What Did Doctor Shelly Say (Part 2)?

Dr. Shelly, speaking at Harding University on September 28, 2025, made several statements that were false. He did not use many passages of Scriptures, but those that found their way into his speech were misapplied. He brings up one of the favorite passages that liberals often resort to—Mark 9:38-40.

Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.”

But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me.”

“For he who is not against us is on our side.”

What is the meaning of the text? The apostles came across someone casting out demons. Because the man was unknown to the disciples and had not been following Jesus (as they had), they told him to stop. They assumed that he was casting out demons by his own authority—that since they did not know him, neither did Jesus. They were mistaken. Jesus did not tell the disciples everything that He did. He must have, for example, talked to the owner of the colt (later), and the owner had agreed to let Jesus borrow him (Matt. 21:2-3). Yet the disciples had no knowledge of that arrangement.

Therefore, Jesus said not to forbid the man—who had worked a miracle. No one could have that ability unless Jesus had given it to him. Miracles had usually been used to establish the truth of the message God desired to have preached (Moses, Elijah, Elisha). Jesus must have authorized the man to cast out demons—even though the apostles did not know Him. Dr. Shelly, however, has a different take on the passage:

Could it possibly mean that there are people outside of us who love Jesus? … They’re doing things, in fact, in the name of Jesus that honors Jesus?

Your congenial editor has no qualms about saying, “No.” (No one at Harding University, however, seemed to give such an answer.) Concerning those who “love Jesus,” is it not the case that the Lord said, “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15)? So, who are these people outside of “us” who love Jesus?

Those who teach hereditary total depravity?

Those who teach man has no free will?

Those who teach “faith only”?

Those who teach “once saved, always saved”?

Those who have exchanged baptism for sprinkling?

Those waiting for Jesus to rule over an earthly kingdom?

Those who added instrumental music to worship?

Those comfortable with denominationalism?

Those who follow charismatic principles?

How can anyone clearly violating the Lord’s commands be characterized as loving Jesus? Furthermore, they are not practicing false religion in Jesus’ name (by His authority). Most religious groups pray “in Jesus’ name.” Calling forth the name of Jesus can simply involve the use of words. Just claiming to do something in Jesus’ name does not make it so. Some itinerant Jewish preachers tried to cast out demons in the name of Jesus whom Paul preached (Acts 19:13). That plan failed—big time—because it was not a valid appeal.

So, Dr. Shelly should explain who is doing such marvelous works in Jesus’ name—and specify what it is that they are doing. Jesus is only honored when His followers do things in accordance with the truth. Suppose a religious group did not practice baptism for the forgiveness of sins or observe the Lord’s Supper; could an elaborate program of feeding the poor and clothing the poor be done in Jesus’ name? Would it honor Christ? Or would Matthew 7:21-23 apply? Though someone does great deeds in Jesus’ name, He can still say to them, “I never knew you.”

Who Keeps the Roll?

One might wonder about the use of the word roll since it is only found once in the New Testament—and that refers to rolling away the stone of Jesus’ tomb. It reminds one of the song, “When the Roll Is Called Up Yonder.” According to Wikipedia, the author of that song “was inspired by the idea of The Book of Life mentioned in the Bible.” Rubel must have been thinking of that reference, also, when he asked, “Who keeps the roll?” Below is his answer.

It’s not the composite membership roll of our Restoration Movement-Stone-Campbell church of Christ—or any tribe, affiliation, denomination, non-denomination. This is the Lamb’s Book of Life.

But God’s truth stands firm like a foundation stone with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and “All who belong to the Lord must turn away from evil” (2 Tim. 2:19, NLT).

First, one wonders why Dr. Shelly is using a paraphrase instead of a credible translation. Second, what is it with the use of the word tribe, which Shelly uses about five times? Your congenial editor has never thought about being part of a tribe (even though he has more Indian blood than Elizabeth Warren). Where is the sudden fascination with this word coming from?

More importantly consider the reliance on some terms like our Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement. Are Stone and Campbell the reason we believe what we believe? It would be just as appropriate to speak of the Hezekiah-Josiah Restoration Movement. What?

