Christianity, by which I mean all religions which claim to believe in and follow Christ (even many don't do what they claim to do), is under vicious attack in this country. It is amazing that a country that was founded, and has been known throughout its history, as a "Christian" nation, is now being trashed by secularists, Islamics, atheists and humanists in our own country.
We see this in the constant protest of anything related to Christ in the society, such as "Christmas," (now winter holidays), "nativity scenes" (the birth of Jesus) on public property, prayers in Jesus' name in schools, and at ball games, on and on it goes.
I saw where some school has ruled that there should be no red and green decorations at "Christmas" time. This is getting too silly for words!
Have you heard any protest of Muslims wearing their religious garb to school? Have you heard any protest of the display of the "star of David"?
Hillsborough county Florida has decided that the school system will no longer dismiss for Jewish Honika, Muslim or Christian holidays, celebration of the end of Romadon, or Catholic Good Friday, but students of these faiths can miss school on those days without penalty.
I'l give you three guesses, and the first two don't count, to tell me who is protesting this ruling. You are correct, the Muslims! Do you know why they don't like it? Because they are determined to force their religion on everyone. It's not enough that they can observe their religious holiday, they want to force everyone else to do so. If that is not the case, why would they protest the ruling when it allows their adherents to miss school and observe the day without penalty.
The plan and purpose of the Muslims is to eradicate from the earth all who don't follow their man-made religion. If they can't do it peacefully, they will do it by mindless violence. Look at what is happening in France, Belgium, and Germany. The riots lasted 12 nights in France, and over 4,000 cars have been burned. Who are these rioters? They are Muslims! They are moving in droves to non-Muslim countries and demanding that their religion be observed or else. This is why there are so many Muslims in the world today. In the past countries were given the choice of Islam or death. That's what is playing out now. They use the freedom of other countries to destroy their freedoms.
It is hard to understand why the democrat party in this country is standing up for the Muslims, and manifesting hate for our president, his war on terrorism, and our country. If we followed the democrat's thinking, Hussein would still be in power and practicing his horrible atrocities. Our beloved country is experiencing a revolution with the help of its own politicians, and much of the nation is sleeping through it.
(Titus 1:12) One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies (gluttons). (2 Pet 2:12) But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption... I’m in good company when I call some men “evil beasts.” A news item last week told of one of these hijacking a car driven by a lady who had her 13-month-old baby in the back seat. The “evil beast” shot and seriously wounded the mother, and shot the baby in the head! While there have been heartless atrocities in the past, Paul says, (2 Tim 3:13) But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. We must not overlook the fact that Peter says they are “made to be taken and destroyed.” We have a lot of “bleeding hearts” in the world that oppose capital punishment, but they need to realize that they are fighting against God. We need to realize that God says it is possible for men to forfeit their right to live.
Bart Ehrman dissects what he says led to mistakes in the Bible
By MARK I. PINSKY
SENTINEL STAFF WRITER
When Ned Flanders - the zealous evangelic Simpsons- family is visited by a series of catastrophic misfortunes, he asks why God lets bad things happen to good people. Especially to true believers such as him.
"I've done every thing the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff," Flanders pleads to the Almighty. Still, although the cartoon character's faith is shaken for a moment, it is not shattered.
For Bart Ehrman, 50, the problem of biblical inconsistency is similar but the outcome has been different. Born again as a teenager, and educated at evangelical citadels such as Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College, Ehrman's New Testament scholarship is one factor that has led him away from Christianity.
(JPN comment: I deny that true ?New Testament scholarship" "has led him away from Christianity.? Scholarship is knowing who said what and where. It has nothing to do with what interpretation or misrepresentation the so-called "scholar" makes regarding what he knows about who said what and where.)
"For example, the early Greek manuscripts had no capitalized letters, no punctuation or even spaces between the , "words.'"
(JPN comment: The fact that the original manuscripts had no punctuation or space between the words, is a factor in this "scholar's" giving up his faith in the New Testament? Give be a break! That probably was necessitated by the scarcity of writing materials. Obviously the public knew how to read it, so what is the problem? The fact that this "scholar" objects to it is supposed to be a factor in his giving up his faith in the New Testament? I don't think he had much faith to give up!)
"Until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century, all of the scribes were educated amateurs. Along the way, some scribes made changes to conform to their theology."
(JPN comment: How did he find out that previous to Christianity becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire, "the scribes were educated amateurs"? With all due respect, it would appear that that describes him quite well, tht is that he and "amateur" I am in doubt about the education.)
"Also some scribes made changes to conform to their theology.
(JPN comment: How does he know this? History shows that the scribes were very conscientious and careful to copy accurately the text, even to the point of washing out their pens and taking a bath before they would copy the word Jehovah or God.)
"Among the things Ehrman claims were changed or added by scribes are the Lord's Prayer, the Last Supper and the woman caught in adultery, which he says was not part of any of the four I Gospels as originally written."
(JPN comment: This, like many other things said by this "scholar," are simply assertions without proof. What proof does he offer for these assertions? NONE!)
"If we can't be sure that the words are right words," he asks, "how can they be inerrant--without error, as evangelicals believe?" So, after 30 years of study, Erhman is now a nonchurchgoing agnostic.
"But Ehrman, chairman of the religious studies department at the University of North Carolina, says that his textual criticism is not the fundamental reason he has lost his faith, He asked himself a timeless question: 'How can there be a world of such misery if there is a benevolent God in charge of it?'
(JPN comment: Is it not amazing what goes on at our universities. Here is a confessed agnostic, really an atheist, who is chairman of religious studies in a state university. If in all his studies he is unable to explain the problem of human suffering, I would have to question his claim to scholarship).
"Some prominent orthodox scholars dismiss the book as 'utter nonsense' and beneath serious consideration, while declining interview requests. Others who believe in biblical inerrancy such as Reggie Kidd, professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary in Oviedo, are less bashful, 'The issues are more nuanced and complicated than he presents them,' says Kidd, author of With One Voice: Discovering Christ's Song in Our Worship.
(JPN comment: I couldn't agree more with Mr. Kidd. But Mr. Ehrman's views are quite common among professors in the universities of our land where they can spew out their misguided ideas with the protection of tenure.)
However, Kidd says he appreciates Ehrman's honesty, his sharing with the I reader "the way his personal story his wrestling with whether the New Testament is divine or human in origin shapes his craftsmanship as a text critic." (Orlando Sentinel, 4-3-06).
(JPN comment: With a professor like Mr. Ehrman being head of religious studies in a State University, is it any wonder that the pulpits of the denominations are filled by infidels? This is the kind of things they are taught in the religious departments of many educational institutions. Then they go out and fill the minds of their congregations with their blasphemous errors).
“MANY PATHS TO GOD” Religion and politics have become so intermingled that it sometimes is difficult to tell one from the other. That seems to be more true in the present political campaign than in most. The newspaper reporters, magazine writers, and talk show hosts are walking on eggs in trying to be politically correct and avoid saying anything that would give the idea that one religion is better than the other, so one hears it said, “there are many paths to God.” This country is between the devil and the deep blue sea. Its freedom of religion is the source of many of our problems. The founding fathers had no thought that that provision of the constitution would turn out this way. You see, they failed to define what is religion. The Supreme Court never attempted to define religion until 1870, in a widespread controversy over the Mormon church and Polygamy. Previous to that time religion was assumed to be theism, or , more specifically, “Christianity.” The efforts of the Supreme Court to define religion forms the basis for much of the danger we face as a nation. The Court has defined religion as any “belief of ultimate concern.” That is, if one’s belief, regardless of how absurd, is his religion if he his devotion to it equals the devotion of those who believe in God. Thus, in the Court’s definition of religion, God plays no part. One can see, then, why the Court has made some of the decisions that aid and abet the secularization of our society. So, the prevalent notion in society today is anything one wants to call religion is religion, and has the protection of the first amendment of the constitution. One can believe most anything as his religion, but practicing that believe may run into conflict with civil law. Devil worship with human sacrifice for instance. Human sacrifice is murder, and therefore against the law. Many Mormons believe in polygamy. They are free to believe in it but to practice it is against the law. But again one must ask if the state or the federal government has a right to make a law that contradicts the constitution. The constitution says that congress shall make no law restricting the free exercise of one’s religion. If Mormons believe that polygamy is a tenant of their religion, or devil worshipers believe that human sacrifice is part of their religion, and “Christians” believe that they have a right to public prayer in school, etc. how can it be constitutional to restrict these acts? A major problem we face now is the religion of Islam. It is a religion that would destroy our constitution, and rule by the Koran. It would eliminate or subjugate everyone who refuses to accept its religion.These heresies are well known by anybody who knows anything about Islam. Many of our politicians are more interested in maintaining their power than in facing the truth about Islam. They portray Islam as a peaceful religion which is false and pure nonsense. It never has been a peaceful religion and never will be as long as they follow the Koran. Islamics are pouring into this country by the thousands with the specific purpose of taking it over and making it an Islamic nation. They have 2000 mosques already in which their religion of hate and violence is taught. Obama may well be a Muslim disguised as a “Christian” marking time until he gains sufficient power to work Islam’s way on this nation. What proof of this is available? Just this: in his book he says, “I stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction. The sad thing about this whole matter is that our government and politicians, either by ignorance or stupidity, are accommodating Islam at every turn.Whether we know it, or whether our politicians recognize it, Islam is the greatest threat to our way of life.Will our nation wake up in time to save our way of life? I fear they won’t. So we are told that there are many paths to God, and Islam is one of them, so let them alone. The blindest people on earth are those who refuse to see. We allowed humanism to gain the status of religion and infiltrate our public education, our judicial system, and the minds of a large percent of our population. After all, they have a belief of ultimate concern!!!!
(1 Tim 6:5) Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
(2 Pet 2:3) And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
(Rev 18:12,13) The merchandise of...souls of men.
(2 Pet 2:3) And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
In the Orlando Sentinel, July 27, 2005 is an article about Clint Brown,a preacher who took over Bennie Hin's facility when he moved to Texas, assuming a 5.8 million dollar debt.
He goes to one of his members who had received a large insurance settlement from her husband's death, and borrows $200,000 dollars, but refused to pay it back, contending that it was a gift, not a loan. He also borrowed $100,000 from a church in Denver, which he never paid back. His wife filed for divorce,and then their extravagant lifestyle was revealed. They live in a 1.4 million dollar home, and have $450,000 credit card debt. And last but not least, they have 7 cars!!!
As one can will imagine, lawsuits have been flying, and it is said that the matters have been settled amicably.
The article says that Brown's church has 6,000 members. I never cease to be amazed at how shister preachers are able to prey upon a gullible public. How is it possible that a false teacher can get 6,000 people to follow him? What is wrong with people? Can they not see that these shisters are making merchandise of them; do they not understand that these peachers are using them for their own selfish desires, and palming it off as religion?
As the passages at the beginning of this article show, God foresaw this kind of skulduggery, and predicted and exposed it for what it is.
Paul said of these people, "For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple," Rom. 16:18.
What do we have to do to call people back to God and His word? "All day long I stretched out my hand unot an unbelieving and a gainsaying people,"Rom 10:21.
