Judge Righteous Judgment
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).
Several news items have been accumulating over the past few months, most of which are not related to any other topic. Most of them are not deserving of a great deal of space, but they are interesting enough to be given a little bit of attention.
"A Star-Crossed Marriage?"
Last October 2, 2011, the above title appeared on page B1 of the Orlando Sentinel; it concerned an astrologer who was involved in a bitter divorce. William Lamb, "Orlando's nationally syndicated astrologer," had met a woman on-line. He traveled to the Philippines, and they married in Manila on March 4th, 2009 (B4). They did not, however, live happily ever after. He brought her back to live in his condo in Orlando, and somewhere along the line, the marriage deteriorated.
According to her, he prohibited her from getting a driver's license, required her to stay in the bedroom unless she was going to work, was abusive (in various ways) toward her, and threatened to have her sent back to the Philippines (B-4). According to him, she punched him in the head, was verbally abusive to him, spoke of imitating Lorena Bobbitt, and threatened to kill him. He alleges that she only married him to be able to come to the United States (B1, B4).
Who is right and who is wrong in this "he said, she said" brouhaha is not the issue, so far as the newspaper was concerned. The pertinent question is, "Why does an astrologer who hosts a radio show and writes columns explaining how the stars affect our lives not see this one coming?" Astrologers often do personal horoscopes. If he checked his own and hers prior to their marriage, the stars must have been silent instead of warning him. He should have known—but not because of the stars. He is 67, and she is 31. Do you really need to have special insight from the stars to figure out that such a marriage is headed for disaster?
Taylor Swift: Role Model
From November 20, 2011 (Orlando Sentinel) comes an article in which singer Taylor Swift told 60 Minutes, "I take being a role model seriously." One is always reluctant to embrace any entertainer as a fan for fear that the "star" will have a change of heart, but Miss Swift does appear to be earnest. All too often, those who seem innocent end up being disappointing (Miley Cyrus, for example). Some actresses known for playing wholesome parts cannot seem to wait to be cast as a seductress (to show how great and versatile they are). What is wrong with someone having and maintaining a wholesome image? Doris Day was successful at it.
Taylor Swift feels a responsibility to those who are her fans to set a good example. She says that it would be easy to tell parents to raise their own kids and to absolve herself from any bad influence she might exercise, but "that's not the truth of it." She is, of course, right, and it is refreshing to hear someone acknowledge the reality of the matter. Young people often imitate those whom they adore. It should be obvious by seeing the way young girls have had the sleazy look of Madonna or Britney Spears. Swift said:
"The truth of it is that every singer out there with songs on the radio is raising the next generation. So make your words count." "I definitely think about a million people when I am getting dressed in the morning. That's just part of my life now. I think it's my responsibility to know it and to be conscious of it" (J1).
Hooray for an entertainer with a sense of honesty and decorum! Thus far she has remained unchanged despite tremendous success. May she remain committed to these goals and inspire other performers along the same lines. One does not have to be vulgar or dress like a harlot in order to succeed.
"Church Apologizes For Baptizing Nazi Hunter's Parents"
What a headline! We could not find it coming from the pages of the New Testament. This is too ludicrous almost for words. Notice how the story from page A17 of the Orlando News Sentinel (2-16-12) begins:
The Mormon church apologized this week for a "serious breach of protocol" after it was discovered that the parents of the late Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal were posthumously baptized as Mormons…. The efforts…violated terms of an agreement that the church signed in 1995 in which it agreed to stop baptizing Jewish victims of the Holocaust.
Of course, the first question is, "How can one person be baptized in place of another?" The answer is that he cannot. The Mormons base their teaching and practice upon an erroneous view of 1 Corinthians 15:29, which includes the words, baptized for the dead. Whatever that phrase means (and there are at least five major views and more minor ones) may be subject to debate, but there is one interpretation that cannot be correct—that of the Mormons. No one can be baptized for someone who has already died. That decision is up to each person while he is yet living!
