The world is watching, and not really understanding what is taking place in regard to religious icons, people’s faith systems, and what is the truth!  Truth works to destroy what is false by attacking the error in the hearts of people, not by simply attacking the icons of that error.  You might physically destroy an idol, but the teachings and faith system attached to the idol will not be destroyed in the minds of those that serve that idol.  It takes the gospel in the heart of an individual to help them recognize the difference between what is genuine and what is counterfeit. 2 Corinthians 10:3-5.

Honest people have always been convinced that Error is the only thing that shuns or hides from open and honest investigation.  Burning one single Quran or a thousand Qurans will never stop that belief system any more than burning a Bible, or a thousand Bibles would destroy the faith one might have in Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.

Let us consider the Bible and its teachings when dealing with error.   Jesus taught those who follow His teachings to first obey His will above the will of self.   “But, I say to you, love your enemies, and do good to those who hate you, and pray for those that spitefully use you, and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” Matthew 5:44-45.  Please consider the teachings of Jesus in comparison to those claiming to lift Christ Jesus up by burning Qurans!  Is burning Qurans doing good to those who hate you?   Is it praying for those who use you spitefully and persecute you?   Is it following the example of our heavenly Father toward the evil and unjust?  No, it is not.

Paul taught in Romans 12:21, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”  New Testament Christians will not be a part of something as offensive to Islam as burning a Quran.   Imagine Paul trying to reach the Ephesians who were crying out, “great is Diana of the Ephesians,” by burning a statue of their goddess Diana!

Imagine, if you can, trying to study with someone of the Catholic faith concerning the teachings of Catholicism by first burning in their presence a Madonna holding a baby representing Jesus? 

One cannot win over anyone to truth by first provoking them with an act of hate and hostility.  What fellowship does light have with darkness?   What dark actions could ever radiate the light of God’s word?  “This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.  If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth” 1 John 1:5-6.

The mature in heart are aware of their actions toward those they oppose, and they take into consideration the souls of these people.  Paul taught in Colossians 4:5-6, “Walk in wisdom toward those who are outside, redeeming the time.  Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one.”

Christian friends, how are we overcoming evil with good by dishonoring an icon that a religious people holds in high esteem?  Our weapons are not carnal, but of a spiritual nature.  Didn’t Paul teach those Christians in Rome, “Repay no one evil for evil.  Have regard for good things in the sight of all men”[?] Romans 12:17  Look at what Paul wrote to those Christians in Corinth, “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” 2 Corinthians 10:4.

Christians are first and foremost citizens of the kingdom of Heaven, and secondly citizens of an earthly nation or kingdom. Colossians 1:13   We need to remember our allegiance is first to Christ Jesus the Lord and God His Father.  Ephesians 2:19-22

Let us not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good!

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.

 In the days when Jesus walked the earth, the Roman Empire ruled the world. The glory of Rome was not so much its political structure but rather its vast army. Conquering anything in their path, then maintaining peace in that conquered land was a skill unique to the Romans. After Jesus had delivered His sermon on the mount, he entered Capernaum to find a centurion asking Him to heal his servant, who was paralyzed (Matthew 8:5-13). A centurion is a Roman captain who is in charge of 100 men. This centurion knew that Jesus could just say the word, and his servant would be healed. He says, “Lord, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof. But only speak a word, and my servant will be healed.”  Even though this man was a soldier in the Roman army, Jesus marveled at him, and claimed that he had “great faith”. This man was only one of two people that Jesus said this to, the other being the Syro-Phoenician woman (Mark 8:24-30). We have other examples in the scriptures where soldiers showed a great faith towards God. In Acts 10, we find a man named Cornelius who is praying to God. Luke describes Cornelius as a devout man, one who feared God with his entire household, and gave alms generously, while praying to God always. You would be hard pressed to find even a Jew who could be described as Cornelius was! Nevertheless, he was a Gentile soldier, and Peter was sent to preach to him the gospel. Being this man of faith, Cornelius obeyed with his entire household, being baptized into Christ (Galatians 3:27). Cornelius is now a Christian, but he also is now a Christian who is serving in the military.

 One always needs to remember that no matter what the situation may look like, God is always in control. It was He who “…in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.” (Hebrews 1:10) Paul would preach to those at Athens, that it is, “in Him we live and move and have our being..” (Acts 17:28). So in all this, what makes us think that God somehow in fact is not in control of our government? The scriptures make it very plain that government is ordained and created by God for a specific purpose. Romans 13:1 says, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.” So when a soldier enlists in the army or some other branch of the armed forces, they are now under the organization that God established, and by that under His authority. What is the purpose of this government that God created? “For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil” (Romans 13:4). So God has ordained government to create an order of things for us as mankind, and they have the authority to execute wrath on those who do evil.

 So when a soldier enlists in the armed forces, whether they are a Christian or not, they are now under the God-given government rule of this country. When a regular civilian goes and kills someone in this nation, it is murder. They have broken that law that says one cannot murder. However, when a soldier is given orders to go out on a government mandated mission, he is God’s minister, and an avenger to execute wrath on those who practice evil, and neither he nor any other soldier bears the sword in vain.

 A soldier gives up many things to serve his or her nation. The bible speaks how we need to pray for those men and women, as well as all our government authorities. (1 Timothy 2:1-3) In the days of the Roman Empire, Paul encouraged Timothy to pray for those who were in ruling positions, that they may make good choices to allow those living within empire to have a peaceful and quiet life. So is also our prayer in these modern times. Peter would write that we be in submission to every ordinance of man, this is for the Lord’s sake. (1 Peter 2:13).

 To answer the question posed at the beginning, yes, Christians can serve in the military, for when they do they are under the ordinance of God. They become an avenger of His wrath on those who do evil. May we always hold respect and honor toward those men and women who serve our nation in this way.

We are not going to be able to rely on our smooth words or lavish looks when it comes to entering into heaven, it is going to be how well we followed God’s commandments for us. Obedience to the things God has spoken is an absolute must! Jesus would say in His conclusion to the sermon on the mount, “Therefore whoever hears these saying of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock, and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.” Now who does this reckon to? It is the person who hears of the things of God and obeys them. Now listen to what Jesus says of the disobedient. “But everyone who hears these saying of Mine and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand, and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, and it fell. And great was its fall” (Matthew 7:24-27). To all those who do not adhere to what the bible says, there will be no room for them in the kingdom of God.

God’s word in this country has become something that can be compared to what the Athenians of old used to take hobby in. To them, everything was discussion and philosophy. When Paul spoke boldly at the Areopagus in Athens, preaching the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the reaction to his sermon was one of mockery and unimportance. They wanted to take Paul’s words and discuss them, think to themselves what kind of doctrine this was, and assign a philosophy to it. Such was their nature being Epicureans and Stoics. (Acts 17:18) For them there was no conviction within Paul’s words, no necessity to obey these things, just another doctrine to philosophy about. Yet this attitude towards God’s word remains even today. More and more are falling into the trap that the bible is discussible, and we are all able to reach different conclusions on it. Such is not the way we should ever approach the instructions of the Almighty God! The prophet Isaiah reads, “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are My ways your ways, says the Lord.” We as human beings are on a totally different level than God, for the prophet goes on to say, “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways.” When we take on the attitude that the bible is something that is discussible in such a way that we can all have differing views on it, putting our own human intuition into it, we bring the Lord and the things He has commanded us and bring them down to our level. We make ourselves equal with God when we think we need to change what He has said, or take on a disrespectful attitude with the scriptures, turning it into theology and not authoritative commands. That is not our place! Nor has it ever been, it remains with God’s word as Peter once told Simon concerning spiritual gifts, “you have neither part nor portion in this matter.”

When we take the bible and turn it into a common book of this world, we have sinned and not given the proper recognition to God. Jesus says, “For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He come in the glory of His Father with the holy angels” (Mark 8:38). Taking a look at the bible and breaking it up into sections of what we want to follow and what we want to steer clear of puts one into the category of those who are ashamed of Jesus. We have in our modern bibles two colors of font. For the words of Jesus, a red font is used, and for everything else the standard black font is used. But there are those that want to have the red words be more authoritative than the black words. They take the words of Christ and say we have to agree on those, but everything else is up for discussion. They turn parts of the bible into theology and not the written word of God! Yet, Paul states that all scripture is given by inspiration, and also that all scripture is profitable. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Therefore, our attitude toward towards the scriptures must always remain in such a way where our deep respect for God’s authoritative word never turns into something where human intuition enters into the picture. Let us all take on the attitude of Samuel, who was called by God at night, and when called for a fourth time, Samuel answered, “Speak, for Your servant hears.” Samuel was ready and willing to do all that the Lord commanded him, let us strive to have the same thought in our lives.

Some, desiring to rise above the clouds of controversy in search for a less disagreeable walk with the Lord, try either to ignore issues or at least downplay their importance.  They may deflect a controversial matter with, “I fear we have become too issue oriented.”  Is this more spiritual than resolving the matter in the light of God’s Word?

Issues occur as a result of applying God’s Word.  For example, Paul reveals Jesus’ death blotted out the “bond written in ordinances” in effect “nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14). He then writes, “Let no man therefore judge you in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a Sabbath day. . .” (Colossians 2:16). Paul has a “therefore” in contemplating the effects of Jesus’ death.  He applies the truth regarding Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross creating what we would call an “issue” – the “keeping certain days” issue. To ignore the issue was unacceptable.  One was not allowed to feel spiritually superior by rising above the fray of controversy.   You must not let others judge or condemn you for not keeping the Sabbath days of the Old Law.

By definition, an issue is that which “comes as a consequence; a result”.  Did Paul bring up an issue? Yes! Such occurs as a direct result of applying the Truth of God’s Word.  I guess we could avoid issues if we never applied Scripture to our life.  But how spiritual is that?  Applying Scripture creates a consequent “therefore” in our life.  The result is an issue.

If there were ever brethren who could be accused of being “too issue oriented”, it would be the church in Corinth.  Such issues of following after men (I Corinthians 1-4), failing to withdraw themselves from a fornicating brother (I Corinthians 5), taking fellow Christians to law before unbelievers (I Corinthians 6), perverting the Lord’s supper  (I Corinthians 11), and the improper use of miraculous spiritual gifts (I Corinthians 12-14) were just some of the matters needing to be resolved in Corinth.  In all the rebukes  Paul directs toward the saints in Corinth, being “too issue oriented” is not one of them.  Instead, Paul takes each one in order offering “the commandment of the Lord” for resolving the problems of the issues at hand (I Corinthians 14:37).

The Corinthians did not only have issues, they had questions (I Corinthians 7:1). They sought the truth of God regarding marrying in distressful times, and divorcing an unbeliever. These were issues needing to be resolved. Paul offers God’s wisdom for application to their lives.  However, Paul answered the questions without the additional warning to not be “issue oriented”.   Can we ask questions today, seeking God’s wisdom regarding specific matters in our life without being accused of being “too issue oriented”?

Some suggest that if we just teach the truth and leave what others teach alone, we can avoid needless controversy.  The belief is, we do not need to know what a certain brother teaches if we are grounded in the truth.  If this is the way of God, Peter certainly did not follow it.  While teaching concerning the issue of the Lord’s second coming, he did not just reveal the truth that the coming of the Lord would come as a thief  and therefore be ready by living holy lives, but he warned of what those in error were doing.  They would be “mocking” the idea of Jesus’ return and say, “where is the promise of His coming?” (2 Peter 3:4). Peter did not merely teach the truth regarding the second coming of the Lord,   he defined the error.  Why? “Ye therefore, beloved, knowing these things beforehand, beware lest being carried away with the error of the wicked, ye fall from your own steadfastness” (2 Peter 3:17).

In the midst of accusations of being too issue oriented, we need to remember  issues occur when we apply God’s word to our life.  When some seem to brag on not being issue oriented, one wonders how much distinctive application of Scripture is occurring in their lives. The apostles of our Lord did not shy away from such application, or the consequent issues.  Neither should we.

The Bible reveals the Lord’s concern of the world’s view of His church and saints. When the church and individual saint walks contrary to God’s revealed standards they pave the way for the world’s blasphemy against the Lord and His doctrine. The Christian ought to be concerned about what people of the world think. God’s people can do one of three things in the public’s eye. First, they may make manifest the true church and individual Christian’s identity in all areas of life as they are guided by nothing but the truth. Secondly, they may make manifest a hypocritical approach to Christianity through unauthorized works. Thirdly, the saint of God may show the world a spirit of indifference due to their fear of appearing different. The church and individual saint will have much to do with where those of the world spend their eternity.

We are the World’s Bible

We often sing the 1934 song “The World’s Bible” by J. E. Hamilton. The song is based on 2 Corinthians 3:2-3 where Paul writes, “Ye are our epistle, written in our hearts, known and read of all men; being made manifest that ye are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in tables that are hearts of flesh.” As the song goes, “We are the only Bible the careless world will read… what if the type is crooked? What if the print is blurred?… What if our feet are walking where sin’s allurement is? What if our tongues are speaking of things His life would spurn. How can we hope to help Him and welcome His return?” God’s people are to appear as a literal mirror image of Jesus Christ and the revealed church of the New Testament (Rom. 8:29).

Christians are to be very concerned about the public’s perception of the church and what being a saint is all about. Jesus said,

“Ye are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a lamp, and put it under the bushel, but on the stand; and it shines unto all that are in the house. Even so let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:14-16).

When the Christian is careless with God’s laws and the public’s perception they can cause the name of the Lord to be blasphemed. Unfortunately the world often sees or hears Christians doing or saying sinful things and they conclude, “They are all hypocrites…” or “That is why I don’t go to church.” Our actions and language among those of the world may determine whether or not that lost soul will one day be saved.

Public Perception of the Church

When the world sees the church at work and worship it ought to see the true “pillar and ground of truth” (1 Timothy 3:14-15). Churches that practice unauthorized acts, such as supporting institutions to do its God ordained work, cause the Lord’s name and His doctrine to be blasphemed. Many churches sponsor “Christian” rock concerts, theatrical plays, singles groups, softball teams, conduct community services, and food fest for a “spiritual experience.” When these unauthorized acts are conducted they leave the wrong impression within the minds of the lost and so they will remain lost. The Lord has thereby ordained that the church withdraw from individuals who do not obey His authorized will. When the church does so the world will know that the church does not condone the unlawful actions of individuals (see 1 Corinthians 5:1ff; 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15).

Confusion and faulty expectations of the church reigns supreme in the world. Jesus spoke of the world’s confused expectations of his kingdom, the church, while teaching in the flesh (Matthew 11:11-19; 18:1). Those who look for things from the church that God does not authorize will only be disappointed and further confused. False teachers do nothing but muddy the waters of understanding to the world when they spew out their contaminated words of error on the subject. Divine revelation plainly outlines the identity, organization, work, and worship of the church. God forbid that you or I would give any more fuel to the engine of error that brings about confusion and faulty expectations of the Lord’s church.

Public Perception of the Individual Christian

When the world sees the Christian at work or play they ought to see one who makes it apparent that they are holy (1 Peter 1:15-16) and perfect (Matthew 5:48) as the Lord is holy and perfect. The Christian’s language ought to show forth a heart of purity (see Ephesians 4:29; Colossians 4:6). The Christian’s attire should show a since of shame, modesty, and propriety (Exodus 28:42; Isaiah 20:4; 1 Timothy 2:9-10).

Christian women ought to be concerned about what the world sees them doing. Those who are do nothing gossips are condemned and apt to do grave damage to the name of God (see 1 Timothy 5:14; Titus 2:4-5). Christian women ought to emulate divine revelation’s model woman of Proverbs 31:10-31. Women ought to examine 1 Timothy 5 and Titus 2 for God’s New Testament model woman. Women, and men too for that matter, who refuse to work are not to eat (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12).

The Christian’s marriage ought to exemplify the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Those who divorce their mates for reasons other than adultery or those who marry individuals who have no right to marry commit adultery and cause the name of Jehovah God to be blasphemed (see 2 Samuel 12:14). During Jesus’ day mass confusion reigned over marriage, divorce, and remarriage due to faulty expectations and preconceived ideas of marriage (see Matthew 19:1ff). When the Christian is out of line with God’s word they give the wrong impression to the world as to what God’s laws are. The Christian is not to give an occasion of stumbling to those in the world in any area of life (see 2 Corinthians 6:3).

Christians at the work place ought to be concerned about what their coworkers think of them. The Christian who steals from his employer (Titus 2:10) or will not work (Colossians 22-25) give cause to the name of Jehovah being blasphemed by the unbelievers. The Apostle Paul writes, “Let as many as are servants under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and the doctrine be not blasphemed” (1 Timothy 6:1). Lazy do nothing Christians ought to go to the ant for observation and a learning experience regarding a work ethic (see Proverbs 6:6). Employees who complain or will not work are not exemplifying the conduct and life of God’s elect.

Christians should also direct respect and honor toward those that divine revelation commands us to. Christians who mock, sneer, make fun of, show disdain, are disobedient, and show an overall spirit of disrespect toward government officials (Romans 13:7; 1 Peter 2:17), parents (Ephesians 6:2), employers (1 Timothy 6:1-2), elders in the church (Hebrews 13:17), and all others who hold positions of authority are rebellious. Moses concluded that the man who knows of God and His commands and does them not is a part of an “evil generation.” The evil is in the form of “rebellion” (cf. Deuteronomy 1:26, 43). To rebel is to “refuse allegiance to… to resist or defy an authority… to feel or express strong unwillingness … an act or show of defiance…” (American Heritage Dictionary pp. 1031). The Christian who refuses allegiance, resists, or acts in defiance against those in authority give way to the name of Jehovah God being blasphemed among those in the world.

The Public’s Expectation

There are areas in the Christian’s life where we cannot be concerned with what the world thinks about us. Those areas are our lives of obedience to God’s authoritative will (Acts 5:29). The public’s expectation of God, His church and people is skewed from divine revelation. The world views the church as a benevolent and entertainment society. Spend a few moments talking to your neighbors about “church.” Church is where their children are in leadership training, theatrical events, and learning to play a musical instrument. Spend a few hours at your church building and you will experience what most preachers do. People walk or drive up to the building expecting the church to take care of all their financial woes.

The Elect’s Perception of each Other

The individual Christian’s concern over perception should reach even further than the world. Yes, we are to be concerned with what the Lord thinks of us. We also ought to be concerned about our brethren’s view of us. Some brethren are “weak in faith” (Romans 14:1; 15:1; 1 Corinthians 8:1ff). Where God permits liberties the weak in faith do not view as a liberty. Paul said, “Howbeit there is not in all men that knowledge…” (1 Corinthians 8:7). The true Christian is to be ready and willing to drop a liberty if it is offensive to one that is weak (1 Corinthians 9:22). If the strong are unwilling to do so or they push a liberty upon the weak they, “Walk no longer in love” (Romans 14:15).

The individual Christian cannot; however, be bullied by the conscientious and convicted weak brother. Those who would demand that we abstain or participate in liberties have gone beyond God’s laws. To bind where God has not bound is to be a false teacher and no saint shall be silent in such areas (see Galatians 2:3ff).

Concluding Thoughts

The elect of God are in the world yet they are not of the world (John 17:14-16). The world separated from God in sin has faulty expectations and preconceived ideas of God’s people and His church. Christians should be concerned not only with the public’s perception of our worship but also with our everyday lives. Let us unashamedly live a sanctified and holy life that the world may know what divine revelation authorizes and does not authorize (Romans 1:16). If we, through a spirit of fear, change our lives we will cause many in the world to have a faulty view of Christianity (see Matthew 26:70-75; Philippians 1:28). Mankind will be judged by the standard of divine revelation rather than man’s preconceived ideas, faulty expectations, and personal conscience (John 12:48). The Apostle Paul said, “Do all things without murmurings and questionings: that ye may become blameless and harmless, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom ye are seen as lights in the world” (Philippians 2:14-15). Let every true saint of God make their lives of godliness evident and the rest will take care of itself (please read 1 Timothy 5:24-25).

The Bible takes a very different approach to the way we use our words. Jesus warned us to take our speech very seriously.

“But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matthew 12:36-37).

Jesus says that we will give an account for every idle or careless word that proceeds from our mouth. He goes on to say that such words will determine whether we will stand justified or condemned before Him. Indeed, death and life are in the power of the tongue (Proverbs 18:21).

The reason man’s tongue is given such power is because it is an instrument of the heart (Matthew 12:33-35). The tongue is all too willing to reveal the true nature of man’s heart, and bear forth its fruit – either good or bad. As such, the continued use of bad language betrays our false claim to have put off the old man of sin (Col. 3:8). It shows that, as opposed to being transformed into the image of Christ by the renewing of our minds, we are still conformed to the world (Romans 12:2).

In addition to having an impact upon our eternal destiny, the Bible also tells us that the way we use our words will have a great impact upon our physical lives upon this earth:

“For ‘He who would love life and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips from speaking deceit’” (1 Peter 3:10).

“The wicked is ensnared by the transgression of his lips…” (Proverbs 12:13).

“A fool’s lips enter into contention, and his mouth calls for blows. A fool’s mouth is his destruction, and his lips are the snare of his soul” (Proverbs 18:6-7).

“A man’s stomach shall be satisfied from the fruit of his mouth; from the produce of his lips he shall be filled” (Proverbs 18:20).

There are many ways that we can speak evil with our tongue. This article will focus upon our use of corrupt words, filthy speech, profanity, and euphemisms.

Corrupt Words

The Bible forbids the use of dirty words “Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth…” (Ephesians 4:29). The word “corrupt” (“unwholesome” – NASV) means “rotten, worthless, not fit for use.” These would be the swear words, the “four-letter-words,” that are heard so often in our society today.

Not only are these types of words corrupt and rotten themselves, they have a corrupting influence upon those who hear them. A Christian should never, under any circumstances, be heard using these kinds of words.

Filthy Speech

This prohibition against using corrupt language is not limited to single words. “But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks” (Ephesians 5:3-4). The telling of dirty jokes, use of sexual innuendos, retelling of sinful exploits seen on TV, etc., is unfitting conversation for a Christian. There are some things that are shameful for Christians to even be talking about (v.12).

Profanity – Using God’s Name In Vain

The word “profane” means “to show disrespect or contempt for sacred things, to put to a base or improper use.” Although the word “profanity” is used by many people to refer to all “dirty” language, it really should be applied to the vain use of the name of God and His Son, Jesus Christ.

God has told us that He wants us to respect Him in the way we use His name. “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain” (Exodus 20:7). To use God’s name in vain is to use it in a common, empty or careless way, without an attitude of sincere reverence or respect. This would also include the vain use of the exalted name of Jesus Christ (Philippians 2:9-11).