Solomon said, "The fear of man bringeth a snare, but whoso putteth his trust in God shall be safe."(Prov. 29:25). This world is full of people who fear man. Certainly there are men of whom we should be afraid. In Rom. 13, Paul said, "If thou do that which is evil, be afraid, for he (that is the civil power) beareth not the sword in vain."(Rom. 13:4). It is good for men to fear the civil powers. The world would be a safer place if more people did.
One of the great problems of our time is that the civil government has become so lenient toward crime and criminals that men have no fear of the powers that be.
But, what about fearing man in religion? That, my friends, is a blight upon society and a hazard to the souls of men. Some people fear their relatives. When they hear the truth, they shy away from it because it is different from what they have been taught. They fear changing because it will bring them into conflict with their relatives. People sometimes say, "My religion was good enough for my mother, grandmother," or some other beloved relative, "so it's good enough for me." Our Lord spoke to this matter when He said, "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. He that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." (Mt. 10:37). This is obvious, if we will think about it. Jesus gave His life for the sins of the world, and any person who is not willing to give up even the goodwill of his relatives in order to obey Him, is hardly worthy of Him.
John tells us of some chief rulers who believed on Jesus but would not confess him because they feared the Pharisees (Jn. 14:42). The Pharisees were religious teachers. Many today are like these chief rulers, they fear their religious teachers. They cannot bear to go contrary to what their religious leaders have taught them. Of these chief rulers Jesus said, "They loved the praises of men more than the praise of God."
We can see the meaning of Solomon's warning; "The fear of man bringeth a snare."
One falls into a Satanic trap when he allows the fear of man, any man, to keep him from obeying the Lord, because no man can be saved who fails to obey Christ. It is better to lose everything here to gain everything in the world to come, than to gain the whole world by compromise and then to lose everything at the judgment.
These are serious matters that should arrest the attention of all of us. May we each consider them well and determine to obey Christ while still we can.
Paul said, (Gal 1:15-16) "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood."
Nations come and go as we see from the anals of history. Powerful empires of the past rest upon the junk heaps of the past. A close examination will show that most nations are destroyed from within. It is well said that “power corrupts absoluetly, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It is mostly the case that when nations have it too good, they take their power and existence for granted and are lulled to sleep by ever favorable circumstances and depart from the ideals that made them great. At that point they begin to deteriorate. Leaders become more interested in maintaining power than in the common good of those they represent. Our nation is at this point now; the tipping point seems ever nearer. Our leaders have departed form the core values that made us great, and have adopted the greedy attitude of what’s in it for me? To a large extent, the nation has departed from the principles laid down by the founding fathers: God,honesty, personal reliance, love of neighbor, hard work, and the rule of law. Today we have rape, murder, child molestation, greed, millions of couples living together without marriage, almost as many divorces as marriages, corruption in government, homo-sexuality,same sex marriages, abortion, and even partial birth abortion, Pornography, twelve million illegal aliens acting as parasites on our economy which is illegal, but our officials simply look the other way or try to defend these criminals. John McCain, a presidential, candidate, says, “These are also God’s children.” My first thought upon hearing this was: all the hundreds of thousands of criminals in the nation’s jails who have committed crimes are God’s children also, so on his logic, we should turn them all out and grant them amnisty. Signs of the deterioration of our nation are the facts that millions of people, including the democrat party and many republicans, are against every proposed measure that would put us back on the right track. There are citizens of our country who seem to glory in and even help to accomplish the nation’s departure from its traditional values. Witness the recent Supreme Court ruling that the war prisoners at “Gitmo“have the same rights to our court system as do citizens, and the ever increasing accommodation of the murderous religion of Islam. Aiding in the downfall of our country is a movement to turn it into a one hundred percent secular society. They are trying to kick God out of the public arena and worship at the shrine of humanism and secularism. All of these matters are a challenge to the Christian. What can we do to improve this intolerable situation? There is not a whole lot we can do, but we still have the power of the ballot. We can lay aside all the political pressure and nonsense and vote for the candidate whose value system is nearest to God’s and pray for favorable results in our struggle. I know this article is pesimistic, but there is very little that I see to inspire optimism.
It is interesting that a Baptist preacher has written a 250 page book entitled “Old Light on New Worship, Musical Instruments and the Worship of God” in which he is trying to start a movement among the Baptists to remove instrumental music from the worship because there is no New Testament authority for it. It will be interesting to see how far he gets with it. The average person, uninformed in church history, assumes that instrumental music has always been, and they think it is strange that some oppose it. In fact, instrumental music in worship was first introduced into church worship in the 7 century by the Catholics. That’s about 700 years this side of the New Testament. The Protestant church introduced it in the 17th century amidst a storm of controversy. Charles Spurgeon, probably the greatest Baptist preacher ever to live and who preached to 10,000 people in his London Baptist Tabernacle every Sunday, would not allow instrumental much to be used in his services. There was a division in the Catholic Church in 1095 AD, which originated the Western church (Roman) and the Eastern church (orthodox or Greek or Russian orthodox church).The Roman Catholics use instrumental music in worship, but the Russian orthodox don’t and never have. Churches of Christ have stood almost alone in our opposition to the use of instrumental music in worship. It is ironic that while the Baptists are starting a movement to remove it, some of the liberal churches of Christ are moving it in!!!! In fact some few already have begun to use it. Fessenden’s Encyclopedia says, “That instrumental music was not practiced by the primitive Christians, but was an aid to devotion of later times, is evident from church history.” (p. 852). Shaff-Hersogg Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 1702: “In the Greek church the organ never came into use. But after the eighth cnetury it became more and more common in the Latin church: not, however, without opposition from the side of the monks.” Lyman Coleman, a Presbyterian author and scholar says: “The tendency of this (intstrumental music, jpn) was to secularize the music of the church, and to encourage singing by a chior. Such musical accompaniments were gradually introduced, but they can hardly be assigned to a period earlier than the fifth and sixth centuries. Organs were unknown in the church until the eighth or ninth century. Previous to this they had their place in the theater, rather than in the church. They were never regarded with favor in the Eastern church, and were vehemently opposed in many places in the West. (Primitive Church, p. 376, 377). There would be a plethora of changes in all the denominational churches if suddenly they decided to go by the divine pattern rather than being guided by human desire for entertainment.
Nancy Grace is a legal reporter on CNN. She has interviewed two Baptist preachers about the wife who shot and killed her preacher husband in Selmer, TN. He was the preacher for the church of Christ there.
First off, it is odorous that she would interview Baptist preachers about the church of Christ. I am suspicious that this was a set up. Why didn't she interview preachers of the church of Christ?
So, she asked these Baptist preachers what they knew about the church of Christ. It is predictable what they would say; same old thing they have been saying about us for hundreds of years: "They are cult like," "they teach that if you are not baptized you will go to hell," "They think they are the only people who are going to heaven," "The church of Christ was started by Alexander Campbell in West VA in the 19th century,"etc.
The tragic shooting gave them an opportunity to vent their time-warn gripes against the church of Christ. This prejudices the public against the church because many people think if its on TV or in the newspaper, it must be true, when often the very opposite is true.
This is a means of closing the minds of people to the truth. You see, what the church of Christ teaches is what the Bible teaches. But the public will never make that connection when the church is presented in such a prejudicial fashion.
The church of Christ was started by Jesus Christ in 33 AD in Jerusalem Palestine, not by Alexander Campbell in the 19th century in W. VA. The church existed in England and Scotland before the Campbells came to this country. Indeed, they brought it from England and Scotland to this country. To go beyond that, they were not the first ones to preach the gospel in America. Barton W. Stone in KY was preaching the truth before the Campbells arrived.
We used to be able to answer these false charges in debates with the Baptists, but not any more. They decided that debating didn't help their cause, so they quit. (N. B. Hardeman used to say that denominational preachers won't debate for the same reason that muly cows won't engage in a hooking contest). I will grant you that you couldn't hog-tie those Baptist preachers and drag them into a debate with a gospel preacher to defend their false doctrines and misrepresentations.
A SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL EVENT"IS HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF" Article two
In article one, I chronicled a change in attitude and strategy in and around Nashville, TN that had a far-reaching influence on the churches. It was a precursor to the overwhelming avalanche of liberalism that divided the church in the 1950's and "60's and has led some liberal churches to merge with the Christian Church. Four young preachers and some older ones too, grew weary of the "fighting style" of Foy E. Wallace, Jr., and others, and determined to move to a passive soft-soaping style of journalism. Here is a record of that happened:
"M. Norvel Young, James D. Bales, George DeHoff, and Woodrow Whitten - conceived the idea for this journal (20th Century Christian, jpn) in 1938. Disillusioned with the fighting style that increasingly characterized journalism in Churches of Christ and concerned that Churches of Christ had failed to communicate effectively with the younger generation, these students determined to bring the message of Churches of Christ more into line with contemporary concerns - a goal strikingly similar to that of the new Christian Leader. Further, like those who pioneered the new Christian Leader, these young men also were committed to positive, constructive journalism.
"But when Young took this idea to E.H. Ijmes, at that time President of David Lipscomb College in Nashville, he received little or no encouragement. Ijams informed Young that a group of older men was about to launch a significant journal, backed by substantial funding, that would accomplish precisely what these younger men had in mind. Ijams therefore advised Young and his colleagues to stand aside and entrust their common vision to the older generation.
"Despite this advice, the graduate students determined to press ahead. With their own funds and their own resources, they issued the first number of the 20th Century Christian from the basement of Nashville's Hillsboro Church of Christ in October 1938 - only three months before the new Christian Leader appeared. Knowing that none of them carried sufficient weight among Churches of Christ to serve as editor, they secured for that position J. P. Sanders, at that time the preacher of the Hillsboro Church of Christ. They also signed on Hugh Tiner (dean of Pepperdine College in Los Angeles) and Athens Clay Pullias (vice president of David Lipscomb College) to serve along with Sanders and themselves on an editorial council.? (Revival of the Ancient Faith, Richard T. Highes, p. 210,211).
This was a historically significant event that largely was overlooked, and the creeping disease of softness swallowed up most of the churches between Nashville and Memphis and eventually throughout the nation. As one can see from the above quotation, the 20th Century Christian's policy was orchestrated by the principal figures of the institutional/sponsoring church movement which was to come shortly. It opened up the floodgate to apostasy. If the powers that were in Nashville (certain preachers and David Lipscomb College) and Freed-Hardeman College sneezed, every church but 3 or 4 between Nashville and Memphis said, "Bless you."
Now, I am disturbed at the likelyhood that history is repeating itself. There is the old adage that "those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I fear that the creeping disease of softness is invading the conservative churches of our time. And again, it is being fostered by a periodical and an organization formed by brethren?not surprising! Be it remembered that the forces of softness in the 1940's and "50's continued to repeat the characteristic mantras, "We speak were the Bible speaks, and are silent where the Bible is silent." They also emphasized "the restoration movenent " and were proud of their "Restoration heritage." This was also the case with the missionary society and instrumental music apostasy in the 1800's.
I have reference to the change in editorial policy of Truth Magazine. In announcing the policy change, Brother Mike Willis, like those of the 1940's says,
"We reject the compromising spirit of our age which tries to accept all doctrinal beliefs and ethical behavior as evidence of their tolerant spirit." And he avers that "We have reached the conclusion that most of the doctrinal issues facing brethren will be fought through the Internet rather than through the papers. We are adjusting our approach to reflect this conclusion."
