OlanHicks.com

PURPOSE STATEMENT

AD 70 AFFIRMATIVE (Ray West)

To begin our discussion, Olan and I have agreed to post a summary of our general position related to the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. My view is commonly called Preterist, which is a term that simply means past. It is essentially the opposite of Futurist. Rather than looking for a future fulfillment of significant Bible Prophecy, especially related to the “End Times”, the Preterist view holds that these prophecies were intended to be, and indeed were, fulfilled in the first century; making them past events to us in the 21st century.

Most Christians acknowledge at least some fulfillment of Biblical prophecy in the first century. In fact, Brother Hicks could rightly be classified a “partial preterist” solely based on his belief that the first section of Matthew 24 (up to about verse 34) was fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (”The AD 70 Theory of Last Things in the Light of Scripture and Natural Facts”, Olan Hicks, page 10, unknown date). But we stand in disagreement about the fulfillment of three major events: The Second Coming of Christ, the General Resurrection of the Dead, and The Judgement.

The gospel message is indeed the greatest story ever told, but it does not begin in the manger. It begins in the very beginning when God made man and placed him along with his mate in a garden toward Eden. Man was told that he could eat of any of the trees in the garden except for one, and was warned that he would die the day he ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen 2:17).

Brother Hicks does not believe that Adam died the day that he ate of the forbidden tree. I asked him a few questions in preparation for this discussion and when I asked if Adam died the day that he sinned, Brother Hicks’ response was:

“No. Death came into the world and death passed upon all men.”

But God did not say that death would come into the world when Adam sinned. God said “…for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” This is, as Brother Hicks would call it, an explicit statement of scripture. And I will submit that if we misunderstand  the problem from the beginning, then there is no way that we can understand the solution that is presented.

When Eve was deceived and Adam followed, God put them out of the garden that very day. In this manner, Adam was separated from God because of sin… he died. Paul confirms that it is sin that results in the death of man in Romans 7:9. Paul says that he was dead. He was not dead physically as he was writing to the Romans at that very time. Yet Paul confirms that basic underpinning of scripture; that sin causes death… not just ultimately but as an immediate and direct result. Sin death is the problem from the very beginning, and it is salvation from sin death that comprises the story told in the Bible from first to last. It is sin death that is pictured in Israel when she sins, it is sin death that is the concern of Paul in the epistles, and it is sin death that Christ came to defeat. Keep in mind this problem of sin death that the Bible presents. It will be an important aspect as we consider how the Bible purports to resolve the original problem of the garden.

Much of what we will discuss will hinge on the writings of Paul, especially in 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4. How are we to understand Paul’s concept of the things about which he writes? In Acts, Paul is repeatedly called on to make a defense for the things that he teaches and repeatedly he asserts that he is teaching only the hope of Israel, speaking nothing except that which was spoken in the Law and the Prophets (Act 24-26). Consider how the Bereans in Acts 17 went about confirming the truth of the things that they were hearing. They searched the scriptures, which for them was the Old Testament scriptures, and confirmed the truth by them, not the other way around. We will do the same thing. Since Paul teaches nothing but what was written in the prophets, we should be able to find that which Paul preaches in those prophets and see what light they shine on the manner and mode of the events that Paul says are “about to come”, especially when Paul explicitly quotes the Old Testament prophets, thereby providing inspired interpretation of the things about which they spoke.

Brother Hicks will isolate certain passages, such as 1 Thess 4 and 2 Peter 3 and claim that they stand on their own as clear statements of scripture. He will likely resist any attempt to understand them in light of the Old Testament scripture on which they are based. He will do the opposite of the Bereans and seek to understand the Old Testament by the New, or worse, accuse me of “uninspired interpretations” that are “pure guess work” as he suggested in his response to the questions I sent him. You the reader are going to have to be the judge of whether I am providing interpretation outside the boundaries of the way in which Paul uses the Law and the Prophets. I do not believe that I will do so.

Within any framework of thought, there are those who take logical implications too far and arrive at conclusions that are not demanded by the core position and are not sensible. We will resist association with the fringe positions of some who call themselves Preterists. Unless unscriptural positions can be shown exegetically to be demanded by the preterist position, we will expect them not to be raised as ad hominem criticism.

It is impossible in 1000 words to present a proof-text summary of a position that I believe takes into account the whole of scripture. I hope that I have provided an outline of the way in which I have and will go about evaluating the claims of any prophetic worldview. I have found the preterist view to be the most logical and most faithful to the entirity of scripture. I hope that I am able to convey that to you in the course of this discussion.In short, I believe:

That as the New Testament texts were being written, the Old Law was made obsolete and would soon vanish away (Heb 8:13)

That when the Law vanished, so would the strength of sin and the sting of death (1 Cor 15). Death would be defeated resulting in the resurrection of 1 Cor 15.

That the resurrection was inextricably tied to the judgement (Daniel 12)

Both of which were tied to the second coming (Daniel 7)

That the Law could not pass away until every bit of it was fulfilled (Matt 5)

And since we are not under the Law today (Brother Hicks agrees) everything written in the Law and the Prophets concerning Christ (which includes the resurrection, judgement and second coming) MUST have been fulfilled by the time it passed.

I believe that our discussion will bear these things out.

AD 70 NEGATIVE (Olan Hicks)

THE AD 70 THEORY COMPARED WITH SCRIPTURE

“If you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and be not moved away from the hope of the Gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.” (Col. 1:23) 

One of the most beautiful things about Christianity is the hope it offers. The Bible says there is one such hope (Eph. 4:4) and Paul, in the passage above, said a condition of reconciliation to Christ is, If we are not moved away from that hope. The one hope of  scripture is called “a living hope” and God’s word says it is “reserved in heaven for you.” (1 Peter 1:3-4) In this discussion I am affirming this future hope, reserved in heaven, and brother West is affirming, as he said, a “preterist” (past) concept of these things, “making them past events to us in the 21st century.” I suggest that is being moved away from the hope of the apostolic Gospel, a very dangerous mistake.

