Principles of Heresy (Part Seven)
Currently running on the "Oxygen" cable channel is a program called, "Accident, Suicide, or Murder." They frequently present a few facts in a case where someone has died, and the event looks transparent, such as the one in which a minister tried to avoid hitting a deer while driving home. He ended up hitting a guard rail, and his wife died. Poor fellow. But then certain details surfaced that made everyone question the "accident." Little by little the details began to fill in and allow everyone to see what really happened.
Reading the three volumes of Axe on the Root by Ira Rice is like filling in the details of what has happened in the church in the past 50 years. The reader will probably find himself saying, "So that's where that idea came from." Plenty more could be discussed from M.F. Cottrell's 1962 book, Refocusing God, Bible and the Church, but an even more important book was published four years later by Carl Ketcherside's periodical, Mission Messenger (3:13), and it was titled, Voices of Concern.
The book consists of 17 chapters written by members (or former members) of the churches of Christ. Rice believed that many of them expressed ideology they received from Cottrell's book (3:41). One of the 17 writers later repented of what he wrote in Voices of Concern, edited by Robert Meyers.
Meyers was himself an apostate, having been "let go" by Harding College (3:43). Anyone can understand why when reading his own words. He claims on page 1 of his book that "some of us within the Church of Christ segment of the Restoration Movement…had to seek wider fellowship." Many had "left the Church of Christ segment of Christendom."
First of all, the churches of Christ are not a segment of anything. Our only goal has been to follow what the New Testament teaches. When men set forth Biblical principles, we follow those principles—not the men who taught them. Furthermore, we have no goal of being a segment of Christendom. If others choose to describe themselves that way, that is their business. We simply try to be Christians, members of the body of Christ, for whom He died (Acts 20:28). He did not die for all "Christendom," however someone may define that.
Meyers says that some "are driven out because they will not conform." This complaint could have been lodged by the Judaizing teachers discussed in Galatians or Hymenaeus and Philetus. A heretic is to be rejected after the first and second admonition (Titus 3:10). Meyers fears the result will be "intellectual suicide for the churches losing them" (3:43). We'll take our chances. We can always risk losing those who put darkness for light, bitter for sweet and evil for good (Isa. 5:20). We can survive their defections.
What people brag about can be an index to their soul. Meyers brags about six of those from his circle of friends at Freed-Hardeman College departing from the faith. They were all intelligent and articulate (naturally); one of them had become an Episcopalian priest (3:44)! We ought to pray that brethren escape that kind of intelligence. Where did this fellow get the authority to be part of a separate priesthood, since all Christians are priests (1 Peter 2:5, 9)? Where did he get the authority to call himself an Episcopalian instead of a Christian? When he sprinkles little children or adults and calls it baptism, where will he find authority for that? And Meyers has the temerity to insinuate that we are the ones committing intellectual suicide?
Both Cottrell and Meyers champion the idea of "unity in diversity" (3:45-46). Anyone reading their books will not find a Scripture to support that idea. Paul wrote that brethren should be "perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (1 Cor. 1:10). It is the devil who does not care what his followers believe—not the Lord. Satan did not write a book of instructions for living and serving him. He allows people to do what is right in their own sight (Judges 21:25). The Holy Spirit inspired the Word that communicates to us truth (what to believe) and the correct way to worship God (John 4:23-24).
"What Does the Fox Say?"
Check out the video (with the above title); its humor will brighten your day. The first chapter in Meyers' Voices of Concern was written by Logan Fox, whose words are just slightly more intelligible than the fox in the song. He says that he knows some who have left the church of Christ to "become members of freer fellowships" (3:47). Hmm. Who would that be? And why are they so free? Do they not have any convictions about what they believe?
How would that work in the Lord's Church? Imagine us saying the following: "We believe the Bible teaches baptism is by immersion and for the forgiveness of sins. These conclusions are based on what the Bible teaches throughout the New Testament (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 1:4; 16:16; Acts 2:38; 8:35-39; 16:31-34; 22:16; Rom. 6:3-5; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 3:26-27; Col. 2:11-12; Heb. 10:22; 1 Peter 3:21). However, if you don't agree that baptism is essential to salvation or that it is by immersion, that's all right. We can fellowship one another anyway. Yep! Unity in diversity." Now if we were to take such a position, would anyone really think we believed baptism was essential?
Fox goes on to say (erroneously) that "I have been a Christian from the day of my birth…." No, that was not a slip; he adds: But while I was not baptized until the age of ten, I was in the church long before that…" (3:48). One wonders how such a thing is possible.
Fox claims that by age 18 he had become "a fullfledged sectarian," but two years later he was on his way out of it (3:49). He levels charges against the church, such as: "One never really questions whether we are in truth the real church" (3:50). The truthfulness of this statement must be challenged. As we have often said, we are the only religious group on earth that questions everything—constantly. People from denominations tell us that when they question why they do something, the answer comes forth something like this: "That's just the way we do things," or, "That's just what we believe." End of discussion. Members of the church go to the Bible to show exactly the reason we believe what we do.