Brother Mike seeks to justify the change in 5 arguments:
1. "...Most of the doctrinal issues facing brethren will be fought through the Internet rather than through the papers." One must wonder what evidence he used to reach this conclusion. Did he not realize that not everyone has a computer, thus no access to the internet? I personally know a number of brethren who are avid readers of the periodicals who don't have a computer, and have no plans to purchase one, thus will have no access to both sides of any issue by means of Truth Magazine. Surely, this is not the agenda of Mike and his associates by the change of policy, but it is the undeniable result.
2. "Generally only a small percentage of our readers are interested in the doctrinal conflicts occurring among us." How did he learn this? And if it is true, it explains much that is occurring among the conservative churches. I have engaged in religious journalism most of my preaching life (almost 60 years now). I was a staff writer for Truth Magazine when Bryan Vinson was editor. That was soon after it began. I resigned when he apologized for an article I wrote on the then current issues of the sponsoring church and institutionalism. I again became a staff writer and part owner of the magazine at the insistence of Cecil Willis and Bill Wallace after they acquired it. I was reluctant to be re-associated with the paper but they wouldn't take no for an answer. I must say that my experience says that Mike's assumption lacks evidence. If brother Mike's conclusion that "only a small percentage of Truth Magazine readers are interested in conflicts occurring among us" is correct, why do I receive letters and phone calls from all over the country and from regions afar concerning my feeble efforts at writing, and how was a faithful remnant saved from the heavy artillery of the Nashville movement in the institutional/sponsoring church struggle? Was that because brethren didn't read the papers? It was the consensus of brethren generally that the Gospel Guardian and local church bulletins saved the day for conservatism. Mike's assertion does not harmonize with hard facts.
3. "Most brethren think these doctrinal exchanges are distractive." "Most brethren," brother Mike? How does he know this? Did he take a poll? Where is the evidence for his dogmatic conclusion? I think he is desperate to justify what he has done, and I think I detect some sub-conscious doubt in his mind at what he has done. Mike has to know that he is taking a giant leap with the acquiescence of the board and staff of the paper. The Cecil Willis I knew and worked with so closely for years would abhor this change of policy, and I think Mike must know this. It is a drastic change of direction for the paper, and a scar on the memory of the work done by his deceased brother and the many brethren who gave and loaned money to the magazine to keep it alive.
. "Some turn off the magazine because they view them as preacher fights.?" Yes I have heard this from some few brethren for almost 60 years now. That some brethren so view honorable discussion of issues as "preacher fights" is absolutely true, and not new. There are always brethren whose convictions are as flimsy as jello, and have more sympathy for softness than for a straight-forward presentation of the truth. Now, I must ask, are Mike and his associates saying that the policy of Truth Magazine from now on will be governed by those of indefinite and flimsy convictions? We heard this over and over from weak brethren during the institutional/sponsoring church struggle, but we didn't change our policy or preaching to accommodate it. Brother Mike says "I believe that brethren who have this conclusion are wrong and that the issues discussed in the papers are usually very relevant." Even so, he uses it in his chain of reasoning in an effort to justify changing the policy of Truth Magazine.
Following is Mike's solution to this problem, "To accommodate this change in communication style, we generally will address relevant issues in an informative article in the magazine and refer our readers who have interest in a particular issue to our web site which will distribute more materal relevant to the subject for those who have the interest to pursue it." Brother Mike, what about the thousands of brethren who don't have computers and have no plans to purchase one? Did the Lord and the apostles refer inquirers to a source to which many had no access if they wanted to argue with the truth?
5. "Many Christians do not take the time to read the magazine." If this is true, then how does that justify changing the policy? If many Christians do not read the magazine, how is changing the policy going to remedy that? If many Christians don't read the magazine, how will they be drawn to it by a change of policy? How will they learn about the change of policy if they don't read the magazine?
BRETHREN BEWARE!!!
What has happened to Truth Magazine is a water shed event. There is a definite possibility that history is repeating itself. It smacks of B. C. Goodpasture and the Gospel Advocate of the 1940's and forward. The Gospel Advocate announced that it would print only one side of the issues, and refused to even consider printing rebuttals, even when brethren offered to pay for the space. It also favors the Nashville softness movement which said they would not be discussing the premillennial issue (and others), which was raging then. Had it been left up to them R. H. Boll and his cohorts would have spread premillennialism all across the nation among the churches. Goodpasture said he had no responsibility to print error! Thus he became the brotherhood arbiter of truth to determine what brethren could read, and they could be assured that he would screen out all error and print only the turth!!!! He must have thought he was infallible. So, we had a brotherhood determiner of what was the truth on every issue. Is this what brother Mike and his associates have become? Not intentionally, I am sure.
Now please notice: Brother Willis has departmentalized his writing staff which pretty well dictates the subject matter that will be presented in the magazine. If anyone objects to the material presented, their objection will not be presented in the magazine, but will be referred to a web site, if the person has a computer. If they don't, well they can forget any possibility of being heard. The readers of the magazine will hear only Truth Magazine's view of the matter, shades of the Advocate and Goodpasture.
I feel quite certain that most of the material that will be presented in the Magazine from now on will be good, true and edifying, but it will lack the balance that the paper has had in the past. I will now make a statement that brings chills to my spine and should do the same for every gospel preacher: It is possible for a preacher to preach only truth, and never preach any error, and and still go to hell for not declaring the whole counsel of God. We should take no comfort as preachers in the fact that we have never preached error, we should take a serious look to see if we have preached all the truth.
Brethren Mike Willis and Connie Adams are diligent to assure us that they have not changed their convictions on current issues among the brethren. I wonder why they felt it necessary to so assure us of this? Is it possible that they know that their change of policy is a close companion of compromise? Is it not obvious that something untoward and invisible to most people motivates this change? Maybe those involved in it are unaware of it, but anyone who can see through a ladder can see that something unusual is happening. A small hole has been punched in the dike, and we all know that small holes in dikes don't? remain small, they wash out and become gushing, overwhelming floods. My knowledge of church history forces me to this conclusion. I have no ax to grind in this article. I am saddened by this turn of events. The writing staff and most of the board members of Truth Magazine have been long-time acquaintances of mine. Some have been close friends and yokefellows; brethren who stood shoulder to shoulder with me and others in the institutional/sponsoring church struggle. My association with the Willis family has been long, warm and friendly. Cecil and I worked together for years on the magazine, in gospel meetings and public debates, and we became almost like blood brothers.
Much of Paul's letters could not appear in Truth Magazine under the new policy, because they were written in rebuttal to the false doctrines of people who opposed the truth and were trying to lead brethren in the wrong direction. Most of the letters to the seven churches of Asia could not be printed in Truth Magazine under its new policy, because in them THE LORD was calling for the exposing and expelling of false teachers.
Organizations formed mainly for church members are dangerous. They get too close to the church and many brethren lose sight of the demarcation between them and the church. A family known to me recently made a large contribution to a college. The wife, in commenting on the gift, said, "The college is an extension of the church." This attitude is prevalent in the minds of many brethren. This has been proven over and over again. A blind man can see what happened in the 1800's with Alexander Campbell and his school and periodicals. We can see the influence that David Lipscomb College, Freed-Hardeman College, and other such institutions had on the churches from 1940 and forward. We can see the dangerous influence now wielded by Florida College, the Cogdill foundation and Truth Magazine. They not only think of themselves as extensions of the church, they even supplant the church, they do what God commissioned the church to do. When such organizations get on the wrong track, there is no turning back. This because they are commercial enterprises and money becomes a ruling factor. The administration of these organizations depends upon them for their employment, and their living. The strong inclination is to follow the money. Money is power. These institutions never get enough money. Wealthy brethren make large contributions to them, and wealthy brethren tend to be liberal. If they make large contributions to these institutions, they expect to have a voice in their direction. As time goes by liberal donors? philosophy begins to dominate. We know the rest of the story.
CONCLUSION
It would gladen many hearts if the Truth Magazine administration would reverse their policy change. I can tell you that many brethren are deeply concerned about what is happening, but I fear it won't matter. I warned the president of Florida College some years back that some of his actions were alienating brethren who had supported the college for many years, and that he was about to lose some old friends that he was going to need. My words were acknowledged, but unheeded. Things a hundred times worse than what I had in mind then have occurred since I sounded that warning. Unfortunately that follows the pattern of history.
I am nearing my 80th birthday. I have been preaching the gospel for almost 60 years. I know that "life's evening sun is sinking low," and soon I shall go the way of all the earth. I have reached the point to where I know more people on the other side than I know on earth. I have seen many changes in the kingdom of God, and in our nation. To say I fear for the future is to put it lightly. I fear for the kind of country in which my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will live. I even fear worse for the church of the future. Forces are at work in and out of the church that eventually will destroy its existence in this country if certain evil forces are not halted. We are seeing it happen before our very eyes.
James P. Needham
1600 Oneco Ave.
Winter Park, FL 32789
September 12, 2006
1.Three little puppies for three little pigs!!! A school in England has changed the characters in the children's fairy tale of the three little pigs to three little puppies lest the mentioning of pigs offend the Muslims who consider swine unclean. Muslims will neither raise nor consume swine meat. England has a large Muslim population and if she doesn't do something, it will become a Muslim nation ruled by imams.
2. The Islamic imams are suing!!! The Islamic Imams who were put off the plane because they were acting in ways what other passenger perceived to be threatening, are not suing the airline and are thinking of suing the passengers. In view of some of the judges we have and the ACLU, they probably will win.
It is amazing how the Western countries are accommodating Islam. They have to know the agenda of the Muslims, and any accommodation of them is at our own peril. Our tolerance and accommodation of their activities is done at our own peril; We are helping them destroy our way of life, convert us, enslave us or kill us.
Expelled from school for praying: In Washington State 10 highschool students were expelled from school for 10 days for praying on campus. It so happens that they were children of Russian immigrants!
Isn't this just wonderful???? They thought they had come to "the land of the free and the home of the brave,"? where people love liberty and believe in freedom of religion. Maybe they should return to Russia, I understand one can pray and study the Bible in Russian schools.
A large crown was gathered on the school ground. A teacher rushed out to see what was going on. Amidst the large ring of onlookers was a fight between two students. The teacher sighed, and said, "Oh, I thought your were praying."?
A skeptic asked, "If there is a God why didn't he prevent the shooting at Columbia High?"? To which someone replied, "God is not allowed in schools."?
The Bible says, (Psa 9:17) The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God. A nation that kicks God out of public arena is kicking itself in the pants. If one doubts this he should read Romans the first chapter and see what happened to the Gentile when they "did not wish to retain God in their knowledge, (Rom 1:28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient..."?
God is greater than His creation including all nations:
(Isa 40:15) Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.
(Isa 40:17) All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.
The Islamic religion is is determined to kill, or enslave all non Muslims. This is their stated aim and policy. They are immigrating to non-Muslim countries by the thousands, and demanding that the government accommodate their religion. Politicians determined to get their vote sp so they accomodate them by catering to their religious traditions.This is how Muslims will take over non-Muslim contries. Case in point. Italy now designates a part of a beach where Muslim women can remove their religious garb and enjoy the ocean. I wonder what Muslim country would designate a part of a beach for non-muslim women. I will give you three guesses, and the first two don’t count. In strict Muslim countries non-Muslim religious people are not allowed to have Bibles or religious assemblies. Muslims in this country will use our freedoms to destroy our freedoms.
