OlanHicks.com

PURPOSE STATEMENT

PROGRESSIVES & THE OLD SCHOOL

The encyclopedia defines progressivism in society this way: “Progressivism is an umbrella term for a political ideology advocating or favoring social, political, and economic reform or changes.” In other words they want to upgrade the system. The problem is that what they advocate as “progress” leads in directions away from our constitution, which produced a great America, and toward ideologies that have failed in other countries, such as socialism.

In churches of Christ today there is a growing emergence of a similar attitude. Those promoting it call themselves “progressives.” The mistake is the same as with progressivism in society. The “progress” being advocated goes in a direction away from the original constitution of the church, given by Christ through the apostles, and toward the very principles of human religious theory that have produced chaos and confusion in Christendom.

It is commendable to want to make improvements in our service to the Lord, to improve our own quality, to “fix” all that is wrong in the churches. But these need to be improvements in our execution, becoming better at carrying out the assignments the Lord gave 2,000 years ago, not attempts to make improvements in God’s message and in the way God has prescribed for man to live on the earth. This was the mistake of the Israelites. When they got into Canaan they “progressed” beyond God’s way and were lured into practicing the ways of the pagans and God said to them,“Thus says the Lord, ‘Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it. Then you will find rest for your souls.” (Jer.6:16) To that He added: “They have caused themselves to stumble in their ways, from the ancient paths, to walk in pathways and not on a highway.” (Jer. 18:15)

Now all across the land there are congregations that want to be known as “progressive churches of Christ.” Some web sites are posting a list of these and inviting others to identify themselves as such. And they are going where? We are reminded of what Peter said, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68) God’s word says, “He who goes onward and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.” (2 John 9)

Doctrinal progressivism usually reflects a presumptious attitude. They think they know some things the rest of us do not. It seems to be the same in the church and in the secular world. The typical “progressive” seems to think himself, or herself, mentally superior. When we point out to the political progressive that he is contradicting our constitution he gives a lengthy “explanation” and implies that we are not clear minded. When we point out to religious progressives that much of what they say contradicts what God said in the Bible, they give a long “explanation” and imply that we are out dated and do not have much “understanding.”

To me the opposite appears to be true, these people are way less than superior. They seem unable to digest the idea of a fixed message from God. They are caught up in theories and rationalizations so that the clearest and most explicit Bible statement just goes by them. They appear to confuse education with intelligence. Ronald Reagan said it well. “The trouble with liberals is not that they are ignorant. Its just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

I am from “the old school. We were taught that “the way of man is not in himself. It is not in man who walks to direct his steps.” None of us are wise compared to  the mind of God. The way to stay on course docrinally is to check with the scriptures. Paul said it works, that the scriptures are “profitable for doctrine, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God might be fully equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:16) I do not accept the appeals to “come on up to the 21st century.” That is not progress, it is digression. God’s covenant was given in the first century, not the 21st century. I will do as Jude said, “Earnestly contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” Paul said “in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.” (1 Tim. 4:16) It is spiritual disaster to have too much respect for one’s own intelligence and too little respect for God.

A GREAT BIG DIFFERENCE

Most folks who know me know that my ministry is active in opposing both legalism and liberalism. Liberals also say they are opposing legalism. But that in no way means that our causes are the same. My approach is 180 degrees opposite to theirs. Legalists also say they oppose liberalism. But that in no way means that our causes are the same because I too oppose liberalism. My approach is not like that of legalists because theirs is wrong in many ways. God’s word opposes both the extreme left and the extreme right. A wrong approach produces wrong conclusions.

My work on the divorce subject among churches of Christ has been successful mainly for two reasons, (1) my approach to controversy and (2) the nature of my proof. I did not build a “gang” and try to pressure the opposition or to silence them. I only asked brethren to open their Bibles and look again at what the Lord said and let’s discuss it in the Christian spirit. I did not call them ugly names and I did not generate hatred or division between two parties. Anyone has a right to disagree with me and I did not resent their doing so. I was willing to confront their arguments with honest answers and to consider every scripture they put forth. I have never asked anyone to agree with me on any basis other than Biblical accuracy. I met them in 8 public debates where both sides had equal opportunity to be heard.