The Law of Moses called for the death penalty for one who blasphemed the name of God (Leviticus 24:16). As a result, the children of Israel took this command so seriously that they would not speak the name of God for any reason, lest they use it in vain. Today, not only is the name of God used as a curse word, the names of God and His Son are used as common exclamations to express any and every emotion imaginable, and Christians are sometimes heard misusing God’s name in this way.

To use the name of God in times of worship and religious teaching is appropriate. However, to say, “Oh my God,” as a means of mindlessly expressing one’s surprise, pleasure, or disgust is to use God’s name in a common, non-sacred way. Such is a sin.

In our age of fast advancing technology, some have streamlined their means of communication by using initials and abbreviations in their texting. OMG has become a common sight on internet blogs and texts. OMG stands for “Oh my God!” and is nothing more than taking God’s name in vain. It is just as profane and sinful as saying the words.

Christians would not knowingly use God’s name in such a way, but we can be guilty of doing so without even realizing it. We need to be careful, for God will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

Euphemisms

A euphemism is an inoffensive expression substituted for one that is considered to be offensive. Some have called it “Christian cussing.” The following may seem like a list of “toned down” curse words to many people, but a dictionary will tell us what we are really saying when we use words like:

• dang (damn)
• darn (damn)
• heck (hell)
• shoot (sh–)
• gosh (God)
• golly (God)
• doggone (God d—)
• gee whiz (Jesus)
• cripes (Christ)

While euphemisms may pass for more acceptable conversation in some portions of our society, they are not fitting for the child of God. One reason is because these “toned down” words mean the same thing as the “more offensive” words. Another reason is the fact that we feel like saying them in the first place. If the use of euphemisms can be called “Christian cussing,” the Christian needs to work on why he feels the need to be cussing. These euphemisms come from the same place in the heart as the “more offensive” words – words for which we will have to give account.

How To Overcome the Use of Corrupt Speech and Filthy Language

Using bad language and euphemisms is a habit, and habits are admittedly hard for some to break. The following are some suggestions for the individual who wants to overcome this sinful habit.

1. Think before we speak. “The heart of the righteous studies how to answer, but the mouth of the wicked pours forth evil” (Proverbs 15:28, c.f. James 1:19). We need to be in the practice of “turning on our brain before we engage our mouth.”

2. Remember the power of our words (Matthew 12:36-37, Proverbs 18:21). I have the right to fire a gun, but I must remember and respect the power of that gun before I think about firing it. Our words have the power to determine our eternal fate, as well as to bring us joy or sorrow in this world. I would do well to remember and respect the power of my words before I use them.

3. Seek to edify others with our speech. “Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers” (Ephesians 4:29). Our words also have the potential to have a great impact upon others. Foul language corrupts and destroys more than just the speaker. It has an impact upon the listeners and the overall environment. We must resolve to use the kind of language that will build others up, not corrupt them and drag them down.

4. Honor others with our speech.  “Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king” (1 Peter 2:17). Filthy language and profanity are not honorable, nor do they honor others. Use of corrupt language is evidence of a shallow mind, lack of self control and lack of respect for others. There are several hundred thousand words in the English language with which we can express ourselves. Surely Christians can find words which will allow them to communicate in an honorable way.

5. Remember that we are always in the presence of God. “For there is not a word on my tongue, but behold, O LORD, You know it altogether” (Psalm 139:4, c.f. vv. 7-12). God always hears what we say. Let us make sure that it is always acceptable. “Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in Your sight, O LORD, my strength and my Redeemer” (Psalm 19:14). As the Children’s Bible Class song goes: “Be careful little mouth, what you say.”

6. Pray for God’s help. “Set a guard, O LORD, over my mouth; keep watch over the door of my lips” (Psalm 141:3). God can help us overcome the use of bad language if we will seek His help.

7. Keep our hearts pure (Matthew 12:33-35). Our mouths simply bring out what is already in our heart. We need to keep our heart pure, then the fruit of our lips will be pure as well (Proverbs 4:23-24, Philippians 4:8).

Conclusion

As Christians, we must remember that there is great power in our words. James admonishes us to seek to control our tongues as best we can, likening them to a roaring fire and a restless evil (James 3:1-12).

Our speech should be sound (Titus 2:8), gracious and seasoned (Colossians 4:6), the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15), with boldness (2 Corinthians 3:12), as the oracles of God (1 Peter 4:11).

We must choose our words very carefully, knowing that we will have to give an answer for them in judgment (Matthew 12:36-37, Psalm 19:14).

In fact, this is one way in which God made reference to his prophet, Ezekiel, but it was not quite the compliment it sounds like.

Consider Ezekiel chapter 33, verses 30-33:

“As for you, son of man, the children of your people are talking about you beside the walls and in the doors of the houses; and they speak to one another, everyone saying to his brother, “Please come and hear what the word is that comes from the LORD.’ So they come to you as people do, they sit before you as My people, and they hear your words, but they do not do them; for with their mouth they show much love, but their hearts pursue their own gain. Indeed you are to them as a very lovely song of one who has a pleasant voice and can play well on an instrument; for they hear your words, but they do not do them. And when this comes to pass–surely it will come–then they will know that a prophet has been among them.”

Prophets like Ezekiel, you see, were not merely fortune tellers or providers of divine insight into the future; they were instructors of morality in light of God’s future plans (2 Peter 3:10-12). Because Ezekiel had proven himself a skillful prophet, the people greatly desired to come into his presence and hear what he had to say. They talked about Ezekiel like he was a celebrity preacher; he was the hottest topic in the land.

If Ezekiel was getting a big head about such status, we are unaware of it; nevertheless, God informs him that all this attention was not what it seemed. His attentive audience basked in his oratory glow, but did nothing to absorb the message and even less to participate in it. “They hear your words, but they do not do them.”

I suppose some men preach the gospel because it is a steady job, but most yearn to make a difference in people’s lives, to lend them divine counsel so that they will act upon God’s will (2 Corinthians 5:11). Ezekiel’s audience failed him in that most important regard and nothing is more discouraging to a sincere preacher today than to discover that his best efforts go for naught.

Paul despaired that his preaching might be in vain because false teachers sowed tares beside his seed of life (Galatians 4:11). It is not just that a man’s life’s work is disrespected; it is that the souls he thought he was helping were really still lost all along. Not only is Eiffel’s Tower reduced to rubble; he is disillusioned about whether he even built it at all.

Ezekiel’s audience epitomized the ugliness of hypocrisy as they sat as God’s people, hearing his words with no intention of lifting a finger to keep even one. On at least one occasion, Jesus Christ had just such an audience. Like Ezekiel, Jesus was a suddenly popular prophet – he because he displayed the remarkable ability to feed 5000 people with five loaves of barley and two small fish. The next day, the throng hungered again and gathered to be in his presence, not that they might learn and live better, but that the miracle of the free lunch might be repeated. It was not. “From that time many of his disciples went back and walked with him no more” (John 6:66). So long as Jesus fed the lazy, he was to them a lovely song, but when something was required of them, they fled.

What was the problem with the audiences of Ezekiel and Jesus? “The hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing” (Matthew 13:15). A certain complacency had overtaken them – subtly in Ezekiel’s day, but literally overnight in Christ’s. No, really, the process is always a gradual one as the novice’s zeal is tempered by experience, occasional failure and disappointments. Religion – going to church in our lingo – ceases to be a spiritual quest and is reduced to a passionless ritual. The Hebrew writer called it “dullness of hearing” (Hebrews 5:11), but do not confuse it with the “itching ears” that Paul warned Timothy about (Second Timothy 4:1-5). Amos said, “They hate the one who rebukes in the gate, and they abhor the one who speaks uprightly” (5:10). Note the difference – those with itching ears will not endure sound doctrine, but Ezekiel’s audience insisted on it – they just ignored it.

And there is the rub. How sound is the church that insists on genuine preaching from the pulpit but refuses to heed that message? Is the congregation’s candlestick dependent solely upon sound teaching or does sound practice matter just as much? Jesus threatened Ephesus’s lamp stand although she had rejected false apostles and other evil men, because the members had left their first love and had become idle and unfruitful (Revelation 2:1-7). It is simply insufficient to announce that any church is sound because its preaching is sound; soundness is also a matter of practice. Insisting on that Old Jerusalem Gospel does little good if it is heard, but ignored.

Ezekiel’s success and celebrity profited his audience nothing so long as they filed away his words without application. The only way to validate the message is to live it. Otherwise, it is but sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The word “teetotaler” means someone who abstains completely from alcoholic beverages.  The Bible calls on Christians to be teetotalers.

The Bible Tells Us What Drinking Can Do

Don’t believe beer commercials when they lie about drinking’s supposed virtues: cleverness, popularity, and attractive members of the opposite sex.   Instead, believe what God says drinking can do for you in His word, which is the truth (John 17:17).

Victimization

Noah’s habit was righteousness, but he sinned when he became drunk on the wine he made from his vineyard (Genesis 9:20-21).   It was while he was drunk and uncovered in his tent that his son committed a shameful act with him, leading to the curse of Canaan.

Lot also made a practice of righteousness (2 Peter 2:8), but he sinned when his daughters got him drunk (Genesis 19:32-38).   It was while he was drunk that Lot impregnated his own daughters, giving rise to Ammon and Moab.

Violence

Drinking is a surefire way to get in a fight or an abusive relationship.  Don’t be fooled into thinking you control it:

Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler,

 and whoever is led astray by it is not wise.  (Proverbs 20:1)

Under the law of Moses, the owner of a volatile ox who fails to restrain it is responsible for the damage the ox does–up to and including life for life (Exodus 21:28-29).   Drinking is an ox with an established tendency to gore.

Fights, abuse, and loss of life are all too often the products of drinking.  God holds the drinker responsible for what happens.

Indiscretion

Intoxication mars judgment.  If judgment is poor enough to start drinking, and drinking blurs judgment, what will make the drinking stop once it has started?

Levitical priests were forbidden from drink so that they could distinguish good from bad and teach the people to do the same (Leviticus 10:8-11).   Their restriction is only a shadow of the modern priesthood of Christians, who must now offer acceptable sacrifices of pure lives to God (Romans 12:1-2).

What’s more, God calls for elders and deacons to have sound mind and judgment, including a distaste for drinking (1 Timothy 3:3, 8; Titus 1:7, 2:3).   He sets their faith as our example to follow (Hebrews 13:7).

The Bible Calls for Abstinence

Some Christians argue for drinking short of drunkenness. Wisdom from the Holy Spirit would turn you away from drinking altogether.

Do not look at wine when it is red,

when it sparkles in the cup

and goes down smoothly.  (Proverbs 23:31)

Christians must refuse any intoxicant in any amount.

Peter in 1 Peter 4:3 condemns several activities that involve drink: “drunkenness, orgies, and drinking parties.”  Please note the differences between the terms:

1. Drunkenness is the state of being intoxicated.
2. Orgies (“revellings” in King James) in the context of an ancient culture referred to the kind of wild party we would today see in a fraternity house, complete with beer bongs and togas.
3. Drinking parties (“banquetings” in King James) are nothing more than social drinking.  The Greek term underlying this English word is literally rendered “cups.”

Peter’s teaching is a categorical condemnation of drinking in all forms–outright drunkenness, wild partying, and even social drinking.

Timothy agrees with Peter, as can be discerned from 1 Timothy 5:23, where Paul has to advise Timothy it is clean to use a little wine as a medicine.   Clearly, Timothy had no plans otherwise to imbibe the stuff.

The Greek term for “free of wine” (in other words, our term “teetotaler”) is used in three New Testament verses: 1 Timothy 3:2 and 11 and Titus 2:2. The term is sometimes translated “temperate” in these passages, but be sure it has the stronger meaning of “abstinent.”

Thus, the wisdom of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament agrees with the wisdom of the Old Testament Proverbs 23:31 above.

Let Christians Call for Abstinence!

Christian friend, won’t you consent to wholesome words of sound doctrine?

About thirty years ago at the Holt-Wallace Debate in Florence, Alabama, brother G.A. Dunn remarked to this writer’s father that most problems that had come about among the Lord’s people related to money.  Whether his judgment was precisely correct or not, experience indicates his remark apropos. The variety of problems involving money in local churches and among different local churches has included disdain for the very idea of a local-church treasury, reluctance to use the money collected, and looseness in the use of church funds.

A Local Church Treasury

The first congregation in Jerusalem had a treasury under the control of the apostles. Acts 4:32-5:10 demonstrates that generous saints funded the physical assistance of their brethren’s daily needs. The funds likely never made it to the bank, but a fund was initiated and maintained for an indefinite period of time for the expeditious meeting of needs.

When the apostle was trying to raise funds for the physical needs of the poor among the saints in Jerusalem, Paul instructed local churches in Galatia and Achaia to do as the Christians in Macedonia were doing in this matter (1 Cor. 16:14; Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 8:1-7). He told them to store up ("treasure up" in Greek) their money collected on the first day of every week to prevent the necessity for collecting it upon his arrival.

From these two accounts it is easy to observe that an appointed work justly belonging to a local church is the only justification needed for a local treasury, for it helps to expedite work assigned by the Head of the church. Because some works continue over a long time, it is wise to maintain a standing treasury to meet the continuing needs. When the money was collected at Corinth, it remained in a pool or fund for some time. How long that time was, makes no difference in the matter of justifying a local treasury. When a church agrees to support a preacher at home or in another area, it usually exercises prudence in making sure that it has sufficient funds to meet its commitment to the man, either through periodic contributions alone or through both contributions and money treasured up in the event of loss of income to some of the local contributors. Those who decry the scripturalness of a local treasury need to open their eyes to these Scriptures and the wisdom of conducting the Lord’s work in a predictable manner, as much as possible.

Reluctance to Use Money

To some brethren the treasury seems to be an end in itself. The sole reason for having it is to have it. Oh, some quip that the money is needed for unexpected events such as building or equipment repairs or disaster-caused needs among saints. The point that needs to be seen, however, is that they see no imperative for proclaiming the gospel in a single place to the benighted souls of earth. To such the highest calling for that money is to repair the air conditioner, replace the roof, or send $100 to brethren hit by a hurricane. (Such writing does not mean that such needs do not exist and they should not be prepared for by a church.) Evidently they have forgotten they need to sound out the gospel like Thessalonica (1 Thess. 1: 8), send men to plant the gospel and strengthen the saved like Antioch (Acts 13:1-3), receive laborers in the gospel and send them forward on their journey as in 3 John 5-8, and be partners with workers in their needs (Phil. 4:15,16). Is it possible they have closed their eyes to some among them who have medical needs, housing needs, or other physical needs that they are unable to meet except with a forty-year debt?  Brethren, need to be more generous in seeing and meeting legitimate needs. We do not need to be loose with God’s Word, but we need to be liberal toward those described by the Lord as objects of our help.

It might be wise to remember that a brother doesn’t need to be penniless before the church can help him. When the congregation waits that long, it only increases the amount of help it must give him. Greedy church treasurers, elders and brethren who close their eyes to needs for the gospel and the needs of evangelists, and churches who disregard the needs of the poor among the saints will answer to God for their neglect.  I’ll tell you frankly that the judgment will not be pleasant for such as these.

Some churches envision no more noble use for "their money" than saving it. Could they possibly be concerned about the banker’s needs? Do you think they might be saving it until Jesus returns? Just think of it: they will be able to turn over to the Lord all that money! What a joy that will be. Oh, brethren, how carnal we are. We are willing to give the Lord money, but not souls. Is such really the mission that he has given us?

To those who sincerely fear an emergency need which the local church could not meet without a sizeable fund, some remarks are addressed. Most of the emergencies that brethren anticipate never materialize. When an emergency does arise, brethren who have been taught properly will respond properly. We need to be teaching Christians to be liberal and to respond to increasing needs. Elders who truly lead will teach and challenge the people to rise to needs according to their ability and even beyond their ability (2 Cor. 8:1-6). Christians who learn that the Lord does not seek theirs but them will be better prepared to give themselves unreservedly, with the effect of considering all that they possess as belonging to the Lord (2 Cor. 8:5; 12:14). If the need arising exceeds the church’s capacity, there is always the route of borrowing, to which we resort for buildings. Why not for other needs in those very few instances where needed? There is also a lack of trust in brethren in the local church to respond favorably, as well as in brethren in other churches to assist in time of need.

In conclusion remember that every appeal to Christians to give of their financial means was accompanied with the work for which the money would be used. All giving in the New Testament was done for a work. None was ever given to accumulate and hold a large fund! May we all learn the lesson and do likewise! (Guardian of Truth, May 4, 1989)

Dear Paul,

Peace and grace to you from our God and Father and our Lord Jesus Christ.  I want to commend you for your wonderful work of preaching Christ and Him crucified.  Your compassion and concern for the jailer at Philippi was inspiring.  I also appreciate your comment, "I have been crucified with Christ…who loved me and gave Himself for me."  What wonderful words of comfort.  Thank you.

I have a concern though; a concern that you may not have noticed, but others have.  I know this to be so because I have discussed it with them and they feel the same way I do.  I want you to be aware of it so your service to Christ may be even more effective, more fruitful.  My concern is this, your poor attitude and actions toward others on some occasions — not all — but some.  It seems to be driving people away from Christ instead of drawing them near.  This cannot be good under any circumstances, can it?  Let me give you specific cases.

The other day, I received a copy of Luke’s version of the beginning of the church and your many travels.  In it he said you blinded a man.  Now, I understand that he was opposing the things you taught, but doesn’t everyone have a God-given right to their own opinion?  Why, Paul did you strike this man blind?  Why did you not try to first talk to him and let him know about the love and compassion of Christ?  Why did you have to be so harsh?  Don’t you know you likely drove him away from the Savior forever?  It amazes me that the proconsul believed after this incident.  You are lucky he continued to listen to you.

Also in Luke’s narrative, I read that you upset the Jews at Antioch and drove them away from the good news.  Paul, I know these Jews and they are devout people.  My cousin lives there, though I do not know if he was among the crowd you upbraided, and he is a good man — no one is more sincere and devoted.  This seems to be a pattern with you.  If it was isolated, I could understand, but it is not.  You even alienated Barnabas.  Paul, why can’t you get along with people any better?

By the way, I am not just picking on you.  If Stephen were alive today I would also write him with my concerns.  Don’t get me wrong, I know the people he was addressing were in the wrong, but Stephen could have put it in a nicer way.  I can understand why they were upset, though I don’t agree with their subsequent actions.

Furthermore, Paul, I also have a copy of the letters you wrote to the Galatian churches and the Philippian saints.  Both letters have many good points in them.  However, you don’t even greet the Galatian brethren properly.  You come across cold and callous.  You even made reference to men mutilating themselves in the private area of their body.  I could not let my wife or mother read such things.  Your language is too crude.  In the letter to Philippi, you call some men dogs.  Paul, don’t you see this is why more people don’t listen to you.  They hear harsh, mean things like this and it turns them off.  Haven’t you heard that Jesus said to do unto others as you would have them do unto you?  Would you want to be called a dog?  Why then do you call others dogs?  Surely, you can do better.  I know you can do better.

Another thing that has been bothering me are your letters to Timothy.  A brother here has a copy of each and I am supposed to get copies soon — but I have read them.  I know you love Timothy, but it seems to me you are setting a poor example for this young man.  You not only encourage him in militaristic terms ("wage a good warfare," "fight the good fight of faith," "soldier of Jesus Christ"), but you also give the names of men who, in your opinion, teach error or have otherwise strayed from the faith.  Did you not know others would read the letters you wrote to Timothy?  Don’t you think your language is too agressive?  Did you personally talk to the men you named and let them know you were going to inform others about your opinion of them?  Paul, it seems to me that love for these brothers would demand you hide their faults.  The wise man said, "love covers all sins."  I don’t understand, Paul, how you could give the names of brethren and publicly shame them.  After all, does it really matter whether or not you believe the resurrection is already past or not?  I mean, does your salvation depend upon believing the resurrection is past or in the future?  No matter what anyone believes, it won’t change the reality of it — will it?  These men still believe in Jesus and baptism.  They still believe and teach the one true body of Christ.  They still stand against drunkenness and sexual immorality.  I know one of them is strong on divorce and remarriage, because I heard him preach on it a few years ago;  best sermon I ever heard on the subject — maybe you could get his notes.

Further, I wrote Demas over in Thessalonica to ask him about what you said about him — "Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world."  He wrote back and said you are misrepresenting him.  He doesn’t love this present world.  He insists you are not being fair to him and have a personal vendetta against him.  Paul, how can you spread such things around about a brother in Christ?

Finally, I want you to know my love for you, the Lord and our brethren.  As you have acknowledged, you don’t have long on this earth.  It won’t be long before you have no more opportunities to right all your wrongs — well, maybe that word is too strong — you don’t have long to mend fences with some you have alienated.  I don’t mean to judge here, but it seems you could do something to help the situation.  Maybe you could write a letter addressing all my concerns and I will share it with others to let them know you have changed.

May the Lord Jesus be with your spirit.

Asthenes

To Alexander From Asthenes

Dear Alexander,

May the grace of our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ be with you always.

I write to you with great love and respect.  Your work in the Lord is well known by me and many others, and we appreciate all you have done.  I thank you for being there when my sister-in-law needed encouragement.  She often mentions you and the love you manifest toward her.  Our family will always be grateful.

I want to apologize for Paul’s actions.  I know he is a good man, but sometimes does things that bring shame upon others and himself.  I recently read his letters to Timothy and noticed you were twice mentioned — in an unfavorable light.  He accused you of making shipwreck of the faith and doing him harm.  I find this hard to believe, knowing your past work.  I have written him to let him know my disappointment in him.  He seems to have a habit of alienating brethren and lost souls.  He also likes to call names.  I am sorry that you are one of his casualties.  Maybe he will change in time.

I do not want to belabor the point, but it really bothers me about all the negative actions of the apostles and others, not just Paul.  I wonder if they realize what they are doing.  I’m sure you have seen their writings, as well as heard them speak on many occasions, but I hope you will bear with me as I get this off my chest.

I was shocked when I read John’s first letter and he called some former brethren "liars."  Yes, they may be what he calls the "antichrist," but it seems to me "liar" is a strong word.  How could the "apostle of love" say such?  I’m not sure that is an appropriate description of him anymore.  Doesn’t "liar" carry the idea of purposely deceiving others?  How can John know this?  He impugns the motives of many good men.

I also do not know what Peter has been thinking lately. Maybe his age is getting to him, or his old, unstable self is coming back.  He described some men as "natural brute beasts" and returning to their own vomit.  This is too blunt.  He also said there were some who "twist" the scriptures to "their own destruction."  He seems awfully judgmental considering his past failings.  And, how in the world can he speak favorably of Paul after what he did to him at Antioch?  Anyway, do you see what I mean?