Afflictions, consisting of illness, tragedies etc. are the common lot of mankind in this mundane sphere. They come on the good and the bad. They often cause people to question the goodness and mercy of God. Men sometimes ask, "If God knows of our pain and sorrow, why doesn't He stop them" If He doesn't know about them, then what kind of a God is He?? Or sometimes it is approached like this: "If God can't stop suffering, He is not God. If he can stop it and doesn't then he is not a loving God."
These are the logical questions that grow out of desperation, but they portray a woeful lack of insight and knowledge of God, the Bible and the world. I freely admit that this is a very complex area of thought, and I am sure I don't have all the answers to all the questions that men ask about such matters, but let me share with you some thoughts on the matter.
The Bible depicts heaven as the place where there is no pain and no sorrow; no crying, sighing or dying. Now, if that were true of this earthly existence, what would motivate people to want to go to heaven? They would think they were already there. God never intended for this earth to be our final abode, so pain and suffering make us want to move to a better place. Like Paul the apostle who said, "I have a desire to depart to be with Christ which is far better" (Phil. 1:23). How would he have known it would be better to depart if he had experienced no pain or suffering here? How could it be better?
Furthermore, if we experienced no afflictions here we would probably think we have it bad because we would have nothing with which to compare it! So, in reality, how would we know we have it good, if we'd never had it bad? The pain and sorrow make us appreciate the good. Reminds me of the person who said, "I like to hit myself on the head with a hammer because it feels so good when I stop." One knows that pain is bad because it feels so good when it is absent. It will be totally absent in heaven.
Again, pain is like a refiner's fire, it removes the dross and brings out our true mettle. David said, ?Before I was afflicted I went astray: but now have I kept thy word? (Psa. 119:67). Again he said, (Psa 119:71) "It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes."
Many men have turned to the Lord following a serious illness, or a tragic accident. Sometimes it takes the lumps and bumps of life to wake us up, to draw our attention to the more serious side of life. The thorns make us appreciate the roses; the bitter makes us like the sweet; the bad makes us prefer the good. The God who made the world knows how to run it. Let us attend to our business, and let God's alone. This is the road to true happiness in this world.
Samuel Butler, an English writer who lived 1835-1902, said, ”It must be remembered that we have heard only one side of the case. God has written all the books.” (Note-Books). This is a typical slander against the Bible. It says the Bible is not reliable because it presents a biased view, and yet, nothing could be further from the truth. Man could not have written the Bible if he would have, but he wouldn’t have if he could have. We all know that when men write about themselves, the view is nearly always biased. They want to make themselves look as good as possible; they don’t expose all the “warts.” But the Bible does. It tells it like it is. Abraham is one of the great heroes of the Bible, but the Bible records how he lied upon two occasions. There is no greater hero in the Bible than David, but the Bible tells us he committed adultery with another man’s wife and had her husband killed. This doesn’t sound like something written by man about himself, does it? The skeptic says the Bible affirms the existence of God and claims to be His revelation, so we can’t use it as a witness, since it is testifying in behalf of its own supposed author? Basic in this affirmation is that God cannot be proven apart from the Bible. Nonsense! All we need to prove the existence of God apart from the Bible is listen to the Atheists’ explanation of the origin of the universe and life without God. Isn’t their explanation of the origin of the universe and life one-sided? They offer no adequate first cause and no adequate explanation for the origin of life; it was just one colossal accident; a happenstance! Who can believe such a thing? Someone has well said, ”The world we inhabit must have had an origin; that origin must have consisted in a cause; that cause must have been intelligent; that intelligence must have been supreme; and that supreme, which always was and is supreme, we know by the name of God.” The atheist who says the world and life with all its evidence of design and beauty just happened has a lot more faith than I do. It is a thousand times easier to believe in an intelligent first cause than to believe that design had no designer, and that life sprang from nonlife. You can call that intelligent, if you like, but I call it nonsense, and the Bible calls it foolishness.
The Anglicans are in turmoil over the ordination of a homosexual priest. In Connecticut six priests face possible suspension for refusing to submit to the bishop's authority in the acceptance of a homosexual priest. About a dozen churches have broken with the Anglican church over this matter.
This shows the folly of human churches, ruled by human authority. One must surrender his loyalty to God and his conscience and submit to some human appointed authority. What the Bible says means nothing when it conflicts with man's rules.
The aggressive homosexual movement is being forced on almost every facit of society under the mandate of multi-culturalism, minority and civil rights. Many of the major corporations are falling in line, and giving aid and comfort to it for political reasons.
There is a foolish notion in our country that there is strength in diversity, which is contrary to everything we have known. Strength is in unity, not in diversity.
A SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL EVENT"IS HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF"
Article one
I have been trying to preach the gospel since 1948. When I started the churches were at peace so far as I could tell. I was invited to preach in many of the churches in the area where I grew up. (They wouldn't let me make announcements now, muchless preach!) In a summer during the 1950's I held 7 meetings in West Tennessee in all of which I preached the truth on the relationship of the church to human institutions. I have not been invited back since!!! (From the reaction I received, I didn't really expect to be). I entered Freed-Hardeman College in the fall of 1948, and studied under N. B. Hardeman, L. L. Briggance, Jim Cope, Clinton Hamilton, and others. The peace and harmony that I enjoyed was to be short lived. While I was a student at FHC the Gospel Guardian was begun by Roy E. Cogdill, Yater Tant and Luther Blackmon, et. al. A bundle of them was put on the table in the library for all who cared to take one. It was begun for the purpose of examining the sponsoring church and orphan home issues. As I studied the Bible and read the Guardian, I began to see that things were turning in the wrong direction. Intensive efforts were made by the Gospel Advocate and others to defend these things for which there was no scriptural authority. In time the Advocate spearheaded a movement to "quarantine" those who stood against the sponsoring church concept and church grants to orphan homes. Division was now in the wind. Churches began to divide all across the nation.
N. B. Hardeman was a straight shooter. He had a firm conviction that the Bible is God's word and must be our rule and guide and everything contrary to it must be opposed. He had no time for a soft approach to religious issues. He taught the truth on missionary societies, Premillennialism, and other pressing issues. He constantly disparaged other colleges for their softness on religious denominationalism and their errors. One of his famous expressions was, "If you want to know what I believe on any Bible subject, write and ask me, and I can answer you on a post card and have enough room left to ask you about your wife and kids." Before he died, however, he joined forces with those he had opposed, and spoke publically in favor of the issues. Brother B. G. Hope had been a student of brother Hardeman's and had become a dear and close friend to him. He said he asked brother Hardeman, "Should I preach it like you taught me, or like you preach it now?" He said brother Hardeman replied, "Preach it like I taught you." Brother Hope asked him, "Why don't you"? He said Hardeman replied, "I can't afford to." At the end brother Hardeman joined forces with those he had opposed and was invited to hold a gospel meeting at David Lipscomb College.
During this time I also became acquainted with the writings of Foy E. Wallace, Jr. His writings were pungent and to the point. I read just about everything he wrote with great profit..
I. THE COLLEGE-IN-THE-BUDGET ISSUE:
The controversy over church contributions to colleges took place while I was in the military in Europe, so I knew little of it except a few references that were made to it among the students that were in school while that issue raged between N. B. Hardeman and Foy E. Wallace, Jr. In time I became friends with Yater Tant who loaned me bound volumes of the old Bible Banner which I read with enthusiasm and much profit. In these bound volumes was the Hardeman-Wallace discussion of the college in the church budget issue. They discussed this issue at length.
Brother Hardeman finally compared church contributions to colleges to church contributions to orphan homes. He pointed out the inconsistencies of those who beat the drums for church contributions to orphan homes, but denied the scripturalness of church grants to colleges. This was a strategic move, because it turned the discussion from the college-in-the-budget issue to church grants to orphan homes which a large part of the brotherhood approved and practiced. This was the beginning of an extended discussion in the Gospel Guardian and the Gospel Advocate on this issue. The orphan home issue was well suited to break down brethren's opposition to church grants to colleges and other human organizations because of its emotional appeal and because Hardeman had it right, church contributions to colleges and orphan homes do, indeed, stand or fall together, and the truth is, they fall together scripturally. In time opposition to church support of colleges melted away, because, as brother Hardeman said, "They stand or fall together." So, many brethren, rather than give up the practice of church grants to orphan homes, accepted church grants to colleges. They obviously were more interested in consistency than in the truth. Thus, many of the liberal churches of Christ began to put the colleges in their budgets for regular contributions. To give up church grants to orphan homes was too much to ask, so since they and church grants to colleges "stand or fall together," they chose to accept both. It would be a mistake to overlook the party spirit that plagued this issue. Well-known anti-institutional brethren began to make their confessions of change in articles to the Gospel Advocate, and B. C. Goodpasture, editor of the Gospel Advocate, virtually became the "father confessor." The liberals gloated!
Foy E. Wallace, Jr. was a leader in the struggle against the sponsoring church concept and church grants to any kind of human institution. His writings were often sharp, to the point, and clear. (This can be clearly seen in the first and only volume of TORCH he edited, and in others of his writings. I can supply you with a bound volume one of TORCH for $6.00 post paid). He was the first preacher I ever heard preach against the sponsoring church idea. A group of us students traveled from Henderson, TN to Mayfield, KY to hear him in a gospel meeting. The night we attended he opposed the Broadway church in Lubbock, TX for their sponsoring church setup for the work in Germany following WWII. He spoke of their trying to be a brotherhood eldership, and a brotherhood treasury.
This aggressive style of preaching was quite prominent in those days by men like Roy E. Cogdill, N. B. Hardeman, Luther Blackmon, Foy E. Wallace, Jr., his brother Cled, and many others. While it was popular with many brethren, it was too harsh for some.
II. A MOVEMENT TOWARD BLUNTING THE ARROW OF TRUTH
All who lived through the period sensed a change in attitude particularly by the Nashville, TN contingent. That attitude was one of softness and leaning heavily toward the Protestant attitude of live and let live, or unity in diversity. There was a loud outcry against preachers who called the names of the denominations and exposed their errors. (Brethren often don't realize that false doctrine doesn't lead to heaven). A large contingent in the church didn't know the difference between the Lord's church and the churches of men. They often spoke of "other denominations." I often heard brethren say, "I don't like that preacher, he is a fighter."
Maybe others knew that this softening was a planned and promoted movement by some Nashville preachers, but I certainly did not. (It was a religious conspiracy to change the general attitude and practice of the brethren). Now I know its source. I recently read a book entitled "REVIVING THE ANCIENT FAITH, The Story of Churches of Christ in America," by Richard T. Hughes. (If you have not read this book, I highly recommend that you do so, it is an eye opener). I shall here quote a few lines from this revealing book on the subject at hand.