This is not the way today’s liberal element does things nor is it the way the legalists do things. Al Maxey and Edward Fudge openly resent being disagreed with and most of what they write and preach consists of anathemas against people who have the gaul to dispute what they say. Maxey did correspond with me for a long time but when he was sure I would not accept his theories he decided I was not worthy of his time. Terry Rush did offer a few arguments on behalf of his position but he made it clear that he did so reluctantly, that he did not like being disagreed with.The response from Marvin Phillips offered very little in the way of defense of his position and very soon he wrote, “This correspondence has got to stop!” All of the men I have met in today’s liberal element occupy the same position concerning procedure as the men who lead the various denominations. Their approach is that they want to preach their interpretations and they want you to listen submissively as though they are wise and you are not. They want to give you many quotations from theologians who agree with their view and they want that to be accepted as authoritative. They are not willing to give sensible and accurate Biblical answers to your challenges. They profess to answer questions but only do so in the sense of long range “shots” from behind a barricade.

Died in the wool legalists are not much different. They embrace a variety of laws not found in scripture. The basic premise underlying most of them is “the law of silence,” an invention originating with Daniel Sommer. For some it is the “ceni” hermeneutic. Some legislate against eating in the church building, some oppose plural communion cups, some oppose Sunday school classes, and most of them oppose instrumental music in worship and consider it a matter of fellowship. They also shoot from behind barricades and are reluctant to have their positions examined. They claim to be open to “discussion” but when you attempt that you find their minds closed. They pronounce you “anathema” from the start.

Yes, there are many blindly following the path laid out by the liberals and there are many who think that legalism is a mark of “faithfulness.” Both parties need to know that Jesus is not in that number and neither are the apostles. Jesus said, “For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light that his deeds may be clearly seen that they have been done in God.” (John 3:20-21) Both Peter and Paul repeatedly warned about perverted teachings among our own brethren. Paul said that an elder must “be able, by sound doctrine, to exhort and convict those who contradict.” (Titus 1:9) Honest examination is the Bible way.

In the final verse of 2 Cor. 10 Paul stated what is probably the bottom line of the whole matter, “Not he who commends himself is approved but whom the Lord commends.” (10:18) Brethren, this is what I want all honest seekers to have, the Lord’s approval. It is not about popularity or personal preferences. Where we will be in eternity is determined by how we handle the word of God here and now. At the end the judgment will not be according to the tenets of liberalism nor those of legalism. We will be judged by what is written. (Rev. 20:12) We have in our hands what will be in the “books” that will be opened. The difference between man’s approval and the Lord’s approval is great. The Bible specifies what that difference consists of. God’s word reveals what God approves so we can make an informed decision about what to believe. Don’t turn from it to the right or to the left. Both directions are wrong and will jeopardize our hopes of reaching the right destination..

THE SALVATION BEFORE OBEDIENCE DOCTRINE

The Bible says salvation is “by grace through faith… not of works.” (Eph. 2:8-9) “Grace” means we do not earn it. The text also adds, “lest any man should boast,” again showing that the meaning is we cannot earn salvation. Most of the protestant world reads this to say that salvation is without works. That is not the same thing. It is a serious misreading. The same Bible that says salvation is not “of works” also says that salvation is not “without works.” Galatians 5:6, for example, says that what avails in Christ is “faith workng through love.” James said that “faith without works is dead.” (2:24) It is true that works do not purchase salvation. It is also true that works are becessary. To omit works is to omit salvation, but that is what millions are doing.

Somehow there is a failure to understand the difference between “salvation not of works” and “salvation without works.” These are not the same. Many ask “Does it matter if one reverses the Biblical order and claims to be saved first and baptized later?” According to the scriptures it matters a lot. Think about it. The Bible says several times that we are “baptized into Christ.” (Romans 6:3, Gal. 3:27). God has specifically appointed that procedure for getting into Christ. If one believes he is “in Christ” before he is baptized he vetoes God, sets aside the divine process, and substitutes another one. That, in essence, makes baptism irrelevant. If one believes he is in Christ without obeying this command then it is logical to think that baptism is irrelevant. I have heard many denominational preachers declare, “Baptism has nothing to do with salvation.” Too many do not understand how serious an error this is. Think a minute about why it is so serious.