One may wonder how anyone could reach conclusions which directly contradict so many explicit Bible statements as AD 70 advocates do. When I was first approached by advocates of that theory in 1982, I listened carefully to all they said and considered it as open  mindedly as I could. For about a year I spent as much time as I could reading their published materials and corresponding with them, trying to be sure I understood correctly what was being said. But the farther I went in the study the more I realized that this is a problem of abnormal exegetical procedures. 

For instance, a typical procedure is that when they reach a theoretical interpretion they see it as final. Most of us, if we found an explicit scripture statement contradicting our conclusion, would yield to the Bible statement. These men don’t. Instead they doctor the Bible statement to fit their theory. Brother West gives us an example of this in his discussing what happened in the case of Adam and Eve. We know, of course, that they did not die physically that day, they had children after that. Brother West denounces my saying that but then he says they died in a non-physical way too. He wrote, “God put them out of the garden that very day. In this manner Adam was separated from God because of sin…he died.” 

The fact is we don’t have to guess about what happened there. The Bible tells us. Paul wrote concerning Adam’s deed that “through one man sin entered the world and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men.”  (Romans 5:12) This is God’s statement on what happened. Death passed onto the human race that day. But brother West says the sense in which he died was that he was driven out of the garden. Thus a human theory over rules a Bible statement. 

While we live in the flesh our days are few and full of trouble. (Job 14:1) The hope God’s word sets forth is the idea of an eventual release from the flesh with all its trouble and sorrow, and entrance into a new and unending life with God in spiritual bodies. The most prominent feature of the “AD 70” theory is what it does to this hope. It does not expressly say this hope is cancelled but what it does say would seem to amount to that. It says the promises in regard to this hope were all fulfilled in the past, and they all turned out to be symbollic, not literal. It says we have received them but we are still in the flesh and subject to all the sorrow characteristic of it, including death. 

No, I do not isolate 1 Thessalonians 4, 2 Peter 3, nor any scripture passage, Old Testament or New. And certainly I do not over rule any of them with a theory. A major part of my contention is that where the Bible gives an explanation of a point, that statement should be a trump card over any human theory. For instance when Jesus said “Heaven and earth shall pass away,” (Matthew 24:35)  the preterist idea is that He referred to a symbollic event which consisted of military action upon Jerusalem. That is wrong because the Bible describes that passing away in detail in 2 Peter 3. The statements of scripture ought to over rule human speculation, not the other way around. 

Yes, it is correct that the law became obsolete and “vanished away.” Yes, the resurrection was tied to the judgment and these were both tied to the second coming. But that does not support the preterist theory but rather destroys it. The theory that the law “passed away” is the mistake. Jesus said, “Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.”(Mat. 5:17) We need to understand the difference. Those who lived under that law will meet it again at the judgment. The conclusion that “Since we are not under the law today…everything written in the law and the prophets concerning Christ MUST have been fulfilled,” is another mistake in logic. It assumes two untrue things: 1. That the law passed away and 2. that the resurrection, judgment, and second coming have occurred.   

According to scripture the fruition of the Christian’s hope is to be realized at the “second coming of Christ.” “Behold I am coming quickly and my reward is with me, to give to every one according to his work.” (Rev. 22:12) The first plank in the AD 70 theory is that this “second coming” turned out to be the military destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 AD. But vengeance for disobedience was given there, not rewards for faithful service. The Christian hope is for rewards for faithful service, not vengeance for disobedience. Let us not be moved away from that hope.

AD 70 2nd aff. Ray West

I would like to thank Brother Hicks for his opening summary. There are certainly some things in it that I would like to respond to and discuss along the way, but I will try to at least start out adhering to the format we agreed to.

The first question for discussion is the following:

1. The predicted second coming of Christ: Was it to be physical, visible to human eyes, or was it to be symbolic, invisible, seen only in the sense of interpreting an incident in Israel’s history?

For purposes of addressing this question, I am defining “predicted” as any foretelling, prophecy, or typological foreshadowing of the consummating eschatological return or parousia of Christ. I am also interpreting the term “symbolic” as it relates to the metaphorical language used in these predictions, and not in any manner that lessens the reality of the events in question, even if they are found to be spiritual (non-empirical) in their fulfillment.

There are a wealth of passages and prophecies that we could spend a great deal of time examining in order to complete the picture that the scriptures paint of the eschatological arrival of Christ. To begin, let’s look at 1 Thessalonians 4, which virtually all would agree contemplates the second coming that is referred to in the question.

15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

Whatever is the mode of the coming described here and whatever is its timing, we have a number of contingent details that are said to accompany the “coming of the Lord” described by Paul in these verses.

* Christ will descend from heaven

* He will be accompanied by angels

* He will come with the sounding of the trumpet of God

* He will come in the clouds

* He will be joined by both the dead and the living in Christ

About these details, there can be little disagreement. Whatever we may say about he mode and timing of the fulfillment of this passage, the attendant details to this event are clearly delineated. This is, as Bother Hicks calls it, an “explicit scripture statement.”

It is important to notice the beginning of verse 15 where Paul says “For this we say to you by the word of the Lord…”. Paul states that he is here reminding them of what Christ had said. It would be helpful if we had a record of Christ addressing this same sequence of events in support of Paul’s claim.