"Resisting the Fighting Style
"Four graduate students at Nashville's Peabody College - M. Norvel Young, James D. Bales, George DeHoff, and Woodrow Whitten - conceived the idea for this journal (20th Century Christian, jpn) in 1938. Disillusioned with the fighting style that increasingly characterized journalism in Churches of Christ and concerned that Churches of Christ had failed to communicate effectively with the younger generation, these students determined to bring the message of Churches of Christ more into line with contemporary concerns - a goal strikingly similar to that of the new Christian Leader. Further, like those who pioneered the new Christian Leader, these young men also were committed to positive, constructive journalism.
"But when Young took this idea to E.H. Ijmes, at that time President of David Lipscomb College in Nashville, he received little or no encouragement. Ijams informed Young that a group of older men was about to launch a significant journal, backed by substantial funding, that would accomplish precisely what these younger men had in mind. Ijams therefore advised Young and his colleagues to stand aside and entrust their common vision to the older generation.
"Despite this advice, the graduate students determined to press ahead. With their own funds and their own resources, they issued the first number of the 20th Century Christian from the basement of Nashville's Hillsboro Church of Christ in October 1938 - only three months before the new Christian Leader appeared. Knowing that none of them carried sufficient weight among Churches of Christ to serve as editor, they secured for that position J. P. Sanders, at that time the preacher of the Hillsboro Church of Christ. They also signed on Hugh Tiner (dean of Pepperdine College in Los Angeles) and Athens Clay Pullias (vice president of David Lipscomb College) to serve along with Sanders and themselves on an editorial council.
"Far from being disillusioned with the core message of Churches of Christ, these students were deeply committed to the traditions of their heritage and to the ideal of primitive, nondenominational Christianity. They sought, however, to make that traditional message relevant to their own time. The cover of this periodical, for example, bore the motto, "New Testament Christianity in the Present Age." Further, Young and his cohorts found inspiration for the title of their journal- 20th Century Christian - in two sources. First, it played on the theme of first-century Christianity and implicitly pointed backward, in good primitivist fashion, to the first Christian age. Second, it celebrated the present and the modern. The Hollywood film studio Twentieth Century Fox, for example, helped to inspire the title 20th Century Christian. When the magazine changed its name to 21st Century Christian in January 1990, it dropped from its cover the motto "New Testament Christianity in the Present Age."In spite of their preoccupation with the modern world, though, these students maintained significant links to the Stone-Lipscomb tradition. James D. Bales, George DeHoff, and Woodrow Whitten, on the one hand, all graduated from Harding College, where they had been influenced by J. N. Armstrong. Norvel Young had been immersed in this tradition from his earliest years growing up in Middle Tennessee. His mother's father and uncle both owned farms adjoining David Lipscomb's, and his mother, Ruby Morrow Young, studied not only under Lipscomb but also under James A. Harding and T. B. Larimore. Young himself graduated from David Lipscomb College, the successor to the old Nashville Bible School. In later years, Young claimed no memory of either a legalistic or exclusivist outlook in the churches of his youth in Middle Tennessee. Rather, he recalled a pietistic perspective, centered on prayer, love and one's relation to God through Christ. Further, in the 1930s all four of these students had embraced the pacifist tradition that for years had been central to the apocalyptic worldview. (P. 210, 11).
"It is not surprising then, that they sought to reconcile Churches of Christ to the spirit of the modern age. But the old apocalyptic perspective of the nineteenth century constitutes an obstacle to such a reconciliation" (p. 212).
"Further, they positioned their new journal as inspirational rather then polemical, thereby withdrawing from the battlefield that Foy Wallace claimed as leader and watchdog..." (p.212).
'second, they steered clear of all discussion of premillennialism, focusing instead on postive, constructive values that many, if not most, among Churches of Christ could accept.? (p.215).
"Foy Wallace and others of his stripe never sensed the threat to sectarian values implicit in the 20th Century Christian. But that threat became increasingly easy to detect in the period during and following World War II. Many of the people, in the 1930's prized a kind of gentle spirit, who refused to attack R. H. Boll, and who sought to undermine the fighting style of Foy Wallace, worked to develop the insititutional machinery of Church of Christ in the 1940's. Their efforts set the stage for the next major battle in this communion and the next major transitional move from sectarian status among Church of Christ toward full-fledged denominational standing ." (P.216).
'the new journalism and associated theology would move Churches of Christ further and further away from the sectarian mentality of the nineteenth century and would increasingly celebrate the values of conservative Protestant culture in the United States.
"In this way, the Christian Leader initiated a transition fundamentally similar to the one Alexander Campbell had made in 1837 (see Chap. 2), when he elected to defend American Protestantism. The difference was that while Campbell acknowledged that transition, those directing the Leader apparently possessed little or no awareness of this dimension of their work. Their naivete in this regard was closely connected to their continued commitment to the primitive Christian faith.
'the truth was that since the days of Campbell and Stone, the notion of primitive Christianity had become so central to the thinking of Churches of Christ - and so foundational to orthodoxy in every aspect of this tradition that no one who cared about his or her standing in the church could afford to waffle on the theme, much less abandon it outright. Put another way, primitive Christianity had become the defining, foundational myth for this tradition. In this context, few progressives sensed any disjunction between the celebration of modern values and commitment to the primitive Christian faith. On the other side of the fence, however, Foy Wallace and his people were fully convinced that the progressives had abandoned their historic, sectarian posture.
"Of all the literature of Churches of Christ through this period, the 20th Century Christian perhaps most graphically depicts the fusion of conservative twentieth century Protestant values with a commitment to primitive Christianity. And once again, the individuals who led this project had all enjoyed opportunities in higher education. (p.210).
I will now make some observations on the above quotations and let that suffice for this first article.
1. This was a "landmark" development that would have long range effects on the church in the future. We can see the fruits of this softness movement in the liberal churches today. We see church contributions to human institutions, church furnished recreation, family life centers, church operated schools, church grants to colleges, milktoast preaching, and even merges with the Christian Church, etc.
(Gen 11:6) "..now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do."
Closing the door to open discussion of current issues, opens the door for just about anything. "...they positioned their new journal as inspirational rather then polemical, thereby withdrawing from the battlefield that Foy Wallace claimed as leader and watchdog..." (p.212)....they steered clear of all discussion of premillennialism, focusing instead on postive, constructive values that many, if not most, among Churches of Christ could accept.? (p.215).
2. We can't help but notice the connection between the 20th Century Christian and the Colleges. Note,
" They also signed on Hugh Tiner (dean of Pepperdine College in Los Angeles) and Athens Clay Pullias (vice president of David Lipscomb College) to serve along with Sanders and themselves on an editorial council,? (P. 212). All these men were leaders in the softness movement. This brings to mind the fact that periodicals and colleges have played a major role in every departure in the church since it's beginning in the United States. While these entities have potential for great good they have an equal if not more than equal potential for evil. To deny this is to deny the undeniable.
4. Throughout his book, Hughes denigrates the "fighting style" of Foy Wallace. I counted 95 times that Wallace's name appears in the book (there are, no doubt more).Hughes attaches such descriptives to Wallace's name as "the Wallace crowd," "Wallace followers," "Wallace program," "Wallace people," "Wallace faction," "Wallace camp," "Wallace crowed," "Wallace and his people" "leader and watchdog." While Hughes, throughout his book of 448 pages, opposes the "fighting style" of Foy E. Wallace and his "crowd," he engages in that same "fighting style" against Wallace with a vengeance! If he intended to portray his so-called "gentle style of journalism" he really missed the boat. He loses his argument that it is wrong to argue because he argues that it is wrong to argue. His contempt for Wallace and those like him shows on almost every page. While he sets himself forth as a professional historian, his personal agenda and religious posture are obvious throughout the book. In fact he calls the idea of practicing New Testament Christianity a "myth." "Put another way, primitive Christianity had become the defining, foundational myth for this tradition," p. 210. He who can see through a ladder can see where he is coming from.
Hughes has not one good word for Foy E. Wallace, Jr. He has no appreciation for the good influence he had in those early days when he was battling Premillennialism, institutionalism and the sponsoring church concept. If Hughs' policies had been followed, where would the church be today? Brother Wallace was a very complex personality, capable, it was said, "of making close friends and bitter enemies." He had no equal as a preacher, writer, and defender of the faith (Though I'm not a judge in such matters, he probably was a genius). Regardless of everything else, he deserves credit for the great good he did. He practically stopped the spread of Premillennialism in churches of Christ its tracks, and was likely first to raise opposition to the issues of sponsoring churches and church grants to human institutions.
Because of some personal problems, Foy allowed his influence to be used by the very people he had spent his life opposing. For reasons I won't discuss here, he saw the liberal camp as his only refuge in his latter days. But be it remembered, he didn't fit well there! Some of the big liberal churches tried to use him, but he couldn't stomach their liberalism, and when he spoke out against it, they ditched him, though they rejoiced to count him as a convert from "antiism," which he really wasn't, deep down. The liberals claimed him in order to take advantage of his wide influence among conservatives, and tried to make it appear that he had renounced the hated "antis," but they didn't really care for him. Brother Wallace tried to save face by trying to spin his well-known anti-institutional, sponsoring church stance, but his spinnings fell short of refuting the truths he had defended in earlier days. There is no way that he could convince reasonable people who had read his past writings that he had not changed.
5. Throughout Hughes' book, he exalts elitism ("one of whom he thinks he is which") and extols higher education which has never been a friend of the Lord's church. For instance he says, "And once again, the individuals who led this project (20th Century Christian, jpn) had all enjoyed opportunities in higher education,? (p.210). Is that supposed to be significant? Well, it is, but not the same significance Hughes gives it. The Lord's church has probably suffered more from brethren who have "enjoyed the opportunities in higher education" than from any other source. My good belated, beloved, and witty friend, Luther Blackmon, used to say, ?The problem with higher education is that one has to learn so many things that "ain't" so.? Throughout Hughes' book, he extols higher education, and looks down his elitist nose at men like Ben Franklin, Tolbert Fanning, et al, who likely did more good for the cause of Christ than Hughes ever will, (see chapter 4, and other places in his book). Tolbert Fanning said, "...we think the schools generally are well calculated to make infidels," (Gospel Advocate, Nov. 1856, p. 326,27).
6. Those who lived through the drastic change that came over the church in and around Nashville, TN in the 40's and forward, saw it happening and observed who was involved, but I never knew it was so well planned by its perpetrators. As Hughes shows, there were meetings and plans laid to change the direction of the churches of Christ toward a protestant denominational posture, and deliberately avoid the discussion of pressing issues of the time like Premillennialism. ("...they positioned their new journal as inspirational rather then polemical, thereby withdrawing from the battlefield that Foy Wallace claimed as leader and watchdog..." (p.212). "...they steered clear of all discussion of premillennialism, focusing instead on postive, constructive values that many, if not most, among Churches of Christ could accept." (p.215). One sage observed in the 1950's that "Nashville would become a mission field." He was pretty close to correct, for liberalism swept over at least 90% of the Nashville churches.
7. This movement within the church of Christ followed the pattern of the instrumental music/missionary society apostasy. The leaders of both movements continued to mouth the old line mantras "the restoration movement," ?where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent,? "We call Bible things by Bible names, and do Bible things in Bible ways." This softened the impact of the drastic changes they were making, because it deceived the people into believing that nothing had changed. It's one thing to mouth a motto, and quite another to practice what it projects.
