another group seeks to minimize error as being "matters that are non-essential" to our Christian fellowship.  Regardless of the rationale, it is indicative of a mindset Paul warned Timothy about in 2 Timothy 4:3-4, "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."

It is interesting that the attitudes that have developed over the last 15 years do not mirror the published views of Homer Hailey regarding the treatment of error and the errorist.  I quote a passage from Hailey’s Comment (Vol. 2), compiled and published in 1985.  The context of the quote is found in the contrast Hailey makes between Catholicism, Protestantism, and Christianity.  He rightfully points out that the failures of Catholicism and Protestantism are found in the man-made errors they espouse.  The Catholic claims the Bible is insufficient.  The Protestant superficially claims to accept the authority of Christ and the Bible, yet preaches that sincerity is sufficient, thus making every man his own standard.  In contrast to these erroneous concepts, Hailey discusses Christianity:

Christianity

The solution to the whole problem of today, as of all days, is Christianity.  But Christianity can counteract the blighting effects of Catholicism and Protestantism only as it is preached in a definite and positive way.  Christianity recognizes the all-inclusive authority of Christ; the all-sufficiency and completeness of the scriptures; the Holy Spirit as the revealer and infallible interpreter of truth; and the Bible as the only perfect rule of conduct.  Its doctrine is the doctrine of Christ, which will transform lives, reform society, and hold up a definite standard and hope toward which to strive.

Correction of the present situation can be realized only as error is uprooted.  Error can be uprooted only as every false doctrine is exposed and proved false, and the thoughts of men’s hearts are brought into captivity to Christ. This demands preaching, and much preaching; preaching from a firm and unshakable conviction in the power of truth to uproot and save.  Preaching that plants the same conviction and love for truth and right in the hearts of others.

"It demands that both those preaching and those believing the things preached live the principles in their own lives.  It demands an uncompromising and unflinching spirit of self-sacrifice and self-forgetfulness on the part of all Christians. Let the church awaken to this truth, and both preachers and congregations set themselves to the mighty task before us, of dethroning error and sin, both of Catholicism and Protestantism.  It is silly to waste time in so-called "Unity Meetings" when, unless the error of digression and rebellion against God’s law is uprooted, the thing must end in compromise.  Quit apologizing for certain false teachers among our number, but expose their error as readily as that of any other. Quit trying to find some ground on which we can fellowship sectarians in Ministerial Alliances, love feasts, and such; and a loop-hole through which we may encourage them in their believe that they are saved, somehow, in their error.  Having ceased these things, then concentrate our efforts, and legitimate instruments such as periodicals and colleges to one definite end: the complete uprooting of false doctrine and sin, and the establishing of Christ’s principles in the hearts of men.  When this becomes the definite task of this generation, a different  harvest will be the blessing of our children in the generation to come."  (Hailey’s Comments 2, pages 656-657.  All emphasis mine, SC)

The discerning reader will note that Hailey’s call to expose error through preaching makes no distinction between the error which exists "without", and that which is among us.  Contrary to those who apologized for him, Hailey’s call was to "Quit apologizing for certain false teachers among our number, but expose their error as readily as that of any other."  Further, you may note that Hailey advocated as a legitimate and desirable thing the utilization of such instruments as periodicals and colleges to the "uprooting of false doctrine and sin."  It is perhaps a bitter irony to those who are presently advocating such a timid treatment of false doctrine that a primary one they defend does not agree with their tactics.

How is the teacher of error to be treated?  Hailey had it right on this one.  We should, "concentrate our efforts, and legitimate instruments such as periodicals and colleges to one definite end: the complete uprooting of false doctrine and sin, and the establishing of Christ’s principles in the hearts of men."  In the pursuit of truth, again Hailey states, "Quit apologizing for certain false teachers among our number, but expose their error as readily as that of any other."

As Paul wrote to Timothy and warned of those who would not endure sound doctrine, he clearly established what must be done, "Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching" (2 Timothy 4:2).  It is valid to watch for, and root out error.  It is valid to expose the false teacher, and establish truth in the hearts of men.  Though in so doing we will feel the wrath of those who seek compromise rather than victory, we must continue to "Convince, rebuke, exhort."

"I have set watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; They shall never hold their peace day or night. You who make mention of the LORD, do not keep silent…" (Isaiah 62:6).

The home is under attack in our day. The nuclear family, designed by God, is no longer the norm. Homes broken by divorce, single parent families, and even homosexual unions are accepted in society. As more and more children are disadvantaged by such circumstances, juvenile delinquency, alcohol and drug use, and promiscuous activity increases. These trends have had a very definite and deleterious effect on the fabric of our society.