To that end, please consider Matthew 24:

29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

In this passage, Christ himself foretells a time when the following things will happen:

* He will descend from heaven

* He will be accompanied by angels

* He will come with the sounding of a trumpet

* He will come in the clouds of heaven

* He will gather together all of his elect (those in Christ) to him

Again, whatever your opinion of the mode or timing of the events described here, there is a clear description of a set of details that frame this predicted coming of Christ.

Look carefully at the two lists of details. Can there be any reasonable doubt that these two passages describe the same event? Is it possible that Christ and Paul foretell two different comings of Christ at two different times and for two different purposes using the exact same descriptions of the elements that are contingent to the event itself? Can you imagine the confusion, if so? And God is not the author of confusion.

Again, no matter what your opinion of the mode or timing of the fulfillment of these two passages, it is patently clear that they describe the same singular future (to them) event using language that is to identify how the audience will experience the coming of Christ that is described here. In fact, Paul says that he is speaking the word of the Lord in 1 Thess; and Matt 24 is the only place in all of Christ’s teaching where every single constituent element of 1 Thessalonians 4 is present.

Now, as to the mode and timing of the singular event described in these passages, there is no disagreement between Brother Hicks and myself. In his booklet “The AD 70 Theory of Last Things in the Light of Scripture and Natural Facts”, brother Hicks says on page 10 concerning Matthew 24:1-34:

“Most Bible students agree that in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70 there was a symbolic “coming” of the Lord in vengeance on Israel. In the Old Testament, God often used their enemies to chastise them, and this was predicted in Matt 24 along with the signs that would precede it.”

Brother Hicks affirms that Matt 24:29-31 predicts the coming of the Lord in vengeance on Israel in 70 AD. Since 1 Thess 4 clearly predicts the exact same event along with the exact same contingent elements, he by extension (although he would not admit it) seems to affirm that 1 Thess 4 is also a prediction of the coming of the Lord in vengeance on Israel in AD 70. Thus, the coming of the Lord that is “predicted” was not a physical, bodily, visible coming but rather a coming of Christ “in like manner” as His Father had come before (John 5:19-23) in judgment through the use of earthly nations.

Brother Hicks agrees that Matt 24 (and thus he must with 1 Thess) predicts an event that is foreshadowed by the times and methods by which God  “came” in judgment in the Old Testament. God’s “comings” in judgment in the Old Testament were always fulfilled through the use of earthly nations as the “rod of his anger” to carry out his justice on Israel and other nations. Christ confirms that His “coming” will be “in like manner” as He has seen his Father do in the past. Thus, Christ came in judgment when he utilized the Roman army to chastise Israel as predicted in Matt 24 and 1 Thess 4.

In his response, I would ask that Brother Hicks to be sure to demonstrate exegetically and hermeneutically why Matthew 24 and 1 Thess 4 are different in time and nature, if indeed he still believes that they are.

AD 70 2nd negative (Olan Hicks)

“Test everything. Hold fast to what is good.” (1 Thess. 5:21) The standard for testing is God’s word, for it is the only way any of us can know anything about God or His will. The scriptures are our protection against getting misled. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroghly equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17) But we must show ourselves approved unto God, “a workman who does not need to be ashamed, righty dividing (handling aright) the word of truth.” (2 Tim. 2:15) 

I appreciate brother West’s willingness to present his preterist theory so we may test it in this way. My disagreement with that theory is not a personal reflection on anyone. It is simply obeying God. I do not question the intentions of AD 70 advocates. I question their mishandling of scripture. It is not because they disagree with me. It is because they disagree with express statements of God. No one can make something true that isn’t and no one can make something untrue if it is true. Anytime we find we have been mistaken about something, that is not a defeat, it is a victory. Now we can correct it. By the divine standard let’s consider the question of Jesus’ second coming.

The Bible speaks of instances of a symbolic “presence” of Christ. In that sense He was with Israel in the wilderness. He was with the apostles when the Holy Spirit came to them, and He was also with the apostles when they were brought before courts. But the Bible also speaks of a literal, physical presence. In this sense Jesus came to earth once, being born of Mary. In this sense He will return once, physically, which makes it a “second coming.” If it were another symbolic coming the number would be far higher than “second.” In Hebrews 9:28 the text says, “To those who eagerly wait for Him, He will appear a second time, apart from sin, unto salvation.” The word “appear” there is a translation of the Greek word from which we get the word “opthalmology.” It refers to visibility by sight. The text says He will “appear” a second time. Failure to see this distinction is the central mistake of the AD 70 theory. They realize His first coming was literal but they think His second coming is symbolic.

Ray misses this distinction in the two “comings” Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24. He thinks there is only one there. To support this notion he tries to make the “coming” of Mat. 24:30 match the coming of 1 Thess. 4 and asks if I can demonstrate that they are not the same one. He cited some similarities between them but the fact is there are also significant differences and he missed those. He interpreted Paul’s statement “by the word of the Lord” as meaning that Paul was referring to what Jesus said in Mat. 24:29-31. Why? What about the rest of what Jesus said in that same discourse? Are those words not also the “word of the Lord”? Why are they disregarded? Especially significant in this regard is what Jesus said after verse 34. He speaks there of a “coming” that is very different from the one described first, and undoubtedly this is the one to which Paul referred. Can we demonstrate that these two are different in time and nature? We certainly can in the scripture itself. The differences are glaring.

Note first that at the coming mentioned after verse 34, “Heaven and earth will pass away.” That is not said of the first one. Notice also it is a coming that will occur “in a time when you think not,” as opposed to the first one that would have signs indicating its approach. Of that one everyone could know. Of this one nobody can know. How could one miss these differences and think that these two comings are the same one? 