One cannot believe, repent, confess that Jesus is the Son of God, be baptized for, or live faithfully unto death for any other individual, living or dead. Each person is responsible for himself. God stated this principle in the book of Ezekiel, which is valid no matter what covenant anyone lives under.
"Therefore you, O son of man, say to the children of the people: 'The righteousness of the righteous man shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression; as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall because of it in the day that he turns from his wickedness; nor shall the righteous be able to live because of his righteousness in the day that he sins'" (33:12).
Verses 13-16 explain the principle more fully, but this one verse is sufficient to show that no one can obey for someone else. On the Day of Pentecost, Peter did not, after proclaiming, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," then add, "Or maybe someday your descendants can do it for you" (Acts 2:38).
How disgraceful is it for a "church" to have a proxy stand in for dead people in a vain effort to save them! This practice was neither authorized nor practiced in the New Testament. There is but one baptism (Eph. 4:5) for today, and it is not baptism in the Holy Spirit which had ceased long before Paul wrote these words. Neither is the one baptism for the purpose of saving those who have already departed from this earth. The one baptism is for the living—in order to obtain the forgiveness of their sins.
Heaven's Anointing Oil
Postmarked February 21, 2012 was an envelope with the return address of Heaven's Anointing Oil; it was mailed from nearby Ocoee. No letter was inside; there was merely a card and a pricing sheet. Underneath the same title on the card are the words, Premium Quality. Well, if it is "heaven's," how could it not be the very best quality?
One bottle is priced at $12.00. Nowhere does it list the amount of fluid ounces in the bottle or show a picture of the size of the bottle. Hmm. For two bottles, the price drops to $10 each, which is certainly an invitation to buy more than one. But apparently some prefer to buy the anointing oil by the case, which contains 25 bottles. Possibly one could also change the oil in his car with such a generous supply. At this level the price per bottle drops to $6.00 apiece—half of what one lonely bottle costs. Buying 2 to 5 cases lowers the price another dollar per bottle, and if a church orders 6 or more cases, the cost per unit is only $4.40.
Shipping is free on all orders over $50 (10 bottles or more). The use of this much oil indicates: "There's a whole lot of anointing goin' on out there." One wonders how any religious group could use so much oil. Surely, they would not fill a baptistery with it. How many times a year can they read and re-enact the 23rd psalm? How many sick people can there be in a congregation at any one time (James 5:14)? How many can be anointed to religious offices (which lacks New Testament authority but might be practiced anyway)?
No Scripture is cited in the advertisement; no practice from the New Testament is mentioned. It is just assumed that churches will want this anointing oil. One must contact True Ministries to order a supply. One other thing occurs on the price list. About halfway down the page, after listing the various quantities and their charges appears this phrase:
Helping to feed, clothe and shelter those in need
Presumably the phrase means that they use a portion of their profits to help the needy, but it is oddly worded—and with no punctuation. Whatever it all means, it is certainly a first. Never has such an advertisement come to any congregation this writer has been affiliated with in four decades, and, so far as is known, this is the first time one has come to this building. It is obvious that Heaven's Anointing Oil took our address from the yellow pages in the phone book; so every religious group in the area probably received one.
Without any prophets or kings to use the oil on, we are at a loss as to what its function would be. Oil was used upon the sick as a medicine (Luke 10:34), but we have more specialized items today. Besides, this product does not appear to be healing oil but rather anointing oil. Perhaps an enterprising company will someday offer both. Hopefully, brethren will pass up both types.
Examination of Conscience and Catholic Doctrine
The above title is the name of a tract published by "The Fathers of Mercy," a Catholic religious institute of priests (according to Wikipedia). They must "conform to the will of the bishop in whose diocese" they choose to labor. Presumably, then, this tract that they published agrees with Catholic doctrine. It begins with "The Ten Commandments" although it does not cite either Exodus 20 or Deuteronomy 5. After mentioning the first commandment (having no other gods before Jehovah—Exodus 20:3), it skips the second one, which is:
"You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them…." (Ex. 20:4-5).