In Matthew 7 Jesus said that at the judgment He will turn away many who thought they had “done many wonderful things” in His name. They are rejected for what reasons? (1) “I never knew you” and (2) “You practiced lawlessness.” The context shows that false prophets in sheep’s clothing were behind their misconception. At verse 21 He pinpointed what we call “the sinner’s prayer,” “Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of God but he who does the will of my Father in heaven.” Evidently they had substituted of the words “Lord, come into my heart and save me” for God’s appointed way, obedience. They did not enter the kingdom.

John wrote, “To those who received Him he gave the power (or right) to become children of God.” (John 1:12) By the grace of God a procedure was given by which one can enter the kingdom. That procedure is to obey Him. “He became the author of eternal salvation to those who obey Him.” (Heb. 5:9) Jesus said, “Preach the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. He who does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:15-16) The reversed concept of human theology says instead, “He who believes is saved and will be baptized.”

If the power to save was in the act of baptism then it might well be the case that the sequential order wouldn’t matter. But the power to save is in God, not in baptism. He said He will give salvation to one who believes and is baptized. This man made idea simply vetoes God’s decree and says that we are saved without obeying Christ. If we do not believe what Jesus said then we are in the category “He who does not believe.” Jesus said he who does not believe will be condemned.

The wrong turn at this point also links up with several other erroneous doctrines. One of these is the notion that laws are excluded from the covenant of God. James said, “But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.” (1:25) God said His covenant would be of this nature, “I will put my laws in their minds and wrote them on their hearts.” (Heb. 8:10)

Thus the reversing of the Bible order, putting salvation before obedience, puts in place the very things Jesus said will get us rejected at the judgment, (1) failure to enter the covenant with Him and (2) practicing lawlessness. Instead let us trust God and trust Jesus enough to simply go with all Biblical instructions. This is the only way to prepare for eternity in the world to come.

MAXEY’S BOOK “IMMERSED BY ONE SPIRIT”

For over a hundred years advocates of the doctrine of salvation before obedience have tried to use 1 Corinthians 12:13 to deny that immersion in water is the baptism Jesus commanded and which puts one into Christ. Actually this is their weakest argument because the Bible is so specific in what it says about the matter. But remarkably some of our own brethren have taken up that argument and now Al Maxey, who preaches for a church of Christ, has published a book with the above title, evidently thinking he has dug out a brilliant new truth to enlighten the church of Christ people. But you can know. You only have to look up some expressly stated Bible facts.

A clear distinction between “baptism in the name of Christ” and Holy Spirit baptism.

Jesus commanded His disciples to preach the Gospel to all the world and said, “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved.” He also told them, “You shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” (Acts 1:5) It was these disciples who were to be baptized with the Holy Spirit, not the people to whom they preached. The purpose was not to make them disciples but Jesus said it was to enable them to deliver the Gospel to the world. At verse 8 He said they would receive power “and you shall be witnesses to me in Judea, in Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” The apostles never commanded anyone to be baptized with the Holy Spirit.

Look at what happened when this “power” Jesus spoke of came upon them in Acts 2. They did preach and some people were “cut to the heart” and cried out “What shall we do?” Peter said, “Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Notice the sequence. (1) They were baptized in the name of Jesus and then (2) they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Then notice in the 8th chapter when they preached the Gospel in Samaria people were baptized. But the text says specifically they had not received the Holy Spirit. Verse 14 says that when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God they sent Peter and John.who prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, “for as yet he had fallen on none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord, Jesus.” They had been baptized in the name of Jesus but had NOT received the Holy Spirit. How could it be made any clearer that baptism in the name of Jesus is not baptism in the Holy Spirit?

Yes, the scriptures are quite clear as to what the baptism is that Jesus commanded. In that same 8th chapter of Acts Phillip went to the eunuch in the chariot and “preached Jesus to him.” Then the text says  that as they went along they came to some water. Came to what? Water. And the eunuch said, “Here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Did Philip say? “No, that isn’t the right element. You have to be baptized in the Holy Spirit”? No. He said if you believe with all your heart you may.” Remember, he had “preached Jesus to him.”