Another of the differences is the language. In the first one at verse 30 Jesus said that “The sign of the Son of Man” would appear and “The Son of Man” will be coming on the clouds of heaven. But of the second one He said in verse 42, “Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming.” This is the language Paul uses in 1 Thess. 4. He said, “The Lord” will descend. He did not speak of a “sign of the Son of Man” nor any symbolism, but said, “The Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout…” The Greek text is “autos ho kurios,” literally Himself the Lord. It means the Lord in person. This agrees with Revelation 1:7, “Behold He comes with clouds and every eye (ophthalmos) shall see Him.” Why did Paul say the Lord will personally descend? That is not said of the event of 70 AD. The many differences demonstrate that these two are different in time and nature.

Brother West cites John 5:19-23 as a passage saying that his coming will be in like manner as He had seen His Father do in the past. I invite the reader to look at those verses and see that not a single word is said there about any coming, about any manner of coming, nor anything related to our question. Yes, God has at times “visited” people with punishment. But it is quite a stretch to make that into a description of the return of Christ. Why is that offered instead of the Bible passage where the manner of His return is expressly stated?  In Acts 1:11 two angels told the disciples,“This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.” AD 70 theorists too often use interpreted conclusions instead of Bible statements.

Remarkably this kind of idea came up in the time of the apostles and they condemned it specifically. “Now brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come.”(2 Thess. 2:1-2) In 2 Timothy 2:17-18 Paul mentioned two men by name who were “saying that the resurrection is already past, and they overthrow the faith of some.” He called it “a cancer.” Paul’s statements are timeless, applicable to all ages of time, for the simple reason that as long as the world is populated and the cemeteries are still full, the resurrection is not past.

The AD 70 theory is based in mishandling of the scriptures and the concept is specifically condemned in the Bible.

With brotherly love;

Olan Hicks

WHAT STRATEGY FOR FIXING THE CHURCH OF CHRIST?

Recently I was sitting in a hospital waiting room. A man came and sat down beside me who was quite talkative. He said his view is that most of what is in the Bible is optional, “You can take it or leave it.” He said he was raised a Baptist but he did not like their practice of people telling other people what to believe. So he went to a Presbyteran church and there the preacher told him he was right and encouraged him to think that way. To him, preaching the word and standing by your convictions amounts to humans telling other humans what to believe. That is offensive to him. If you think that way you can find preachers in many churches who will re-enforce that attitude and stand with you on it. Does that mean it is right?

The alarming part is that today many preachers in the church of Christ preach a concept that amounts to about this same thing. Several of them are featured speakers on our largest lectureships. They have come to believe that their heritage was wrong and now they intend to change it. Their efforts have generated a movement over the country toward removing some of the structural beams of the church. They know that churches of Christ have been known for  strong convictions and these men don’t like that. They know these churches have not hesitated to speak out against what they perceive as doctrinal errors and they have decided it is not acceptable to do that. They know that these folks believe that Christ’s church is exclusive, that He built only one, and the way to eternal life is strait and narrow. That is a concept they are not willing to have be the case.

Consider the thought process behind this. The man in the waiting room was not thinking about our responsibility to deliver God’s message accurately. He was focused on what he liked personally. Even so, the men who are rebuking the church for rejecting man made denominational doctrines and for believing there is but one way of salvation, are not thinking in terms of what God has said but in terms of what is pleasing to themselves and what will please the most people. Popular opinion has it that if we make the way broad and flexible we will be acting as nice persons. The statement of Jesus that the way is strait and narrow is disregarded, along with the fact that making the way broad and flexible is not ours to give. They resent the idea of exclusiveness but God’s word says there is “one body and one Spirit even as you are called in one hope of your calling.” Christ’s church was not built as a multi-headed monstrosity,” as suggested in today’s Christendom. He did not leave His church with no specific message nor did He expect it to formulate doctrines that would be most popular.

In the 1960s the UPI reported that churches of Christ were the fastest growing religious body in America. What were we preaching then? We were teaching people that “the real thing” is what you find in the bible. We told them, “Jesus built a church and He meant for you to be a part of it.” We urged them, “Just obey the Gospel as it is written, and He will add you to His church. You will be nether Catholic, protestant, nor Jew, but just a Christian.” People by the thousands were finding security with God and unity with each other in Christ. 

Many people now are searching for that, as evidenced in the many groups called, “Community church” “Bible church” “apostolic church” etc. They are searching for the nonsectarian real thing, what we used to preach, and not finding it because we are no longer preaching it. Instead we are now embedded with the idea of competing in the religious market place. “Whose leaders have made the best church?” “Which church is most popular?” “Who has the most entertaining type of worship assembly?” Yes, we still put the name of Christ out front, as most groups do. But we are calling attention to ourselves more than to Christ.  Now our numbers are about half what they were in the 1960s. The most tragic part is that now the real Gospel, the “message preached,” by which God said He would save the world, is not what the people are getting. They are getting their ears tickled with a “feel good” sales routine by which “fables” are made to sound like reality.

Satan has always wanted to dismantle the church, or counter its effectiveness, because it means salvation. Jesus purchased it with His blood. It seems that now we have many within the church who are collaborators with the evil designs against it, without realizing it. God intends the church to be the pillar and ground of the truth. The command, “Preach the word, in season, out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine,” is not an order issued by fanatical leaders of some man made cult. It is what God’s word commands. The apostle’s rebuke of the Corinthians for creating those religious factions was not written just to fill space. The warning Jesus gave, “Beware of false prophets that come to you in sheep’s clothing,” was not given because Jesus was ugly spirited or did not want peace and unity. Deleting these is opposing God.