Jude is just like Peter.  Peter must be telling him what to say or sending him outlines.  I have often wondered if Jude is actually Peter’s disciple and not the Lord’s.  What do you think?  Anyway, I do not understand how he could be so pushy and tell brethren to "contend" for the faith.  Paul says we are not to be contentious.  Jude is also very judgmental.  He calls men "ungodly" and "spots in your love feasts."  Then he said they were grumblers, complainers — talk about grumbling and complaining!  I can’t stand it when "men of God" are so hypocritical.  The worst of it is that he said they "cause divisions."  If anything is dividing the saints it is the poor attitudes and harsh words of men like Jude, Peter, John and Paul.

Again, I am sorry for the way you have been treated — not even given an opportunity to answer Paul’s charges.  Hope this letter encourages you some.  By the way, if you are ever through this way, bring some of your copper wares — I want to surprise my wife with a gift.

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you.

Asthenes

A similar debate over preemptive action exists among brethren. One idea is that whatever goes on elsewhere is none of our concern. It matters not what is happening on the west coast or east coast, in Florida or Kentucky, or even across town. Just mind the local work and leave everything else alone. (Of course, in giving this advice they violate their own precept by telling others what to do). The other idea is that what happens elsewhere will eventually affect the local brethren in one way or another. Therefore, addressing it is the wise course of action. The former is wrong, the latter right.

The Bible teaches that the saints should be well informed about issues that trouble the brethren in general. Paul wrote:

And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head — Christ — from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love (Eph. 4:11-16).

Notice that God wants members of the body to be strong so when the “wind of doctrine” comes along, they will not be carried away. In other words, act before it becomes a problem to minimize or negate any possible damage.

Jesus took preemptive action when He prepared the apostles for preaching on the “limited commission” and the “great commission” (Matt. 10; Jn. 13-16). Paul forewarned the elders at Ephesus of “savage wolves” that would try to “draw away the disciples after themselves” (Acts 20:28-30). He said he had warned “everyone night and day with tears” for three years (Acts 20:31). Peter said, “But there were false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction” (2 Pet. 2:1). Paul even named a false teacher, Alexander the coppersmith, and forewarned Timothy about him (2 Tim. 4:14-15; cf. 1 Tim. 1:19-20).

The commands and examples of Christ and the apostles give us the pattern by which we may provide a solid foundation for brethren lest they be taken away with “every wind of doctrine.” This is why congregations that do not have a problem with believing the Bible need to be told about those who are beginning to undermine the credibility of the Bible by suggesting Genesis 1-11 is not to be interpreted literally. It is also why congregations that do not fellowship false teachers must be taught about the error being promoted on fellowship. Other issues could be mentioned, but suffice it to say, we need to take preemptive action.

As the old saying goes, “To be forewarned is to be forearmed.” Preemptive action against error is required of elders and preachers. If they fail to take it, they fail in their duties to God and man. If the elders and/or preacher where you attend is not warning you, ask them why and make them give an answer (cf. 1 Pet. 3:15).

Sir,

I do not know you but i would like to offer some input on the website on which your article appears. While your article was compelling, i wonder if the space was better used to tell us about Jesus and his love and sacrifice for us and the great love of God and his grace, rather than “debating” with people about issues. There is a place for that, don’t get me wrong. However the entire web site is spent in debate, attacks and replys. It is very discouraging for a young Christian like myself. I look to these places for encouragement and all I find is argueing. Hopefully I am overlooking the bright side to all of this and perhaps you can point that out, but when the majority of our time and writing is spent in debate, there is little room for praise of our Lord and encouragment of our brethren. I have been looking at the website for many months. I will look no longer. It is too discouraging for me to see such division among the Lords people and a “he said” and then “i said” and then “he said” and the reply to the reply. I say these things in love for all brethren and most of all in love for the Lord. Please forgive my youthful ramblings.

Warm regards,

Young Christian

Dear Young Christian,

Thank you for writing and for expressing your concerns, judgments, and opinions. While I would advise you to turn away from “vain jangling” and from carnal disputes of men, as Scripture says we must, I encourage you to discern between good and evil, to see if you might be rejecting the very things that will strengthen and fortify your faith in our loving Lord and his selfless sacrifice. It might be that the overthrowing of error and the clear establishment of truth is the very thing you need to encourage your heart and edify your soul (Col. 2:4-8; 2 Pet. 1:12-15). You have an advantage over me. This response “proves” your point. In other words, if I answer your assertions, I am, in your mind, doing the very thing which you condemn, replying and arguing. If I do not, I am perhaps seen as unable to answer your views. However, despite that, I shall endeavor to respond to you with all candor. “Wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently” (Acts 26:3).

First, how did you find the time to write your letter to me? I “wonder if the space (you used would have been better) used to tell (me) about Jesus and his love and sacrifice for us and the great love of God and his grace, rather than ‘debating’ with (me)” about the need for controversy. Should you not be too busy telling about the love and sacrifice of Jesus, and should you not be too busy praising our Lord and encouraging our brethren to write to me? How could you take such valuable time away from praising our Lord to launch your arguments, and your “attack” against me? Like you, I, too, “say these things in love for all brethren and most of all in love for the Lord.”

Second, while I appreciate the apparent humble tone of your remarks, I cannot be certain of you. You proclaim your love for the Lord, and I am happy if it is so, but I cannot be sure, for you have taken the path of anonymity to launch your argument and appeal. At least those of us who have written controversial articles, thus exposing ourselves to cowardly, hidden criticism and rebuke, have signed our names before all. You knew where to find me. However, you hide behind the cowering, quivering brush of anonymity and shoot from ambush. When they came under cover of darkness to take the Lord, he said, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled” (Mk. 14:48, 49).

Anonymity often is a liar. It says, “I didn’t do it; I didn’t say it.” May I remind you that neither the Lord nor his holy apostles and prophets ever hid themselves and shot from the bushes. No, they were bold, courageous, and forthright (Acts 4:20, 31). They were men of honor and integrity. “Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. We have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God” (2 Cor. 4:1, 2).

Third, could it be that a particular web site is especially designed to answer and review false doctrine? I have been asked to concentrate on such matters in Truth Magazine and in Watchman Magazine. That is, in part, why I do so. That you find such discussions and studies discouraging does not negate the fact that we hear from a great many who find the very same articles helpful and informative. We often receive praise for such work. (Those folks sign their names.) I say this, neither to boast nor to justify, but to show that not all agree with your assessment.

You speak of the “feature” article at the Truth Magazine web site (“Fire In My Heart: Saga Of A Spirit Stirred,“ TruthMagazine.com) which I have written that you found somewhat “compelling.” That is fine, but that also means that you noted that error had been posed by others. Why did you not register your protest against those who have argued the error and who attacked the truth? Strange it is that you have the time to take away from your teaching of the love and sacrifice of Jesus to anonymously rebuke me, a man whom you seem to agree has taught the truth, but you have not the time to reprove those who taught the error and who attacked the truth of God. You can find the time to take away from a discussion of the love and sacrifice of Jesus to accuse me, but you have not the time to condemn those who taught error and made arguments and attacks against the truth. Why is that?

You speak of the need for encouragement. It is much needed (1 Thess. 5:11). Was your anonymous letter designed to encourage me? Did you think writing anonymously and criticizing me would bring greater love, unity and encouragement? Paul wrote a letter which brought grief and sorrow to his readers. Later, however, the effect was spiritually beneficial (2 Cor. 7:8-13). Likewise, though you fail to see the joy and usefulness of such material, that does not mean that others are not helped by it. “I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children” (1 Cor. 4:14).

Fourth, in a way, at times, there is no “bright side” to such work. No sincere Christian enjoys constant warfare. That is why Paul exhorted Timothy that such work had to be done, “in season, out of season;” that is, when it was palatable and when it was not, the work still had to be done! Frequently, our stand for truth and stance against error results in grievous and painful divisions–father from son, daughter from mother (Matt. 10:34-37; 1 Cor. 11:19; Cf. 2 Cor. 2:15-17).

Let the Holy Spirit assure you that such work must be done:

“They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them” (Prov. 28:4).

“And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue” (Acts 15:2).

“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11).

“I am set for the defense of the gospel” (Phil. 1:17).

“But even after that we had suffered before, and were shamefully entreated, as ye know, at Philippi, we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God with much contention” (1 Thess. 2:2).

“Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths“ (2 Tim. 4:2-4).

“Holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach, for the sake of sordid gain. One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true. For this cause reprove them severely that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:9-13).

“These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you” (Titus 2:15).

“Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

Young Christian, note that last verse. Jude wanted to write about “our common salvation,” however, due to the circumstances, he had to change his approach and appeal to them to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” Since you grant that such work may be necessary, please consider that an older Christian may see situations, (parallel, perhaps, to those Jude saw) and that, therefore, he might spend time contending for the faith rather than speaking of the common salvation.

You assert, but do not prove, that, “when the majority of our time and writing is spent in debate, there is little room for praise of our Lord and encouragment of our brethren.” Knowing the defensive, controversial, argumentative nature of 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Hebrews, would you say to Paul that, “when the majority of our time and writing is spent in debate, there is little room for praise of our Lord and encouragment of our brethren“? While reviewing the many debates and arguments of the Lord in the first four books of the New Testament, would you say to the Spirit regarding the selection of what is contained therein, “when the majority of our time and writing is spent in debate, there is little room for praise of our Lord and encouragment of our brethren“?

“I Will Look No Longer”

Concerning the TruthMagazine.com web site, you state, “I will look no longer. It is too discouraging for me to see such division among the Lords people and a “he said” and then “i said” and then “he said” and the reply to the reply.” (a) Young Christian, are you discouraged when you read 2 Peter, chapters two and three? Are you discouraged when you read Jude? When you see the arguments, and the, “they said,” “Paul said,” controversies, such as appear in Acts 15, Romans, chapters 9-11, 1 Timothy 1:18-20, and 2 Timothy 2:15-18, is it “too discouraging (for) you”? Do you say, “I will look no longer” at those passages? (b) When you read Matthew, especially Matthew 15:1-14, and chapters 12, and 21 through 23, along with John, chapters 5 though 8, do you say of them, “I will look no longer. It is too discouraging for me to see such division among the Lords people and a “he said” and then “i said” and then “he said” and the reply to the reply”? (c) When you read of the “division among the Lords people” in Corinth, do you say, “I will look no longer. It is too discouraging for me to see such division among the Lords people” (1 Cor. 1:10-15; 3:1-3–”For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you”–11:19)? (d) Finally, when you read that the Lord said, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household,” do you say, “I will look no longer. It is too discouraging for me to see such division among the Lords people” (Matt. 10:34-36)? No, Young Christian, I do not think that is what you say. Therefore, do you not see that the same is true with respect to some of the work that both younger and older Christians do?

Yes, my dear young friend, divisions are “discouraging.” They are discouraging to all who love truth, peace, unity, and harmony. However, did it ever occur to you that you should rejoice that there are those who, despite the distastefulness of the work, are striving to stop the mouths of those who promote the division which we all disdain (Titus 1:9-13)? Did it ever occur to you that whether or not you ever read another line on the web site which so discourages you that the errors that are being opposed will not go away just because you refuse to read about their refutation?

Is it “discouraging” to you to know that some men teach that the days of Genesis one are not literal days such as the Bible describes them to be (Ex. 20:8-11; 31:14-17)? Is it “discouraging” to you to know that some brethren have taught that hell is annihilation and not a place of eternal punishment for the wicked? Is it “discouraging” to you to know that some have taught that alien sinners may be divorced and remarried several times prior to their obedience to the gospel, but that, after they are baptized, they may maintain their adulterous marriage? Is it “discouraging” to you that some believe the flood of Genesis 6-8 was not a world-wide event, but only a local one? Surely, these things are as “discouraging” to you as they are to us.

However, it should encourage you that men are standing against these “discouraging” and divisive doctrines of devils (1 Tim. 4:1, 2). You should be rejoicing that others are fighting hard to maintain the truth and to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. If you turn your back on such efforts, those errors will not dissipate and disappear. No, rather, they will increase unto more ungodliness; they will eat and erode the faith of some like a hidden lump of cancer cells (2 Tim. 2:17; 3:13). Without opposition, things will only get worse. If you truly love truth, peace, and unity, and if evil and error discourage your young and tender heart, you should uphold the hands of those who are striving to stop those things that bring you such spiritual misery and unhappiness. If you do not do so, and if you fulfill your threat to withdraw, in essence, your right hand of fellowship from the fight, remember that your ignoring the work will not make false doctrine vanish away. It will not terminate the divisions which you so despise.

Since you will not hear those who oppose the error and teach the truth, what will you do when the men who teach that the days of Genesis one are not literal days and who believe in the “big bang” theory come to your door (and, make no mistake about it, they will come to your door!)? What will you do when they come for meetings where you worship? When they come and teach that hell is not a real place but an annihilation of the wicked, when they come telling you that the flood of Noah was a local event, what will you do? What will you say? You cannot come to folks like me. No, for you will “look no longer” at material which opposes such errors. When you tell others of the love and sacrifice of Jesus and exhort them to obey the gospel, what do you say when one tells you that he has been saved by grace through faith, but that he has never been baptized? When one whom you are attempting to lead to Christ says he has been baptized in the name of Jesus and has received the baptism of the Holy Ghost and of fire, along with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues, what do you tell him? When a Muslim, a Methodist, or a Mormon tells you he believes in God and the Bible, but not in the same way you do, what do you do?

Young Christian, do you reason and reply to these folks? Do you attempt to answer their arguments? When you do, do you ever remind them that what “they said,” contradicts what “Jesus said,” and that “Paul said,” thus and so? If so, do you often find that you are doing the very same thing you are now criticizing me for doing? Further, when you have such exchanges with those whom you are seeking to convert, should we turn away from you and refuse to look because your attempts to persuade such people are too discouraging for us to consider? Too, should the Methodists reject you when you try to help them see that we are not saved by faith only? Should they say that you need “to tell us about Jesus and his love and sacrifice for us and the great love of God and his grace,” and not so much about their error that salvation is “by faith only” (Article IX, Methodist Discipline)?

Yes, my young Christian friend, I will, with love and kindness, overlook your earnest and perhaps honest “youthful ramblings.” I, too, was once young. I, too, have made foolish judgments and impetuous statements. Not knowing the Scriptures, and not having the experience of seasoned and mature, battle scarred veterans of the faith, when I said things that were “off base,” I was taught and led back to the way of truth. Thank God, I listened to those who withstood me to my face, and who did not hide themselves and seek to tear me down from behind. Great men and women of God were patient with me. They helped and encouraged me all along the way. I thank God for them and will treasure their friendship and memory forever. It is my fond hope and fervent prayer that you may be able to do the same someday.

• • • • With sincere brotherly love,

        Larry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But, brethren, I am greatly disturbed, filled with perturbation, and absolutely upset emotionally when I hear of experienced and able men who have “toned down” their preaching to these fifteen, or twenty minute sermons! On top of that, they are leaving the impression with the young and inexperienced preachers that such is really what “preaching” is all about!  And if all that is not frightening enough, I am also realizing that much of this preaching is almost totally void of scripture and is nothing more than a simple story or tale of some kind, with much of the “few” minutes being filled up with jokes or humorous tales!  To call such as that “preaching” is to absolutely disgrace the concept!  It seems obvious that those who are engaged in this practice are either ignorant of what gospel preaching is all about, or else they are intentionally seeking to avoid saying anything which is spiritually instructive or edifying!  Could it be possible that they simply want to “entertain” their audience (Galatians 1:10)?  Or is it  possible that they are very limited in “intestinal fortitude” and are therefore just cowardly staying away from condemning sin, exposing error and false teaching, and refusing to  boldly encourage fellow Christians to live soberly, righteously, and Godly in this present world (Acts 20: 26-27) (Titus 2: 11-12)?

I was recently given an advertisement, involving non-institutional brethren, where one of the lessons had the title, “Tending Your Garden” and the title for another lesson was “Finding Treasure In The Trash”!  A congregation in my area just advertised their speaker as “a follower of Jesus Christ and Certified Financial Counselor”.  He is further described as “a coordinator of the Financial Peace University, a thirteen week course for personal finances”.  You can multiply those titles numerous times with similar tactics being used by the “unity in diversity” followers.  Has it reached the point that we must try to be “cute” in order to attract people to hear the gospel preached?  My friend, if we really think that this is respectful of the Word of God, then I am convinced that we may well be in desperate need of a spiritual trip to the “woodshed” to find out what gospel preaching is all about!  Maybe some are already too far removed to know what a spiritual spanking really is!  When the “old time” preachers took you to the woodshed, you knew exactly where you had been, why you had been there, and you left quickly with the determination that you would never be found “wanting” in those matters ever again!  But the kind of gospel preaching which those brethren did, is definitely not welcome in many pulpits today.

Now brethren, let’s get down to some plain talk on this matter!  Has it come down to the honest reality that “we just don’t want much preaching” and that we have found a preacher who has such a “wonderful personality”, is also such an outstanding “after dinner speaker”, and that he doesn’t have any real conscience which would prevent him from avoiding anything in his preaching that would “upset anyone” or would “step on anyone’s toes”?  Have we found just the preacher who would willingly refrain from telling us that God demands certain things of us or that God hates wickedness in our lives?  Have we found the preacher who would not dare call anyone a “false teacher” and who is totally willing to fellowship others who “abide not in the teaching of Christ” (2 John 9-11)?  Have we found just the preacher who will speak to us “smooth things” (Isaiah 30:9-10).  Yes, my friend, you got it!  You understand, don’t you?  It is becoming more obvious every day that far too many brethren have developed an appetite for that kind of preaching (?), and that there is an abundant supply of both “young” and “experienced” preachers (?) who will gladly cater to that kind of nonsense!

Now brethren, in all fairness, let’s not get the impression that “long sermons” in and of themselves are necessarily either instructive or edifying.  It may well be that some preachers equate the two, but there can be some danger in that as well.  We may well have some preachers who are in need of serious help with organizational and time management skills, and we may well have some who are saying the same things over and over again in a sermon until it seems almost to reflect upon the listening ability of the audience!  Remember, we are talking about that which is going to truly provide quality instruction and successful edification!  If a preacher feels that his ability or effectiveness is to be judged by testing the limits of endurance on the part of his listeners, then he has definitely missed the point.  Having spent many years as an elementary school teacher and school principal, I have come to fully accept that learning theory definitely involves both the attention span and the ability to assimilate instruction. We need some help as preachers if we do not consider these factors as being important to effective instruction.  But, brethren, our problems in the church today are far greater than having to deal with a few preachers who feel that a sermon has to be extremely long in order to “demonstrate” their preaching skills!

We had better wake up and realize that we are dealing today with a cry for “less preaching”, not just in time, but also mostly in “content”!  And when you limit the “sermonettes” to fifteen or so minutes, then you can mark it down that content is also very much limited.  It seems obviously clear that our major problem today is that a lot of folks simply “don’t want much preaching”.  And you can place a major emphasis on the fact that the content, will be lacking anything which is “controversial”, seriously lacking in “condemnation of sinful practices”, and it will certainly NOT contain any exposure of “error, false teaching, false teachers, or unsound doctrines”!  When you have to be so careful not to “offend” anyone or make anyone “feel guilty”, then you must make the decision to give a “sweet little talk” for about fifteen or twenty minutes and send everyone home “feeling good about themselves”!  It seems to be a “let’s get this over with as quickly as possible” so that we can go eat, play and socialize with one another!   And, after all, that fifteen or twenty minutes which I patiently sat through should purchase enough “fire insurance” to prevent me from spending eternity in hell!  Surely my “enduring” a couple of “sweet little talks” each week will demonstrate to God that I love Him with all my heart!  My friends, who do we really think that we are deceiving?  Or is it possible that we don’t even have enough conscience development to understand what is happening to us?  Don’t be fooled brethren, the “experienced” preachers who are involved in this ridiculous facade know exactly what they are doing, and both they and the Lord know exactly why they or doing it!  And you can be assured that their problem is not senility!

Brethren, if our desire is for “preaching” which will tickle our ears and placate our conscience, then both our faith and our spiritual service is sadly lacking (2 Timothy 4:1-4).  Such a one certainly hasn’t had his or her heart and soul into seeking quality instruction and edification from God’s Word!  How long has it been since we really studied our Bible for several hours?  How long has it been since we even picked up a Bible except to quickly fill out a few answers in a class lesson book?  How long has it been since we took the time to read a teaching publication put out by sound and faithful brethren?  How many gospel meetings with “old fashioned and scripture filled sermons” have we attended in recent months?  And since we are well into the computer age, are we making any real effort to search out and be instructed by scriptural teaching on web sites operated by faithful brethren? How long has it been since we conducted a Bible class in someone’s home – or even in our own home?  Yes, you got it!  You can understand that, can’t you?  We can see clearly that most problems stem from folks who “just don’t want much preaching”!  We have an “ignorance is bliss” mentality in our midst and it is taking us down the road to digression and apostasy with the speed of a bullet train!

I preached a sermon on “fellowship” in a gospel meeting not long ago – and I must admit that it lasted over an hour.  Possibly in my own feeble way, I was trying very diligently to show the various digressions in which we have had division and breaks in fellowship, beginning some fifty years ago with the institutional and sponsoring church departure and coming right down to the present “union in perversity” nonsense being advocated by so many today.  I had a brother come up to me after the sermon and he, as best as I can remember, spoke these words:  “You told us a lot of things tonight that we didn’t know, and you told us a lot of things that we didn’t need to know”!  Brethren, I am persuaded that this really sums up the degree of desire for instruction and edification on the part of far too many brethren among us!  We appear to have a number of brethren who are insisting that preachers (?) “tone it down”, and these preachers (?) are readily complying with fifteen or twenty minutes of “y’all be sweet” or with a “let me entertain you with a funny story”!  And even more amazing, they have the audacity to call it gospel preaching!  Our Lord is disgraced by such mistreatment of the Truth!  Maybe forty minutes or even an hour might be too long for some brethren to “endure” a sermon, but the length of the sermon is not really the heart of the problem!  The problem is content! The problem is in what is preached!  So when you know that you can’t really preach about anything which would stimulate the conscience of the hearers, then you just substitute fifteen or twenty minutes of “small talk” or “laughter material” and call it a sermon!  Don’t you just know that our Lord and the apostles would be tremendously impressed with such “total dedication” to “fight the good fight of faith”!