Acts 19 demonstrates this truth again. The Ephesians had been baptized according to John’s baptism. Paul taught them correctly and they were baptized in Jesus’ name. Then Paul laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. Note the sequence. (1) They were baptized, (2) Paul laid hands on them, (3) They received the Holy Spirit. Receiving the Holy Spirit is not the baptism of the Gospel. These are two separate things in the scriptures.

They love to argue that the coming of the Holy Spirit on Cornelius meant that he was saved before he was baptized. But that destroys their argument on 1 Cor 12:13 because after the Holy Spirit came Peter said, “Can anyone forbid water that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 10:47-48) After they had received the Holy Spirit Peter commanded baptism and specified  “WATER.” Baptism in the name of Jesus is baptism in water.

But how did the apostles know to command baptism and that its purpose was the remission of sins? Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would guide them “into all truth,” (John 16:13) This is the sense in which “by one spirit we are all baptized into one body.” The Holy Spirit directed it. Also in John 16 Jesus said the Holy Spirit would “convince the world of sin.” How would He do that? He directed the apostles in preaching to the people. By reading the accounts of people being convinced of sin we see exactly how it was done. The same thing is true of baptism into Christ. By reading the accounts of this happening we see exactly how it was done. Every time the element in which they were baptized was water. It was done at the injunction of the Spirit.

Thus Jesus said, “Except a man is born again of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5) This is the one thing Satan does not want you to know. All the good works in the world can not save. But getting into Christ and remaining there does.

AL MAXEY’S REFLECTIONS #502

MAXEY JUST CAN’t FIGURE IT OUT.

In Mat. 7:23 Jesus said that at the judgment He will say to some people, “Depart from me you who practice lawlessness.” Al discusses this in his Reflections and he just can’t figure out what their problem was. Maybe if he reads it again “you who practice lawlessness” he might get a clue as to why Jesus rejected them. Maybe if it were put in italics, “you who practice lawlessness” he might get it. Al, Jesus said their problem was lawlessness.

Al speculated in the opposite direction, He said, “They knew law, but not love; they possessed facts, but not faith!” Isn’that a remarkable conclusion? Especially so since Jesus said they were lawless and the previous verse indicates that they had a lot of faith in that they did many great things IN HIS NAME.

But instead Al says, “His concern was that they had no heart-connection with Him. They were going through the “religious motions,” but it profited them nothing!” I wonder who told Al that?

Al just isn’t listening to Jesus at all. He lines up with Ellen G. White who wrote, “It is part of God’s plan to grant us, in answer to the prayer of faith, that which He would not bestow did we not thus ask.” (The Great Controversy, pg.525) He quotes Adam Clarke, who also lines up with that, along with Pulpit Commenary and several other denominational sources.What Jesus said just does not communicate. What His apostles said doesn’t either. For instance John’s inspired statement, “He who says ‘I know Him’ and does not keep His commandments is a liar and the truth is not in Him. But whoever keeps His word truly the love of God is perfected in Him.”  (1 John 2:4-5)

Look again at that scene in Mat 7:22-23. In the previous verse (21) Jesus said “Not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in Heaven.” Look at that again Al. He who does what? “He who does the will of My Father in Heaven.” But you just can’t figure that out, can you?

As the bottom line Al says it is all about LOVE. To sum it up he wrote this: “Salvation is a GIFT, it is not WAGES due. It is for those whose hearts are filled with faith and love, not for those who sought to keep forms and laws.” Jesus said, “If you love me you will keep my commandments.” But Al cannot get love and commandment keeping together.

This is from the one who would presume to lead the brotherhood out of the “darkness” of keeping God’s laws and into the “light” of human theology, the concept of lawless liberalism. But I wonder, how can you lead anybody anywhere if you can’t read?

I still pray for you; Olan Hicks

ASSEMBLY FOR WORSHIP?

A brother wrote concerning me, “My friend at this year’s TULSA WORKSHOP felt that the purpose for church assemblies is to praise God. I see in apostolic writings that our LIFE must be lived to praise and please our God and in service for Him. But I fail to see in APOSTOLIC writings or in their example that the church was ever called to meet together in order to do their worshipping together. They were encouraged to live every day as praise to God. Isn’t that what the Word teaches?”