Yes, we do need to correct our ways. But not  by the concepts of popular opinion, the rudiments of the world. The measuring standard needs to be the wisdom of God, what He gave to us in His word the Bible. That word points to salvation. Human opinion points to “ways that seem right to a man but the end of it is a way of death.” What the Bible says is unchangeable truth. It is not optional. We do not do anyone a favor by encouraging them to believe it is optional, least of all ourselves. “Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.” (1 Tim. 4:16)

WHAT IS BIBLICAL UNITY?

Evidently many of us need to learn what this word means in Biblical usage. Too many among us think that in deciding whether to unite with certain persons or groups we are decidng who to let in the kingdom and who to shut out. But the Bible says that is God’s business. “The foundation of God stands sure having this seal, the Lord knows those who are His.” (2 Tim. 2:19) If I think a brother is faithful and I accept him as such, but he isn’t, that mistake on my part will not change anything about his spiritual condition. Or if I think one is not faithful and he really is, that mistake will not make him unacceptable to God. In other words God decides who is acceptable to Him. But whether one is acceptable to us is something we must decide. This is a serious responsibility, not of passing judgment on who is right but of taking a stand on what is right. God will know WHO is WHO without our help. But the Bible assigns obligations to us in the matter of unity and we need to understand them. 

Some clever cliches have developed among us such as, “Wherever God has a child I have a brother or sister.” Or “Any person who has been born again into Christ is my brother or sister.” It sounds good and makes me look like a nice, kind person, but does it accurately represent what the Bible says? When God has condemned something and I pronounce it acceptable, I am being “kind” with something that is not mine to give. The choices we make concerning unity are gravely serious. For example there was a brother in the church at Corinth of whom Paul said, “Put away from yourselves the evil person.” (1 Cor. 5:13). God had a child there and he had been born again. But Paul said don’t even eat with such a person. (vs. 11) Diotrephes was a church leader. But he was so wrong in his conduct that John said God’s gonna get him for that. (3rd John 10) The matter of God’s judgment on him is one thing. Our fellowship with him is another.

Another cliche is, “He was born into God’s family and therefore he is our sibling.” This sounds good in a sermon and it might make one popular with many folks, but it is a misleading bit of human “logic.” Unity and genetic origin are not the same thing. Peter speaks of persons who were once in Christ but turned back into sin and said that in such a case he is worse than one who was never in Christ at all. (2 Peter2:20-21)  

There are two Greek words for “one.” The usual word for one in number is “mias” and the word for one in kind or similarities is “hen.” In Eph. 4:3 the word “unity” is translated from “hen,” which is the neuter of “heis.” (henotata is the form) The meaning is oneness, not in number but in kind.

A saying that is common among us is, “The Holy Spirit has given unity. All we have to do is keep it.” This idea confuses UNITY and PEACE. It is true that God has given us a way of peace and harmony. But that harmony can be disrupted , by wrong doctrines and other things. Paul wrote, “But we command you brethren, by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us.” (2 Thess. 3:6) Peter said that just as there were false prophets who corrupted the truth in OT times, “even so there shall be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies. . .” (2 Pet. 2:1) Among the last things Paul said to the Romans was “Note those who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you learned and avoid them.” (16:17) We are not to fellowship everything that claims to be “Christian.”

Some liken brotherhood unity to a marriage. That is a good illustration. Jesus said it is God’s intention that two people become “one flesh” and that they must not put that oneness asunder. Concerning a married couple Paul said, “God has called us to peace.” But that peace is often destroyed. A man and his wife may have different opinions about some things and yet continue united in the marriage. But we know that they can have a one flesh relationship only if they are in substantial agreement on basic things. In a case where that oneness is disrupted Paul said “Be reconciled.” (1 Cor. 7:11) Jesus said the same thing about disruption of peace between brethren. “Go and tell him his fault… If he hears you, you have gained your brother.”(Mat. 18)

Satan is “the lawless one.” (2 Thess. 2:9) His efforts to cloud the teachings of God’s word are not without purpose. Every effort he makes to distort the truth is aimed at this central issue between him and God, “lawlessness.” He wants us to lay aside God’s laws or commandments and remove the divine standard for measuring doctrines. But God says, “Beware of false prophets.” Let’s remember our obligation to “judge not.” We must not judge persons. But we have to judge doctrines. “Test everything. Hold fast to what is good.” (1 Thess. 5:21) Lawlessness is wrong. Lawfulness is right.

Unity is a high priority for Christians. But truth is an even higher priority. We must not sell out the truth, not even for unity. No one has authority from God to command His people to fellowship what God has condemned. That is not a spirit of good will and Biblical unity, it is unfaithfulness. To whom we yield ourselves servants to obey, his servants we are. (Romans 6:16) Lawlessness is of Satan. Obedience is of God. We cannot be neutral and be faithful.

BOOKS & MATERIALS AVAILABLE FROM US

 Unusually low prices:  Because we do our own type setting and publish our own books, you will find our prices much lower than the average. This does not reflect any inferiority in writing or binding but simply that we do not set prices any higher than necessary. Our prices are in round figures, no “99s” here. We want no one deceived about what he is paying for a book. We have n0 credit card connections. Place your order at our e-mail address and we will invoice you.  E-mail: gospelen@arkansas.net   Or mail address: PO box 1253, Searcy, AR  72145-1253     Or phone 501-268-6835

Message update: DVDs available. We now have the three lesson MDR seminar on DVD. This is the complete three session study presented at El Paso, Texas in 2004.  All three lessons are on one disc. 1. What the text actually says.  2. How Paul understood Jesus.  3. How Grace applies. Price: $15 plus $2 first class shipping.

The price is $15 plus $2 first class shipping.

BOOKS ON DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE

1. What the Bible Says about marriage divorce, and remarriage. Our most thorough indepth study of this entire subject. Published by College Press originally in hard back, now available only in paperback.  288 pages — $10 plus shipping.