We see that the softening movement of the 40's and forward followed the same historical pattern of previous apostasies. On the masthead of the "20th Century Christian they carried the "New Testament Christianity in the present age." It is significant, however, that later they dropped that from the masthead. Hughes says, "When the magazine changed its name to 21st Century Christian in January 19990, it dropped from its cover the motto "New Testament Christianity in the present age." (p. 211). Did they realize that they had ceased to practice "First Century Christianity in the 21st Century"? Or had such a thought lost its meaning to them and they had adopted Hughes' idea that the idea of practicing first century religion in the 21st century is a "myth"? This was a subtle, but significant change, the impact of which is vividly seen in the liberal churches of Christ today.
This calls to mind Hughes' statement about Norvil Young, "In later years, Young claimed no memory of either a legalistic or exclusivist outlook in the churches of his youth in Middle Tennessee. This is difficult to believe in view of Highes" statement that ?Norvel Young had been immersed in this tradition (the restoration movement philosophy jpn) through the years growing up in Middle Tennessee. His mother's father and uncle both owned farms adjoining David Lipscomb's, and his mother, Ruby Morrow Young, studied not only under Lipscomb, but also under James A. Harding and T. B. Larimore. Young himself graduated from David Lipscomb College, the successor to the old Nashville Bible School. Rather, he recalled a pietistic perspective, centered on prayer, love and one's relation to God through Christ. Further, in the 1930s all four of these students had embraced the pacifist tradition that for years had been central to the apocalyptic worldview.? (P. 210, 11). Either Norvil Young has a short memory, or he is ignorant of the history of "the restoration movement" (which I seriously doubt) in which hundreds of public debates were conducted with the denominations and thousands and thousands of people left the denominations and came into the churches of Christ. Hughes engaged in some wishful thinking here, and the re-writing of history. To say that Lipscomb and Harding and Fanning and others of their contemporaries were passivists with only a "pietistic perspective, centered on prayer, love and one's relation to God through Christ," and were not exclusivistic of human denominations and religious error is to call in question Young"s integrity or Hughes' credentials as the true-blue historian he tries to project himself to be. Historical revisionism is a mixture of dishonesty and wishful thinking.
III. THE ADMISSION OF AN HISTORICAL TRUTH:
It is commendable that Hughes' is honest enough to admit an historical truth, namely that those who opposed centralized control and the sponsoring church concept were not the ones who changed, but rather those who promoted these matters. Not these lines from Hughes' book:
"...the anti-institutional movement among Churches of Christ was not a product solely of the Campbell tradition nor solely of the Stone-Lipscomb tradition but was rather a product of both mixed together, blended, and amalgamated. Second, it means that those who opposed the development of institutions stood squarely in the democratic, anti-institutional mainstream of their nineteenth-century heritage, contrary to the assertions of mainstream Churches of Christ that they were deviants, radicals, and schismatics.
"Not only did these people stand squarely in the historic mainstream of Churches of Christ by virtue of their democratic biases and their opposition to anything smacking of institutions and centralized control but they also stood squarely in the legal tradition of Churches of Christ. In this regard, they simply carried to a higher key the outlook popularized by Arthur Crihfield, John R. Howard, Moses Lard, Benjamin Franklin, and others who had radicalized Alexander Campbell's Christian Baptist," (see Chapters. 3-4).(p. 226).
It is the common practice of those who trim their sails to the prevailing winds of liberalism to deny that they have changed. Campbell did it, Guy Woods and Foy E. Wallace, Jr. did it. This is one of the worst no brainers of all time. Anybody who can read can see in the previous articles the anti-institutional posture of nearly all the leaders of the pro-institutional and sponsoring church movement among churches of Christ since the 1930's. I can express my anti-institutional/centralized control position in the writings of these leaders in the 1930's and forward. In fact, they can often express my views better than I can!
If the general stance of the churches of Christ had been anti-institutional and centralized control, how could "pacifism" have "been central to the apocalyptic worldview" of churches of Christ, as Hughes avers? If the position of the conservative brethren today is identical to what brethren believed before the change came, then the pacifist position had not been "central to the apocalyptic worldview." There was a battle royal between the conservatives and the liberals over the instrumental music and the missionary society, and constant conflict with the denominations. That's hardly pacifism. Hughes can't have It both ways.
That the so-called antis are not "deviants, radicals, and shismatics" will come as a surprise to the thousands of brethren who have been brainwashed with the liberal propaganda to the contrary: Note what Highes says: "..it means that those who opposed the development of institutions stood squarely in the democratic, anti-institutional mainstream of their nineteenth-century heritage, contrary to the assertions of mainstream Churches of Christ that they were deviants, radicals, and schismatics,"(p. 226). How could an honest historian make this admission, and yet call the liberals the "mainstream Churches of Christ." How can they be the "mainstream" when they are the ones who separated from the mainstream? Hughes often meets himself coming back. In the above quotation he called both the conservatives and the liberals the "mainstream." How can both be the "mainstream"?
CONCLUSION:
In the next article I will show that certain brethren among the conservatives are following the pattern of apostasy in the past. It happened with Alexander Campbell, it happened in the institutional/sponsoring church controversy in the last half of the 20th century, and it is now happening among the conservatives. As Thomas Paine said, "These are times that try men's souls." Remember, crises don't make the man, they just declare him.
James P. Needham
1600 Oneco Ave.
Winter Park, FL 32789
October 22, 2006
Conclusion:
In the next article I will show that similar changes are being made today designed to change the attitude and outlook of the conservative churches. It is important that we realize what is happening lest our lack of perception cause us to sleep the sleep of death.
An atheist, under the title, "Happy Heathen," wrote in a "Dear Abby" column:
?I, like many atheists, consider religion to be superstition, which, for the most part, is harmful to people. At its worst, religion prompts people to blow up buildings with innocent people in them: Examples include the "Christian" gangsters who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma and the Muslims who flew airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon." (Source: Orlando Sentinel, 7-5-05).
This always has been the hue and cry of atheists when they want to bash religion. It manifests their abysmal ignorance of reality and their indomitable prejudice. No CHRISTIAN ever was a "gangster," and no CHRISTIAN ever blew up a building killing innocent persons. His ignorance looms large when he attributes such unconscionable acts to CHRISTIANS, or to religion in general. Those who perpetrate such atrocities may claim to be Christians or religious, but they are not Christians and they are not religious in the Biblical sense. They are as phoney as a three dollar bill!
True Christians advocate love and do not preach or practice violence. They are followers of Christ who preached and practiced the very opposite of the many atrocities perpetrated by vicious people in the name of religion or falsely claim to be "Christians." Being a Christ requires more than a false claim. What have atheists done for the world? They don't build hospitals, start schools, or write hymns. Atheists Hitler, Stalin, Edi Amin, of their ilk have killed millions of innocent persons, including women and children. Would "Happy Heathen" like to have all atheists painted with this wide brush as typical of all atheists? I think not!
It is a settled fact that people claiming to be Christians and/or religious have committed the atrocities to which "Happy Heathen" refers, but it is also true that they have hardly outdone the atheists of the world. Condemning all religion because of these atrocities is like condemning soap because you saw a boy with a dirty face.
Typically atheists say "Religion has been the cause of most of the wars in history." That is correct, but the religion revealed in the New Testament never caused a war. Men have used false religion for many nefarious purposes. There are shysters all over television who have become filthy rich by deceiving the gullible public. It is unfortunate that true Christians and gospel preachers get painted with this same brush even though they are the first to condemn it and would never be a part of it.
There was a time when a preacher was highly respected by most people, but not any more. I used to travel throughout the country holding gospel meetings. I often would strike up a conversation with a seat mate. The question usually arose, "What kind of work do you do"? When I would say, "I am a preacher," the person would say, "oh," and that would pretty well end the conversation for the remainder of the trip. The shysters have ruined the reputation of the Lord's church and gospel preachers by painting everybody with the same brush.
In a tape from Ben Laden, he lectures Americans and tells how to stop the war in Iraq. Very generous of him! He says, “There are two solutions to stopping it (the war jpn). One is from our side, and it is to escalate the fighting and killing against you. This is our duty, and our brothers are carrying it out. The second solution is from your side, I invite you to embrace Islam.” So, what does this mean? It means that if we don’t capitulate and embrace Islam, the war will go on until one side has victory. Now this confirms what I have been saying, namely, that this is a religious war; it is a war between those who are Islamic and those who are not. And I will guarantee you that the historians will so describe it. The Islamics have plainly stated that they will take over the world and eliminate all religions but their own. The sad thing about this is that non-Islamic nations, including our own, are accommodating them little by little, because they refuse to acknowledge that it is a religious war. Religious tolerance is a good thing in all nations, if it is tolerance for religion. But when a religion is both a political system and a religion intermingled like Siamese twins, both to be advanced by wholesale killing of those who dissent, then tolerance should cease. Islam is the whole ball of wax; it is a theocracy where religion rules the day; if one violates a religious regulation he will pay civil penalties; which in this case likely is decapitation. The war in Iraq is a ridiculous religious war; it is not a war with Iraq, but a war with Islam. Some of the fighters are from Iraq, but many are from surrounding Islamic countries. Even many of Iraqi fighters are trained in neighboring countries. So it is not a war with Iraqis, but with Islam. Not to see and admit this is a big part of our problem in Iraq.What would happen if we do as Ben Laden says, and we “embrace Islam”? First we would be required to give up our religion and worship Allah, Arabia’s moon god! We would be required to financially support a bunch of parasitic hate mongers called Mullahs. We would be required to prostrate ourselves in prayer 5 times a day facing Mecca. I try to stay away from politics in my preaching and my writing, but when politics and religion are so intermingled that they can’t be separated, and the system wants to take away our freedoms, which include freedom of speech, assembly and religion, then to oppose it is not dabbling in politics but defending our right to worship Jehovah according to His law. It is my studied conviction that the American people love their country and its freedoms too much to capitulate to this heathen physiology, once they realize what really is going on (which the politicians who are more interested in power than the good of the nation are trying to keep them from realizing). All this propaganda about terrorism is being carried on by “radical” Islamists who have hijacked a peace-loving religion is pure hogwash propaganda; pure balderdash. Those who are doing this are either ignorant or dishonest, maybe both. If they are ignorant, that can be cured by an evening of reading the Koran; if they are dishonest, that is worse, and they will have to take that up with God and reap what they have sowed. Meanwhile the public, which has been brainwashed with all this political hogwash, need to discover and recognize what is happening and get with the matter of relieving these power mongering politicians of their jobs. Islam has practically taken over the nations of Europe; in a few years most, if not all, of these nations will be ruled by the mullah’s. Spain is already gone, and England is not far behind. Africa is practically there already, and much of Southeast Asia is ruled by Islam. Indonesia has the largest population of Islamics outside of the Middle East. When all this happens, what will happen to the USA? We will be standing alone with probably Australia being our only ally (maybe japan). Perilous times are here, and optimism for the future is hard to come by. We need to do a lot of praying and soul-searching.