These folks aren’t fooling anyone but themselves, and at times I really wonder if they are not fully aware that they are “just playing games” and calling it their religion!  Only they and God know whether or not they have integrity, but the scripture tells us that “by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:15-20).  What is really happening to gospel preaching today is obvious to every God fearing man and woman!   If someone doesn’t awaken quickly, then  many of our brethren are going to be so far down the road of denominationalism to ever even think about turning them around!

So, what do you and I consider to be instruction and edification?  Do we equate it with a “hunger and thirst” for righteousness (Matthew 5:6)?  Do we value it as noble to “search the scriptures” (Acts 17:11)?  Do we know what sacrifice and dedication is involved in “seeking first the kingdom of God” (Matthew 6:33)?  Do we really believe that by the scriptures we are “furnished completely unto every good work” (II Timothy 3:16-17)?  Are we honestly concerned about being “a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth.”?  Yes, you got it!  You understand, don’t you?  Brethren, the night is far spent and day is a hand for us to cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light (Romans 13:11-12).  The time is here for us to take up the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit so that we can quench all the fiery darts of the evil one (Ephesians 6:10-20).

Some of us, like this writer, have spent most of our lives trying to preach, defend, and uphold the Truth – and even today we must still face isolation, ridicule, name calling, and rejection from many of our own brethren because we would dare ask them to stand boldly for the Truth and to lift up the sword of the Spirit against the forces of evil which threaten our faith and the faith of our families. When we “old timers” are no longer here, who will be willing to walk in our footsteps?  Who is going to have the courage to take this ridicule and abuse as they boldly cry out against sin and unscriptural teaching and practices?  Who will be on the front line in the heat of battle? It is our hope and prayer that God will give us strength to remain in the heat of battle until that very hour when we get the call to go home to glory.  Yes, brethren, we are drifting, and far too many are going down “the swift whitewater stream of apostasy” without even realizing what is happening to them.

Brethren, I am truly concerned that instruction and edification are fleeting values among God’s people. Bible knowledge and conviction is being viewed as unnecessary!  Churches are having less preaching by doing away with Sunday evening services all over the country – will Wednesday evening be the next fatality?  Gospel meetings are viewed as either “old fashioned” or “unproductive” and if you “must” have one, be certain to make it as brief as possible!

What are you and I doing to turn this around?  Whatever it takes, and I am persuaded that you can mark it down, that the instruction and edification which will be needed is not going to be accomplished by sweet little fifteen or twenty minute sermons!

“And I, brethren, when I came unto you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God.  For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.  And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:  that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" (1 Corinthians 2:1-5).

“Then I returned and considered all the oppression that is done under the sun: and look! the tears of the oppressed, but they have no comforter—On the side of their oppressors there is power, but they have no comforter.” (Ecclesiastes 4:1)  No doubt human cruelty and oppression have always existed, and God knows this.  But, is it right when this oppression and cruelty comes from within the church?  There is an oppression under the sun today, and it involves setting a double standard for evangelists.

Surely there are greater oppressions under the sun, and surely evangelists in this country have good lives, compared to being fed to lions in Rome, or living in dirt huts in some foreign field.  Yet there is an oppression under the sun, and I wish to expose it.  I cannot speak for all evangelists, nor would I dare indict all brethren.  Most of the brethren I have known are wonderful, godly people, and I never forget their kindness and generosity.  Yet there are bad brethren out there, and they have created some unwritten rules about evangelists that are just not scriptural.  In this article, I merely desire to point these out, and to hopefully change the mind of brethren who have been placing a double standard upon their preaching brethren.  If I can just improve the treatment of one preacher somewhere, then this article shall have been successful.

Perhaps you ask yourself, “How are preachers oppressed?  They have the easiest lives in the world!”  Such a question implies that you have a false conception of the work of an evangelist.  An evangelist does not, as some believe, “just work three times a week.”  Where do you think those sermons come from?  The classes?  Does he simply pull them out of the air?  In my opinion, proper, careful sermon preparation requires at least 40 hours, and then add to that all of his other work, including preparing classes, setting an example by visiting the sick, and the many other things he does, and the average evangelist probably works 60 hours per week, if not more – I know I do, though many brethren would just not believe me.  By the way, a preacher’s job is not to drive around all day, “visiting” and eating fried chicken, as many seem to think.  Give me book, chapter, and verse for that!  I defy you!  Yet still, brethren say that preachers “do not have real jobs.”

There is a double standard in the brotherhood today.  It is a double standard which involves close scrutiny of a preacher’s life, while the ones scrutinizing are allowed to do whatever they wish.  I have seen this again and again.  You may doubt its existence, but I urge you to ask your preacher about it.  The preacher is condemned if he buys a used car, while every other member drives a brand new Cadillac.  The preacher is criticized if he rents a decent home, while every other member owns a home worth over $100,000.  If the preacher asks for a raise, he is “preaching for the money,” while every other member gets an annual raise, and complains if he does not.  If the preacher asks for an income above the US poverty level, then brethren “just cannot understand why a man needs more than that to live,” while some of them make over $100,000 per year.  The preacher’s pay is viewed as charity, even though the scriptures teach that “the worker is worthy of his wages.” (1 Timothy 5:18; 1 Corinthians 9)  If the preacher does not dress, act, talk, or live in the way that people think “a preacher should,” even if he is not sinning, he is criticized!  I wonder what brethren today would say if John the Baptist returned in camel’s hair clothing, or if Paul walked in, fresh from being imprisoned in a dirty dungeon?  After all, “a preacher is supposed to wear a suit all the time!”  I even heard of a preacher who mowed his grass in a suit!  Yet, of course, no other brethren are required to do this – only the preacher.

I do not plead for a life of luxury for all preachers, far above their brethren.  I have never asked for this, and never will.  What I am asking is for preachers to be able to live like their brethren!  Why should there be many, many preachers who live at a poverty level, with centuries-old furniture, cars rusted-through, and holes in their shoes, while churches hoard up hundreds of thousands of dollars in the treasury, and other brethren live like hogs?  Then, if the preacher gets a little money, he is criticized and blasted for the way he chooses to spend it. “Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you! Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten.  Your gold and silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have heaped up treasure in the last days.  Indeed the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of Sabbaoth.  You have lived on the earth in pleasure and luxury; you have fattened your hearts as in a day of slaughter.  You have condemned, you have murdered the just; he does not resist you.”  (James 5:1-5)

Do you doubt me, that this situation exists?  Then go to your preacher, ask him how much he makes, and compare his gross salary with the gross salary of the other members.  Compare the shoddiness of his clothing and house to the luxuries of others.  Ask him how he is criticized and gossiped about, by hypocrites who do the very same things.  You may be surprised what you learn.  Surely, there are preachers who are treated royally, and who are generously provided for – this is a blessing!  Every preacher should be thusly treated, but most are not.

I end this article with the same sentiment with which I began it – not in a spirit of complaining, but in a plea for justice and fairness for my preaching brethren.  You have no idea how your preacher toils, and what he endures, and the cruelties he suffers, but it will all be revealed in the judgment.

I. Introduction. Very soon after the establishment of the church of Jesus Christ, there were problems with false doctrine. Probably the first big problem the church experienced was that of the Judaizers: those who taught that all Christians had to obey the Law of Moses. Soon thereafter, the Gnostics became a problem; they were a group that taught that Jesus did not come in the flesh, and that they had a special, secret understanding of the scriptures that the unenlightened could not understand. Ever since then, there have been heresies, false doctrines, and problems in Christ’s church. Today is no different.

II. The Facts at Hand.

A. We have recently been blessed with new members at Fairfax, some from different backgrounds. Also, various members have asked questions or discussed some of the things that we will deal with in this sermon. Thus, it is appropriate and necessary to preach on these issues.
B. Not only is it appropriate, but the New Testament writers spent much time and ink in writing about the heresies of their day. This shows that it is not only right to preach on these things, but a preacher is not fulfilling his biblical duty unless he does. Thus, while there are many today who would argue against preaching on these things, they are arguing against the apostles.
C. In this series of sermons, we will use evidence to demonstrate some of the major problems, issues, heresies, and false doctrines in the church of Christ today. For each issue, we will demonstrate what the scriptures say, and draw a conclusion.
D. Note: Because of the nature of this sermon – trying to show that there are problems troubling the church of Christ – there will be included several quotations from preachers. The purpose of using these is not to be unkind, to be unloving, to hurt or harm anyone, or to be unfeeling and callous. The purpose is simply to offer evidence for my claims, in order that I may not be accused of misrepresenting or blaspheming anyone. This sermon is preached in love, in the hopes that we all might turn to the truth and away from error.

III. Problems in the Church: The Spirit of Liberalism.

A. It is difficult to define what is meant by liberalism, because the word has so many meaning in English. We first think of politics when we hear it, but that is not what we mean here. The basic meaning of the word liberal is free or loose, and it may be good or bad.
B. It is readily admitted that the word liberalism is not found in the Bible, but the concept definitely is, and in English, liberalism is simply the best way to describe it. In terms of the Bible, in the sense we mean, the spirit of liberalism is defined in this manner: the attitude which engages in Bible study and doctrinal teaching in a loose, free manner, without proper regard to the seriousness and strictness necessary. It is a general approach that allows looseness and room for variance in biblical doctrine.
C. Romans 12:8; 2 Corinthians 8:2; James 1:5: Not all liberalism in biblical matters is wrong. For example, when it comes to giving to the poor, we are commanded to be liberal, meaning loose and free with our possessions. So not all liberalism is wrong. What we are focusing on, is liberalism in approach to Bible study and to biblical doctrine.
D. Examples of biblical liberalism as revealed in citations:

1. "A King of Judah once took the initiative to call the Jewish people to observe the Passover. After the collapse of the Northern Kingdom in 722 B.C. and in connection with the cleansing of the temple at Jerusalem, King Hezekiah called people from both Judah and the Israel to keep the Passover together as brothers in the Holy City. Although many turned a deaf ear to his invitation, thousands began moving toward Jerusalem. The Passover lambs were killed and the celebration began. Some from the northern areas arrived too late, however, to perform the purification rituals that required several days for completion. So, although "a multitude of the people, many of them from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet they ate the Passover otherwise than as prescribed" (2 Chron.30:18a). Or, as the New International Version renders the last words of this verse, "they ate the Passover contrary to what was written." Would the rekindling of faith in Hezekiah’s attempt at reformation be stopped in its tracks by their impurity and unauthorized eating of the sacred meal? Would God destroy those who had violated the Passover rules? This is how the dramatic story ends: "But Hezekiah prayed for them, saying, ‘The good LORD pardon all who set their hearts to seek God, the LORD the God of their ancestors, even though not in accordance with the sanctuary’s rules of cleanness.’ The LORD heard Hezekiah, and healed the people" (2 Chron.30:18b-20). The violation of the purification laws in Hezekiah’s day was not a matter of cavalier disobedience. The people were not defying God but seeking him. Precisely because the good king knew the difference between rebellion and the failure of those who "set their hearts to seek God," he had the generosity of spirit to pray for them to be accepted in their deficiency. And because God ultimately judges on the basis of a seeker’s heart rather than his or her performance, he showed mercy, forgave their shortcomings, and healed them. Could we lower some of the Satan-inspired and human-erected walls that divide Christians from one another? Perhaps live by a broader definition of fellowship within the family of God than some of us have experienced to date? Might we learn that we have misrepresented one another at times and exhibited a shoddy form of religious prejudice toward people different from ourselves? Would it be worth it to abandon sectarian rivalry in order to "be in agreement" for presenting the gospel to the world? Would it make our witness even stronger "that there be no divisions" among us in declaring that Jesus is the hope of our world? Maybe renounce our litmus-test doctrines for the sake of lifting up Christ? Could we ever learn to be gracious enough to pray – and ask to have prayed for us! – the prayer of Good King Hezekiah for those we see as flawed in certain interpretations and practices?" (Rubel Shelley, Faith Matters, http://faithmatters.faithsite.com)

a. Note the following characteristics of the spirit of liberalism:

(1) Only one scripture is referred to, out of context, and the rest is Shelley’s own thoughts. Instead of actually reading a biblical text, and showing verse by verse what it means, only two sentences are read, without reference to the context, and this is the only scripture reference in the entire article. Compare this with biblical sermons, such as Peter’s in Acts 2:14-40, which included copious amounts of scriptures (Granted, Paul’s sermon in Acts 17 does not use Old Testament scripture, but that is because the New Testament was still being written, Paul was inspired, and he was preaching to people who did not know the Old Testament; we can know confidently that, if given time to continue, Paul certainly would have used the scriptures; and there is nothing wrong, per se, with a sermon based on a single scripture, but this is characteristic of most or all of certain preachers’ sermons, and that is not right).
(2) The actual meaning of the passage and the factors under consideration – that people who were already Jews, and were repenting and trying to do the best they could to do what was right and had been neglected, were accepted by God because of their repentance – is twisted. A new meaning is assigned to the passage: God does not care about our actions, but our heart; He will gladly tolerate false doctrine and unscriptural practices today as long as we feel good; we have no right to demand that the scriptures be followed; the scriptures are irrelevant as long as our hearts are right. This is obviously not the meaning of the original passage.
(3) Shelley’s opposition – those who, like us, insist on doctrinal purity and godly living and a biblical standard of fellowship – are caricatured. Note the following words and phrases used to describe us: Satan-inspired; human-erected; misrepresented one another; shoddy form of religious prejudice; sectarian rivalry; litmus-test doctrines; could we ever learn to be gracious enough. Now, if someone wants to make a logical, scriptural argument that someone is any one of these things, or that a doctrinal position is any number of these things, that is fine. But to merely assert these things without any logical argument is mere name-calling.
(4) The spirit of liberalism often claims to be non-judgmental, tolerant, and against the supposed intolerance of those who think like us. But, just look at the names we have been called in point (3). Are these "tolerant, open-minded, non-judgmental" types of things to call people?
(5) The arguments made are not logical and not consistent with the New Testament. The basic meaning of the article – that God judges our heart and not our actions; thus we can ignore all doctrinal differences and accept everyone in fellowship, and the scriptures do not matter so much as long as we have the right heart – violates several clear scriptures, among them: 2 Timothy 3:16,17; Matthew 16:27; Matthew 23:23; James 2:24.
(6) The entire article seems more like an emotional tirade than a reasoned, logical argument from the scriptures.

2. "Christians participate in two God-ordained sacraments that celebrate what God has done for us: communion and baptism. Communion is celebrated on a regular basis and baptism as a one-time declaration of a lifetime of devotion to God. This study will consider the second of these two events: baptism. The human mind explaining baptism is like a harmonica interpreting Beethoven: the music is too majestic for the instrument. No scholar or saint can fully appreciate what this moment means in heaven. Any words on baptism, including these, must be seen as human efforts to understand a holy event. Our danger is to swing to one of two extremes: we make baptism either too important or too unimportant. Either we deify it or we trivialize it. One can see baptism as the essence of the gospel or as irrelevant to the gospel. Both sides are equally perilous. One person says, "I am saved because I was baptized." The other says, "I am saved so I don’t need to be baptized." The challenge is to let the pendulum stop somewhere between the two viewpoints. This is done by placing it where it should be: at the foot of the cross. Baptism is like a precious jewel — set apart by itself, it is nice and appealing but has nothing within it to compel. But place baptism against the backdrop of our sin and turn on the light of the cross, and the jewel explodes with significance. Baptism at once reveals the beauty of the cross and the darkness of sin. As a gem has many facets, baptism has many sides: cleansing, burial, resurrection, the death of the old, and the birth of the new. Just as the stone has no light within it, baptism has no inherent power. But just as the gem prisms the light into many colors, so baptism reveals the many facets of God’s grace. Once a person admits his sin and turns to Christ for salvation, some step must be taken to proclaim to heaven and earth that he is a follower of Christ. Baptism is that step. Baptism is the initial and immediate step of obedience by one who has declared his faith to others. So important was this step that, as far as we know, every single convert in the New Testament was baptized. With the exception of the thief on the cross, there is no example of an unbaptized believer. The thief on the cross, however, is a crucial exception. His conversion drives dogmatists crazy. It is no accident that the first one to accept the invitation of the crucified Christ has no creed, confirmation, christening, or catechism. How disturbing to theologians to ascend the mountain of doctrine only to be greeted by an uneducated thief who cast his lot with Christ. Here is a man who never went to church, never gave an offering, never was baptized, and said only one prayer. But that prayer was enough. He has a crucial role in the gospel drama. The thief reminds us that though our dogma may be airtight and our doctrine dead-center, in the end it is Jesus who saves. Does his story negate the importance of obedience? No, it simply puts obedience in proper perspective. Any step taken is a response to a salvation offered, not an effort at salvation earned. In the end, God has the right to save any heart, for he and only he sees the heart." (Max Lucado, http://www.maxlucado.com, sermon on baptism)

a. Note the following characteristics of the spirit of liberalism:

(1) In all fairness to Max Lucado, this is the introduction to a longer document, and that document does include several scriptures, and Lucado does make some valid points. However, this is the main thesis of the document, and is the doctrine that Lucado believes.
(2) Note however, in this particular argument, there is not even one scripture reference given. There is an allusion to the thief on the cross, but it is only an allusion.
(3) Assertions – obviously controversial assertions (and Lucado knows this) – are made without any scriptural backing, or logical argumentation. Note the following unsupported assertions: Christians participate in two God-ordained sacraments (What is a sacrament, Max? It is a Catholic term: are you supporting Catholicism?); baptism is a sacrament; baptism cannot truly be understood by humans (While this may be true generally, what he means by that is that, because we cannot really understand it, we cannot truly say what its meaning is, as borne out in the rest of the article); baptism is simply a first act of obedience for a saved person; the thief on the cross somehow disproves the necessity of baptism. All of these are statements that are not found in the New Testament, and instead of logically and scripturally demonstrating them, they are simply stated and asserted without any evidence.
(4) A bad argument that is easily answered is set forth as a single proof that baptism is not really necessary. The Thief on the Cross Argument is easily answered: the Son of Man had authority on earth to forgive sins (Matthew 9:6). A preacher should know better. Yet, ignoring this obvious answer, Lucado insists on repeating the old denominational argument that has been answered over and over by faithful preachers for centuries. As if the thief on the cross could somehow negate all that the New Testament says about baptism!
(5) Note again the characterization of those who insist that baptism is necessary for salvation: theologians to ascend the mountain of doctrine only to be greeted by an uneducated thief; though our dogma may be airtight and our doctrine dead-center, in the end it is Jesus who saves (As if Jesus’ salvation somehow contradicts or negates, or is unrelated to, doctrine!).

3. "Why are you here? Is this the first place you’ve come looking for in this site? Have you sought out this keyhole entry-way to find this material? Will pursuing a study concerning the age of creation enhance your faith, or will it likely detract from your service to God? Will you devote untold time and energy to a topic which has essentially nothing to do with your or anyone else’s salvation? Defending the faith of Jesus Christ is not about how old the universe, the earth, or even mankind is. Lengthy discussions of age frequently become just a time and spirit consuming stumblingblock, regardless of one’s beliefs on the topic. I strongly recommend that you pursue some of the more practical apologetic materials <http://lordibelieve.org/page13.html> available at this site, or on some of the other recommended sites <http://lordibelieve.org/page5.html> such as highlighted in our weekly "Featured Articles." If at some point you find it imperative to understand this topic, then enter this room of our virtual library through the wormhole at the bottom of the page. But please do not be seduced by these studies away from your daily calling to take the gospel into all the world. There is very little here that will help you to that end." (Hill Roberts, http://www.lordibelieve.org, Introduction to his material on the age of the earth)

a. Note the following characteristics of the spirit of liberalism:

(1) The approach is biased from the start. Brother Roberts knows that his views are controversial, and that many faithful preachers believe him to be a false teacher, and so he immediately takes the offensive and charges the reader with being unreasonable. This is one characteristic of liberalism: it is often not a fair, balanced examination of a question; it is the support of a pre-conceived agenda.
(2) Again, note the insistence on controversial and biased positions without any scriptural support whatsoever. Brother Roberts asserts that the age of the creation has absolutely nothing to do with faith in Christ or with salvation. Now if he wanted to argue that based on the scriptures or logic, that would be a different matter. But simply to assert that any part of the word of God is meaningless, and then to refuse to back it up with any evidence, is liberalism to a tee.
(3) The assertions made violate several clear scriptures. For example, Colossians 1:15-20 clearly relates Christ to creation, and His role as Creator to His headship to the church. Thus, instead of making a valid, scriptural argument, loose, liberal statements are made with no evidence, and they actually contradict the scriptures.
(4) Note also the essence of liberalism: a loose handling of the scriptures. Vague, general, yet exclusive type statements are made without any attempt to justify them with the scriptures, or to explain them (a topic which has essentially nothing to do with your or anyone else’s salvation). It is this type of careless, emotional, sweeping generalization that is a true characteristic of liberalism.
E. Thus, the spirit of liberalism includes a very emotional, biased, unsupported approach to Bible study. It demonstrates a marked lack of a systematic, careful, scriptural based method of supporting arguments. Also, in an effort to be non-judgmental, open-minded, and intolerant, liberalism often hurls unsupported, caricatured accusations at others, and calls names.
F. Rather than a liberalistic approach, the scriptures themselves teach us to be very careful, intensive, and scripturally-based in our approach to preaching and teaching.

1. 1 Timothy 4:15,16: The correct approach is that of intense study, concentration, thought, and dedication to doctrine. This is the opposite of the liberalistic approach of loose emotionalism. We must be careful not to state doctrinal beliefs without proper study and preparation.
2. Ephesians 4:11-14: One reason that God provided the church with the offices of evangelists, elders, teachers, and in the first century, apostles and prophets, was to keep the church from falling for false doctrine, and to be grounded in truth. The scriptural description of the duties of most of these works includes teaching and preaching, which in turn implies study. Thus, the normal learning process for the church includes study and some sort of organized teaching. This implies a rational, careful process of study, and not merely wild, emotionalistic statements without proof.
3. 1 Timothy 6:4: The sin of evil surmising (KJV), otherwise translated evil suspicions, is that of assuming the worst about others and their motives without evidence. This is exactly what the spirit of liberalism does: in reacting emotionally and personally to doctrine, it ends up calling names and assuming things about motives. Note again some of the things above that more conservative-minded brethren are accused of and called, with no supporting evidence.
4. Matthew 7:1-5: In an effort to be tolerant, open-minded, and inclusive, as demonstrated above, many liberally-minded brethren end up doing the very opposite. They end up being intolerant, close-minded, and exclusive to anyone who does not agree with them.
5. 2 Timothy 3:7: As demonstrated above, one of the arguments used in liberalism is that, because some of the bible is difficult, and because no one person has perfect understanding of all things (both of which are true), therefore we can never really know anything, and we must tolerate any and all doctrinal beliefs. In other words, many liberals are not willing to decide on a doctrine and stick with it. Instead, they are indeed "always learning, and never coming to a knowledge of the truth." In my personal experience, trying to get a straight answer to a straight question from on of these liberal brethren, or trying to pin down their beliefs on the simplest of doctrines, is like trying to wrestle the wind.
6. 1 Timothy 1:10,11: As seen above, one major tenet of liberalism is the idea that, as long as we just believe in Christ, and try to do well, nothing else really matters, especially doctrine. However, the scriptures are clear that the gospel of Christ must include the doctrine of Christ. If all that is necessary is to simply believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, then why did the apostles spend so much time writing the New Testament about various doctrines? Were they just wasting their time? The mere fact that Paul, for example, took the time to write God’s inspired instructions on so many various matters indicates that those matters matter!