2. Two books in one, Divorce & Remarriage the Issues made clear, and Divorce, repentance, and the Gospel of Christ. Two of our most popular books together in one volume. Includes two chapters on the history of the controversy in the restoration movement and what respected leaders of the past have said about it. Explains many points that have been misunderstood and misrepresented. Many have found this book very helpful. Total of 157 pages. $5 plus shipping.

3. Divorce & Remarriage, the bible Vs. tradition. First published in 1978 with the title “What the Bible Says about marriage, divorce, & remarriage.” Now expanded to 112 pages. Appendix deals with 10 opposition arguments and has been updated to include the latest information brought to light on those points. Easy reading, starting with a story book format. $3 plus shipping.

4. God’s Land of Beginning Again. A small but effective book to help marriages in trouble and to help people who have experienced the trauma of divorce and must now chart a future course. Co-authored by Olan & Barbara, this book sets forth a woman’s perspective as well as a man’s on some crucial issues. If you are trying to help someone who has this probem, this little book can help.     64 pages –  $3 plus shipping.

BOOKS ON OTHER SUBJECTS

5. Church of Christ let’s examine ourselves. The restoration movement was begun by men of considerable intelligence and was anchored in solid Biblical ideals. But in later generations the movement fell into the hands of men with less than perfect understanding of its original principles. As is the case with most great religious movements, the time has come when it needs a “thousand mile checkup.” This book is designed to help us see the real flaws and call us back to the original anchor, comparison with the scripture text.   Includes a chapter on translations.  96 pages–$5 plus S & H. 

6. The restoration movement side tracked. Documents how Daniel Sommer’s legalistic views turned the church of Christ to a more divisive stance in the late 1800s and resulted in the division over instruments and many other divisions that occured in the 20th century. We suggest that a return to the fundamentals of the original movement would solve many of our problems. It also chronicles my own pilgrimage out of the anti-instrument position and the Bible reasons for that change. 64 pages–$4 plus S & H

TWO CONTROVERSIAL DISCUSSIONS IN PEACEFUL DIALOGUE: 7. Apostate church - authentic church. Buff Scott affirmed that the word “church” does not translate the Greek word “ekklesia,” that the whole idea of church is an apostasy and that building and using church buildings is idolatry. Olan Hicks affirmed that “church” is a correct translation of “ekklesia,” that Jesus did build a church, is the divinely appointed head of it, that God adds the saved to that church, and that it does exist and is locatable in today’s world.   96 pages - $3 plus S & H.

8. HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE. Two opposing views on hermeneutics. Chuck Dorsey is a graduate of the very conservative Freed-Hardeman University, and for 12 years worked at planting churches of that kind. But he left that doctrinal position and gravitated to an opposite extreme. He is now a “pastor” in the very liberal “Disciples of Christ” church. In this exchange Chuck affirmed the tenets of a liberal manner of interpreting the Bible and Olan Hicks affirmed that all scripture is God breathed and should be taken exactly as written. Although both men agree that the scriptures are the inspired word of God, there is a big difference in how each believes that word should be handled. This is a dialogue in the right spirit, a very good study of how to use the Bible.   96 pages - $4 plus shipping & handling.

9. THE AD 70 THEORY of last things.  A 32 page treatment showing the errors of this theory in the light of scripture and natural facts. $2 plus $1 shipping.

10. WHAT IF WE DISAGREE?  Emphasizing Biblical procedures for maintaining unity. The proposition here is that God cares very much about what we do in case of disagreement. The Bible gives many more  specific instructions on this point than most Christians realize or have ever studied. Suitable for class or group studies, with questions at the end of each chapter. This book has been very helpful to many churches.  80 pages - $4 plus shipping.

11. THREE NIGHT DEBATE ON DIVORCE & REMARRIAGE: Olan Hicks - Mac Deaver Held in middle Tennessee in 1995. In this one the real issues were more clearly understood and treated than in any previous debates. In answer to a question Mac said he does not believe that a man who puts away an innocent wife and marries another commits adultery because adultery is a sex act and therefore occurs in the sex practices of the next marriage. I affirmed that Jesus spoke the truth when He said that adultery is committed in ding those two things, and Paul spoke the truth when he said that every man should have a wife and every woman a husband, to avoid immorality, and further said that a man who has been put away by his wife does not sin if he marries.  188 pages.  $5 + $2 S & H 

THE EVILS OF FORBIDDING MARRIAGE

1 Timothy 4:1-3

One of the strongest condemnations found anywhere in scripture is here in what this passage says about the doctrine of forbidding marriage. So please note that it comes from God. This is not a personal opinion on my part. The inspired apostle Paul says here that the Spirit (the Spirit of God) expressly predicted that in latter times some brethren would do five things. 1. depart from the faith, 2. give heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 3. speak lies in hypocrisy, 4. have a seared conscience, and 5. forbid people to marry and command to abstain from foods. This is strong language. Yet most people have never realized how evil this particular doctrine is. Look at the evil deeds specified in this text. 

1. “Depart from the faith.” This is to turn from what God’s word says. Marriage forbidders do this. I don’t think it is intentional but the first mistake in the current version of this departure is to revise the statement of Jesus in Mat. 19:6, i.e. depart from it. Whereas Jesus said, “What God has joined together let not man put asunder,” these brethren say, “What God has joined together man cannot put asunder.” Thus they conclude that divorced persons are still married “in the eyes of God.” The command “Do not” is changed to “cannot,” and becomes a declaration of impossibility. Upon that step a pyramid of error is built which ends up literally departing from the faith, the Biblical concept of this subject.  It ends up denying virtually every passage on the subject throughout the New Testament.

