"Going"

PRINCIPLES OF HERESY (PART TWO)

Last week we noticed some teachings and principles that liberals commonly use. Generally speaking, they challenge what the Scriptures teach in one form or another. They are likely to use denominational jargon, referring to Palm Sunday or Christmas. They may speak of "other churches" or refer to ourselves as "our fellowship" instead of the Lord's church. They may question (even if subtly) the virgin birth, the validity of Mark 16:9-20, and the Holy Spirit operating through the medium of the Word upon Christians. They may claim direct contact, as though they are living in the first century. Many liberals, taking a cue from Ahab, will even argue that, when brethren expose their heresies, they themselves are the trouble-makers. Shades of Isaiah 5:20.

All of these devices were exposed in Ira Y. Rice's first volume of Axe on the Root. The author specified three more strategies used by liberals. The first of these emphasized having dialogues. Rice quotes from an article by Hulen Jackson, the first paragraph of which follows:

In the church bulletins and limitedly in some of our religious papers some brethren are pleading for more "dialogue" between churches of Christ and the denominations. Several speeches I've heard of late plead for the same. Not a speech have I heard nor an article have I read but what severely indicted the churches of today and the past generations for our poor approach and our lack of wisdom in dealing with our religious neighbors. Some have been almost vitriolic in their severe criticism and denunciation of our brethren of the past and of their methods (56).

One wonders how that "dialogue" is supposed to work. Do we call up a local denomination and ask for a conversation? Or do we wait for someone to contact us? In decades of preaching, this writer has yet to receive that phone call. We receive invitations to certain events, but that's about it. Apparently, then, dialogues do not just spontaneously begin.

Some of us have had dialogues with Jehovah's Witnesses, but they get frustrated when they cannot answer fairly simple questions. One dialogue with Mormons ended with them telling us that they knew Joseph Smith was a prophet, and that if we prayed about it, God would assure us of that notion. The trouble with dialogues are all the areas of disagreement.

What has done far more good over the years are debates. Both our members and those of a denomination deserve to see how well a belief can be presented or defended. Brethren have enjoyed great success over the years when attendees have seen for the first time the truth and been converted. One wonders how many have become Christians through dialogue.

Relevance

Another mantra of the liberals is that we "need to make the Bible relevant." Well, let's see. Are we all human beings? Yes. Have we all sinned? Yes. Does the gospel of Jesus Christ still save? Yes. Is the Bible relevant, then? Yes. Maybe we could do a better job of explaining how the Scriptures are relevant, but the Author of the Bible knows man and his needs. The Word is always relevant. Eldred Stevens gave his opinion of what this complaint is all about.

It seems that some of us are still in the horse and chariot days, two thousand years out of date. We fill our sermons with archaic chapter and verses quotations that may have impressed audiences of the distant past but do little more than amuse the learned auditors of our modern space age (64).

Do we understand this correctly? Because we live in the space age, can look up almost anything on the internet, and watch movies on a circular disk, have we lost our ability to understand spiritual matters? Doesn't that imply that, when God created the world, He never imagined all of the technology we would one day possess? Does that truth mean we no longer comprehend things such as love, compassion, grace, mercy, and obedience? Maybe we lost our capacity to understand such concepts as Heaven or Hell. No matter what happens in the world, the Bible will always be relevant.

Drifting

Although Brother Rice published the first volume of Ax in 1966, he was able to include in it an article written by Alan Highers, which he titled, "Are We Drifting?" and was published in the Gospel Advocate on July 21st of that year. The expression came from J. D. Tant, who after commenting on various modern-day, "relevant" topics would close by affirming, "Brethren, we are drifting."

Brother Highers brought up five topics with recent quotations concerning them. Remember, these are not from last week; they were made more than 54 years ago. Lyndon Johnson was President, the Viet Nam War was becoming the focus of worldwide attention, "Hanky Panky" by Tommy James and the Shondells was number one, and Martin Luther King had brought the civil rights movement to Mayor Daley's Chicago. King later commented: "I think the people from Mississippi ought to come to Chicago to learn how to hate." Consider, then, the five topics. These are actual quotations.

Social Drinking: Christians must "concede that the Christian has the liberty to drink an alcoholic beverage in moderation" (68).

Bible Discrepancies: the "Bible itself never claims to be non-discrepant" (68).

Unity in Christ: "How long, O Lord, before we escape the childhood-ingrained myth that unity is possible only through unanimous acceptance of an elaborate list of the shibboleths of our movement?" (68).

The Holy Spirit: "I am finding that many in the church of Christ may have already received what would have been a baptism of the Holy Spirit…" (68-69).

Miraculous Manifestations of the Spirit: "There is no Scripture which says that manifestations of the Spirit will cease when the New Testament was written or when the last apostle died. All such doctrines are a perversion of the Scriptures or an invention of men!" (70).

So, why did Brother Highers bring up these random quotations in his article? "EVERY ONE OF THEM WAS MADE OR PUBLISHED BY A PREACHER WITHIN THE CHURCH OF CHRIST!" (69). For more than half a century Modernists and Liberals have been plaguing the body of Christ with this kind of gibberish. Let's evaluate each one of the five in light of the Scriptures.

Social Drinking

Entire books have been written on this subject, but a famous one that preceded 1965 was one by a denominational minister, William Patton. His Bible Wines was first published in 1871 and can still be ordered to this day. Other books have been written since 1965 that contain excellent material on the subject. One appropriate question to ask those who wrestle tortuously with the Scriptures in search of support for the consumption of alcohol is this. Read Proverbs 23:31: "Do not look on the wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it swirls around smoothly." The question is: "How does this verse not sound like a command?"

Bible Discrepancies

The Bible claims to be inspired of God (2 Tim. 3:16). Can God be so inept that He contradicts Himself? Hello! If the Bible contains discrepancies, it could not be authored by One Who is omniscient—unless He just desires to confuse us. How ironic that the Holy Spirit would be able to give the apostles exact recall of what Jesus taught (John 14:26), but then He gets bogged down in remembering the details Himself! No one can reconcile discrepancies with Divine authorship.

Unity in Christ

Having not obeyed the gospel until age 19, your congenial editor is wondering how he became ingrained with this childhood myth. Does believing in the possibility of unity drop his IQ several points? Liberals frequently use sarcasm even though they say we shouldn't. Why do we believe unity is possible? Could it be because of what we observe in Acts 2:42: "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers"? Could it be that we know Jesus prayed for unity amongst His disciples (John 17:20-21)? Or maybe the reason is that Paul commanded unity in 1 Corinthians 1:10.

Only a liberal would speak of the shibboleths "of our movement." Does anyone know of any member of the church who reads the Bible and says, "How do these Scriptures affect our movement?" If we have any shibboleths, they come from the Scriptures. We live by the quaint philosophy that God expects us to follow His Word. What the Bible teaches, we practice. If the Bible does not authorize it, we don't do it. Such a philosophy cannot be too difficult for a liberal to understand, can it?

The Holy Spirit

One wonders where the author of the statement about the Holy Spirit is looking—that he is finding brethren baptized in the Holy Spirit? Receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit was a promise made in Joel 2:28 and preached by John the Immerser (Matt. 3:11; John 1:32-34). The promise was narrowed down to the apostles by Jesus personally in Luke 24:46-49 and in Acts 1:4-5. It was fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). It was never promised to God's people for all time. It is not something Christians are taught to seek; it does not come by obedience. Who would be receiving it today and why, since we have everything that pertains to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3)?

Miraculous Manifestations of the Spirit

Is there no Scripture predicting that the miraculous gifts would end? Has the "scholar" who communicated this tripe ever read 1 Corinthians 12-13? The whole point of chapter 13 is that the spiritual gifts (so highly prized by the Corinthians) were temporary and were going to be done away. A second argument is that love was greater than the gifts. One might also consider Ephesians 4 in this regard.

It is not an invention of man to read the Scriptures to find out what they say and what they mean. It would be an invention to discount what the Scriptures teach because of an affinity for an emotional experience. For what reason would we need the spiritual gifts today—when we have the completely revealed Word of God? What would our miracles attest to—the Word that has already been confirmed—or some new revelation we think God has given us? We either have all that God wants us to receive, or we do not. The Scriptures agree with the first choice.

No doubt this book opened the eyes of many brethren back in 1966; even though there was a good response to the material, things did not improve. Today, we have all the problems that existed back then and more that would surface later (to be continued).