IV. Problems in the Church: The Gospel and Doctrine Controversy.

A. The idea that the gospel of Christ and the doctrine of Christ are two distinct, different, and exclusive things is not new. It is, in fact, ancient. But, in this country, the idea was promoted in the 1950s by different preachers. This particular view is regaining popularity today among many preachers.
B. The premise of this view – that gospel and doctrine are to different things – is not entirely untrue. But the error of this position is twofold. First, it takes this difference to an extreme. Secondly, the conclusion of the argument is that the only requirement for fellowship is the acceptance of a very few facts of "gospel," and "doctrine" is irrelevant to fellowship.
C. It is true that the words gospel and doctrine are two different words, both in New Testament Greek and in English. It is also therefore true that, being two different words, they have two different definitions. Obviously the two words are not exact synonyms.

1. Gospel is translated from the Greek euangellion, which means glad tidings or good news.
2. Doctrine is translated from the Greek didache, which means teaching, doctrine, and the communication of facts in a didactic style.
3. Thus, we can see that yes, there is a difference in the meaning of the words. Generally speaking, gospel refers to the entire concept of the good news of salvation through Christ. Doctrine generally refers to the specific teachings which come from Christ. Thus, the gospel is by nature more general than the doctrine.
4. 1 Timothy 1:10,11: Yet there is obviously a close relation between the gospel and the doctrine. To argue that they are two completely different, unrelated things is wrong.
a. The only way any man can learn about the gospel (good news) of salvation through Christ, is by hearing the doctrine (the teaching of the facts of the gospel). In other words, the gospel could not be preached or obeyed without doctrine.
b. The fact that Christ Himself ordained the apostles to teach all of the specific doctrine means that all of it is a part of the gospel. In other words, there is no biblical doctrine that is not somehow a part of the gospel.

5. Thus, while gospel and doctrine are two different Greek words, and while they therefore each have their own, unique definition, they are interrelated biblically so that they are each dependent on the other. Because one cannot have gospel without doctrine, or doctrine without gospel, therefore they cannot be separated as those who take this view attempt to do.

D. Examples of the gospel versus doctrine view as revealed in citations:

1. "Mark 16:15,16: Incredible as it may seem, this has become one of the "twisted scriptures." As a result, that which was ordained to save the world is used to divide the church. That which was designed to be glad tidings to hungry sinners has become sad news to harassed saints. All of the confusion stems from the fact that many have lost the scriptural distinction between the gospel, the Message to lead men to believe in Jesus as the Son of God; and the doctrine, which is a course of instruction for the training, development and growth of the children of God. There is as much difference between the gospel of Christ and the apostolic doctrine as there is between the sperm from which a child is begotten and the food which he eats after he is born. The purpose of the gospel is to enlist men in the army of Christ; the doctrine constitutes a manual of arms and book of discipline to develop the soldiers into a fighting force. The first is an announcement that the school of Christ has been opened and eligible scholars will be accepted for enrollment; the latter is the curriculum for daily study by the students, or disciples. Before we deal with the scriptural connotation involved let us understand why, what has become a traditional interpretation, is conducive to division and destructive of unity. The common fallacy assumes that all of the apostolic epistles are part of the gospel of Christ and any exposition of the doctrine contained in these letters is preaching the gospel. Since Jesus makes salvation contingent upon believing the gospel, and superficial students generally confuse belief with knowledge, it is further assumed that those who do not subscribe to the orthodox interpretation placed upon every passage thereby "reject the gospel." Each sect, party or faction, thus makes its traditional explanations and deductions "the gospel" and we end up with as many "gospels" as we have parties. It is easily understandable that the ones who so reason will conclude that only those who are allied with the party will be saved, and all others are outside the pale since they have not "obeyed the gospel" (that is, subscribed to the unwritten partisan creed). But we learn from observation, experience and the sacred scriptures, that we do not all have the same degree of knowledge. God has made us all to differ in the intellectual realm as we do in the physical. We can no more all think alike than we can all look alike. No two of us on earth attain to the same identical degree of knowledge about everything at the same moment. As Will Rogers remarked, "We are all ignorant, but just about different things." Any attempt to secure unity upon the basis of uniformity of knowledge or conformity in deductive or inferential processes (i.e., doctrinal interpretation) is doomed before it begins. It must inevitably end in dividing that which it seeks to unite. For this reason, those who make such attempts must always resort to creation of external authoritarian power structures in order to compel conformity. This is generally done by investing a person or group with an aura of infallibility so that all non-conformity with the orthodox creed can be equated with rebellion against God. To dissent is to "deny the authority of the scriptures." Every individual who desires to be regarded as "loyal" must surrender his right to reason and think upon God’s revelation to the "power bloc" and "unity" is maintained by legislation handed down, as well as by fear of social rejection by the group accompanied by reprisal for dissent&ldots;What were the constituent factors of the gospel? There were seven of these as follows: the life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, coronation and glorification of Jesus of Nazareth&ldots;The "doctrine of the apostles" consists of a course of instruction designed to bring citizens of the kingdom to a constantly increasing sense of maturity and responsibility. It is those who have been immersed in obedience to the claims of Jesus upon their lives who continue steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine. Fellowship results from the gospel, growth within the fellowship is the aim of doctrinal development. The gospel brings men into Christ, the doctrine helps them grow up in Him. So long as men seek to make fellowship in Christ Jesus contingent upon conformity of opinion, deduction, understanding and apprehension of apostolic doctrine, rather than upon faith in Him through the facts of the gospel, that long will they be purveyors of partisan loyalties and fomenters of factional strife. The gospel needs to be proclaimed to the whole world, the doctrine needs to be taught to the whole church, and every truth should be accepted as it becomes known&ldots; My only creed must be Christ. Jesus is the gospel and the gospel is Jesus. The crowning truth of the gospel is that He is the Son of God and, therefore, Lord of all. If I demand that one adopt my view or explanation of a secondary matter, or surrender his own, in order to be received by me, that thing becomes my creed. Whatever one must believe or subscribe to in order to be accepted by any group is the creed of that group, and like all human creeds it is exalted to a position of prominence above the divinely-established fact that Jesus is the Messiah and God’s Son. The only basis of koinonia is the relationship with the Son created by faith in Him. It is not orthodoxy of opinion, interpretation or explanation."
(W. Carl Ketcherside, from Unity in Diversity, http://www.unity-in-diversity.org)

a. Note the following characteristics of the gospel versus doctrine position:

(1) Like the spirit of liberalism, the argument begins with a caricature of those who disagree with it. Note the view of those who disagree with Ketcherside: that which was ordained to save the world is used to divide the church; that which was designed to be glad tidings to hungry sinners has become sad news to harassed saints. There is no evident or immediate evidence to support these claims: they are simply stated.
(2) This is an excerpt from a book written by W. Carl Ketcherside (The Twisted Scriptures), not a sermon. And it is readily granted that there are some scripture references used in the book. However, this particular text sets forth the main argument of the book, and there is a marked lack of scripture. Most of it is Ketcherside’s statements, claims, and opinions, with no scripture to back it up. For example, the bold and controversial statement, There is as much difference between the gospel of Christ and the apostolic doctrine as there is between the sperm from which a child is begotten and the food which he eats after he is born, is simply stated as true, with no scriptural support whatsoever. Also note the statement: those who make such attempts must always resort to creation of external authoritarian power structures in order to compel conformity. What precise "external authoritarian power structure" do we have here, at Fairfax, for example? I readily admit that I have no power over anyone here, except the power of preaching the Bible. And if we had elders, then they would have the authority that God gave them. But where is this supposed "external authoritarian power structure?"
(3) The fact that no one person is omniscient and perfect is used to argue that therefore no one can actually know truth on anything, and thus we must accept everything. This is not logical. It is true that no one human knows everything, but it is equally true that everyone knows some things. It is also true that God commands us to constantly learn, study, and grow. It is a cop-out to give up argue that we really cannot know anything.
(4) By arguing that anything doctrinal that we conclude from the Bible cannot be accepted as truth, but is mere human opinion, is to charge God with giving us a contradictory, arbitrary, meaningless Bible. If we cannot understand doctrine alike, then why in the world did God give it?
(5) Ketcherside, like every preacher I have ever met who believes this position, has his own personal list of the "gospel truths" that actually matter. His is seven: some are three, some five, some eight. It is hard to find two preachers who agree (the last one I talked to insisted that such a list existed, but refused to tell me what exactly was on it). So my question is, where is this list of "important" truths found in the Bible? How does Ketcherside know that this is the one, infallible list? How did he figure this list out without somehow using "human reasoning?" Why is his list the ultimate, divine list, an no one else’s? What makes his list right, and mine wrong, for example? The fact is that we cannot simply divide up biblical teaching into "that which matters," and "that which is irrelevant." There is no such list in the Bible. Thus, in an effort to argue that no one actually knows anything, one ends up actually claiming to be the one, infallible purveyor of truth!
(6) Finally, the notion that "gospel" and "doctrine" are two completely, unrelated, different things is scripturally wrong. There are many scriptures which clearly demonstrate their interdependence.

2. "This question is more relevant than we might suppose, for it just may be that we have some serious misunderstandings about the nature of the gospel. Response from across the country to a recent letter of mine in the Christian Chronicle convinced me that we would all do well to re-think the question What is the gospel? I made such statements as ‘The gospel is in the scriptures, but not to be identified with them.’ The responses made it clear that the common notion among our people is that the gospel is the whole of the New Testament. One is therefore preaching the gospel when he is expounding upon any biblical theme, rooted in the truths of the New Testament. My letter presented a different view from this. There are severe implications to the position that the gospel consists in the teachings of the New Testament. If this is so, then for one to obey the gospel and become a Christian he must understand the whole of the New Covenant scriptures and obey them aright. If this is so, then fellowship among Christians, which is admitted by all to be based upon the gospel, is dependent on all of them seeing the Bible exactly alike. If this is so, then only he is a gospel preacher who preaches "the truth" on all the doctrines in the Christian scriptures. If this is so, then there was not a single apostle who preached the whole gospel, with the possible exception of John, for the New Testament was not completed until near the close of the first century. If this is so, the disciples in the primitive church heard only part of the gospel, for the scriptures were not complete until long after they passed on. If this is so, Paul could not have been right when he said, ‘I have fully preached the gospel of Christ,’ for part of the New Testament was not written until long after his death. But there is even a more serious implication. If the gospel, which God gave for the salvation of the world, is a composition of all the doctrines in the scriptures, then we are left with an ambiguous message to proclaim to a lost world. Many of the teachings of the New Testament are unclear and difficult. Peter himself says of Paul’s teachings: ‘There are some things in them hard to understand.’ Is the gospel which we are to proclaim to men with broken hearts and disturbed minds hard to understand? When Jesus told his apostles to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature, are we to understand that he was speaking of all that comprises what we call the New Testament? If so, it was an impossible command, for most of them did not even live to see such an arrangement of scripture. And even had Jesus then and there handed them copies of the New Testament no two of them could have gone forth and preached the same thing, for they would have had divergent views of its meaning-just as we all do today. Surely we can see that Jesus was referring to a specific message, a proclamation of certain heavenly facts to be believed. This is why Paul in 1 Cor. 1:21 spoke of the gospel as ‘the thing preached.’ This is why he could speak of ‘obeying the gospel,’ for the gospel is one thing and obeying it is something else. This is why he could refer to ‘the defense and confirmation of the gospel,’ for the gospel is one thing, while to defend it and confirm it are something else&ldots;Then what is the gospel? Campbell makes the definition clear: ‘The gospel is the proclamation in the name of God of remission of sins and eternal life through the sacrifice and mediation of Jesus Christ, to everyone that obeys him in the instituted way&ldots;’In approaching the question in another way, he observes that the gospel is the faith as distinguished from faith. The faith is belief and trust in God’s act of love through Christ. It is acceptance of the event of Christ in history. Faith on the other hand is belief or conviction regarding numerous teachings of the scriptures. One may believe that he should partake of the Lord’s Supper each first day. This is faith, but no part of the faith. The faith is centered in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for our sins. One who accepts this has accepted the faith, even though he may be confused on many matters of faith&ldots;Campbell says further of the nature of the gospel: ‘It is a clear, full, and authoritative statement of pardon and eternal life from the philanthropy of God through the interposition of Jesus in a positive institution&ldots;’ He uses big words, doesn’t he? He is saying that the gospel is the good news that man can be saved from his sin by way of God’s loving act in giving Christ to the world. It would be proper to say therefore, Campbell being right, that when preaching deals with the theme of God’s love through Christ it is gospel preaching&ldots;How does all this relate to unity of Christians and the fellowship of the saints? Our point is as was Campbell’s, that unity is based upon the person of Christ (the gospel) , that when people believe in him and obey him in baptism they are one together. They are one when they are won by the gospel. Fellowship is the sharing of the common life that grows out of that relationship of the oneness in Jesus. On this matter there can be no ambiguity, no compromise, no reason for differences. If one believes in Jesus and is baptized, like Mark 16:16 says, he is one with all others who have so believed and obeyed. He is therefore in the fellowship when he believes the one fact (the gospel) and obeys the one act (baptism which is the response to the gospel).This should answer the charge that is often made that some of us who are pleading for a deeper sense of fellowship believe in ‘fellowshipping anybody and everybody.’ Yes, we believe ‘anybody and everybody’ that is in Christ (through faith and obedience) are our brothers and within the fellowship. We further contend, again with brother Campbell, that fellowship is not contingent upon conformity of belief in matters of doctrine. It may be contingent upon sincerity, but men can be sincere and still hold different views about many points of doctrine (which we distinguish from the gospel). This is why we have been saying that we can hold different views about all the things that keep us divided-whether music, classes, serving the Supper, premillennialism, pastor system, cooperative enterprises-and still enjoy fellowship in Christ together. It is because all these things are, more of less (mostly less) related to the didache (doctrine), which is not the basis of unity, and not related to the kerugma (gospel) which is the basis of unity&ldots;Then this means we may be in the fellowship with a man who is in error?, we are asked. Yes and No. It depends on what the error is. The man who is in error about Christ, such as believing that he was a great man but still only a man, or one who refuses to yield himself to Christ by being baptized, cannot be considered within the fellowship, for God has not ‘called him into fellowship of his Son through the gospel,’ as the apostle puts it&ldots;The answer is Yes we may enjoy unity with the brother who holds erroneous views about various points of doctrine. Who of us does not? Who will stand up and say he is right on all the teachings of scripture? A brother’s error may be serious, so serious that it places strains upon the shared life in Jesus (fellowship), and for this reason we should be concerned and do what we can to correct it through loving tender care. But such error does not itself nullify the fellowship. It did not in the case of Paul and Peter, who had rather serious differences&ldots;When then is fellowship disrupted?, we are asked. In two circumstances according to the scriptures: When a brother becomes a heretic and when a brother leads a life of immorality. I say leads such a life, like the fornicator at Corinth, but not the brother who unintentionally errs out of weakness. The heretic is the insincere trouble-maker who is intent upon injuring the body of Christ for his own selfish gain." (Leroy Garrett, from Our Heritage of Unity and Fellowship, http://www.freedomsring.org)

a. Note the following characteristics of the gospel versus doctrine position:

(1) It must be admitted that, as opposed to many others referred to in this sermon, Garrett is noticeably less harsh, judgmental, and name-calling.
(2) This is just one excerpt from a particular book. In this sample, there is a marked lack of scripture (just like every other excerpt we have seen thus far). I took a random sample of the rest the material on the website (dozens of chapters and samples from various books) and in almost every selection, it would be fair to say that 80%-90% of the text is the thoughts of Garrett, and only 10%-20% is scripture references, and even among those, often it is merely a reference with no explanation of how that scripture fits. This fits in with the general spirit of this movement: much opinion and little scriptural support. Again, there is no biblical number of scriptures that must be in a particular work. But, if a particular preacher consistently and regularly demonstrates a great lack of scriptures in his works, then there is a problem.
(3) There is the same concept of a divine, decisive list of biblical truths that "matter." For example, not the statement: If one believes in Jesus and is baptized, like Mark 16:16 says, he is one with all others who have so believed and obeyed. He is therefore in the fellowship when he believes the one fact (the gospel) and obeys the one act (baptism which is the response to the gospel). What about repentance or confession, Brother Garrett? Are these not also necessary? Romans 10:9,10, and Acts 2:38 says they are. But note, repentance and confession are not part of Garrett’s exclusive, ultimate list of necessary obedience. Note also the statement: The faith is centered in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for our sins. One who accepts this has accepted the faith, even though he may be confused on many matters of faith. This clearly demonstrates the folly of this position. Leroy Garrett was certainly aware of the teachings of W. Carl Ketcherside (see above), yet note that even they come up with a different set of things that "matter!" Ketcherside says that there are seven essential gospel facts, and here Garrett names only three! Which one is right? Why are we condemned as promoting a manmade gospel for insisting on a set of doctrine, yet they clearly have created two such, contradictory lists, each insisting that he is correct? Doesn’t this show that the answer to disunity is not to simply ignore doctrine, as no one will exactly agree on which doctrine may be ignored?
(4) Again, faulty arguments are made. The main argument again is: because no human is perfect, and none of us have perfect knowledge on everything (which is readily admitted), therefore we can really know nothing, and must accept everything (except, of course, what Ketcherside and Garrett say we must accept). That is simply not a valid argument. Even though no one has perfect knowledge, we do and can know many things from the Bible, and are growing and learning every day.
E. This view on gospel and doctrine is experiencing a resurgence today. While not expressed in the exact same terms, the idea and argument behind it is exactly the same: Because we cannot know everything, therefore we can know nothing, and so must accept everything.
F. What do the scriptures say about gospel, doctrine, and acceptance?

1. Matthew 4:23: Christ preached the gospel of the kingdom. The kingdom of God is, generally speaking, the church. According to Ketcherside and Garrett, the gospel is only a set number of facts concerning Christ, one saying three facts, the other saying seven. What then was Christ preaching concerning the kingdom? He taught many things: what the kingdom was, what the prophets said, how to act, etc. Neither Ketcherside nor Garrett includes teachings about the kingdom in "the gospel." Yet Christ proves them wrong.
2. Matthew 26:13: Christ intended that the woman who anointed His head with fragrant oil be spoken of as a part of the gospel’s being preached. Yet, this woman’s story is not one of the three or seven facts of the gospel/doctrine advocates. But, Christ said that, whenever the gospel is preached, her story would be told.
3. Mark 1:1: Mark calls his entire account of the life of Christ the gospel of Jesus Christ. He does not merely limit it to three, or seven, facts, but goes on to describe many things about Christ.

4. 2 Timothy 1:9-11: Remember that Ketcherside and Garrett argue that the teaching of doctrine (Greek didache) is not the gospel, but is only for Christians, and is not really essential to salvation anyway. Yet note carefully what Paul calls himself in this passage: a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher. The Greek word for teacher is didaskalos, and comes directly from didache (doctrine); it means a communicator of doctrine. Note carefully the relationship between gospel and doctrine: Paul was called to the gospel to be a teacher. Another way of phrasing that without changing the meaning is that he was called to be a teacher of the gospel, or a gospel teacher. If the word teacher means a communicator of doctrine, and this communication of doctrine is of the gospel, then naturally we understand that a part of preaching the gospel is teaching the doctrine.
5. 1 Timothy 1:8-11: In this passage, the things contrary to sound doctrine are also according to the gospel. What can this mean but that the gospel reveals the doctrine that condemns these sins?
6. Clearly then, gospel and doctrine are not two, mutually exclusive things. They are intertwined and interrelated. But, it is true that they are two different words, and so, while interrelated, have two distinct meaning (not contradictory meaning, but distinct). So, how do they fit together, and how does this relate to fellowship?
7. Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4; et al.: It is clear, both from the commandments in the New Testament, and all of the examples of conversion in Acts, that a person does not need to know all of the New Testament doctrine to initially become a Christian: I do not know anyone who teaches otherwise. It is clear that Paul first preached to people the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. Yet, that is not all he taught! So yes, a person only needs to know about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and to obey Him in baptism (preceded by repentance and confession), to initially be saved. And there is a sense in which it is after a person becomes a Christian that he goes on to learn more and more of the doctrine, and to grow and mature spiritually (Hebrews 5:12-14). This is not the part I have problems with. What is the problem is to argue that anyone who merely knows and obeys the gospel, and then goes on to believe, teach, or follow false doctrine, is perfectly acceptable to God, and in fellowship to Christians.
8. Galatians 5:20; 1 Corinthians 1:10; 2 Corinthians 10:4,5: It is equally clear that there is true doctrine, and that a failure to follow that doctrine is sinful. The very word heresy refers to an internal following of one’s opinion rather than the word of God. We are to have every thought in captivity to Christ. Thus, if a person obeys the gospel, but then goes on to follow false doctrine, he is not "ok." He is a heretic.
9. 1 Timothy 4:1-3: If all doctrine does not matter, and if we can believe anything we want on any doctrine, so long as we are sincere, then why does the New Testament warn us so strongly of so many various doctrines? For example, in this passage, Paul refers to two specific doctrines, neither of which have to do with Ketcherside’s and Garrett’s lists of the essential truths: forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from certain meats. Now, Paul clearly says in verse 1 that those who follow after these false doctrines (not false gospels, but false doctrines, according to Ketcherside’s and Garrett’s reasoning) are departing from the faith. Yet, according to Garrett, "&ldots;the gospel is the faith as distinguished from faith. The faith is belief and trust in God’s act of love through Christ. It is acceptance of the event of Christ in history. Faith on the other hand is belief or conviction regarding numerous teachings of the scriptures." (see above) How then does this passage fit into that reasoning? Paul says that some will depart from the faith (in Greek, it is clearly the faith, not just faith), and that they will do so by following doctrines of demons, two of which are mentioned and are not part of Ketcherside’s and Garrett’s "truth that matters" list. Thus, Paul contradicts the gospel/doctrine position.
10. Finally, I have yet to meet a preacher who espouses this gospel/doctrine position, who can give me a definitive list of the truths that matter. Ketcherside attempted, but as we have seen, even his list does not match others. I have yet to find anyone who can show me that list in the Bible. Although Ketcherside’s and Garrett’s articles and teachings are decades-old, they are being seen today among others.
11. Basically, the gospel is the good news of salvation through Christ, and the doctrine is all of the teachings which are associated with, and a part of, that gospel. A person may be saved by only knowing a few things about Christ and obeying Him, but he may not continue to accept and follow false doctrines and remain in fellowship with God or other Christians. All of us must continue daily to study, grow, and learn.