2. “Giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons.” How is Satan behind this? Why would he want marriage eliminated from anyone’s life? In 1 Corintians 7 Paul said three times in the first 9 verses that marriage is God’s appointed way for us to avoid sexual immorality. Satan does not want that avoided, he wants it practiced. Of course then, since marriage is a deterrent to immorality, Satan wants it deleted. Thus two opposite sides are in this picture. God is for marriage and against divorce and Satan is for divorce and against Marriage. Those who try to eliminate marriage from someone’s life are on Satan’s side of this equation.

3. “Speaking lies in hypocrisy.” For a long time I wondered why Paul said this. Where is the hypocrisy in the “marriage forbidden” doctrine? If you notice what they write or hear them preach, you will find that every article and every sermon is a tirade about how wrong it is to divorce, as though that were the issue of difference between us. It is not. They pretend to be opposing divorce when the fact is they oppose marriage itself and not divorce at all. A person might be divorced, completely without cause, and upon repentance, he will be acceptable to them while he remains divorced. But if he marries, then he will be disfellowshiped. So it is not divorce that they oppose actually, but marriage itself. Thus it is a pretense, or hypocrisy.

4. “Having their conscience seared as with a hot iron.” Again I have wondered, where does a seared conscience fit in the picture of marriage forbidders? Most of them I have talked with seem to have no feeling at all for the cruelty that the marriage forbidden decree imposes. I have seen them sentence young boys 20 to 25 years of age, to life long celibacy and seem not to mind doing that at all. Concerning the idea “not to marry” Jesus said, “Not all can receive that saying,” Mat. 19:11. Paul said the same thing, that some have the gift of celibacy and some do not. For those who do not he said, “Let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn.” (1 Cor. 7:8-9) Surely anyone who can give some thought to the fact that eliminating marriage is setting aside our defense against immorality, and to the fact that doing so places a normal person in a condition of burning, and yet can exert force to demand this of a fellow human being, must have a non-working conscience.

5. “Forbidding to marry.” At the creation God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make a helpmeet for him.” (Gen. 2:18) It is remarkable that men could come along thousands of years later and issue an opposite decree, “forbidding to marry.” That command is purely a human assumption. God not only did not give it, He decreed the opposite. Men have tried all sorts of maneuverings to try to make God say this but He didn’t. They site Ezra 10. But those people were only forbidden to marry heathen wives. They were not forbidden to marry anyone. They site Herod’s case with Herodious. But he was only forbidden to have his brother’s wife. He was not  told he could have no wife at all. No one in scripture was ever told that he was “ineligible to marry.” It is as Foy Wallace Jr. said, God did not prescribe that sentence as the punishment for marriage breaking and preachers who do so are ascending the judge’s bench. (Sermon on the Mount and the Civil State, pg. 41-42)

Opposing divorce is right. God said He hates that. But to make divorce a second unpardonable sin is a more evil thing than most folks realize. When you think about the fact that it is first a departure from the faith, that is bad enough in itself.  And second, it is a doctrine authored by Satan. It serves his purposes. How can that be acceptable? Thirdly it is imbedded in an attitude of hypocrisy, pretending to be what you aren’t. And beyond that it takes a person of unfeeling conscience to swallow it, and fifthly it is opposite to what God decreed from the very first.

Remember, these are five things the Bible says about that doctrine. Not a single one of them is from me. I simply ask you to open your Bible and look.

A final note: One of the keys to their mistake of  blocking the application of grace to this sin, is the fact that they move the sin. Jesus said the “adultery” is committed when one puts away an innocent wife and marries another. These men say, “No, adultery is a sex act and cannot be committed that way. It occurs in the sexual activity of the next marriage.” So they make the sin to be in the practice of the next marriage. Either they are wrong or Jesus was wrong and so was Paul. Forbidding marriage is a doctrine of Satan and is very, very evil. Don’t be deceived by it.

CHANGE CAN BE GOOD OR NOT GOOD

When we do not like the present state of things we want change, of course. In spiritual matters that change needs to be toward the original divine prescription, not away from it. In fact in all areas of life we want the change to be for the better, not for the worse. Change for the sake of change is not necessarily good, especially if it is directed only by human tastes and ingenuity, not by Biblical decree.

Most of us know that during the 20th century many churches of Christ came to be known for some undesirable characteristics. One of these was a judgmental attitude. Another was too much commitment to our traditions, including some that were man made theories. Another was a loss of objectivity in handling the scriptures. For several years now, many in the church and out have recognized that some flaws have developed and are calling loudly for change. Let’s think about the idea of change realistically.

In American society it has often come about, especially in recent years, that change is called for. In the last election the ground swell outcry was for change. Most of the campaign promises by the candidates were focused on what they were going to change. The people were demanding that. Now I think we may have to learn that the mere fact of change may not be the answer. It has to be the right kind of change.

America has often seen movements calling for change. In the 1960s the “hippie” culture was a revolution against “the establishment,” the traditional American way of life. They demanded change, but not toward a higher form of civilization but toward a lowering of behavior standards. Ironically, they often clashed violently with another revolution which was going on at the same time. The “civil rights” movement was demanding more justice for black folks. That situation did need changing but in the right way. Among both of these groups people were disatisfied with the circumstances in which they lived and were insisting loudly that change had to occur. But both were much less than accurate in the kind of change needed. The hippie group needed to learn that “freedom” does not mean the right to lay aside personal responsibility. That is not a workable concept. The civil rights group needed to learn that you cannot make laws especially favoring one race of people and not have them be applied to other races also. Laws governing a whole nation have to be balanced in their application. Changes just for the sake of change may not improve the situation at all.