This story is told of Tolstoy, the great Russian writer. One day he was walking down the street when a beggar stopped him and pleaded for alms. He searched his pockets, and found nothing. He regretfully said to the beggar, “Please don’t be angry with me, my brother, but I have nothing with me. If I did I would gladly give it to you.” The beggar’s face came alive, and he said, “You have given me more than I asked for; you have called me brother.” What a different world this would be if all men could realize that they are brothers. There are so many walls of separation among the human race: racial, political, national, religious, social, economic, gender, and I could go on and on. All such distinctions are not necessarily bad, but we allow them to become bad. They are bad only because humans make them bad. Men rise to their highest level of self-esteem and to the greatest love for their fellow men when they see all men as made in the image of God, and are therefore brothers. If men believe, as the humanists, atheists and evolutionists teach, that man is just an animal, then there is no basis for loving and trying to understand others. It’s every man for himself; it becomes a “dog-eat-dog” society. This is pretty well what we see today. This is why we have so much murder, rape, the blowing up of airplanes, the taking of hostages, the bombing of airports, etc. Many people in the world live like animals because they have been taught that they are animals. It stands to reason that if we teach people that they are just animals, they are going to live like animals. Can you not see the reasons for the atrocities we now witness almost every day? Men rape, murder their spouses, their children, and even themselves, with no compunction of conscience.
1.The church Is God's house, household, or family (I Tim. 3:15; Eph. 2:19; 3:15). Only the saved are children in God's family (Rom. 8:16. 17). All of God's children are in His family, the church; therefore, all the saved are in the church; unless God has children outside His family.That is scandalous and unthinkable.
2. Christ is High Priest over God's house (Heb. 10:21), which is the church (I Tim. 3:15). It Is the duty of high priests to offer sacrifices for sins (Heb.5:1; 8:3).
2.Christ as our high priest offered Himself as a sacrifice for our sins (Heb. 8:3; Cf. 7:27). But He "gave Himself" for the church (Eph.5:25), and bought it with His blood (Acls 20:28). Therefore,if one can be saved outside the church he can be saved without a high priest(Christ); therefore without a sacrifice for his sins; yet tbe Bible says this is impossible (Heb. 9:22).
3. The church is Christ's kingdom (Mt. 16:18; Lk. 22:30; I Cor. 11). There are only two kingdoms:Christ's and Satan's (Col.l:13; I John. 5:19). One is either in one or the other (Mt. 12:30). Therefore, if one can be saved outside the church he can be saved in the devil's kingdom. But Christians have been translated out of Satan's kingdom into the kingdom of God's dear Son (Col. 1:13).
4. The church is Christ's bride (Eph. 5:32; 2 Cor. 11:2). The bride is to bring forth fruit unto God (Rom 7:4). If one can be saved outside the church, then Christ has children (fruit) by others than his bride--scandalous and unthinkable!
5. There are only two ways, the broad and the narrow. Mt. 7:13,14. The church is either the broad or the narrow way. If it is the broad way, none can be saved in it; if it is the narrow way, none can be saved out of it. We know the church is the narrow way; thus nobody can be saved outside of it; and if this is not true, the broad way does not lead to destruction as Jesus said.
don't be deceived by false teachers Rom. 16:17, who teach false doctrines that will damn the soul.
6. God said he would put salvation in Zion for Israel His glory, Isa. 46:13. The church is spiritual Mt. Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem, Heb. 12:22,23; and the "Israel of God" Gal. 6:16. Therefore, salvation is in the church.
7. Isaiah prophesied that the "house of the Lord" which is the church (1Tim. 3:15), would be established in Jerusalem in the "last days, (Isa. 2:1-4), which began on Pentecost in Acts 2 (Acts 2:17), and the that "out of Zion would go the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem," (Isa. 2:3). This occured when Peter preached the first gospel sermon under the great commission on Pentecost in Acts 2, and remission of sins was offered on the conditions of repentance and baptism for remission of sins (Acts 2:38). To confirm this, Acts 2:47 says for the first time in the Bible that "The Lord added to the church daily those that were saved," (Acts 2:47).
The atheists, humanists, and so-called cientists have, for generations, questioned many parts of the Bible. There is always the specious claim that the Bible contradicts the known facts of science. When a so-called scientist says this, many people swallow it without question because, to a large extent, our generation has deified science.
It is a bit strange however, that if the Bible is all that illiterate where science is concerned, why the order of creation as stated in Genesis one is exactly the order in which science, and even evolution, says it occurred. William E. Gladstone, who lived from 1808-1898, was one of the greatest statesmen England ever had, beside that, he was a scholar and prolific writer. He made this astounding statement; he said, "The Biblical order of statement as to the creation may be taken as a demonstrated conclusion and established fact."
Bible believers contend that the book of Genesis was written about 1500 B.C. by Moses. We all recognize that scientific knowledge was in its infancy at that time, and very little was known by ordinary men about the order of creation and other such matters, and yet Moses stated the order of creation exactly as modern science says the world came to be.
I am amazed at how blind modern would-be educated men and women can be when they come up against facts which don't suit their particular presuppositions, but I appeal to your good common sense, and say that you cannot help but see that Moses' knowledge of the order in which the world came into being did not come from the conventional scientific knowledge of his time. It had to have had a higher source. That source is the God who made the world and all that in it is. He who says he cannot see the significance of this is indeed blind, but blind by choice. There is an old adage which says, "None is so blind as he who will not see."
The scientific foreknowledge of the Bible is one of the proofs of its divine inspiration. The Bible is not a text book on science or history, but when it touches these fields it is discovered that it states many facts of science and history that were not known by man for many years later. This proves that its source of knowledge was not man, but God who made the world and understands how it works.
The Catholic doctrine of Limbo is this: Babies who die without "baptism," thus are guilty of "original sin," go to Limbo rather than to heaven. There they enjoy natural happiness but not supernatural happiness. This has been taught by the Catholics for centuries, but now they are reconsidering it. An article in the Orlando Sentinel, 10-7-06, it is said, "Vatican theologians are leaning toward revising centuries-old teaching that babies who die without baptism go to limbo instead of heaven, officials said Friday. " The false doctrine of Limbo was invented by the Catholics, so I guess they can change it if theydesire. It certainly didn't come from the Bible. Such a doctrine is not one time mentioned in God's word, so it is wholly of human origin. It was invented because of the false doctrine of original sin, namely, that babies are born guilty of Adam's sin, called "original sin." In the Catholic Church babies are "baptized" (a little water poured on their forhead) on the 8th day of life and that supposedly removes the guilt of "original sin." That false doctrine logically brought up the question: what about babies who die without baptism? So, rather than say they are lost, they invented the doctrine of Limbo. One false doctrine always calls for another. Necessity is the mother of invention.
What is the difference between the terms Christian and child of God? A quick way to answer this question is to say, “All Christians are children of God, but not all children of God are Christians.” People commonly think the two terms are synonymous, thus we hear people speak of “good Christians,” and “delinquent Christians,” etc. but I see nothing in scripture to support such a concept. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon defines the word Christian as “A follower of Christ.” Vine’s Expository Dictionary of N.T. words says it means “an adherent of Christ.” A “Child of God” is a person who has been born into God’s family as taught in John 3:1-5. It is proper to say “Once a child of God, always a child of God,” but it is not proper to say, “Once a Christian, always a Christian.” That is, once I am a son of God, I can’t be unborn. I will always be a son of God, even though I don’t follow Christ, but if I don’t follow Christ, I won’t be a Christian. I am a son of my mother regardless of how I live. I may disgrace her name, and cause her to disinherit me, but she can’t “unborn” me. If I should so act, it could not be said that I was following my mother. By the same token, once I am born into God’s family, I will always be a child of God. I may live in such a way that He will disinherit me as Num. 14:12 says He sometimes does, but a disinherited son is still a son. But it cannot be said that a disinherited son of God is still a follower of Christ, a Christian. If this is not the case, then the definition of words means nothing. One may say this is a war of words, but so let it be. Words are important. We are commanded to speak “as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). Surely nobody will deny this. And certainly all will agree that one does not do this when he uses language that does not convey scriptural thought. The name Christian is a “worthy name” (Jas. 2:7), and one given by the “mouth of the Lord” (Isa. 62:2; Acts 11:26). It can be blasphemed (Jas. 2:7), and is so treated when it is misused, or applied to people who don’t follow Christ. Let us not be guilty of this, but rather let us “glorify God in this name” (1 Pet. 4:16). The name Christian is much abused. People say they are Christians who are not children of God; they have never been born into the family of God, so they are neither children of God nor Christians. Ask most anyone on the street or in your neighborhood, “Are you a Christian?” and they will usually say, “yes.” Yet they make no pretense of acting like a follower of Christ. So, to such persons being a Christian is just saying they are one. It requires a good deal more than that.
DAVID LIPSCOME ON CONGREGATIONAL COOPERATION
This work (evangelism, jpn) is as clearly and fully committed to the church as the worship, the discipline, or the care of the poor. It is said sometimes that this is the work of the church universal; but the church universal has no existence on earth, save through the local churches. They are its only manifestations, its only organs. It cannot manifest itself save through these. It can do no work save through these its organs. It is just as much the church universal that maintains the worship or feeds the poor as it is the church universal that does the evangelizing. It does all these works through the churches-its only manifestations on earth. The church, or its members are loyal to their head only as they work through these divinely appointed organs of the church; not to work in and through these, is not work in the name of Christ; for on these alone, the name of Jesus is recorded on earth." (David Lipscomb,-"The Church How It Works," Gospel' Advocate, Vol.XXVII - No. 16 (April 22, 1885) p. 241. "We sincerely and earnestly believe all organized bodies for religious purposes outside of, within, above or below the congregation of the Lore are sinful and teasonable." (Quoted by Earl West in the Gospel Guardian, Vol. 5, Sept. 3, 1953, p. 267, no Gospel Advocate documentation given). "Two neighbor farmers work independently. One farmer faces an emergency which he cannot handle alone. He calls in his neighobor for aide. "Each, pursuing his own course, cooperate." When the emergency is over, no cumbersome machinery is left. Lipscomb was convinced that much of the controversy over cooperation was due to a lack of understanding of what constituted cooperation. Two congregations, although a thousand miles apart, each pursuing its own independent course in the work of the Lord, are necessarily cooperation. Their work is cooperative, (Gospel Gurardian, vol. 5, no. 16, Aug. 27, 1953, p. 249).
I continue to record how Muslims plan to infiltrate our government and influence our laws. The first Muslim is running for Congress in one of the states, I failed to remember which. But, if he wins, he will be the first Muslim in congress.
I have said that Islamics will gradually try to take over the government, and then it is possible that the USA will become a Saudi Arabia. What makes this possible is the spirit of tolerance in the U.S.of anything that claims to be a religion. This makes the US easy prey for the Islamic purpose and plan and turns our country into the ultimate in gullibility.
One need not think that the Islamics are ignorant of our laws protecting anything that is called religion, and the freedoms guaranteed under our constitution. As I have said many times, they plan to use our freedoms to destroy our freedoms.
The American government is stupid enough to sit idly by and let it happen. You see, here are the problems.
(1) If an American citizen converts to Islam, who can stop him/her from running for public office? Under the constitution, any citizen can run for public office.
(2) Muslims from Islamic countries are coming to this country in droves. They in time can become citizens, and will be eligible to run for public office. Henry Kissenger is a prime example of what I am saying. He is a Jewish immigrant from Germany many years ago. He became a citizen, and became Secretary of State. Any Muslim from the most rabid Islamic country can do the same thing. The more Muslims that do that, the greater their power to influence our government to favor their religion.