V. Problems in the Church: Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8, and Fellowship.

A. In the past several years, there has been a very strong movement in the church of Christ in this area. Many preachers and brethren, some well-known, trusted, and having previously sterling reputations, have begun to interpret Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 in a manner that allows open fellowship with others with whom they are diametrically opposed on many major doctrinal issues. Along with this, false teachers are re-defined, not as teachers with false doctrine, but as only dishonest and evil teachers with false doctrine – someone who is sincere but in error cannot be a false teacher according to this view. Under this interpretation of these texts, we must accept anyone and everyone who believes anything and everything, no matter how wrong.

B. Examples of the Romans14/1 Corinthians 8 view as revealed in citations:

1. "First, Dudley objects to my admission that I have fellowship with those who teach what I believe to be wrong on matters of "considerable moral and doctrinal import." But my statement is a truism, and it is just as true of Dudley as it is of me. To argue that fellowship is based on agreement on every question of biblical interpretation simply distorts our experience&ldots;A wide variety of positions involving marriage, divorce, and remarriage are matters of faith. A Christian can only marry a Christian, divorce is not permissible under any circumstances under the law of Christ, the innocent party in a divorce can remarry only if the writing of divorcement is for the cause of fornication, an alien is not subject to Matthew 19, the guilty party in a divorce is free to remarry — each of these is a statement of faith. All are not equally tolerable to me, and I have tried to outline the basis on which I separate them&ldots;Common sense forces us to acknowledge that we disagree about matters of faith. My articles cited extensive historical evidence indicating that brethren have long done so. If, as Dudley contends, there can be no fellowship where conscientious differences exist, then in each of the matters of faith I noted in my articles he must specify which is the one correct position limiting fellowship. If, as I have argued, such disagreements are a fact of history and life, I must establish the biblical limits of tolerance. That was the point of my series of articles; I shall summarize my guidelines at the close of this article&ldots;Dudley’s second objection, and the one that he addresses most extensively, is that Romans 14 relates simply to matters of opinion, not to matters of faith. As I said in my articles, if that position is true, we are still left with the practical necessity of deciding when to fellowship those who interpret biblical passages differently from us&ldots;Briefly, however, I question Dudley’s exposition of the passage. He states: "The issues in Romans 14 were not matters of faith; they were matters of opinion." The problem is that Paul calls them matters of "faith." They did not concern "irrelevant matters" to those with "strong convictions;" the Christians in this passage disagreed about what the law of God instructed them to do. Romans 14 tells how to live together with differences of conscience. I shall be happy to address this passage further as space permits. While I have changed my mind about many things since 1966, I am perfectly willing to stand by Dudley’s quotation from my speech before the Disciples of Christ Historical Society. I believe that the scriptures reveal clear truth, that those who disobey that truth are wrong and that they will go to hell. I do not believe that adulterers will go to heaven, nor will rebellious women (those who refuse to wear coverings?), murderous men (those who wage war?), or those who pervert the work of a local church (by hosting social functions such as weddings?). The issue is how certain I am that my biblical interpretation on those topics precludes all others. If total doctrinal agreement is the only basis for fellowship, then a brother who believes that there is no scriptural grounds for divorce would necessarily conclude that Dudley endorses adultery. Biblical principles must govern our toleration of differences in faith. My articles do not imply that "our disagreements are limited only to … a ban on ‘doubtful ‘disputations.’ I compiled a list of scriptural principles (I would be happy to see it improved) that establish the bounds of Christian unity. Briefly summarized, they are: (1) unity can not exist in an environment of dissension (2) I can not tolerate clear immorality (3) I must be convinced that a brother is acting in faith (that he is, in my opinion, trying to honestly live in conformity with all scriptural teaching) (4) I can tolerate no clear violator of biblical instruction&ldots;Within certain limits, God grants to Christians the right to a private conscience in matters of ‘faith.’ I believe that right is discussed in Romans 14. However, whether or not one accepts my exegesis of that passage, honest minds must acknowledge the reality of a past and present Christian world that tolerates contradictory teachings and practices on important moral and doctrinal questions&ldots;In my opinion, Romans 14 gives instructions to two people who conscientiously disagree about what God instructs them to do, and, consequently, the passage speaks to us when we find ourselves in the same predicament (see Christianity Magazine, May, 1989, page 134). Dudley contends that the passage discusses a lower level of faith (really only opinion), as opposed to the faith. That interpretation, it seems to me, makes the passage irrelevant, but that is not the issue between us&ldots;Finally, let me restate what I have argued about fellowship and marriage and divorce. I believe that every local church must make its own decisions about what one position (or two or three) on marriage and divorce is acceptable to that fellowship. Each Christian must decide how he or she relates to those who hold contrary views. A local church has every right to restrict its fellowship to those whose marriages conform to the restrictions of Matthew 19:3-12; I have never worshipped in a congregation that did otherwise. I believe that a Christian has the right to mark as a false teacher every person who disagrees with him about marriage and divorce&ldots;The distinction between ‘faith’ and ‘the faith’ is an entirely modern strategy that has no basis in biblical exegesis&ldots;" (from a written exchange between Dudley Ross Spears and Ed Harrell, published online at http://www.biblebanner.com: the above statements reflect Harrell’s position)

2. "Now with all that as a background, we talked this morning for a few minutes about the question of withdrawing a fellowship or refusing fellowship to some. And we indicated that there are some specific teachings in scripture that demand the withdrawing or breaking of a local fellowshipping. In each of those cases: 1 Cor. 5; Rom. 16; 2 Thess. 3, the party involved was doing something or practicing something that became destructive to the local congregation. It is not simply that that person does something that we think is wrong but what that person is doing constitutes a condition that endangers others, that harms the well being of the group. That can come either through shaming the church in the eyes of the world and undermining any kind of standard of morality. It can come by causing division and rifts within the group and leading people into error by that. Or it can come just by a person’s presence and action becoming disruptive. He can just be like the factious person in Titus or the person in 2 Thess. 3 who was a parasite, wouldn’t work, wanted the church to support him, and was a busybody, which would be destructive to the well-being of the congregation. But from those things, we tried to make the observation that that does not mean that if anybody is in the group and you don’t agree with them, or I don’t agree with them, or better yet, we don’t agree with them, that we should tell that person, ‘Now either you’ve got to change your view or we’re going to withdraw fellowship from you.’ Just differing on a belief or a practice does not necessarily demand the breaking of fellowshipping. And for that, I direct your attention to 2 particular discussions in scripture&ldots;I think the first of these is a very familiar one. First Corinthians chapters 8 and 10. These passages deal with the eating of meats that had been offered to idols. I believe this is such a familiar case to us that we can simply make the allusion to it. But if you recall, in Corinth, the pagans offered animal sacrifices. And apparently when the animal sacrifice was offered as a burned offering, all of the meat was not consumed. And apparently some of that meat was taken and it was sold in the ‘shambles,’ one translation says. In the ‘market place,’ another says. It is sold at the discount house. Now most Christians were poor and many of them, no doubt, had bought and used the meats that could be bought in that condition. But after obeying the gospel, some of them began to reason, ‘Wait a minute. That meat was offered to an idol. If I eat the meat, am I not worshipping the idol?’ Paul answers the question, and says, ‘There is no idol god out there and saying ‘hocus pocus’ words over that meat by a pagan priest didn’t really corrupt the meat. Nothing’s wrong with the meat.’ But, if you think there is something wrong with the meat, and you eat it, then you’re sinning. And he added another codicil. He said, ‘Now if you know there’s nothing wrong with the meat but you know your brother thinks there’s something wrong with the meat, don’t you do anything that would push him or pressure him or lead him to violate his conscience. Not because of your conscience, but because of his. And if you do so, you’ve sinned against your brother and thereby have sinned against the Lord.’ Now was there anything wrong with the meat? No. But if a person thought it could be wrong, it would be wrong for him to eat. Open your Bibles with me tonight to Romans the 14th chapter&ldots;His understanding was such that he believed it to be a sin if you ate any kind of meat. Now these are not meats sacrificed to idols. Probably this is a hangover of the old Jewish law, maybe it was tied to the law that you couldn’t eat any kind of blood, and he may have reasoned that if you eat the meat, you’re eating the blood, or it may have been the kinds of meats that were let down in that sheet that Peter saw, some clean, some unclean. Whatever the case, here were some Christians who had reached the conclusion that it would be wrong for them to eat these meats. Now Paul is going to tell them that there is nothing wrong with the meat. But if you think it to be wrong, it would be wrong for you to eat it&ldots;.But for every one of the issues that I’m going to show you there are some brethren who say, ‘That’s a matter of what God teaches.’ It’s a matter of faith. And I believe it’s parallel to the situation we’ve got here in Romans 14. Look at it. I know that you and I can look at it and say, ‘Well, the meats really didn’t matter.’ But that fellow in Rome who thought it was a sin to eat meats was convinced that that’s what God teaches&ldots;Fellowship in a local congregation does not mean that we agree an every single point of doctrine&ldots;….compromising truth. That’s not the case. I’m not going to compromise my conscience and I’m not going to try to do things that cause you to compromise your conscience. But as long as we can work and worship together and my practice does not shame the church or compromise you in your behavior or cause a division in the group, I want you to work and worship with me. And I want the same thing in reverse. And may God bless us to understand the role of a local church which is that of that family relationship to help us grow. And may God bless us to have the wisdom to see when we can be tolerant and when the lines of division must be drawn. Is it always easy? Of course not. Is there one formula that we say, ‘When somebody does this action, take this action?’ No sir. Each local church has to pass its own judgment on whether that person’s behavior is harmful in that group or not. And what might be tolerated in this congregation might not be tolerated in another&ldots;(when asked how he would deal with someone who differed with him doctrinally on the biblical teaching on marriage, divorce, and remarriage): Well, how I deal with it may not be satisfactory to anybody else. But that of course, is what I had in mind a moment ago when I used the expression, ‘a litmus test.’ In the last several years, some brethren have focused on the divorce and remarriage issues. And have pushed it to the point that if anybody differs with them on that point, they not only say I don’t agree with you, or I teach something different, but they’re using this label, ‘You become a false teacher.’ The Bible uses that expression very sparingly. In 2 Pet. 2, there’s a whole chapter directed to some that are called ‘false teacher.’ But listen carefully. Everybody that teaches something that I think is false does not meet the description of these people in 2 Pet. 2. Those false teachers in 2 Pet. 2 were hypocrites, who would lie, who would deceive, they were people who took advantage of others for filthy lucre’s sake. Whose role was to try to be divisive and to get their own personal aggrandizement. Now, I can’t take everybody that teaches something that I differ with and say, ‘He is a false teacher of the Bible definition of a false teacher.’ These false teachers were like the false prophets, the false apostles. They were not just brethren who differed. Now today, there are some people who differ over the question of divorce and remarriage. And what happened was, just in the last generation or two, divorce has become an increasing problem. Your head’s in the sand if you don’t know there’s a lot more divorce today than there was 40 years ago. When I was a kid growing up, I didn’t know, but I was in college before I knew but one person who was a Christian who’d had a divorce. Only one, when I was a college student. Today, it’s rampant. And a lot of brethren are saying, ‘Oh, it’s going to invade the churches.’ Well, sure it’s going to give troubles to churches. But they’ve said, ‘We’ve got to crystallize our thinking and anybody who teaches something different is a false teacher.’ You mentioned brother Hailey. He’s one of my dearest friends. I communicate with him frequently. And would love to sit at his feet right now and listen to him preach. I differ with him on the issue of divorce and remarriage. He knows that. And I know it and he and I discussed it at length. But Homer Hailey is not a deceitful worker, going around with personal desire to be disruptive and to make gain of the brethren. Homer Hailey is not some hypocritical blasphemer, who rails at the dignity of God. And those are the descriptions of the false teacher in 2 Pet. 2. I differ with brother Hailey on some issues on divorce and remarriage. And frankly, he could fellowship some people, some divorced people, that I couldn’t fellowship. I’m an old time conservative on the divorce and remarriage issue. But a bunch of brethren have come along and they list me as a false teacher because I do not agree with them that I can’t have any relationship with brother Hailey. Since we differ on the divorce question, they say, if I have fellowship with him, then I’m a false teacher on fellowship. And I’ve got to be marked and some are doing that publicly. I regret that but I’m not going to lose a lot of sleep over it. I’m gonna do what my conscience says oughta be done, what I believe the Bible teaches and let the Lord take care of the rest of it. Is the divorce thing a matter of…is it an issue? Sure it is. How should it be decided? Let me tell you how it ought to be decided. Every local congregation is going to take each individual case and pass its own judgment what would be the impact in this congregation if we accept that couple. If it’s going to be harmful to the group, then that group, they ought not accept them. But I can’t sit in Tampa, FL and write the prescription for all the situations that might come up on divorce and remarriage for all the churches in the country. And nobody else can, by the way. Some are trying to do it, but they can’t do it. Just like I can’t pass the judgment for everybody who differs with me on the war question, or the covering question. I know some congregations that are made up heavily of military personnel. That congregation might not be tolerant of somebody who came in and taught that it’s sinful to participate in the military. I’m not going to criticize them for their judgment as to what’s good in their congregation. I may differ with their view. But they have the perfect right to make that decision. If I was in a congregation where everybody in the congregation believed that a woman was obligated to have the artificial covering on her head, I can understand why that congregation might not want me to be a teacher. I differ with them. And I can understand that they make the decision as to whether it would be in their best interest to have me as a preacher or teacher or not. And they have the perfect right to make that decision. On the marriage question, as I’ve indicated I’m a conservative. And there are some people who have been very critical of brother Hailey and I agree with those people who are critical of him on the Bible teaching with regard to divorce and remarriage. But I differ with them on their interpretation and application of the fellowship issue." (from a speech, then a question and answer session, given by a preacher at Florida College, published online at http://soundteaching.org: I will not mention this brother’s name here because I am still corresponding with him in an effort to discuss these matters with him)

a. Both of these citations, representative of the beliefs of an increasing number of Christians, and especially preachers, today, share some common characteristics:

(1) The idea is prominent that, because no one is infallible (readily admitted, MRM), therefore any conclusions we draw on biblical doctrines are merely human opinion and interpretation. In other words, the fact that we are prone to make errors means that we cannot really trust our fallible interpretive skills to draw any doctrinal conclusions. Thus, no one can really with any confidence say what is right or wrong, and so we must accept almost everything. Note that this is the very same conclusion of the gospel/doctrine view.
(2) There is, again, the distinction between doctrine that matters, and doctrine that does not matter (as in the gospel/doctrine issue, see above). Of course, as always, whatever these particular men define to be "sinful," "harmful," or "harmful to the group" matters, and everything else does not matter. Thus again, we have the idea that, while protesting against "litmus-test doctrines," they actually end up creating their own exclusive, divine, ultimate list of what matters and binding it on everyone else. Who is actually the one trying to bind others: the one who says that all doctrine matters because it is from God, or the one who says that only his own exclusive list of doctrine matters because it is what he believes? You be the judge.
(3) The clear teaching that the principles found in 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 were intended to cover disagreements on biblical doctrine, biblical morality, or biblical truth. Again, the argument is slippery, because "doctrine," "morality," and "truth" are defined by these men, rather than simply accepting that what the Bible teaches is truth. If the doctrine matters to them, then it is a matter of "morality" or "truth." If the doctrine does not matter to them, then we may disagree on it and remain in fellowship.
(4) Those who would use "litmus-test doctrines," that is, those who would, for example, insist that the doctrine of marriage, divorce, and remarriage is a matter of fellowship, are condemned. What is ironic is that these men are supposed to be advocating a more open fellowship, yet they exclude those from their fellowship who would disagree with them!
(5) A "false teacher" is not someone who teaches falsehood, but only someone who both teaches falsehood, and has a wicked heart. Thus, as long as someone is sincere, no matter what falsehood he teaches, or no matter what doctrine of God he butchers, he cannot be called a false teacher, and must be fellowshipped.
(6) A preacher is supposed to only deal with doctrine in his local church. He may not interfere with the doctrine in other areas. Thus, if a preacher preaches against false doctrine being preached in another local church, he is wrong and interfering.
C. In summary, this particular position states: No human is infallible, thus we cannot every know that our doctrinal positions are correct. 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 instruct us to accept in full fellowship anyone with whom we disagree on biblical doctrines.
D. What do the scriptures say?

1. 1 Timothy 1:3: It is the duty of a preacher to charge others that they teach no other doctrine. Perhaps Paul had a particular doctrine in mind which Timothy had asked him about, or perhaps he is speaking generally about all of the doctrine that he is about to write down in the epistle. But whatever the case, the phrase no other doctrine teaches the exclusive nature of God’s doctrine. If God pronounces something true, then it is true, and everything else is false. There is not room for a multitude of "interpretations" or "opinions." And, if someone teaches otherwise, he is to be charged to stop. Thus, it is a preacher’s duty to point out false doctrine.
2. 1 Corinthians 2:12-16; Ephesians 3:1-5: The apostles did not just teach their personal opinion, but the truth of God by the Holy Spirit. They had the mind of Christ, which they communicated to us. Because of this, we can know God’s truth! Drawing a conclusion on a biblical doctrine and living by it is not mere human opinion or human reasoning! It is how God intended us to know Him! If we just cannot ever know anything, then why did God give us the Bible? Whom does such a belief accuse of deceit, if not God Himself?

3. Matthew 22:31-33: Christ Himself used the process of implication and conclusion in theological arguments, and expected His hearers to do the same. Using reason and logic to draw doctrinal conclusions from the scriptures is not "human reasoning and opinion." God created the process of logic and reason, not us, and if He implies something to be true, then it is just as true as if He had stated it explicitly. Yes we are all fallible, and yes we can make mistakes (and should repent and change when we do). But this is a far cry from arguing that we cannot really conclude anything and must accept everything!
4. 2 Timothy 3:16,17: If all scripture is profitable (useful, to be used for, to be rightly used for) for doctrine, then how can anyone say that only some doctrine matters, or that only a certain, exclusive list of truth counts, and all others may be ignored and fellowship practiced? The phrase all scripture includes everything in the Bible, not only our preferred, selected passages.
5. A complete study of 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 is beyond this sermon series. However, there are a few verses in these passages which demonstrate the nature of the things that Paul had in mind:

a. 1 Corinthians 8:4-7a: "Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. However, there is not in everyone that knowledge&ldots;" Does this sound like someone who believes and teaches false doctrine, or like someone who did not yet understand something about the eating of meats?
b. 1 Corinthians 8:8,9: "But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse. But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak." Does this sound like a matter of God’s revealed doctrine or immorality, or like a matter that is neither commanded nor forbidden, and thus a liberty and not a doctrine?
c. 1 Corinthians 8:13: "Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." Does this sound like a commandment to accept in full fellowship, and tolerate, one who believes and teaches false doctrine, or like a commandment to use our liberties in love?
d. Romans 14:1: "Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things (scruples, ASV)." Does this sound like a commandment to accept into fellowship and tolerate one who believes and teaches false doctrine, or like a commandment to receive in love one who is weak in personal, doubtful areas?
e. Romans 14:15: "Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died." Is Paul talking about false doctrine, or the morally-insignificant topic of what food we eat?
f. It is clear that the reason Paul wrote these passages was to instruct Christians as to how to deal, in love, with brethren who have scruples, or an incomplete understanding, of certain issues dealing with personal, doubtful things. It is equally clear that Paul was not instructing Christians to ignore false doctrine, and accept someone who believed and preached something that contradicted God’s revealed truth.

6. 2 Peter 2:1; Jude 22,23; Galatians 5:20: If a false teacher is not someone who teaches false doctrine, but only one who both teaches false doctrine, and is wicked, then what is someone who is sincere but teaches false and harmful doctrine? If he is not a false teacher, as some argue, then could he be called a heretic? A heretic is one who follows his own internal opinion rather than the doctrine of God. Can a person do that yet still be sincere? Of course he can. And if we must only correct those who both teach false doctrine and are wicked, then why does Jude tell us to have compassion on some who are doubting, making a distinction? Jude tells us to correct both the sincere but wrong teacher, and the wicked but wrong teacher, but to make a distinction in how we deal with them.
7. 3 John 1:9; 2 Timothy 4:9,10; Galatians 2:11: If, as these men assert, a preacher in a local church must only deal with doctrine in that particular church, and has no right to expose error in other locations or universally, then why did the apostles do just that? The idea that a local church may choose its doctrinal position on, for example, marriage, divorce, and remarriage, and that other Christians in other areas may not call them on it, is absurd. If that were the case, then we would have thousands of congregations each believing and teaching something different, instead of a unified church, and no one could say a word about it.

VI. Problems in the Church: Neo-Calvinism.

A. The term Calvinism is simply a convenient name to call a system of doctrine that was heavily promoted, but not originated, by John Calvin, a French theologian (1509 – 1564). Actually, the question of man’s freewill, and how it relates to the divine will, has been pondered and debated since very ancient times. One can see this struggle in the very earliest of the writings of human beings. One particular event which is important to this question in relation to Western civilization was a debate between Augustine and Pelagius in the early fifth century. Augustine argued for man’s inability to act spiritually, and the supremacy of God’s irresistible will. Pelagius argued for man’s freewill, and that salvation required some effort on man’s part. The term neo-Calvinism refers to the new Calvinism that is infiltrating the church: not exactly full blown, classical Calvinism, but still Calvinism.

B. The beliefs of what is called Calvinism is fairly complex, but is all based on one basic premise. This premise is that man is born inherently sinful, inclined to sin, and guilty of sin, not based on anything he has done or will do. Whether expressed in the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin, in the formalized Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity, or in the common and simple statement by many that "we cannot do right," the idea is that man has no power in himself to do right, and must sin.

