Principles of Heresy (Part Five)

Although this series of articles has turned out to be longer than anticipated, a value exists in knowing the methods and teachings of liberals, who would steer God\—We are back in the 1960s, looking at Gary Freeman and four of his friends who shared the same liberal ideology. Of interest is the fact that fifty years later, false teachers continue to use the same tactics as then. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.

Yes, even in those days Friend #2 was calling for a new hermeneutic\—a new way to interpreting the Scriptures because the ones we use allegedly don’t work. One can imagine Satan trying this ploy on Eve. “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” After Eve confirmed the truth of that message, Satan might have answered, “Your problem is that you’ve crystalized your teachings and refuse to hear new truth. You’ve adopted pattern theology that simply doesn’t work. You’re holding to traditions from the past that have lost their relevance. The fact is that today you will not surely die for eating that fruit.” Of course, if the devil had said all those things, Eve probably would have looked at him and said, “What are you talking about?” Come to think of it, that’s what Christians should utter in response to today’s liberals.

Friend #2 again insists that division should have never occurred over the use of musical instruments because it is not “a major issue” (Axe on the Root, Volume II 97). What an insult to faithful brethren of the past who lost their places of worship because those who took over the church buildings did not care enough about unity to forego the use of instruments! Worship is either authorized by God, or it is not. Friend #2 knows better; he, like his liberal forbears, just doesn’t care.

False Teachers Pose Questions They Don’t Answer

As one reads the rantings of liberal writers, he finds assertions, criticisms, and charges against the Lord’s church\—but not an explanation of the way things ought to be. We are criticized, e.g., for having the wrong methods of interpretation because they lead to division, but in fifty years, no one has set forth the “correct” principles that will unify us all. The following words will establish the description provided above. F2 says that our sermons, articles, and tracts imply,

“We are right, others are wrong.” The movement rejects history\—like Marxism\—and claims in defiance of all logic or reason to have discovered what untold generations of honest men have missed: the simple unadorned truth. This is a true indictment of God who so cleverly hid such a simple thing for so long. Under Church of Christ rubrics of interpretation, the church was born on Pentecost, but apostasy set in and by the third century it was gone and did not reappear until Campbell’s happy discovery in 1811. Surely this must have been an event close to the Resurrection! (98).

Is the preceding paragraph not full of “assertions, criticisms, and charges against the Lord’s church,” as promised? At the very least, most everything he writes is slanted. We do not intend to boast, “We are right; others are wrong,” in sermons and articles. We do have in mind studying the Scriptures and Bible subjects with a view toward presenting the truth. Is not this the attitude of the Scriptures\—that they are presenting truth (Pr. 23:23; John 8:31-32)? What are we supposed to do? Would F2 prefer that we said, “We have studied this matter, but we really can’t make heads or tails out of it”? Perhaps then we could take pride in our ignorance. “I don’t have any answers, and I know for a fact that no one else does, either.” Really? Does not anyone (even a denominational commentator) think he is presenting the truth to people, when he writes a volume? Do historians not do the same?

No explanation is presented for the charge that we reject history. On the contrary, history is what it is. We did not make it, nor did we slant it to suit our purposes. We just try to understand what happened with the facts we have. How have we defied logic or reason? Would he like us better if we ignored the facts? How does he define our crime?

He says our claim is that generations of honest men missed the unadorned truth. If all those men to whom he referred were honest, he might have a point. Why does he assume they were honest men? How many honest men are there now? Are those who preach and practice “faith only” honest? How are they honest when they reject plain Scriptures that teach salvation is not by faith only? What do they do with Luke 13:3? What do they do with Acts 2:38 or 1 Peter 3:21? How are they honest when they reject even studying the matter? How are they honest when they refuse to defend their beliefs in an open debate?

Yes, we know there were departures from what the New Testament teaches even in the second century. More occurred in the 4th century, and Boniface III claimed to be pope over all the church in 606 A.D. People were still immersed for the forgiveness of their sins until the 12th century, but sprinkling was used from then until now. Does God accept sprinkling in place of immersion? F2 does not specifically address that issue\—or infant baptism. Were those who accepted these errors honest men? Were they saved men?

Actually, they may have been more honest since the Bible was not generally available to people for about a thousand years. What excuse do people have for being in error today, Bibles being plentiful?

Did God Hide It?