Here you have a half truth but some brethren see it as the whole truth and that is very harmful. Jesus specified two things we must do in respect to God, not just one. “You shall worship (proskuneo) the Lord your God and Him only you shall serve. (letreuo)” ((Mat. 4:10) The first word means to prostrate one’s self before God and the second word means to do service to God, though it also is often translated “worship.” Somehow some brethren have gotten the idea that there is only one kind of worship, “letreuo,” the serving kind. Thus they see Romans 12:2, “Present your bodies a living sacrifice, which is your reasonable service,” (letreuo) as indicating that all of life is a worship and no other is required.

The word says many times that we are to live our lives in a way that glorifies God in all that we do, even in serving other people. But that is only one part of honoring Him as God. The word also says many times that we must worship Him in the sense of “proskuneo,” prostrating ourselves before Him. You say you have not found a passage portraying worship toward God in an assembly. How about Heb. 2:12, “In the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to you.” You say the early Christians sang to each other, not to God.  I invite you to look again at Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16. The first passage says, “Speaking to one another in Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in you heart to the Lord.” Making melody to whom? The second passage says, “singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.” Grace in your hearts to whom? I would say that your conclusion that our assemblies are totally horizontal and not vertical, is contradictory to what God said about it.

Some seem to think that to justify exercizing liberty in some matter such as instrumental music in the assembly it is necessary to say that the assemblies are not directed toward God. That is not so. There is no command from God either way on the choice of music. You don’t need to minimize the importance of the assembly to respect that. But surely you know that the assemblies are a command. The word says, “Do not forsake the assembling of yourselves together, as the manner of some is,” (Heb. 10:25) and then shows how serious it is by adding, “For if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there is no more sacrifice for sins, but an anticipation of judgment and of fiery indgnation, which shall devour the adversary.” I cannot harmonize this with your idea that our assemblies are purely horizontal, not vertical, and are not even necessary.

This brother said, “ They ate together, we can assume, each Lord’s Day, and during the meal they broke bread and drank wine together in honor of Jesus and in His memory. Some sang to the others. Some prophesied to the others. And God was praised and pleased by their assembling.” When you say this you reduce the assemblies to nothing more than a series of pot luck dinners. That is getting close to blasphemy.

Jesus said He would build His church. (ekklesia, assembly) Paul said there was one of these in the house of Priscilla and Aquilla. (1 Cor. 16:19) At this time the church could not own property for they were an illegal entity. So they often assembled in homes. And what did they do there? When Peter was released from prison by an angel he went to the home of Mary, “where many were gathered together praying.” (Acts 12:12)

The scripture says Jesus was given to be “the head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” (Eph. 1:22-23) As the head of that church what does He direct? In Paul’s letter to the church at Corinth he said, “The things that I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.” (14:37) In that letter he gave many instructions about their assemblies. One of these was about the Lord’s supper. He said, “When you come together in one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.” (1 Cor. 11:20) But it should have been for he said at Verse 22, “Shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.” It appears they were mixing the sacred reason for assembling, the Lord’s supper, with a common intake of food.  On that basis I would say that you really need to rethink your concept that the reason for assembling was to eat. Paul went ahead and said, “Whoever eats this bread and drinks this cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” (Vs. 27) He added that such a one eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. (Vs. 29)

This is an important issue you bring up. The Bible says, “Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread,” that Paul preached to them and continued his speech until midnight. (Acts 20:7) When you arbitrarily rule that this was a common meal you fly in the face of the grammar of the passage and set aside the one activity of which Jesus said, “This do in remembrance of me.”  I hope you will reconsider.

FAITH IN THE WORKING OF GOD

Believers have stumbled over this question for centuries. Do works have anything to do with salvation?

After His resurrection Jesus sent His apostles to deliver His message of redemption to the world. He said specifically that “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:47)

A few days later the Holy Spirit came upon them at Jerusalem, as the Lord had promised, and they did speak the message of God “as the Spirit gave them utterance.” (Acts 2:4) Concerning repentance and remission of sins here is what they said about it. “Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

Verse 41 says, “Then they who gladly received his word were baptized and there were added to them that day about 3,000 souls.” Verse 47 says that the Lord continued to add to their number daily those who were being saved. The rest of the book of Acts records that they preached the word everywhere and in every case of conversion the text says they were baptized.