Those two kings tried to restore the kingdom to following God’s commands as originally given by Moses. They were great kings, and we honor them and what they did, but we exalt more the principle they followed rather than the men themselves. Likewise, Stone and Campbell were great men, but their ideas of following the commands of Jesus and the apostles instead of the traditions of men is the more important concept. Stone believed Jesus was a created being, and Campbell, for all his great intellect, ended up being president of a missionary society. It’s for reasons like these that we never follow mere, fallible human beings—but rather the teachings of the New Testament.

When we teach people about sin and salvation, we do not teach them about Stone or Campbell; we teach them what the Bible says. We do not promote any man or teaching that came along after the first century. To hear Rubel speak, one would think we had an obligation to defend those who lived in the 19th century. He continues in this vein, having a conversation with himself.

“But, Rubel, how are we supposed to know who the true believers are?”

“We can’t. You and I are not keeping the roll book. No one tribe among all the groups that calls themselves churches could possibly claim that it is the body to the exclusion of all other persons who are not parts of that body.”

Somebody says, “Are you saying that you think there really are saved persons outside the churches of Christ?”

“I think there are a few in the churches of Christ that are saved.”

We can’t know who true believers are? While it is possible that we can be, as human beings, fooled, into thinking some are true believers when they are not, why can we not recognize those who are? Perhaps it would be easier for Dr. Shelly to consider the list of descriptions presented earlier and tell us which of those errors a person can believe and still be a true believer. Can a person who confidently asserts that baptism is not for the forgiveness of sins be a true believer?

Judging from things he has said or written in the past, Shelly does think there are true believers in denominations, and he tried to bolster that with statistics. In order to prove that there are Christians outside the churches of Christ, Shelly uses statistics from 1984. The churches of Christ, theoretically, had 2,250,000 members. The population of the world at that time was 4,500,000,000. That means the percentage of Christians in the world was 0.0005, which is a small fraction of 1%. The argument, therefore, is that there must be saved people in other religious groups because the gospel “could not be that impotent.” By this logic, should we conclude that some Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus are also saved?

Really? Is it not the case that, when God destroyed the world, only eight souls were saved? We don’t know how many drowned, but with the longevity of life in those days, the earth was fairly-well populated—even if every wife only bore ten children. There could easily have been millions of people on the earth. If eight were saved, using the same ratio of 1984, then that would only have allowed 16,000 for a total population on earth at the time of the Flood. Of course, if there were millions or more than a billion, just imagine how much less of a ration than 0.00005 would have been saved! Noah, a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5), could only save eight souls; was there something wrong with his God-given message? Shelly added the following observation:

Our goal is not to prove we’re right and everybody’s wrong. Our goal is to say Christ is right and we’re all in the wrong, and as sinners we need a Savior. And He is the only hope for any of us.

These sentiments sound lofty and unassailable on the surface. Like many false teachers, Shelly uses half truths to make his case. Actually, we do have a goal to prove ourselves right. Shelly has the same goal. How many people have a goal of either desiring to be wrong or not caring if they’re wrong? We would look pretty silly if that were the case. The purpose of a debate is to make sure that we are right in the theological positions that we hold. If we are wrong, we will change. If others are wrong, we pray that they will change.

Of course, Christ is right and we are sinners, but the fact that we commit sin does not prove we are doctrinally wrong. Shelly is mixing up these two concepts.

Baptism

Shelly did not mention baptism, but we have already presented his views on that. Dr. Scott Adair of Harding University spoke on this subject. He stressed immersion, which is good, and he described baptism in several ways. He said baptism is

the official contract of your eternal calling. It details God’s promises to you and your promises to Him. Baptism tells you who you are. Paul points back to their baptism in order to bathe them in the gospel all over again. I don’t mean he wants to re-baptize them. Rather he wants to remind them who they are.

…baptism is a tangible repository of the gospel which makes us one.

The reader is free to figure out what all these things mean. Regrettably, Dr. Adair referred to baptism as a ceremony more than once. He lamented that baptism was “a battleground of division,” but that he would not resolve it in his speech. And while he referred to baptism as a dramatic reenactment of our being dead and raised up again to be holy and blameless, what he failed to say is that in baptism our sins are washed away.

Rubel Shelly, Al Frazier, and Scott Adair all neglected to mention what Peter spoke on Pentecost—that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Why?