One may think this scenario is far-fetched. Such an attitude plays right into the hands of the Islamics. This is what they hope we will say and think while they work their plan silently in the background by gradualism to become a voting block in the American electorate like other voting blocks that are able to influence the outcome of elections.
Which had you rather have, a frowning friend, or a smiling enemy? Oh, you think the question is dumb? Well, don't judge too quickly! Get all the facts before you decide.
Do you know someone who is always smiling, always flattering you, always acting kindly toward you, but you were terribly disappointed one day to find that the knife sticking in your back was wielded by that very person? Who among us has not had that experience? Well, there are people around who climb to the top over the dead bodies, so to speak, of those they destroyed to get there, smiling and back-stabbing all the way up! All their smiling and seeming goodwill are as phoney as a three-dollar bill. It is just one of their many devious methods of attaining their selfish ends.
But what about frowning friends? Who on earth would want a frowning friend? Well, any sensible person would rather have a frowning friend than a smiling enemy! If you feel otherwise, it has to be because you have spent very little time in the bivouac of life. Call me back in 10 years and let me know if you have changed your mind.
Solomon said, "A friend loveth at all times" (Prov. 17:17), yes, even when it is necessary for him to frown at us.
A friend may frown upon our action, criticize us, maybe even shun us for a time, but all for our good, and because he is a friend. A friend does not turn his head when he sees us do wrong; neither does he smile upon our wrong-doing - he speaks his piece.
That is what friends are all about. Solomon said, "A brother is born for adversity"? (Prov. 17:17). That is, to help us through adversity. Many times the best help we can get in time of trouble is to have a loving friend tell us what we are doing wrong.
If you say to your friends, love me but don't criticize me, you are not looking for a friend, you are looking for a parrot! Maybe YOU would like for things to be well laid out - you want your friends to smile and your enemies to frown. If that is your preference, alright, but somewhere in the game of life, you will change your mind.
Jack Farabee, and Valerie First in letters to the editor of the Sentinel, demonstrates typical bias and fuzzy thinking when it comes to intelligent design vs. chance process evolution. In taking issue with Kathleen Parker's recent article they say:
?Kathleen Parker in her recent column on intelligent design (ID) carefully obscures the point that the courts have repeatedly held that ID is a variation of creation science and that forced inclusion of ID in the science curriculum by any government agency is a violation of the "establishment" clause of the First Amendment.?
(JPN--I say to Mr. Farabee, the fact that the theory of evolution is a variation of humanism which has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be a religion, and any forced inclusion of it by any government agency is a violation of the "establishment" clause of the First Amendment.)
?The National Academy of Sciences states in "Science and Creationism" that creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such in science classes.?
(JPN--Numerous well-known scientists have stated that evolution is not science and should not be presented as such in classes. Science is stystemized knowledge, and evolution is not that, but systemized guess work).
"The Creator in ID arguments is the Christian God and the proponents of ID are active fundamentalist Christians."
(JPN-- the creator in the evolution theory is random chance dreamed up by humanist philosophers and its proponents are fundamentalist religious humanists. It is false to say that all who oppose evolution are "fundamentalist Christians." Some boni fide scients are among those who oppose it).
"Certainly no one doubts that President Bush is a devout Christian. His espousal of ID represents an attempt to inject his religion into science education and is a violation of the First Amendment."
(JPN--The evolutionist's espousal of evolution represents an attempt to inject their religion into science education and is a violation of the First Amendment).
Valerie First opines, "If we brought the concept of ID, intelligent design, into the science classroom, it would be a short-lived subject. Intelligent design has no scientific basis. It is not a theory in any scientific sense."
(JPN--If we brought the truth about evolution into the class room, it would be a short lived subject, because it is just an unproved theory based upon faith. ID is so obvious in the universe that it is a necessary inference).
"What we don't know, we delegate to faith or a higher intelligence, but that doesn't mean we can't know it."
(JPN--There are so many missing links in the theory of evolution that are not known, so according to Ms. First, the evolutionist must walk by faith, which most of them deny that they do. Evolution has not been proven).
"The main point in evolutionary science is that we need more scientific input. Evolution is a fact but the mechanisms are still only partly known. "
(JPN-- The mechanism of evolution is not "partly known," it is not known at all. Evolution is not a fact; it is a faith just like ID is a faith, but ID faith is based upon undeniable facts visible to everyone every day and night, while evolution is based upon mere fiction. Intelligent design demands and intelligent designer.)
"Do we just say it is intelligent design and then stop thinking"?
(JPN--Do we just say evolution and ignore plain facts?)
"What is empowering about studying evolution is that we have this great puzzle that we may still contribute to."
(JPN-- Yes, and there are so many missing pieces of this puzzle that we don't know it even exists, so how can we ever find pieces to a puzzle that doesn't even exist?)
Evolution is not being taught as a theory in the public schools, but rather as a FACT. Evolution has never been proven, and never will be proven because it defies logic and violates every scientific law known to man. It never has been demonstrated, and cannot be. Like produces like, and life produces life. Every effect has a cause and the cause must be adequate to produce the effect. Nonlife is not an adequate cause to produce life. This puts so-called evolutionary science on the junk heap.
I heard a talk sow host say, "There are good Muslims and bad Muslims. I wonder if he is well enough informed about Islam to know the good ones from the bad ones. And good or bad by whose standard?
A good Muslim according to the Koran is one who is willing to murder those who disagree with him. A bad one is one who is unwilling to commit murder in spreading his religion according to the Koran.
People must begin to face reality. A Muslim who refuses to commit murder in the spread of his religion is not a good Muslim according to the Koran. Look at just one example:
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft forgiving, Most Merciful"? (Qur'an 9:5).
This is what their "holy book" tells them to do, and there is no way that one can be a good Muslim and ignore it. It is high time the American government and its citizens wake up and face reality.
No Muslim should be admitted to this country period. Why does it make any sense to admit people to this country who are avowed murderers, and who cannot escape the fact that they believe it is all in the name of "Allah"? Furthermore, whose leaders are determined to destroy our form of government and put us under a bunch of religious thugs who are determined to kill us.
This country is well known for its freedom of religion. Muslims would take this away in a heart beat and give everyone the choice of converting to Islam, murder, or slavery.
We delight in our freedom of religion, assembly, speech and press, but there would be none of that under Islam.
Christians have never suffered physically in this country for their faith but the way things look these days, we'd better screw our courage to the sticking place and get ready for it. We are gradually reaching the point of no return. Some say just 5 more years.
We are all aware that public morals in this country are in the sewer. Millions of couples are living together without marriage. Millions of children are thus brought into the world that will never have a normal home life, and will be less likely to succeed. Homosexualism is rampant in the world, and demands are being made to redefine marriage so as to accept same sex-marriages as normal behavior.. Pornography is an ever-growing industry, and its most lucrative source of income is the internet; producing upwards of 7 billion dollars a year, and is growing by leaps and bounds. I am told that there are a thousand new sites added every day. There are almost as many divorces as marriages, and more in some areas.It is interesting to compare the number of marriages and divorces in the daily newspaper. Every Bible student knows that all this is contrary to God’s word, and it will use every means available to get into the church, indeed, to some extent it already has. All kinds of fallacious arguments are being made in efforts to justify unscriptural marriages. Some churches already are filled with couples living in adultery in full fellowship with the church. I know of a church that accepted a couple who are living together without marriage, and another one who uses known homosexuals in their services, along with at least one brother who is living in adultery. Let me make it clear: Azalea Park church will not knowingly take into our fellowship any of the above. Our stated purpose as the body of Christ is to follow the law of Christ. It is not that we don’t love people, it is that we don’t intend to jeopardize our own salvation by making lost people think they are saved. In such a case we would endanger our own salvation and their's. No person has the right to expect that of us or anyone else. We will gladly receive into our fellowship anyone who is in fellowship with God. We fully realize that this is contrary to a growing trend in society and in some churches--so let it be.
All Bible students realize that the Blood of Christ is the very Foundation of the religion of Christ. Without It man would be doomed to eternal torment. "Without the shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb. 9:22). Satan is well aware of this, hence he wages every possible effort to eliminate the blood of Christ by eliminating everything connected with it. Notice the following:
(1) The blood of Christ Is in his body which is His church. (Eph. 1 :12;23; Col. 1:18). But we hear it said on every corner today that "one doesn't have to be a member of the church to be saved." "The church doesn't save you" is also a favorite expression. Well, if man doesn't have to be a member of the church to be saved, he can be saved without the blood of Christ for it is In His body. His blood bought the church (Acts 20:28). Any effort to eliminate the church, therefore, becomes an effort to eliminate the blood of Christ.
(2) The Lord's Supper is a communion of the blood of Christ (1 Cor.10:16), but it is not unusual to hear preachers making light of the Lord's Supper. Many claim that one can be saved If he never partakes of it. Thus, this eliminates the blood of Christ.
(3) The blood of Christ sealed His Testament (Mat.26:28). But men seek to minimize the Importance of the Testament of Christ. We often hear It said that we don't have to follow the New Testament In every detail. Well, if we eliminate the necessity of following the New Testament, we eliminate the blood of Christ, since the blood sealed the Testament.
(4) The blood of Christ Is in his body and was shed in His death (John19:34). The New Testament reveals only one way to enter the body and the death. Notice. "For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body. . ." (I Cor. 12:13) and "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized Into His death"? (Rom. 6:3). Yet men tell us that baptism is not essential to salvation. But remember if baptism is not essential, neither is the blood of Christ because baptism is the only way one can contact the blood Christ as per the word of God. Friend, I am sure you don't intend to eliminate the precious blood of Christ, but you do if you allow men to lead you to minimize the church; the Lord's Supper, following the New Testament, and baptism in water for remission of sins.
If you have questions about this matter, please contact the editor at these phone numbers: 407-628-2995; 407-782-2392.
Satan has convinced hundreds of mil lions of people that baptism, a burial in water for the remissions of sins, is not essential to salvation. All sorts of quibbles and dodges have been fabricated to try to prove by God's word that, even though baptism is mentioned several times in connection with salvation, it doesn't mean that one can't be saved without it.
The success of this false doctrine is due to blindness brought on by the unscriptural confidence people have come to place in preachers. Nobody ever decided that baptism in water is not essential to salvation by reading the New Testament as can be seen from the following passages:
Mark 1:4, "John did baptize In the wilderness and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins."
Luke 3:3. "And he came Into all the country about Jordan preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission
of sins.?
Acts 2:38, "Then Peter said unto them. Repent and be baptized everyone of you In the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
Acts 22:16. "And now why tarriest thou" Arise, and be "baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
Mark 16:16, ?He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.?
I Peter 3:21, "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth olso now save us..."
These are ALL of the passages in the New Testament in which baptism and salvation are mentioned together and in every instance, salvation follows baptism--not one time is salvation placed before baptism. This is so simple that only hidebound prejudice can keep one from seeing it.
I ask you kindly, did God state it wrong six times? Or do men just wish He had? Who will you believe, your preacher or God? Why not read the Bible for yourself, your preacher could be wrong and HE IS WRONG if he tells you the New Testament teaches that baptism in water is not essential to salvation.
It is strange that 99 per cent of all the denominations require something they call baptism; it may be sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, (one preacher "b