One of these cases was at Ephesus (Acts 19). They were first mistaught and baptized according to John’s baptism. Then Paul taught them correctly and they were baptized again, this time in the name of Jesus.

Later Paul wrote an epistle to the Ephesians in which he said, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God, not of works lest anyone should boast.” (Eph. 2:8-9)

In the 16th century the protestant reformation movement began in opposition to the Roman Catholic concept of works of merit. In opposing that they went to an extreme the other way and concluded that works are not involved in our salvation at all. They lifted this statement by Paul from the context of the preaching done by the apostles, as recorded in Acts, and developed an interpretation of it as meaning they were saved by a “grace” that did not require the doing of anything, specifically baptism. But they did that.

From these two opposite extremes was handed down to future generations an unsolved riddle and a confusing conglomeration of viewpoints. If Jesus spoke the truth when He said that “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved…”(Mark 16:16) then how is it that we are saved “by grace, through faith, not of works”? The Bible says both of these. Can they both be true?

The Bible harmonizes these two statements. We need to recognize that “grace” is a divine concept, not a human concept and therefore we must let God tell us what He meant by it. If we are saved by it, doesn’t that mean it is important to understand it? Look at the Biblical usage of that word and this riddle clears up.

The statement of Eph. 2 is not only that we are saved by “grace” but also that it is “through faith.” So we ask, Faith in what? What must we believe? God’s word tells us we must believe two things. “Without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” (Heb. 11:6)

Several times Jesus said that He will “reward each one according to his works,” (Mat. 16:27) Did He mean that the works earn our salvation? No. He meant exactly what He said, that He will reward what we do. This is one of the things we must believe, “that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seeks Him.”

This principle is illustrated throughout the Bible. Hebrews 11 is a chapter of examples. Verse 30 says, “By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they were encircled for seven days.” Does marching around a city have power to make walls fall down? No.  The Bible says it occurred “by faith.” Faith in what? They believed God would do what He promised when they obeyed.

In Col. 2:12 this principle is applied specifically to baptism. “…buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God.” Faith in the power of the water or the power of the act? No. Faith that God will reward our obedience.

Abraham, the “father of the faithful,” is a prime illustration of this. The command to offer his son on an altar was an extreme test of his faith. Why did he do it? Hebrews 11:17-19 says that he did it “concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead…” In reference to this James said that Abraham was “saved by works” in the sense that “faith was working together with his works and  by works faith was made perfect.” (James 2:21-22) Then he said it was here that “the scripture was fulfilled which says ‘Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness.’”

Moses had no power to part the Red Sea. But when he stretched forth his rod as God directed, the sea parted. Naaman had no power to heal his leprosy. But when he dipped seven times in the Jordan river as God directed his leprosy was healed. (2 Kings 5)

Man cannot save himself. But the Bible says that “to those who received Him he gave power (or right) to become children of God.” (John 1:12) So, though man cannot save himself, he can choose whether or not to be saved. On Pentecost day 3,000 people used that power and were saved through faith in the operation of God.

The grace of God that brings salvation is a teaching grace. It teaches us that “denying unGodliness and worldly lusts we should live soberly, righteously, and Godly in the present age.” (Titus 2:11-12) The idea that when we trust God enough to obey His required conditions, we are being saved by works, is Satan’s lie. He deceived Eve into believing that obeying God is not necessary. He wants to sell us exactly the same lie.

SHALL WE BELIEVE ALL THE BIBLE SAYS?

THE SHEEP’S CLOTHING JESUS WARNED ABOUT

“Beware of false prophets that come to you in sheep’s clothing…” (Matthew 7:15) This is a warning from the Lord Himself about disguise and deception. We need to know that Satan will not come to us dressed in a red suit and carrying a pitchfork. He will not only look like one of us he will sound like one of us. He will often be dressed in a typical suit and will carry a Bible and will quote from it.