A further charge is made against us that we become "expert in all the tricky logic used to defend" our dogma (3:51). Isn't this a contradiction? Which is it? Do we never question anything, or do we use tricky logic to answer questions? Was God using tricky logic when He called for His people to reason with Him (Isa. 1:18)? Usually, the people who complain against logic are those whose positions cannot stand in light of it.
Logan further makes one of the most illogical statements ever: "…truth is self-validating and needs no external supports…." (3:51). He claims that he no longer worries about defending truth (3:52). Good! He does not know what it is in the first place. Brother Rice pointed out that, contrary to Fox, Paul was set "for the defense of the gospel" (Phil. 1:17) (3:51). Jude also taught Christians to contend for the faith (v. 3). Peter said to be ready to give an answer to any person that asked a reason of the hope that is in us (1 Peter 3:15).
What Makes a Liberal a Liberal?
As we have already seen, liberals such as Robert Meyers and Logan Fox have no difficulty contradicting the Scriptures, as well as reality. But sooner or later they go even further. Fox tells us how he decided that we needed a freer fellowship.
"…hearing E. Stanley Jones and reading his books which finally clarified the problem for me. It all boiled down to one simple fact: if God sent His Holy Spirit to live and work in a man who was not immersed, who was I to refuse to recognize him? And since the evidence of the presence of the Spirit is the fruit of the Spirit, then it is undeniable that regeneration is not always correlated with immersion" (3:52).
Brother Rice asked a pertinent question: "Did God's word teach him that?" No, he used "tricky logic" to arrive at such a conclusion, misapplying Matthew 7:15-20. According to Fox's theory, a man's disposition or character proves he is a Christian, even though a Buddhist might exhibit self-control. Denominationalists can read and understand the Scriptures the same as we can. Just because they can get some things right does not mean that God approves of them. Even Jeroboam was probably correct on a few spiritual matters.
Did not Max Lucado operate on this same principle more than two decades later? He too thinks everyone is a Christian because of the good spiritual concepts they present (never mind their Calvinism and other false doctrines). God did not tell us to fellowship anyone whom we think might be a Christian. Obeying the gospel serves as an objective way of determining who is and who is not a Christian. Lucado and Fox have opted for subjective criteria. Is it possible Fox wrote something he did not intend to? No. He further says: "It is possible…that one might be born again and filled with the Spirit without being baptized…" (3:52). Really? What Scriptures teaches that concept?
But it gets even worse. Notice what else Fox says:
"Reading such men as Fosdick, Sockman, Jones, and others, I came to realize that rather than making the Bible live, the verbal inspiration theory was killing the message of the Bible. I saw that while we virtually worshipped the Bible, we weren't getting its message…. Next to our position on baptism, I am convinced that our view of the Bible is the biggest barrier to spiritual growth among us" (3:53).
Incredible! Next to Logan, the fox on the video almost seems articulate! Harry Emerson Fosdick was a theological liberal (Wikipedia), whose most "famous sermon" was titled, "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?" He presented the Bible as a record of the unfolding of God's will, not as the literal 'Word of God.'" He was a theistic evolutionist as well. This is one of Fox's heroes.
Verbal inspiration kills the message of the Bible. Has Fox ever studied all of the Scriptures relating to inspiration? Take away the inspiration of the Scriptures, and what is left, if not only the wisdom of men? Why should anyone care what the wisdom of men is? It changes from century to century, from culture to culture, from country to country. The wisdom of men possesses no permanence and no assurances. The fact that the Scriptures are inspired is what makes the Bible certain and dependable. It will not change next week, based on the latest whim of someone's interpretation or theory. Besides, if we cannot believe its claims for inspiration, we cannot believe anything it says, period.
We don't worship the Bible, but we do worship the One Who gave it to us; it tells us Who and how to worship—and how to live, also. Is it not the case that those who deny the inspiration of the Scriptures blaspheme the Holy Spirit? If not, why not? Inspiration is not a barrier to spiritual growth. Respecting the authority of the Scriptures brings about spiritual growth, and it is the only means by which it can actually occur (2 Peter 1).
We did not originate a position on baptism; we recognize what the Scriptures teach on the subject. Fox is an excellent bad example of someone being educated beyond his ability to handle it. He substitutes theories of men, such as evolution, for the Word of God and denigrates the Bible. Then he presumptuously accuses us.
Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn't be:
Yes, we are the ones who can't think right because we have not studied liberal theologians. We are limited by believing the inspiration of the Scriptures and following its doctrines—especially concerning salvation. How utterly backward can a person be! We will remain with the Word of God, which never changes and leave Fox to the wisdom of men, which never led anyone to God (1 Cor. 1:21).