C. Once it is accepted that man is inherently sinful and inclined to sin, and has to sin, and cannot do right, then the question arises: why can he not do right, and why is he born without a chance? The only answer must be that he was created that way. And, if man is created evil, then God must make him evil, for God is man’s creator. From this comes the conclusion that, man can therefore do absolutely nothing on his own, and that everything is based only on God’s will. So, if all men are born evil, and everything is based on God’s will, and man is completely unable to do anything, then why are some people saved and some not? The only logical answer is that God must arbitrarily decide who is saved and who is not: thus the idea of individual predestination. If then only certain people were ever meant to be saved, and if Christ died to save, then it must be that Christ only died for a certain few, and not for the entire world. And because salvation has nothing whatsoever to do with man in any sense, but is 100% based and conditioned upon God’s will, then man cannot choose either to be saved, or to resist salvation. When man is saved, he simply cannot resist it, no matter what he believes or how wicked he may be. And, since salvation is God’s will and has nothing to do with man, and since those who are saved were predestined by God’s immutable will, then it stands to reason that nothing man can do, no matter how wicked, can cause him to lose his salvation.

D. Most Protestant denominations are decidedly Calvinistic in their creeds, doctrines, and practices: many will admit this. Yet there is a definite Calvinistic slant appearing in the churches of Christ as well. As of yet, to my knowledge, no brethren have come out and admitted allegiance completely to all of the points of Calvinism. Yet, many brethren are indeed teaching aspects of Calvinism, perhaps without realizing it, or perhaps willfully. One of the main things being taught by some in the church is that faith is not something that man does, but that God imputes to man.

E. Examples of Neo-Calvinism as revealed in citations:


1. "Paul goes to great lengths to put down the notion that works play any part whatever in justification. Nowhere is he more emphatic than in (Rom.) chapter 4:4,5&ldots;Justification is wholly outside of man." (Arnold Hardin, The Persuader, Vol. XII, No. 11, and in a personal statement to Tom Roberts, as cited in Neo-Calvinism in the Church of Christ by Tom Roberts, p.33)

2. "Let me say that I am immediately suspicious of any system or scheme that delights in spotlighting man and his ability to ‘do’ things to make himself righteous." (Bruce Edwards, The Persuader, Vol. XIII, No. 1, as cited in Neo-Calvinism in the Church of Christ by Tom Roberts, p.33)

3. "We teach that to reconcile to God, to make righteous, to blot out sin, is so high and great and glorious a work that alone Christ, the son of God, could do it and that this is indeed such a pure, special, peculiar work of the one true God and His grace that our works are nothing and can do nothing." (Present Truth, Feb. 1975, p.17, as cited in Neo-Calvinism in the Church of Christ by Tom Roberts, p.31)

4. "Faith cannot rest on our contrition, renewal, sanctification, or any experience within the believer. It must always rest on something outside the believer – the complete satisfaction that Christ gave to the divine law on our behalf." (Present Truth, August 1975, as cited in Neo-Calvinism in the Church of Christ by Tom Roberts, p. 31)

5. Finally, I have personally witnessed statements by brethren, most of them probably not realizing what they were implying, in prayers, in conversations, in invitations, etc. Usually these imply that we have to sin, or cannot help but sin, or cannot do right. The word cannot, which implies inability, is often used. Also, the idea is becoming more popular that faith always produces works. In other words, more and more brethren are arguing that faith is really all that is necessary, and as long as we have proper faith, we will naturally obey God.


F. This particular view of salvation – that it is completely and totally in the hands of God and has nothing to do with man – implies some things. First, it implies some things that are obviously wrong based on a general knowledge of God, Christ, and the Bible. Anyone with even a basic, cursory knowledge of God should recognize these as wrong and absurd.


1. It implies that man has no freewill whatsoever, and that everything he does, good or bad, is completely predestined and controlled by God against our will.

2. It implies that, when we sin, we are not willfully sinning, but are being forced to sin by God against our will. Thus, every sin committed by mankind, including the most horrible atrocities of Hitler, of Charles Manson, of Saddam Hussein, and of every mass murderer and rapist who has ever lived, was actually caused and forced by God, thus making God actually wanting evil and sin.

3. It implies that man cannot seek God on his own, but must be forced, against his will, to seek God.

4. It implies that salvation cannot in any way be conditioned upon any act of obedience on man’s part. In other words, it nullifies repentance, confession, faith, and baptism.

5. It makes evildoers not responsible for their sin. If God is forcing them to sin against their will, then they cannot in any rational or reasonable way be held guilty.

6. It makes God an arbitrary respecter of persons, pointlessly choosing certain people to go to hell and other to heaven for no reason. It makes God contradictory, confusing, and downright evil and cruel.

7. It makes the death of Christ pointless, as it really was not for everyone, but only for those arbitrarily chosen by God.

8. It renders pointless the Bible. If actually knowing God’s will and doing it has no part whatsoever in salvation, then we do not need the Bible. All we need do is sit around and wait for death to see if we were predestined for heaven or hell.


G. This neo-Calvinistic view also contradicts several clear and simple scriptural passages.


1. Romans 2:5-8; Galatians 2:17; Matthew 16:24: These, and many other, scriptures, clearly teach that man has freewill and the ability to seek after God.

2. James 1:13-16: This verse clearly states that God does not tempt us to sin. He does not desire that we sin. We sin, not because we are forced to sin by God’s irresistible will, but because we choose to give place to our lust.

3. 1 Timothy 2:3,4: Not only does God not force anyone to sin against his will, but He actually wants everyone to be saved. If He wants everyone to be saved, but not everyone will be saved, then it must be that we have the freewill to choose salvation or not.

4. Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16: There are clear conditions of salvation set forth by God, including repentance and baptism. These are not presented in the scriptures as mere robotic actions, forced upon us against our will. Rather, they are presented as commandments of God which we simply must obey if we want to be saved.

5. Matthew 25:31-46: This parable, as well as many clear statements of Christ, clearly teaches that our works, our obedience, our acts of righteousness, clearly will have a part in determining our eternal destiny. God does not force us to sin, and then unfairly call us guilty, when we had nothing to do with it! We are guilty because we sin, and we are righteous because, based on Christ’s sacrifice, we do right.

6. John 1:29; 1 John 2:2: One main doctrine of Calvinism is that Christ only died for those predestined for salvation. Yet these passages clearly state that Christ died for the sin of the world – the entire world. The entire world will not be saved, but the potential for salvation, the sacrifice of Christ, is there for everyone.

7. 2 Corinthians 6:17: If Calvinism is true, then all of the countless biblical passages which exhort people, and Christians, to stop sinning, and to do right, are meaningless, cruel jokes. How can we "come out from among them" if God forces us to do the very opposite?

H. Ephesians 2:8,9: The truth is that salvation is based completely on God’s undeserved grace, yet conditioned upon our effort and obedience to His will. Salvation does not give us license to sin, or revoke the need to do right. Instead, it forgives us of our sin and gives us another chance to do what we were supposed to have been doing all along: obeying God (Luke 17:7-10). Faith is something that we do, not something external to us. Thus, while salvation is based on God’s grace, it is not based on some arbitrary, unfair, cruel god who forces us to sin or saves us against our will.

VII. Problems in the Church: Institutionalism and the Social Gospel.

A. As the name indicates, institutionalism is a way of doing things in a local church which uses, and depends on, para-church (outside of, and separate from, the church) institutions, such as missionary societies, benevolent homes, orphan and widow homes, religious colleges, and others. The issue is not whether the actions of these societies are objectively right or wrong, for it is objectively right to preach the gospel, to help orphans and widows, to teach the youth, etc. The issue is whether the local church has the scriptural duty and authority to support these institutions out of the collection plate.
B. In the 1950s in this country, Christians began to take opposing views of this subject. The creation of these institutions was originally based on the well-meaning intentions of brethren, who thought that local churches working through these institutions could accomplish more good. Others objected, arguing that this was not the way that the New Testament church accomplished its work, and thus not a part of God’s biblical pattern.
C. The issue of the social gospel is actually a separate issue. This concept originated in modern times with Dale Carnegy in 1936, with his book entitled How To Win Friends and Influence People, in which he proposes that we all "accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative." Applied religiously, this removed the focus of the gospel from spiritual truth and the saving of souls, and attempted to refocus it on recreation in this world, success in this world, making people feel good, and the "felt needs" of man instead of his God-spoken needs. This resulted in many churches beginning to expand into social ministries and recreation in their focus. Also, many churches lost their emphasis on doctrine, truth, and salvation, and began to emphasize feeling good, being happy, and having financial success in this life. Even though institutionalism and the social gospel are technically two separate issues, the fact is that most churches of Christ which are institutional are also involved in the social gospel, and vice versa. They are so closely involved that they will be treated as one single issue.
D. Amazingly enough, I found it impossible, after searching for hours, to find a single quote on this topic by an institutionalist! I suspect that this is because those today who support institutionalism often do not even realize that what they are doing is opposed by some. This in turn is because of the refusal of many, who act in the spirit of liberalism (see above), to debate or discuss the issues. Thus, I am going to have to simply describe my own personal experiences and dealing with institutional brethren, for what that is worth.
E. There are essentially three aspects of this problem which represent the activities of most institutional/social churches of Christ.

1. Manmade institutions, which are not the local or universal church, are paid to do the work of the local church. This includes missionary societies, orphan homes, widow homes, and others.
2. In an effort to circumvent full-blown institutionalism, local churches interact in an unscriptural manner to do the work of the institutions. This includes the sponsoring church arrangement, where several local churches send their money to a larger, sponsoring church, whose elders then decide how the money is used. It also includes the seed church arrangement, where a large, wealthy local church starts a new local church in an area (this in itself is fine), and then the elders of the larger church exercise oversight over the smaller, new local church.
3. Money from the collection plate is used to support unscriptural, recreational activities. This includes the church-sponsored fellowship hall, basketball court, social or secular programs, and others.

F. Institutionalism:

1. 1 Timothy 5:3-16; Philippians 4:15; Colossians 4:15: While the church of Christ is composed of Christians (people), the local church is an organized group that works together and is different from the mere individual acts of individual Christians. Individual Christians who do things together are not the universal church or the local church per se. It is when these individual Christians organize themselves together, worship together, work together, and submit to common elders that they form a local church.
2. 1 Timothy 3:15; Ephesians 4:11-16; 2 Corinthians 8:1-4: In the New Testament, we can read of local churches doing three basic works: promulgating the truth to the world, teaching the brethren, and financially helping Christians in need. We do not read of local churches engaging themselves in any other works.
3. 1 Corinthians 4:6: We have the principle in the Bible to only do what we can read about, not to create new, manmade works. Therefore, since we read about New Testament local churches doing these three basic works (see above), we have authority and the duty to do those, and not to add any manmade plan or works to that.
4. Matthew 15:7-9: To create manmade institutions which are not the local church, to do the work of the local church for the local church, is not God’s plan. The local church is to do the work of the local church, because that is God’s New Testament pattern. The particular institution is immaterial: the principle is the same.

G. Sponsoring Church:

1. 1 Corinthians 9:1-14; Philippians 4:15,16: God has ordained that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel. The New Testament examples we have of this process involves local churches sending money directly to preachers. Thus, God’s pattern for the support of preachers is for local churches to give money directly to preachers.
2. Titus 1:5; 1 Peter 5:1-4: When there are qualified elders, there are to be a plurality of elders working with each local church. Furthermore, the elders of a local church are to exercise oversight over the flock that is among them, indicating that one group of elders cannot exercise oversight over other local churches.
3. Thus, both the sponsoring church arrangement, and the seed church arrangement, have two errors. First, they violate the New Testament pattern of local churches directly supporting preachers. Secondly, they create a new, manmade way of doing things that is not a part of the New Testament pattern. Thirdly, they create a situation in which the elders of one local church exercise oversight of another local church, which of course is not the New Testament pattern.

H. The Social Gospel:

1. Hebrews 10:1; Acts 8:4; 1 Corinthians 2:12-16: It is clear that the focus, mission, and emphasis of the New Testament church was spiritual rather than centered in this world. We can read about the New Testament church teaching and preaching the gospel, doing good deeds, meeting to worship God and proclaim Christ, and many other spiritual things. But we simply do not read about that church spending its time, money, and effort on recreation; preaching to make people feel good above saving them; providing for the social and recreational needs of man; being a general charity society; or doing any number of other things. It is not that all of these things are inherently sinful: there is nothing inherently wrong with playing basketball, meeting social needs, etc. The problem is when these things become the focus and emphasis of the church.
2. 1 Corinthians 16:1-3; Acts 11:27-30: The weekly collection was originally taken to provide benevolence for needy Christians. Because God has given the local church other works to do (see above), and because this collection is the only means of the local church’s collection of money in the New Testament, it stands to reason that the church is authorized to use this money for all of its God-ordained works.
3. Romans 14:16,17; 1 Corinthians 11:33,34: These verses demonstrate that the focus of the church is spiritual, and not about eating and drinking. They are not saying that eating and drinking are wrong, or that we may only eat in our houses. Rather, they demonstrate that, when we come together as a local church for worship, the emphasis is spiritual, not carnal.
4. There is no authority for using the collection for manmade works which are not ordained by God, such as recreational or social activities. Therefore, it is wrong to use the collection for these activities. This also includes things purchased with the collection, such as the building. The building is not holy in the sense of being hallowed, but it is purchased with God’s money and meant for His service, and not general use. Add to this the distinct spiritual focus of the New Testament church, and it is clear that a social, recreational church is not what God intended. Note: we can and should engage in social and recreational activities with our brethren. This is good and right. The problem comes when the collection is used to support this, and when this becomes the emphasis of our religion.

VIII. Problems in the Church: Traditionalism.

A. A tradition is simply any action, belief, or way of doing things, that has been done or thought in the same manner for a long period of time. A tradition is neither inherently good nor bad: its morality depends upon other factors. For example, many Americans have the tradition of eating lunch at noon: this is perfectly fine. However, some thieves may have the tradition of breaking into houses every night at a certain time: this is inherently sinful.
B. A religious tradition becomes wrong when certain conditions apply. It is wrong if: it is inherently sinful; it is based on man’s wisdom and replaces God’s wisdom; it discourages Bible study.
C. I have personally witnessed, heard, or heard reports of, some traditions in the church of Christ which are wrong. Some of these traditional positions taken are:

1. The King James Version is the only acceptable Bible. Actually, it is merely a non-inspired translation of the original, inspired manuscripts.
2. Women cannot speak anytime the church does something spiritual. Actually, women are forbidden from speaking in the assembly, not everywhere in general.
3. Preachers must always wear flashy new clothes, especially suits. John the Baptist, who was the greatest prophet of the Old Testament, wore camel’s hair clothing.
4. Red is the devil’s color and is too flashy, and should not be used by Christians. I thought it was the color of the blood of Christ? Where is the scripture that forbids certain colors?
5. There is only one acceptable format/meeting time/way of doing things/etc. While we are bound by scriptural principles, within those principles, God allows us discretion.
6. You must kneel/stand/prostrate yourself/etc. when you pray. There is no one required posture for prayer in the scriptures.
7. Vain repetitions in prayer. While we cannot know others’ motives, and while we must always assume the best about others, still sometimes the prayers said in the assemblies are almost word for word the very same prayers always said. If they are sincere, so be it. But, are they always sincere, or are they sometimes rehearsed scripts that we have always heard others say?
8. Etc. There are many other manmade rules and laws which are not found in the scriptures, yet which are bound upon others with no authority.

D. Matthew 15:7-9: If we created manmade rules and use them to replace the law of God, or impose them on others, we are worshipping in vain. We should never accept something merely because it is a tradition, and we must always be prepared to show the scripture which justifies what we say.

IX. Standing Firm.

A. It has been the purpose of the bulk of this sermon series to demonstrate several influences in the churches of Christ today which are harmful, unscriptural, and actively promoted. We have seen several of these, and we have examined the scriptures to test their validity. These are by no means the only false teachings and attitudes influencing the church today, and we must be careful and vigilant in order not to fall prey to these errors, and we must try, in love and with patience, to help those who follow them out of their error. The enemy is the devil, not those caught in his snares. How then do we avoid false doctrine, and how do we help those caught in it?
B. 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12: when Paul spoke of the deception of lawlessness, he taught that only those who do not love the truth, but believe the lie, will be deceived. Thus, the first thing in resisting false doctrine is to love the truth. This is the attitude of mind and heart that seeks truth above all else. We cannot allow pride, tradition, lust, desire, or anything else to cloud the truth. Even if it means that we are humiliated, humbled, and go without, we simply must put truth first. We decide whether we love the truth or not, and if not, then we will easily fall prey to deception. The heart that loves truth will seek it out earnestly.
C. Hebrews 1:1,2; 2 Timothy 2:15; Ephesians 3:1-5: We cannot know the truth unless God reveals it to us, and He has chosen to reveal it to us through His Son. In turn, His Son sent out the apostles to teach this truth, and they in turn wrote it down for our learning. Thus, we cannot know the truth unless we study the Bible! We should be studying the Bible daily, and if not, then how can we be prepared to resist falsehood and teach truth?
D. Luke 22:40,46; Acts 10:1-6: Whether we are in danger of falling into false doctrine through our own sin and temptation, or whether we are simply unknowing, and want to do right but do not understand what is right, we need to pray. If we earnestly pray to God that we not enter into temptation, and that He teaches truth, He will answer these prayers. Prayer is essential if we want to know the truth.
E. 1 Thessalonians 5:21: We must never accept any man’s word concerning the truth of God. We must read and study the Bible ourselves. While God has appointed some to be evangelists for teaching the church (Ephesians 4:11-15), and while an evangelist’s duty is to teach the word of God in an understandable and clear manner, still we are ultimately responsible for our own salvation.
F. Hebrews 5:13,14: Many false doctrines either appeal to pure emotion, or are simply not well-thought-through. While there are malicious false teachers, some men teach falsehood simply because they have not studied their topic well enough. We must use reason and discernment in testing doctrines. We must not accept something without study, or simply because it appeals to our emotions. Rather, we must use ration, reason, and systematic study. This also includes proper Bible study. Some false doctrines are the result of someone finding one, isolated verse out of context, ignoring the context and ignoring all other verses, and drawing a conclusion based only on that. There is a proper method of studying the Bible, and we must learn and employ it.
G. 1 Timothy 4:12: We should follow the wisdom, experience, examples, and teaching of respected, experienced Christians, including everyone, but also including evangelists, elders, and deacons. This does not mean that we accept everything they say without study. But, it does mean that we should consult them and consider their wisdom when learning about a doctrine.
H. Jude 22,23: Some brethren believe that we should tolerate and coddle all false teachers, no matter how dangerous they are. Others feel that we should harshly blast and mock all false teachers regardless of their intent. Jude’s entire epistle is basically about the danger of false teachers. But notice what Jude says: when it comes to correcting false teachers, we are to make a distinction. Yes, we must strive to correct all false teachers, no matter their intent. A sincere false teacher is just as much a false teacher as a wicked false teacher! But, we must make a distinction in how we deal with them. For example, if a new Christian convert gave his very first invitation, and simply through ignorance, stated something wrong, we should humbly, kindly, and gently correct him in a friendly manner. But if a man has been preaching for ten years and knows better, we must be forceful and strong.
I. 2 Timothy 2:24-26: But forceful and strong does not imply unkind and harsh! Too many brethren think that "rebuking" has to include yelling, scorning mocking, and personal condemnation. The scriptures are very clear on this point: the servant of the Lord must be gentle, patient, humble, and must be patient when wronged. The enemy is not the false teacher; the enemy is the devil who has ensnared the false teacher. Thus, while we must sometimes be direct and strong in our rebuke of false doctrine, we must never be unkind, harsh, and unloving.

X. Conclusion. The church of Christ has always endured false doctrines and evil influences, and today is no different. There are particular heresies which are affecting and influencing the church today, and they cannot be ignored. While not every problem mentioned in this sermon series is affecting every local church, and while our first duty is to our local church, still we cannot simply ignore them. The key to avoiding these, and all heresies, is simply to love and know the truth. When we try to lead others out of error, let us always do so in love with humility.

(Editor’s Note:  The following article is complementary to the discussion regarding the proper "Tone" in preaching).

Just about my first memories of the term “neutral” was that it had to do with placing the gear shift on the Model “A” Ford in a position where you could release the clutch when the motor was running (we called them motors – not engines, as in “Ford Motor Company”). When you were in “neutral”, there was no movement of the car – it was just a “do nothing” position. You also had to remember, when parking your car on an incline, that it would surely roll backward or forward if you left the gear shift in “neutral”. Neutral simply meant that you were not in gear – you had no influence whatever on the motion of the car!

I am seriously afraid that a lot of our brethren today are determined to operate in “neutral”! They don’t want to make any distinction between a false teacher and a sound teacher. They don’t want to take a position on fellowship which would make a distinction between darkness and light, between truth and error, or between sinfulness and righteousness – they simply want to smile and stay “neutral”. For years we have been trying to tell them that neutral (no position) is an open stand for the Devil – but they simply smile and go about their merry way being perfectly satisfied with staying in “neutral” – not really standing for anything and not really standing against anything! These brethren are about as useless to the cause of Christ as a Model “A” crank is to a new Ford automobile!

These brethren want to be identified with the “it just doesn’t really matter” philosophy which is being openly advocated by so many brethren today! With the neutral position, they never have to open their Bibles to give an answer to anyone (1 Peter 3:15), and with their “accept and respect the diverse beliefs” of all brethren (Isaiah 30: 8-14), they never have to get any deeper than “y’all be good now” in spiritual matters. They sometimes venture to say that they just want to be “middle of the road” brethren! But most of us were able to figure out a long time ago that there is nothing in the middle of the road except a yellow stripe and dead armadillos! And if you lie down on that yellow stripe in the middle of the road, it may just come off on your back! Where I was reared, out in West Texas, it was said that a fellow who wouldn’t stand up for anything was nothing more than a coward who had a yellow stripe down his back! You ask these brethren to openly discuss scriptural matters, my friend you just as well save your breath to cool your coffee! You ask them to openly debate these issues, surely you have heard the sound of “silence” before! Possibly we just don’t seem to get the picture – “neutral” means that you don’t have a position, you don’t have any real convictions, you don’t really have any serious conscience development – you just don’t stand for anything and you ultimately fall for just about everything! Your motor is running but you are not in gear. The lights are on, but nobody is at home! What a sad picture this is for God fearing, Bible respecting, and righteous living brethren, who have the courage to stand up and be counted – and who have the courage to be seen as lights in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation.