As Christians are “in the world”, but not to be “of the world” (cf. John 15:19), we need to be inoculated against such ungodliness. There is a need to learn again, (and to teach our children), God’s will concerning the home.

While the articles in this series on the home are by no means exhaustive, they are intended to give an overview of God’s teaching. I suppose a book could be written on each topic covered in the series. It is my prayer that the brief treatments given in each article will be an encouragement to Christians to delve more deeply into God’s will on this important matter. The premise of the series is simple, God must be the primary focus of the home! Our roles, duties and attitudes toward the home must be fashioned through the filter of the divine.

The articles in this series are being run concurrently in the local bulletin where I preach. As such, they are a bit more brief than the usual article in Watchman, and are rather uniform in length. You are welcome (even encouraged) to reprint these articles in local bulletins, or wherever you believe they may be helpful.

This does not mean that there is no evidence as to the existence of God.  Indeed there is. "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead" (Romans 1:20).  The argument of design is one that cannot be successfully refuted by those who deny God’s existence.  If there is no designer, why does structure and organization abound in the physical universe?  Why is it "cosmos" (ordered) rather than "chaos"?  Design demands a designer.

An article in the December 2002 issue of Wired Magazine entitled The New Convergence: Science + Religion, notes that scientists are becoming increasingly more willing to consider the possibility of the supernatural as an explanation of the ordered universe.  Why?  Because the more they learn about the way the universe works, the less tenable the idea becomes that "blind chance" can be the driving force behind all that exists.

Some scientists, though not strictly Bible believers, have allowed that the universe demands a designer.  Albert Einstein is famous for the quote, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."  The famous astronomer Fred Hoyle in 1953 calculated the conditions necessary to create carbon (a necessary building block of life).  He believed the odds of this occurring by chance to be so phenomenally low that he converted from atheism to a belief that the universe reflects a "purposeful intelligence."  Notice the following quote about Hoyle from the previously mentioned article, written by Gregg Easterbrook:

Hoyle declared, "the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd."  That is to say, Hoyle’s faith in chance was shaken by evidence of purpose, a reversal of the standard postmodern experience, and one shared by many of his successors today.

Of course, not all scientists are jumping on the supernatural bandwagon.  Many scientists continue to look for an explanation of how chance could have led to an ordered universe, supporting life.  A leading theory propounded by many of these scientists is stated by Easterbrook as "the emerging theory of the multiverse, or multiple universes."  The basic theory is that the "Big Bang" was not a unique event.  The claim is made that "Universes bang into existence all the time, by the billions.  It just happens in dimensions we can’t see."

Here we find a delicious irony.  Scientists make fun of the Christian’s belief in what we cannot see, as we accept God by faith.  They determine that the evidence supplied by nature which testifies to a designer is an insufficient basis for such faith, and thus we are intellectually deficient, relying on "hocus pocus" rather than reason.  Then, they attempt to explain the same structure using a theory that has no support either from the scientific method, or from the observance of the natural world.  Consider:

1. They must assume that Big Bangs happen all the time, becuase no one has ever observed one.

2. They must assume the existence of such universes, because their theory demands their existence, though there is no physical evidence of them.
3. They must assume that these universes exist in "alternate dimensions" because there is no evidence that other dimensions (beyond the familiar four dimensions that are readily observed) are even possible.

Physicist Charles Townes, in discussing this theory, has said that speculation about billions of invisible universes "strikes me as much more freewheeling than any of the church’s claims."  The major proponent of this theory, Stanford researcher Andrei Linde, admits that we can’t observe or verify other universes in any way; for that matter we can’t even explain how they might occupy alternate dimensions.

Evolutionists are quick to claim for themselves the realm of reason.  They seek to contrast their "hard science" with the "superstitious" and "closed minded" believers of the Genesis account of creation.  But, while the Bible believer holds to the existence of an invisible first cause whose work can be seen in the visible cosmos, the atheistic evolutionist is forced to believe in multiple universes for which there is no evidence of existence whatsoever.  Further they must admit that not only is the evidence lacking, but it will never be possible to verify it in any way.  In effect, it must be accepted by blind faith.

Contrast the unreasoning speculations of the atheistic evolutionist with the beautiful words of the Psalmist, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork.  Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge.  There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard" (Psalm 19:1-3).

It is not unreasonable to believe that God exists and that He designed the universe.  Amazingly, even the scientists are beginning to figure it out!