Both John the Baptist and Jesus came preaching repentance, which is a call for change. Both came to a nation which had back slidden from God. The change they needed was to return to the original divine directives. In our case today the problem is also a departure in some ways from the original way that God prescribed. Our need is not change to something new, motivated by personal preferences or a desire to be popular, but change driven by the realization that we are off course and need to return to God’s way. This is what too many change advocates now being heard most are not seeing. They are not wrong because they call for change but because the kind of change they call for would replace one error with another error, just as bad or worse.

We need to fix what is broken, not what is not broken. Several things they call “mistakes” and want to change are Biblical decrees. For instance, instead of saying “strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life,” they want to broaden the way enough to include just about all systems which claim to be Christian. They say our emphasis on correct doctrine was a mistake and we should change that. They believe we should not should preach the doctrine of Christ “in season, out of season,” (a Biblical decree) but we should preach love and fellowship and unite with virtually all religious groups. The Bible says, “Let God be true but every man a liar,” but they seem to regard popular opinion as an authoritative voice. 

 So we agree that remedial change is needed. Let’s join together in a call for change. But let it be a change of improvement, not further deterioration. Any of the things we do which the Bible says to do are not wrong, such as refusal to compromise with error, recognizing that the way to life is narrow, diligently trying to handle the word rightly and get the doctrine of Christ correct, and boldly preaching the word whether popular opinion approves or not. Our mistakes are in things not in harmony with scripture, such as an attitude of judgmentalism, binding laws beyond what is mandated in scripture, dividing and drawing lines of fellowship where God has not drawn them, and not being careful enough to compare every suggested teaching with the entire Bible. Let’s fix these wrongs, not the things that are right. The purpose of the scriptures is “doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness, that the man of God might be complete, fully furnished unto every good work.” (2 Ti. 3:16) This is exactly what we need right now. Making course corrections by that standard will bring about changes that are right.

AMERICA ILLUSTRATES A BIBLICAL POINT

We constantly hear it said, “This is the greatest country in the world.” Folks who have open eyes recognize that the reason it is great is because of God’s blessings on it. A song we regularly sing is “God Bless America.” But have you thought about why God blessed America so greatly? Was it because the early settlers asked Him to? The lands they left in Europe were filled with people asking God to bless them. But these people left those countries to seek something better. Why did they get God’s attention so lavishly?

The early settlers of America did not just utter words of praise and engage in rituals with little meaning. They acted on what they believed the word of God says as it applied to everything they did. They came here to find freedom to practice what they believed. They enacted laws based on Biblical precepts. They practiced Biblical principles in their relationship with each other, as they understood them. Every legal document they wrote began with a prayerful appeal for God’s help to carry it out. They established ”one nation under God with liberty and justice for all.” This brought God’s blessings on this nation and resulted in the greatest country the world ever knew.

 This illustrates a fundmental fact of scripture. Lip service and obedience are not the same thing. They will not produce the same result. Most Americans still praise God in words and most Americans still pray. But our regard for His commands has taken a reversal. As that has happened our problems have multiplied. Our laws now, instead of appealing for God’s help, command that He be not recognized publicly at all. Now we cannot even pray to Him in a public place. The results of this attitude shift have come swiftly and definitively. Immorality grows more popular every day. Strong efforts are now being made to legalize all kinds of evil, from abortion to homosexuality and drug abuse. Crime increases steadily and our streets are no longer safe. Vocal praise is on the lips of many whose heart is full of wickedness. God is not blessing America as He once did. The beautiful way of life that faith built is now being destroyed by a lack of faith in the sovereignty of God and the fact that human opinion is prevalent. Lip service now stands in the place where obedience to commands once stood. 

The saddest part of all is that too many of the churches are in many ways on the same wave length. For too many people “The Gospel way” has been reduced to a personal panacea where the idea of obeying God’s laws is repulsive. It is widely preached that commandment keeping is an “anti-grace” concept. This is a very bad choice as it tends to reduce Christianity to “feel good” rituals of lip service. Conditions in the churches are not much above conditions in the outside world. God is not blessing the church as He once did either.

Around 1800 the pioneers of the restoration movement put in place the idea of returning the Bible to a place of absolute authority for believers. Laying aside all submission to human opinions or authority they sought to restore the pure Gospel of the Bible and to be just Christians under the headship of Jesus. Again, God blessed that movement as He had blessed the pioneers of American liberty, because it honored His word. Tremendous good was done by the power of the Gospel for about a hundred years. But alas, this movement also came under the influence of too much human theory and veered off course, first toward excessive legalism and then to a reactionary liberalism.

The answer to it all is to become realistic enough to recognize that “The way of man is not in himself. It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.” (Jer. 10:23) God said that His ways and His thoughts are as far above those of man as the heavens are above the earth. (Isa. 55:8) It has been repeatedly demonstrated, in the history of nations and in the history of churches, that lip service will not substitute for obedience to the will of almighty God. Satan has us held captive to the juvenile attitude of childish competition, “My church is better than your church” and “Oh, you think you’re right and everyone else is wrong!” etc. We need to accept the fact that God is right even if that means that all men are liars. Praising God in words is a right thing to do. But boistrous words of praise will not cover the fact that we are out of step with the commands of God as given in His word. When we open our eyes and make adjustments of our ways as directed by the Bible, God will bless our efforts. As long as we refuse to do that we will be of those of whom the bible predicted “They will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.” (2 Tim. 3:13) In succeeding verses the divine answer to that is to stick faithfully to the scriptures, “which are able to make you wise to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

Today’s America badly needs to have the church, as the pillar and ground of the truth, stand up and point the way back to God’s version of greatness. We need to do more than sing “God Bless America” and pray for that. We need to join with God in bringing that about. It is beyond lip service.