F2 says that God cleverly hid the truth from people, according to our thinking. Have we ever taught such a doctrine? But departures from the faith did occur; Philip Schaff documents them in his eight-volume work, The History of the Christian Church. Does F2 desire to deny history? In fact, the New Testament prophesies a falling away (2 Thess. 2). We did not invent any of these occurrences; anyone has access to them. In the interest of answering a fool according to his folly, isn’t it ironic that God cleverly hid the Law from His own people in the temple (2 Chron. 34:14)?

When the Bible was first written, it was translated into several other languages even though Greek was a universal language. Once Jerome’s Vulgate was translated into the Latin (c. 383 A.D.), and the church transitioned into Roman Catholicism, most people eventually could not read the Bible in their own language (Greek and Latin having become dead languages). Truth became unavailable to most people because of the language barrier; only priests and monks could read it. John Wycliffe translated portions of the Vulgate into English in the 14th century. He was despised by the Catholic Church for his efforts; they dug up his dead body, burned it, and scattered his ashes to show their contempt. Eventually, in the 1500s Luther translated the Bible into German, and several versions in the English appeared, for which people were eager to read. Has F2 no knowledge of history?

So, none of us has ever taught that from 300 to 1811 the simple, unadorned truth was not available. But it was difficult to come by from around 500 to 1500, which is still a thousand years. We have occasional evidences that during this time believers were persecuted and put to death. We do not know whether the church disappeared entirely during this time or not; God knows. And He will judge these people justly. No one has appointed Christians in the 21st century to vote them in or out of the kingdom, to render a decision on who was saved or lost. Due to persecution, historical references are few. A reading of Traces of the Kingdom might prove helpful.

The Larger Question

Consider a few more caustic sentences from F2.

“What heady and potentially destructive stuff to feed a man: ‘Join us and you will be right. All your neighbors are doomed, but we have the truth’. Every neurotic and guilt-laden soul will come rushing to such an appeal…. Small wonder that many Churches of Christ are full of miserable, unhappy and hostile persons” (98).

Well, isn’t it nice to know what F2 really thinks of church members? This mischaracterization will probably come as a shock to most brethren, who have never viewed themselves in such light. Obviously, this is an emotional argument.

But are we right and everyone else wrong? This is the larger question being asked in a snarkastic (a combination of snarky and sarcastic; it just seems to fit) way. Let’s use a Biblical example as a model (something F2 never gets around to).

When the kingdom split, Jeroboam was the leader and first king over the ten northern tribes. Even though God had given him the kingdom, he feared the people might eventually want to reunite with Judah and Benjamin. Therefore, he inaugurated four changes, which are described in 1 Kings 12:25-33.

He changed the priesthood; anyone could become a priest in his kingdom; no doubt the liberals there commented on how open-minded he was. He sent the Levites packing (2 Chron. 11:14). He changed the time of one of the feasts, and he changed the place of worship from Jerusalem (which God had ordained) to Dan and Bethel. Oh, yes, he also set up a golden calf in each of those cities and proclaimed them to be the gods that brought them out of the land of Egypt. Was that wrong? “Of course,” you say. But saying that means that God hid the truth from honest men for two centuries. “Well, maybe they were saved anyway,” one might alter his thinking. After all, no one wants to think all the Israelites were condemned during the 200-year period.

When God did destroy the northern kingdom by means of the nation of Assyria, He inspired the writer of 2 Kings to say: “Then Jeroboam drove Israel from following the Lord, and made them commit a great sin” (17:21). Now, if they were not following the Lord and were committing a great sin, how many will be saved? It is up to the Lord to decide, naturally, but it certainly doesn’t look good.

Whether the period of time is 200 years, 500, or a thousand is irrelevant. One has the same problem in each case. F2 never provided his answer. Like most liberals, he raises difficult questions but abstains from providing his own solutions\—except to imply that folks were saved regardless. But he cannot know or prove such an assertion.

One Example

Let us take a look at just one example, although many could be provided. The New Testament teaches the importance of baptism. The very word in the Greek language means “to immerse.” We know that Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water where he baptized him (Acts 8:35-39). Paul refers to it as a burial (Rom. 6:3-5). Centuries later a prominent religious group changes it from immersion to sprinkling water on someone (or pouring water over their head). Is that baptism? Is this new practice valid? Is it authorized by God? If you answer, “No,” according to F2, then you have condemned honest men to hell. No, you haven’t. If people can be saved by practicing error, then what value has truth? If both can save equally, then truth equals error. Does telling people they must leave error and embrace truth make us neurotic and miserable?

Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn’t be: