Neither Ignorance nor Arrogance Is Pleasing/Acceptable to the Lord

Our thoughts in this essay will examine some reasons that men might not obey the Gospel, and also why some in the Lord’s body ought to reconsider the attitudes we might have unconsciously developed. Given the conditions of our (and every) society, Biblically uninformed Christians will undoubtedly find themselves with the same difficult task of repelling the considerable dualities of ignorance and/or arrogance that so many in the world will display with reference to God. The Scriptures certainly speak of both as unacceptable with regard to (and in light of) the Day of Judgment.

In II Thessalonians 1:7–9, the Scriptures speak of those who “know not God” and those who “obey not the gospel.” Clearly there are two distinct classes of people being discussed to be judged: those who have no knowledge of the heavenly creator (resulting from any variety of reasons), and those who have had the opportunity to hear the Gospel and have (for whatever reason) rejected it.

In Romans 10:3, the apostle Paul writes of those who are ignorant (not having information) of God’s righteousness. In the very next chapter he mentions that the brethren should not be ignorant of the mystery, and in the I Corinthians epistle (chapters 10, 12) Paul states that he does not want the believers to be ignorant of important revelation.

Paul says in Philippians 3:10 that one of the most important things in his life (and we hope our lives as well) is to know God (“that I might know Him”). We are also exhorted to grow in the knowledge of Him (Ephesians 4:13; Philippians 3:8; Colossians 1:9; to name a few). This we can do through a continual study of the Scriptures.

It will not be an acceptable excuse on the Day of Judgment to tell the Lord that we did not have/give/take time to know (learn of, about, and from) Him. We will not be able to lay the blame to anyone else. We will all have to give an account to Jesus for our own actions. Paul summoned the elders of Ephesus to Miletus (Acts 20:28–30) so that they might not be ignorant (unaware) of grievous wolves that would not spare the flock. Paul no doubt surprised them when he told them that some of those “wolves” would come from among themselves.

Jude likewise warned against the ignorance that was allowing false doctrine to seep in among them. God wants us to “rightly divide the word of truth.” Knowing the Lord’s Word does not give us the prerogative to be arrogant (or full of pride) with or about it. Our Christian responsibility is to “search the scriptures,” making certain that the things that are said (preached and taught) are in accord with divine truth (Acts 17:11). In order to discern truth correctly we must “study” the inerrant Word of God diligently, so we might “rightly divide” it (handle it properly—for ourselves and others).

Arrogance is a characteristic of pride. The word means to have an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities. God resists such people (James 4:6; I Peter 5:5). When we impart the engrafted Word that saves souls (James 1:21), it is to be in the spirit of meekness and humility. Humility is also warranted when we find that our own opinions or biases are not consistent with (or have the authority of) the holy and Divine Scriptures.

Johnny Oxendine

Zeal Alone?

Many people measure religion solely on the basis of the zeal exhibited by its adherents. Even some of the Lord’s people (who ought to know better) are wont to justify the actions or teachings of men by the virtue of the zeal manifested in their doings. Especially this has been true of the Crossroads/Boston Church fiasco. How often have we heard someone defend the practices and dogmas of the brethren advancing this movement by saying, “They can’t be all bad, because their zeal for the Lord is just so great” But is zeal alone enough to move the God of heaven to take delight in the actions of those who bear such zeal? Is zeal to be our standard in discerning right and wrong? Is human feeling to become our guide in living?

First, if zeal alone were sufficient to commend to us the actions or the zealous, then radical Marxism would be acceptable as a worldview. History is replete with examples of very zealous Marxists who even laid down their lives to further their philosophy. Yet, Communism denies the existence of God, and denounces religion en toto as “the opiate of the people.’ It is atheistic in foundation. Furthermore, Adolph Hitler and the Nazis would stand equally justified in their fanatical and zealous extermination of over six million Jews, In fact, there would exist no crime so heinous as to escape possible justification on the basis of the zeal used in carrying it out. ‘There would be no doctrine absurd as to not warrant Divine sanction on the premise of the zeal of its advocates.

Second, if zeal alone were all-sufficient, then there would never have existed the need for supernatural revelation from God in the form of the Holy Scriptures. The zeal which one held for his views would be enough to justify them and their believer without any support from the Bible. The more zealous the individual might be, then the more right his doctrine and behavior would be! If not, why not? However, truth is objective, and not subject to my feelings or state of mind as to its rightness. The Scriptures affirm their own all- sufficiency (II Tim. 3:16-17), and without them one cannot go to heaven (Matthew 7:21; Revelation 22:14).

Third, the great apostle Paul prior to his conversion was a zealous persecutor of the church. The havoc which he wrought was done in all good conscience. He felt that he was carrying out the will of God, but he says later that he was “a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious” (I Timothy 1:13). Why wasn’t his persecution of the early disciples justified by reason of his zeal? Why were his feelings in the matter unacceptable? Why then do some brethren seek to grant to the Crossroaders and Boston Church brethren that which was denied someone of the stature of Saul of Tarsus? Are they seeking to be more “loving” than the Lord? Does their mercy supersede his?

Fourth, the zeal-only philosophy promotes circular reasoning. If truth be based on zeal (and zeal alone), then how could one ever be certain—ever know—whether or not a thing were true or not—true? Someone might say, “By the zeal one manifests toward it,” But how does one know that zeal is indeed all-sufficient to establish the Truth of a thing? The only conclusion would he that zeal bears its own justification. This would mean that zeal only is sufficient to establish truth simply because it is! This is the equivalent to saying that the conclusion is true because the antecedent is tale, and the antecedent is true because of the truth of the conclusion!

Gentle reader, let us return to a “Thus saith the Lord,” and realize that we must have zeal, honesty, and sincerity in the performance of our religious and moral duties, but a zeal that is “not according to knowledge’ is vain (Romans 10:2). Solomon warned: “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Proverbs 14:12).

Daniel Denham

Let the Chips Fall

A famous frontiersman of long ago said, “Be sure you’re right, then go ahead.” Every congregation is involved in decisions that concern its work and worship. Decisions made in haste—rashly, without consideration—can result in harm to the precious body of our Lord.

We must all carefully examine every action in which we plan to engage. God gave us a brain and a Bible—both must be used. Paul wrote, “Prove all things; hold that which is good” (I Thessalonians 5:21). By the pen of the same inspired writer, the Holy Spirit clearly set forth that all we do in Christian work, worship, and conduct is to be done by Divine authority (Colossians 3:17). But even where the Lord has commanded, there sometimes exists indecision, even stagnation. Right decisions can be squelched because of fear of fallout! Proper action by the church can be deterred because some are afraid of possible results. Good, wholesome spiritual growth in a congregation is stunted by being overly worried about how some will react.

For example, let us say that a congregation is selecting teachers for Bible classes. One indicating a desire to teach is not faithful in her Christian duty and conduct. The elders or men of the congregation discuss the matter, the facts are ascertained, and it is documented that this sister forsakes the assemblies and frequents the community dance floor. She would not be allowed to teach except for the fact that her immediate and extended family make up 18 of the 75 members in the congregation, and give almost $300 of the weekly contribution. What should be done? The answer is obvious to the Bible student.

What is done in some congregations? Sister “unfaithful” is given a Bible class to teach. Preaching brethren can succumb to fear of where the “chips may fall.” When the sermon really needs to be preached, but is withheld for fear of temper tantrums in the pews, then the church is weakened.

The pulpit becomes impotent when it no longer rings with the Word “in season, out of season” (I Timothy 4:2). The preaching that folks like is not always what they need. Paul “shrank not from declaring…anything that was profitable” to the Ephesian brethren (Acts 20:20). The fearless preacher stated: “Wherefore I testify unto you this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I shrank not from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). It is not enough for a preacher to say, “I do not preach any error.” The question is, will you preach the whole counsel of God? Will you stand where valiant men of old stood to fight every false way, without fear or partiality?

Elders can let intimidation from cliques influence their decisions as well. How many preachers have been hushed or fired to keep smiles on the faces of ungodly, weak, and rebellious members? How much good work has been halted because of objections from an extra noisy, grouchy, bitter, “squeaking wheel”? How many times does the projected contribution figure dip when the church needs to take disciplinary action against a wayward church member?

Remember, it does not hurt an apple tree for bad apples to fall off. The sooner we realize that a congregation can grow spiritually when declining numerically, the stronger the church will be! Some brothers and sisters strengthen the church by their presence and some by their departure. That may not be “politically correct” in our day of compromise and acceptance, but it surely is Biblical (I Corinthians 11:19).

When we let fear of where the “chips may fall” influence our decisions, we are surely headed down a dark road toward candlestick removal. When we do things God’s way—the right way—we enjoy the blessings and approval of Heaven. Let us study our Bibles, be sure our course of action is right, then follow it boldly and confidently. Our God who spoke the world into existence is certainly able to take care of a few falling chips.

Lynn Parker

Time and the Gospel

The well worn axiom, “All things change with time,” is applicable to many things in life: the physical aspects of the lives of human beings; the temporal configuration of the terrain, weather, etc. of the Earth; countries, kings, and customs; even the emotional dispositions of men.

However, change is not relevant to all things that exist. To the point – God does not change, “For I am the LORD, I change not;therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed” (Malachi 3:6). James also speaks of God immutability, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning” (James 1:17).

To be more precise, God does not change is in His Divine attributes. God does not vary or change concerning His: omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, or immutability. Change is, however, involved in God’s circumstantial will – hence the record of Genesis chapter six.

A circumstance of Biblical history that vividly illustrates the type of change which exists with God (His circumstantial will) is found recorded in the book of Jonah. The barbaric Assyrian people were hideously wicked. Their great evil brought the wrathful justice of God against their capital city of Nineveh (Jonah 1:2). Consequently, God determined to destroy Nineveh (Jonah 3:4). When God’s message of destruction was delivered by the prophet Jonah, the Ninevites heard the Word of God and repented (Jonah 3:4-9). The repentance, or change of mind, of Nineveh changed the mind of God, “And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not” (Jonah 3:10). God had determined to destroy Nineveh – but that determination was based upon the reaction of the Ninevites to God’s Word: God’s will was circumstantial or conditional, in that, if Nineveh repented they would be saved – if not, they would be destroyed.

One should notice what did not change: God’s Word. His Word was the standard of determination. God’s decree went forth to Nineveh, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown,” and the Ninevites reaction to that Word determined God’s further actions.

At the dedication of the temple, which Solomon built, God said, “And if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee, and wilt keep my statutes and my judgments: Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel” (I Kings 9:4-5). If Israel remained obedient to God’s Word they would prosper – if not; they would perish: “But if ye shall at all turn from following me, ye or your children, and will not keep my commandments and my statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods, and worship them: Then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight; and Israel shall be a proverb and a byword among all people” (I Kings 9:6-7). Israel sinned greatly and God turned from blessing Israel, as He had before, and brought great wrath upon them (cf. II Kings 17:1-23; 24:1-4).

Throughout the times of the kings of Israel, God’s Word was the standard by which Israel was judged (such is also true of all of man’s history), “Yet the LORD testified against Israel, and against Judah, by all the prophets, and by all the seers, saying, Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep my commandments and my statutes, according to all the law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you by my servants the prophets. Notwithstanding they would not hear, but hardened their necks, like to the neck of their fathers, that did not believe in the LORD their God” (II Kings 17:13-14). When men rejected God’s Word, God rejected them (II Kings 17:18).

God’s Word remained constant, unchanging. Man changed – God did not (His attributes and His Word which is a product of His attributes). So it has always been with God’s Word. Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35). The immutability of the Word of God qualifies It to be the basis for God’s judgment on that final day, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:48).

The final conclusion, therefore, is: times change and men change but every man’s obligation to be obedient to God’s unchanging Word remains the same.

John Rose

The Bible

This Book contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers. Its doctrine is holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable.

• Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy.
• It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you.
  
• It is the traveler’s map, the pilgrim’s staff, the pilot’s compass, the soldier’s sword, and the Christian’s charter.
• Here Paradise is restored, Heaven is opened, and the ways of Hell are disclosed.
• Christ is its grand object, our good its design, and the redemption of man its end.

Author Unknown

Did Christ Die In Vain?

The whole Christian system centers around the death of Jesus on the cross. He “died for the ungodly” (Romans 5:6, 8). He “gave himself for our sins” (Galatians 1:4). He “gave himself a ransom for all” (I Timothy 2:6). He “laid down his life for us” (I John 3:16). In spite of these and numerous like statements of Scripture, certain things, if true, would mean that Christ died in vain.

• If salvation is by law of Moses: Paul argued: “If righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought” (Galatians 2: 21b). The Galatians had fallen victim to the teaching of Jewish Christians who sought to bind at least parts of the law (i.e., circumcision, 5:2–4; cf. Acts 15:1) upon Gentile Christians. If Moses’ law could have saved, it would not have been necessary for the Word to become flesh (John 1:14). The Hebrew nation had been under that law for 1,500 years by the time of Jesus’ birth. It was but a “tutor” that pointed to the Christ (Galatians 3:24); its sacrifices were but typical of the only “Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29, emph. DM). Jesus slew the authority of Moses’ law on Calvary (Colossians 2:14). All who seek to justify religious practices by it (e.g., sabbath observance, priesthood, instrumental music in worship, holy water, et al.), by implication render the death of Jesus worthless.

• If religious division is right: Though diversity in religion (including various “world religions”) is applauded by the masses, the Bible condemns it. Jesus built only one religion/church (Matthew 16:18), and He intended for its members to be one, as He and the Father are one (which includes/demands doctrinal unity) (John 17:20–23). He did not even tolerate division in a single congregation of His church (I Corinthians 1:10–13). He died to establish this one body (Ephesians 2:16; 5:25). If Jesus is as pleased with the gross divisions in religion as with the one church He established, then “Christ died for nought” in that regard

• If the church is non-essential: Jesus “purchased” His church with His blood, which He shed on the cross (Acts 20:28). Jesus yes, the church no is still a common concept. If one is considering only man-made counterfeits of Jesus’ church, the slogan is true, for He died for none of them. His church consists of those who have been saved from sin and who will be saved eternally through His death (Romans 5:10; Acts 2:38, 41, 47). To include His church merely as one acceptable religion among the many implies that Christ paid that awful price for it in vain.

• If I am lost: Jesus’ death will have been wasted, as far as I am concerned, if I am lost. This will not be the case for others, of course. He “gave himself a ransom for all” (I Timothy 2:6), so all have the opportunity to be saved. But as for me, if I am lost, He may as well have spared Himself the misery of the cross, for it was for nought. It behooves each of us to obey Jesus’ plan of salvation (Acts 2:37–41), whereupon He will add us to His church (Acts 2:47), thereby accepting the salvation He offers. We thus attribute the true value to His death in a very personal way.

Dub McClish

Preventatives

The title of this article is a derivation of prevent. Webster defines prevent to mean:

to be in readiness for (as an occasion): to meet or satisfy in advance: to get ahead of: to arrive before: to deprive of power or hope of acting or succeeding: to keep from happening or existing: to hold or keep back: hinder, stop: to interpose an article (Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary).

The study of polio, mumps, measles, influenza, etc. vaccinations would be classified in the area of preventive medicine. Vaccination, therefore, are for the purpose of depriving the germ or virus of the power to succeed in infecting its host.

As surely as there is preventive medicine for the physical body, there is preventive medicine for the spiritual being. The Great Physician spent much of His earthly ministry vaccinating the disciples against persecution, false teachers, hypocrites, etc. (Matthew 5:11-12; 7:15-20; 6:16). The apostle who had been vaccinated spent much of their time, blood, sweat, heartache, and tears in vaccinating the church against infectious error (Acts 20:28-31; Philippians 3:2; I Timothy 4:1-3; II Timothy 4:3-5). We would do well to receive these vaccinations of love lest we find ourselves unprepared to deal with Satan’s efforts to infect us with sin when they appear (II Corinthians 2:11; Ephesians 6:13; I Thessalonians 5:22).  

There will always be those spiritually weak, insipid, unwise, and short-sighted brethren who believe that one should not preach against the errors of such things as denominationalism, women exercising dominion over men, the divided worship assembly, the error of mechanical instruments of music in the worship of the church, turning the worship of the church into a three- ring circus to entertain the assembly, and a host of other errors infecting the church today. To this present hour unqualified men in the position of elders attempt to justify such a false view by teaching that unless the congregation is having trouble with such things there is no use to mention them much less preach against them. Such a position has no Biblical foundation and is directly opposed to the Biblical idea of being forewarned is to be forearmed. This false view itself must also be exposed and refuted.

If people of this stripe had the same attitude about physical vaccinations as they do about spiritual ones it would be a ridiculous and sorry world indeed. I am thankful that my parents did not have that attitude when it came to the polio vaccine.

Over a century ago brother Moses E. Lard gave this timely warning that will never be out-dated:

The prudent man, who has the care of a family, watches well the first symptoms of disease. He does not wait till his wife is helpless, and his children prostrated. He has learned that early cures are easy cures, while late ones often fail. On this experience he resolutely acts, and the world applauds his wisdom. Why should not this same judicious policy be acted upon in the weighty matters of religion? (Moses E. Lard, “The Work of the Past—The Symptoms of the Future,” Lard’s Quarterly, Vol. II, No. 3, April 1, 1985, pp. 251-262. As quoted in The Search for the Ancient Order, Earl West, Vol. 2, 1950, Cushing-Mallory, Ann Arbor).

Then, as now many brethren refused to see the importance of the Biblical sentiments of Lard, and the church of that day suffered greatly for it. Today the Lord’s church is in the tight grip of a terrible apostasy that has been going on for years and shows no sign of abating. More and more churches are turning back to the beggarly elements of human denominational religion and worldliness.

Much of this digression could have been pre-vented if forty years ago brethren would have received the spiritual vaccinations of those who boldly sounded out the first symptoms of the spiritual errors that greatly infect the body of Christ today. But, sadly, it was not to be. Thus, we must reform and regroup the remaining remnant of faithful saints and press on. The victory is ours, but would it not be wonderful if more of our brethren were as spiritually prudent in the care of God’s family as at least some of them are in the care of their own bodies and those of their physical families?

David P. Brown