Principles of Heresy (Part Four)
By now, surely the reader is getting the drift of what Liberalism is all about as we continue to notice some precepts of such men from Ira Rice's second volume of Axe on the Root, but there remain a few more features of it which are generally fairly common. One of the underlying tenets, of course, is that Christians cannot know the truth; we are all just wandering around like sheep without a Shepherd. How does such ideology not reflect on our Chief Shepherd? Is He too incompetent to feed us properly? Jesus knows people can believe the Truth\
Not unsurprisingly, Gary Freeman was invited to write a column for The Christian Chronicle, which shows their philosophical bent more than fifty years ago. Freeman decided to address a subject which is often used as a sermon title in gospel meetings: "Can We See the Bible Alike?" Needless to say, Freeman scoffs at the concept. He likens it to the possibility of taking a pair of dice and throwing seven a thousand times in a row.
Freeman insists that not even two people can see the Bible alike, let alone all (59). By that standard, no two people would ever be able to walk together (Amos 3:3). The liberal also affirms that what such a sermon title means is "we could all understand the Bible alike if we would all accept my understanding of it" (59). He adds that those who really believe that we can understand the Bible alike "waver between truculence and smugness" (59).
The best way to wash this drivel out of one's ears is to think about, say, the way the 3,000 did on Pentecost. They all understood alike Peter's message that they had crucified the Son of God, who had been raised from the dead and made to sit on the right hand of God (Acts 2:16-36)! Furthermore, they all knew what the apostle meant when he told them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins (v. 38) because they did it (v. 41)! No two people can understand the Bible alike? How about three thousand!
But Freeman rambles on, calling the Lord's people judgmental "Christian Pharisees" (59). Notice how quick liberals are to call names? Now, none of us claims to understand every verse of Scripture completely and thoroughly because some things (few by comparison) are "hard to understand" (2 Peter 3:16). But this is not Freeman's point. Notice the way in which he defines what he is talking about.
When a man decides he perfectly understands all essential truth, he has not just made a mistake; rather, he has become in a very real sense, irreligious. He had become the Pharisee in Jesus' parable, justifying himself and condemning his neighbor. He has effectively shut off dialogue both with God and man, for he no longer has anything to learn from either (60).
Where does one start with this hodgepodge of gibberish? First of all, Freeman is referring to essential truth, and he is affirming that a person cannot know it perfectly. Well, then, how can anyone possibly be saved? Jesus said we can know the truth and that it makes us free (John 8:32). Whom shall we believe\
Can we not know that God is (Rom. 1:18-20), that He consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:18-20)? Can we not comprehend that we have all sinned (Rom. 3:23) and that the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23)? Can we not understand that God is gracious (Rom. 6:23; Eph. 2:8-9) and that He has made salvation available through Christ (Heb. 5:9) and that we must repent of our sins and be baptized in order to have them washed away (Acts 2:38; 22:16)? No one needs a Ph.D. to understand essential truth! In fact, a person needs a great deal of help to misunderstand it!
Second, for one to think he understands essential truth is not a mistake (unless he has not thought carefully through what he believes). Third, it is not irreligious to claim to know essential truth. The apostles were guided into all truth (John 16:13). Were they irreligious? Fourth, the Pharisee in Luke 18:11-12 did not claim to know all essential truth. He was self-righteous and lacked humility. Fifth, he did not condemn his neighbor because he did not know the truth; he condemned him because he did not think he was his moral and spiritual equal.
Sixth, does anyone feel he does not have anything to learn from God? If that were the case, why do we constantly read and study our Bibles? However, to say that the Bible teaches us something every time we devote ourselves to its holy pages does not contradict the fact that we understand essential truth. Seventh, we have things we can learn from atheists as well as denominationalists\
Freeman concludes his article by adding that truth suffers "when men think they have it cornered and begin to sit on it" (60). Does not truth suffer when men act as if we cannot know it or that we are irreligious if we claim to know it? How can we stand up for the truth if we are plagued by uncertainty? Freeman tries to extricate himself from this predicament, stating we can have confidence in what we believe, but it rings hollow.
Friends
In one article, Freeman recommended the writings of four friends; one of which he described as intelligent and sensitive. He was not that impressive, however; mostly he wrote about "the style of our witness" and other phrases that we don't ever use because we are not witnesses of anything that occurred in the New Testament (66-68). It was nothing but denominational jargon. And what do the words given below mean?
The church was not meant to call men to itself; nor was it meant to concern itself with its own expansion or even its survival (68).
Really? Then why did Jude charge men to contend earnestly for the faith (verse 3)? And why did Paul call the church "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15)? Why did he say he was "set for the defense of the gospel" (Phil. 1:17)? Are these words a denial of the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20)?
This same writer (friend #1) wrote an article explaining how Noah's ark was not made entirely of gopher wood, but God allowed it to float anyway (71-72). Right! Needless to say, it was a work of fiction\
Friend #2 exuded enthusiasm for the notion that "winds of change are blowing through the Church of Christ" (92). Sounds like something the Nicolaitans might have said, doesn't it? He complained that the "pedantic 'preacherly' style of writing designed to bore and produce sleep\
But he also lambasted liberals\
Most recognize that Campbell and others shared a goal of producing unity in a time when different religious groups were deeply divided. Bible students did not crystalize anything, however. They discovered truth\
A Scottish bookseller, Andrew Munro, a rather sentimental person, was the first to break the silence. "Mr. Campbell," he said, "if we adopt that as a basis, then there is an end to infant baptism." Campbell replied: "Of course, if infant baptism be not found in the Scriptures, we can have nothing to do with it."
Nothing had "crystalized" at the moment; they were just discovering how operating on the basis of Biblical authority would work. However, what are people expected to do when they learn that the New Testament does not teach that infants are to be baptized. The Word does not command anyone to baptize an infant, nor does it provide an example of it being done. Only two choices exist. Christians can either: 1) do what God authorizes (a Scriptural principle\
Unity is a Biblical goal; they possessed it for a time in the first church (Acts 2:42). But the Judaizing teachers disrupted it. Satan has caused division after division in "Christendom," and has been successful in the Lord's church, also. Friend #2 charges us with being "28 jangling and altogether discordant sects each fiercely anathematizing each other." He has an undeniable point. History has shown that we are far better at dividing than reconciling, which can be documented by the events of the past twenty years. However, in our defense, most of the splits that have occurred (but not all) have resulted from those trying to do what they believe the Bible says.
Friend #2 adds: "To this day Churches of Christ talk about unity as much as anybody, but the talk is generally a sham and hypocrisy" (95). Being just a little judgmental, isn't he? Most brethren do earnestly desire unity; we're just not willing to compromise in order to achieve it. But what does friend #2 think constitutes divisions that ought not to be? He lists "church organization, instrumental music, located pastors, missionary societies, cooperation, etc." as "a series of disastrous quarrels" (95). Whether or not the Bible authorizes the use of instruments of music in worship is a disastrous "quarrel"?
He makes it sound like nothing more than a spat over which television channel will be watched on a given evening. The New Testament authorizes singing\