Their second one is actually the third—not taking the Lord's name in vain. Their third one is then the fourth, although they changed the wording from, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy," to, "Remember to keep holy the Lord's Day." God used the word Sabbath to refer to Saturday, the day on which He rested. The Lord's Day is a New Testament term referring to Sunday, the first day of the week, the day on which Jesus our Lord arose from the dead.
Since "The Fathers of Mercy" omitted the second commandment and bumped up all the rest, that only leaves nine commandments, right? That would be the case; so in order to have ten, they divided the tenth commandment into two parts, thus making one clause the ninth commandment, and the rest of it number ten. They do not give any explanation for their tampering with the Word of God, but Moses strictly denounced anyone who would add to or take away from it (Deut. 4:2). Immediately, the reader of this tract knows that The Fathers of Mercy and the Roman Catholic Church (which they represent) cannot be trusted because they have no respect for the inspired Book.
The words of the second commandment which the tract omits from their list do actually appear in the Catholic translation that is from the Confraternity and Douay texts, but when the Catholic Church teaches the Ten Commandments, they omit the second and split the tenth in two. No wonder the Catholic Church has not encouraged their members to read the Bible!
After listing the two greatest commandments (correctly, but still citing no Scripture), the tract passes on to "The Precepts of the Church." The fifth one is generally correct, but the first four have no basis in Scripture whatsoever. The first is: "You shall attend Mass on Sundays and on Holy Days of Obligation and rest from servile labor." The word Mass does not occur in the Bible; neither does the New Testament speak of any "Holy Days of Obligation." These terms are not found in the Scriptures; they were invented by men.
Neither did God give any command about rest from servile labor on Sunday. Probably many who were converted to Christianity in the first century were slaves who were required to serve on the first day of the week.
The second precept is that all Catholics are required to confess their sins at least once a year. Do they mean to a Roman Catholic priest? None existed at the time the New Testament was written. All Christians are priests (1 Peter 2:5, 9). The Bible teaches that we need to confess our sins to God constantly in order that He might forgive them (1 John 1:9).
Catholics are commanded to "receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season." An average Bible student will know that sacrament, eucharist, and Easter Season are all absent from the pages of the Scriptures. Eucharist comes from a Greek word, but it does not have the meaning ascribed to it here.
The fourth precept is: "You shall observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the church." Jesus is the head of the church, and He established no such days. All of these practices have arisen outside the doctrine that was taught in the first century (Acts 2:42) and practiced by faithful Christians of that era.
"How to go to Confession" is an interesting feature of the tract. The "priest" (who has no Biblical authority to exist) listens to someone's sins and assigns a penance (another word missing in the New Testament). God is able to forgive sins on the basis of Jesus' sacrifice. We cannot earn His forgiveness by doing various deeds. Purgatory is another concept that is not Biblical but is mentioned in this tract.
Appropriate titles to use of Mary, the reader is told, include "The New Eve," "Mother of God," "Mother of the Church," "Queen," "Advocate," and "Mediatrix." Mary was a virtuous and honorable woman, but she is never designated as queen. Neither is she called "the New Eve," which would imply that she never sinned (as Jesus was the second Adam). She certainly is not "the Mother of the Church." The Kingdom of Heaven has no mother. Jesus is the King, however (Rev. 19:16). Furthermore, Mary cannot mediate for anyone: "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5).
The Catholic Church deletes Scriptures when it suits their purpose; they add to the Scriptures when they feel like it, and they contradict the Word of God whenever they have a doctrine they hold in higher esteem than the Bible. How many hundreds of thousands are following the teachings of a religious group rather than the living oracles, delivered from God to man? And why cannot humankind be content to read and abide by the Scriptures God gave us, adding nothing to them, and taking nothing away from them? Safety can be found only in following the Revelation God gave to us.