But the “neutral” folks seem to be the ones that so many of our brethren are considering as being the leaders of the church in the future! Wow! Here are folks in “neutral”, just sitting there with their motor running, who won’t really take a stand for or against anything – and they are going to be the future of the Lord’s church! Talk about a frightening thought! But as difficult as that is to comprehend, this is undoubtedly the direction in which the majority of our brethren are being blindly led. Great numbers of brethren are sitting like baby birds in a nest – their eyes closed and their mouths wide open – just waiting for the next “neutral” thought that someone is going to feed them.

We now have a Bible publishing company advertising a “gender neutral” Bible (?), we are living in the age of so-called “gender neutral” marriages (?), we are more and more expected by the world to be “neutral” when it comes to morality, and now we are even faced with brethren among us who want to proclaim a “neutral gospel”! They want to talk about Christ – not doctrine. They want to be positive in their preaching – not negative. They want to use less scripture in their preaching – more emotional tales and humorous stories. They don’t want to point out error and false teaching – and, according to them, only a dishonest person can be a false teacher anyway. They expect you to declare that you absolutely believe exactly what the scriptures say – but you must also be willing to fellowship all the brethren who could care less about what the Lord has said. On and on and on they go, the motor is running, but they are happy and content to just be in “neutral”!

Do you see the point that I am trying to make? Do you truly realize the seriousness of this apathy and indifference toward truth and error, and this absolute unconcern about whether things are right or wrong? Do you understand the danger we face with this lack of respect and lack of concern for the authority of the scriptures? We have people “among us” whom we cannot even recognize as being “of us”? Their conversation and teaching has become so sectarian and denominational that they don’t even sound like Christians! They are among us, but they don’t have a clue as to what the Word of God demands of us! They tolerate false doctrines, they fellowship iniquity, they ridicule those who would oppose them, and they are being more and more successful in leading the multitudes of brethren down the destructive path of sin and digression.

Brethren, we had better get in gear! We must preach the Word – reprove, rebuke, and exhort (2 Timothy 4:1-4). We must have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness (Ephesians 5: 6-17). We must do everything that is possible to rescue brethren who are overtaken with sin and error (Galatians 6: 1-2). And we must determine to not receive or give encouragement to anyone who doesn’t bring the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9-11). And having done all to stand, we must stand therefore (Ephesians 6: 10-18).

We must have the determination that we will not be a part of this so-called “neutral” generation (Matthew 12:30)! The night is far spent and the day is at hand – it is now time to wake up, stand up, and speak up for Truth (Romans 13: 11-14) (1 Thessalonians 5: 4-11)! You and I are the Lord’s messengers and servants – is He able to count on us?

Editor’s Note: Brother Ron Halbrook emailed an article by Tom Roberts, which first appeared in Watchman in June of 1998, to many individuals this past August. His email led to an exchange on what constitutes an appropriate tone in preaching and a defense of the gospel. This is brother Halbrook’s contribution to the discussion.

Dear …..,

Thanks for your thoughts. I am not offended by your remarks but am thankful that you are concerned enough about me to write. I am always open to consider anything you wish to offer. I do not dismiss criticism out of hand, nor do the men I know and work with, though your post implies we do. As you have spoken frankly w/o bitterness, I will try to do the same. We speak as friends, not enemies: "Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend" (Prov. 27:17) . Just as you hoped I would not dismiss your concerns w/o giving them thought, I hope you will not be guilty of the same.

FIRST, let’s consider the issue of "positive" and "negative" preaching and teaching.

Ironically, your post is what men call "negative" in protesting what you regard as negative. It has the tone and content of a "watchdog" message in that you identify and protest things which you think need to be corrected. This always has been a valid function and duty of God’s people (Ezek. 3; 1 Thess. 5:14; 2 Tim. 4:1-5; 1 Pet. 5:8). You probably did not stop to think or worry about whether your message would be perceived as so-called negative or positive, or whether you might be labeled as a watchdog, but you simply addressed a need as you see it. So it is with what those you criticize preach and write. We are little concerned about how people perceive what we say, but our focus in on "speaking the truth in love" so as to please God not man (Eph. 4:15; Gal. 1:10).

Consider that "positive" and "negative" are human concepts, constructs, and grids imposed on Scripture. We need to quit worrying about such human concepts of our preaching and simply "declare…all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). The huge cultural push for the "positive mental attitude" has forced us to address this issue. The PMA approach to everything has hit our society top to bottom, stem to stern, center to circumference.

My college background is in history (M.A., Vanderbilt University). Historians write about the historical and social roots of this mentality. It is rooted in enlightenment rationalism with its abundant confidence in the powers and potential of man, and in eastern religions and their concepts of pantheism. The former played a significant role in the early history of our country and the latter exerted itself especially beginning in the 1890′s. The latter postulates that God is everywhere and in everything, and everything is God, and therefore the unlimited potential of God is in me. Western culture mixed this concept with secular marketing, motivational, and psychological philosophies, especially in the 1950′ s – 60′s and thereafter. This mentality develops in cultures which experience material prosperity, not in cultures which experience poverty. Materialism leaves people spiritually empty and searching for "something more," but they want to hear a message of optimism and not rebuke of sin and error, not repentance, not self-denial and self-discipline.

For more info on some of the history of this current in our society, read Donald Meyer’s THE POSITIVE THINKERS: RELIGION AS POP PSYCHOLOGY FROM MARY BAKER EDDY TO ORAL ROBERTS. The author is a historian, not a theologian.

This mental conditioning makes people increasingly uncomfortable with the message of the Bible, and they find ways to "reprogram" the Bible to say what they are thinking (this is man making God in his own image). From this mentality comes all the talk about "positive" and "negative" themes in the Bible and in our preaching. I do concern myself with preaching "all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27), and applying the medicine where the sore is (Jer. 8:22; 2 Tim. 2:15), but I try to dismiss from my concerns whether people conditioned by our ungodly culture will label what I preach as "positive" or "negative."

Consider how the preaching of Isaiah, Jeremiah, John the Immerser, Jesus, and Paul would be judged in terms of this positive-negative grid. They would all be judged way out of balance on the negative side! No preacher preached more lessons on hell than Jesus (check concordance). Yes, in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus talked about the reward in heaven, but his first mention of it is in the beatitudes which require men to empty and humble themselves in deepest penitence and which talk about suffering persecution in standing for righteousness (a rather negative way to frame comments on heaven, don’t you think?). Yes, in John 13-17 Jesus taught about heaven, but it is all interwoven with how God’s people will be hated, persecuted, and despised, even as Jesus was (this is not the American way to present a "positive," "upbeat" theme).

More babies died in ancient times by far than today, more people died without medical help then than now, there were more destitute widows than today. So, in these terms, there were more people hurting then than now, but not one New Testament letter was written to deal with that theme. Does that mean the Lord ignored this need and that we should ignore it? No, it means all such needs are addressed by the gospel in a way which is far different from modern America’s obsessive-compulsive "positive" complex and modern religion’s fascination with the positive mental attitude. The promises of heaven, teaching on prayer, and discussions of the blessings of fellowship with God in the Bible constantly are interwoven with plain, direct, bold, and even severe warnings about Satan, sin, error, apostasy, the need for repentance, and the reality of hell.

That should be the model for our preaching today. Where will we find more comforting material than in the Psalms, and, yet, they too are interwoven in the same way. Consider the very first Psalm as an example. Out of the six verses, four refer directly to "the ungodly" and one verse alludes to them, and yet where can we find a more uplifting passage of Scripture? For such a "positive" message, its "negative" elements and tone violate our cultural conditioning. Again, we need to purge from our minds any concern about how such teaching fits the positive-negative grid.

As people’s convictions grow stronger in the constant battle between God and Satan, truth and error, the spirit of man grows stronger in faith. As his faith grows stronger, man is endowed with God’s grace and strength to meet all the sorrows and heartaches of this world. One of the greatest texts on this theme is 2 Cor. 12:7-10, interwoven with Paul’s devastating rebuke of false teachers and brethren who were influenced by them at Corinth.

SECOND, please consider another thought. Truth Magazine (do you read it?) is filled with articles emphasizing the blessings we have in Christ and also warning about sin and error, unlike other publications you mention which you regard as out of balance.

The preaching of Tom Roberts, myself, and others reflects this same biblical balance. We do not claim perfection in attaining that goal, but we are committed to the Bible model of preaching rather than modern concepts. I offer the following factual information not for boasting nor to seek any man’s approval, but so that you may consider facts about which you obviously are unaware. Your comments show that you do not know the heart nor preaching of Tom, myself, or other brethren with whom we work, but I hope in God’s providence we might become better acquainted and understand each other better.

Here are my recent sermon topics here at the Hebron Lane Church of Christ in Shepherdsville, KY where I live: "How Beautiful Heaven Must Be," "Preaching the Gospel VS Marketing the Message" (2 lessons), "Modest Dress Through the Ages," "The Danger of Murmuring," "Overcoming Sin" (3 lessons), "Giving God the Strength of Youth," "True Worship VS False Worship," "The Urgency of Preaching Christ in the Philippines," "Until Christ be Formed in You (Gal. 4:19-20)," "The Nobility of Work," "How We See & Treat Others" (2 lessons), "How the Lord’s Supper Unites Us," "I Praise You, Brethren (1 Cor. 11:2)," "To the Pure, All Things Are Pure (Tit. 1:15)," and "God’s Work of Saving Souls (Lk. 19:10)."

Checking the index for the 2001 Truth Magazine, I see I wrote 13 articles with the same mixture of topics and passages reflected in my sermons.

You mentioned people needing guidance after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attack and implied we do not concern ourselves with such themes. On the very day of the attack, Tuesday, Sept. 11, a brother and myself went immediately to the local Red Cross and waited 7 hours to give blood. He gave. I was excluded at the last minute because of my travel and preaching in the Philippine Islands (malaria risk). On Wednesday, Sept. 12, I called the elders and suggested we dismiss all classes and unite in the auditorium for prayers and a lesson I hastily prepared entitled "God Still Rules in Times of National Tragedy." On Sunday, Sept. 16, I preached 2 lessons entitled "America Must Repent or Perish (Lk. 13:1-9)." On Oct. 28, having expanded my remarks of Sept. 12, I preached 2 lessons entitled "God Still Rules in Times of National Tragedy." The Dec. 6, 2001 Truth Magazine is a special theme issue, "America Under Attack," in which my article "God Still Rules in Times of National Tragedy" appears in the editorial column. I have been preaching this lesson in gospel meetings.

In gospel meetings (I hold 10-12 each year), other frequently used topics include "The Message of the Bible: Salvation in Jesus Christ," "The Patience of God (2 Pet. 3)," "All Spiritual Blessings in Christ (Eph. 1)," "The Blood of Christ, and Baptism," "On to Canaan OR Back to Egypt," "Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage," "Parents, Hold Fast," "Trends Pointing Toward a New Apostasy," "Giving God the Strength of Youth," "Modest Dress Through the Ages," "Lovest Thou Me More than These? (Jn. 21:15-19)", and "The Sufficient Grace of God (2 Cor. 12:7-10)."

You have been receiving forwarded articles from me only a short time. I send such things only occasionally because I know brethren get overwhelmed by too much e-mail, but what I have sent within the last year reflects my concern for the biblical balance of the whole counsel of God. More articles not fewer like Tom Roberts’ "Your Preaching Offends Me" are needed because our culture in so saturated with the PMA mentality. This article expresses love for God, for the truth which saves, and for the souls of men. I have received notes of appreciation from people who are hurting for several reasons, including one young preacher who recently had the courage to leave liberalism and who was nearly crushed by the bitter, underhanded attacks of his "loving, liberal, positive" brethren.

THIRD, I hope you will not be offended by my being frank, as you were frank, but I am not impressed by the efforts of the loving, liberal, positive brethren whom you commend for helping the hurting (though you avow disagreement with their extreme liberalism). I came out of that background as a young man. I learned by experience that their professions of "love for the hurting masses" is a sham, it is superficial, it is a veneer. They say, "Peace and love," where there is no true peace and love. There is not an iota of difference between what they are doing to "comfort the hurting" and what false teachers in Jeremiah’s time did to comfort people with their soothing reassurances of "peace, peace." "They have healed also the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace" (Jer. 6:14). The real need of people’s souls is the "balm" of truth, not platitudes and pop psychology about how to have a "positive mental attitude" (Jer. 8:22).

When people wake up in eternity lost and realize they have been deceived, they will face a hundred fold the hurt they faced in this world (Mk. 9:43-48). The blind leaders who misled them there will be with them there, but will no longer be able to "comfort the hurting" with their "positive, loving" messages (Matt. 15:13-14).

FOURTH, if and when you truly get to know Tom Roberts, you will learn that he has been through the fires of tragedy from his youth up. You do not know another preacher any more tested and tried by life’s sorrows, yet he has maintained his faith and confidence in God. His outlook is healthy and wholesome, appreciating the blessings of life and avoiding the pitfalls of bitterness. Because of his background, his preaching addresses the needs of those who suffer with full compassion, empathy, and sympathy. Tom’s life and preaching exemplify what Paul said in 2 Cor. 1:3-5, "Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort; who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God. For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ." You really do need to get to know Tom better, hear more of his preaching, and read more widely from his writing through the years.

FIFTH, you labor under the impression that men such as Tom and myself have never admitted wrong. To the contrary, we both came out of the institutional error you are presently struggling to come out of, and we came out precisely because we understand the necessity for humility, godly sorrow, repentance, and bringing forth works meet for repentance (Prov. 16:18; 28:13; Matt. 5:3-12; Lk. 13:3; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 26:20; 2 Cor. 7:10).

I was sincere when I used to sit by the radio and listen to the Herald of Truth, but was sincerely wrong, which I had to learn and correct. We have made other corrections all along the road of life, and will continue to do so when needed, because we understand that heaven is a prepared place for a prepared people.

You say you do not see a willingness by the "watchdog" brethren to admit wrong and make correction, but in regard to institutionalism, we have humbled ourselves and paid the painful price to admit wrong and make correction. In this instance, the words of Nathan apply in regard to the failure to admit wrong and make correction, "Thou art the man" (2 Sam. 12:7).

Perhaps you will say that since I did not admit wrong regarding your criticisms of "negative" preaching and "watchdog" mentality, your charge of not admitting wrong is proven to be true. After considering your criticism (a criticism I have prayerfully considered many times before), I do not find it valid. The description you gave of the work of Tom Roberts and myself simply is not true, as I have demonstrated with hard evidence (see my sermon topics, articles, etc. above). For me to seek your approval by admitting wrong under such circumstances would be nothing but a political maneuver, a ploy, hypocrisy, and a subterfuge.

Regarding your description of our work and your charges against us, EITHER we need to admit wrong because what you said is true, OR you need to admit wrong for stating what is false. If we are wrong in this matter and refuse to admit and correct it, we are blinding ourselves to the truth and manifesting arrogance. If you are wrong in this matter and refuse to admit and correct it, you are blinding yourself to the truth and manifesting arrogance.

If my own assessment and conclusion is not satisfactory to you, I can only leave it for God to make the final judgment on the Last Day. I know this about my own heart: On the one hand, I am ready to admit wrong and change if you show from Scripture any truth I fail to teach or any sin or error I fail to oppose. On the other hand, I am not willing to apologize for any truth I preach or for exposing any sin or error, even if I am judged by men as being "too negative." "For do I now persuade [try to win the approval of] men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ" (Gal. 1:10).

SIXTH, could it be that the truth of Tom’s article cut your conscience, which led you to seek relief by discussing such things as too much "negative" preaching and the "watchdog" mentality? I raise this question, drawing on 40 years preaching experience, because I have noticed all through the years that people guilty of things discussed in sermons often try to relieve their consciences by reacting as you did.

For instance, if I preach on the duty of faithful attendance at worship services, those who do not faithfully attend either repent or they murmur about "negative" preaching and say something like, "No one is going to boss me around," i.e., the preacher thinks he is a watchdog. Others come out and say how much the lesson helped them, and how much they needed this reminder and encouragement because of various temptations or trials they face in life. The sermon was regarded as "positive" or "negative" because of the condition of the hearer’s heart, not because of the subject or content of the sermon. You may have had the same experience.

When I consider the trials and temptations I am facing, Tom’s article is greatly encouraging, uplifting, and faith building to me. I have heard from others who had the same reaction.

How do we explain the opposite reactions to the truth taught so plainly in Tom’s article? The answer is found in the different conditions of hearts among the readers (Matt. 13:1-23; 1 Thess. 2:13-14; 2 Thess. 2:10-12). How do we explain that the preaching of Peter and Paul was viewed in opposite terms as "positive" and "negative," sometimes resulting in baptisms and sometimes in riots? The answer is found in the different conditions of hearts among the hearers.

SEVENTH, I urge you to read Tom’s article again and again, and give special attention to his remarks under the heading, "A Final Suggestion." "To those who register a complaint that our preaching is too plain, too harsh, (in a word) too offensive, let me ask something of you. Since you say that you are preaching the same truth that we preach but we are faulty in our approach, and you can do it better, why not get at it? Where are the public teachings from these men that bring adulterous marriages before the bar of God’s justice? Where are the places where the same truth that we teach’ about fellowship with sin is being clearly declared? Where are the sermons that are showing the error of unity in diversity? Where are the sermons being taught that are saying the same truth that we are saying, but doing it in a better way?"

In other words, if you can preach the same truth we preach but in a better way, preach the word "upon the house tops" and we will give you every encouragement (Matt. 10:27). If we preach and practice the same thing, God will be pleased (1 Cor. 1:10). Unfortunately, many who say we are "too negative" never get around to addressing certain sins and errors in the "better way," but they are very critical of those who are doing so in the best way we know to do it.

In conclusion, at least one good thing has come from Tom’s article. It opened a door for us to exchange these thoughts. Hopefully, this will help both of us to be better Christians and better preachers. No doubt, Tom will be encouraged to know his article is being read and thoughtfully discussed.

In Christian love, Ron Halbrook

Ron,

You may recall that I am the institutional brother who is studying the NI view. I would like to express a few observations, in love, about the e-mail you are sending out written by others. I ask that you consider this with an open mind, and take it in the spirit of sincere love it is offered.

Ron, I want you to understand very clearly that I believe in preaching against sin, including doctrinal error. I firmly believe that all the saved are in the church of Christ, and that we should not fellowship denominations. And Tom Roberts, who wrote this below, is a dear friend of mine. I have attended Judson Road, where he preaches, and enjoyed all my visits there. I have heard Tom preach, and admire him greatly. I agree with him that truth sometimes is unavoidably offensive, even when presented kindly.

I regularly read or at least scan such “brotherhood watchdog” publications as S.T.O.P., Banner of Truth, Contending for the Faith (granted, all are institutional, but fight what we ALL call liberalism in the church). And I appreciate their stance against digression. But, Ron, something bothers me about these publications, and many of the articles (like you send out) of a “watchdog” nature. What bothers me is not that they condemn sin, but the TONE of many of them and the OBSESSION with such topics as sin, death, and hell to the point that love and anything of comfort is minimized or flatly ignored.

We have a world full of hurting people. Mothers whose children have been murdered. Old folks who’ve just lost their husband or wife of 50-something or more years. The young widow whose husband just got killed in a car wreck. The man who just found out he’s got cancer. The person whose pension was wiped out by corporate crooks. Ron, in the e-mails you are sending out, where are there any words of comfort and encouragement for these folks? Why don’t you ever send out anything positive and loving?

Yes, the Bible does have “negative” things, including the very real warnings of hell. Yes, I know we have preachers in the church who wrongly want to talk about only sweetness and light, and never preach about hell and sin. BUT GOING TO THE OTHER EXTREME–ONLY TALKING ABOUT HELL, SIN, AND DEATH–IS JUST AS WRONG!!!!!!! The Bible speaks of proclaiming the WHOLE counsel of God–and that includes great words of comfort, such as John 14:27, John 10:10, Romans 8:28, Jesus’s assurances of preparing a mansion for us, etc.,etc.

Do you want people to serve God only out of fear of hell–or because they love God? Will doing right out of fear of hell save us? Did not Jesus say that loving God with all our heart and mind was the greatest commandment? Ron, when all we hear from the pulpit is sin, sin, sin, and hell, hell, hell, do you think you will get people to do right out of love for God…or out of just fear of hell?

Dear brother, people of your mind-set fuss at brethren for complaining about the constant negativity. They shouldn’t react that way, and I hope you won’t! The “watchdogs” NEVER seem to even CONSIDER constructive criticism, but dismiss it out of hand and frankly sound like they think they are perfect. I don’t think I have EVER seen a “watchdog” admit to being wrong, or apologize. That is a real turn-off, and smacks of the kind of arrogance that scripture strongly condemns. None of us must ever get the idea that we are perfect, Ron! I don’t care how conservative, faithful, and sound a man is, he is not perfect! First John 1, which says we all sin, applies to the “watchdogs” who deplore liberalism like it applies to the liberals.

I believe the reason liberalism is taking over is because too many of us who are conservative have adopted such an obsession with fault-finding, and show little if any compassion. The liberals, for all their damning faults, show caring and compassion when many faithful brethren don’t. In today’s world, people are under stress at work, and in their finances; their children go to public schools full of drugs and ungodliness; and our country is still reeling from the event of last September. People need to hear somethng ENCOURAGING now and then, not hear EVERY SUNDAY how sinful and pathetic they are! That is what was called, in the old days, a “hobby,” and that kind of preaching is NOT proclaiming the WHOLE counsel of God. Old cranks who don’t want to do anything but criticize will NOT build the church–they will harm it!

Here is my point: I do not ask you to give up fighting sin and error–only to send out SOMETHING that is not NEGATIVE now and then! Ron, my brother, look at the comforting things in the Bible–Jesus sparing the woman in adultery from stoning, his forgiveness of the thief on the cross, his love for mankind in dying on the cross. The assurance that God is our refuge and our strength, a very present help in trouble. Do you ever talk about those things? They are in the Bible, aren’t they, friend?

Again, I want you to clearly understand that I am offering this suggestion in love, and by no means do I accept the label of “liberal” although I am institutional. I am just as opposed to family life centers, church ball teams, Max Lucado and Rubel Shelly’s false teachings, and fellowshipping denominations as you, dear brother. I am for, not against, preaching on sin and hell. What I am saying is: Don’t have an obsessive-compulsive complex to where EVERYTHING you teach and preach is NEGATIVE. It is NOT wrong to talk about heaven, love, and forgiveness. The key in preaching the whole counsel of God is balance–talking about both heaven and hell, both sin and forgiveness, both the erring and how we can help them get back on track.

Good wishes to you! And I’m still studying the non-institutional view with an open mind, by the way.