Why does he look and sound like one of us? Because he is one of us, but his views are now distorted. In Acts 20 Paul told the Ephesian elders, “Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after themselves.” (V. 30) I think such a person  might even believe that what he is saying is the truth, may not realize he is speaking falsely. But Paul urged the brethren to be watchful and said that for three years he had “warned everyone night and day with tears.” Clearly Paul took the Lord’s warning very seriously.

This does not justify undue suspicion and criticism, being anxious to convict everyone as a false prophet who disagrees with you. But it does mandate something. What is that? It is a mandate to watch out for perverse doctrines that are covered over with slick, good sounding words such as “love, grace, unity” etc. Paul said that Satan deceived Eve with craftiness, or subtelty, and he feared that we might fall victim to the same thing. To be careful about that we must look beyond the “great swelling words of emptiness” Peter warned about, (2 Peter 2:18) The “sheep’s clothing” disguise means its errors are not on the surface and immediately obvious. They are couched in words that sound good.

Men speaking perverse things: Edward Fudge, Max Lucado, Al Maxey and others.

When a man tells an audience, “There is nothing you can do to be saved,” as these men do, he is speaking a perverse doctrine. When he explains, after being pressed, that he meant you can’t earn it, and then goes ahead and says, “My relationship to Christ does not depend on keeping commandments,” He further underscores the “lawlessness” doctrine of denominationalism.

When a man says, “I no longer claim to be ‘church of Christ.’ I am a Christian independent of any church group,” as Al Maxey did, he is speaking the perverse doctrine that Christianity exists apart from the church Jesus built. He says, “I want to be just a Christian.” But a Christian is in Christ’s church, a concept he rejects. He says that trying to restore the undenominational “church of Christ” is a divisive and sectarian idea.

When a man says, “There are many out there who love the Lord and they are my brothers and sisters in Christ,” he advances the notion that the denominational plan of salvation, which is “the sinner’s prayer,” put them into the kingdom. Maxey and Fudge  both endorse it as each one says that he himself “knelt and asked Jesus to come into my heart and life.” This implies that Jesus was wrong when He said that one does not enter the kingdom by saying to Him “Lord, Lord,” but by obeying the will of the Father. (Mat. 7:21) Souls are pointed in a direction Jesus said is wrong.

It is not a question of WHO is right. It is a question of WHAT is right. All the pious platitudes and flattering words cannot make wrong doctrines right. They can only disguise what they really are. These brethren say over and over “I love the Lord and I obey His word,” and “I love my brethren,” but the facts do not bear this out. According to Jesus, if you loved Him you would keep His commandments and if you loved your brethren you would not want to mislead them.

God is the only judge and the only lawgiver. We will all stand before His judgment when this life ends. In the meantime we all have the responsibility to refuse to be fooled by false prophers wearing “sheep’s clothing.” I believe that a man who truly believes the Bible will be willing to speak the truth plainly and will not need to mask what he says with an avalanche of words. The idea that we obey God’s commands not to be saved but because we are already saved, is a fundamental of ”antinomianism,” which the Bible calls “lawlessness.” It is wrong. The sheep’s clothing disguise does not make it right. Jesus spoke the truth when He said that only those who do the will of the Father enter the kingdom of heaven, not those who ask in words,  or pray what is called the “sinner’s prayer.” This is another Gospel. Don’t accept it and be lost eternally, even from a brother. Paul said even an angel from heaven could not make it true.

TRUE HISTORY ABOUT BEN FRANKLIN AND OTHERS

Facts as opposed to propaganda:

In the summer of 1787 representatives met in Philadelphia for the purpose of writing the United States constitution. They struggled over it for weeks and had made little progress until 81 year old Benjamin Franklin rose and addressed a convention that was about to adjourn in frustration. Franklin, once an avowed agnostic, said this: “In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, sir, were heard and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor. . . .

Have we now forgotten this powerful friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? . . . God governs in the affairs of man, and if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that built it. I firmly believe this. . . .  I therefore beg leave to move that  henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of heaven and its blessing on our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning.” The measure was not adopted at that time but prayer to open congressional sessions did become the practice and continued for nearly two centuries.

The ACLU came into existence in 1920, founded by Roger Baldwin, a man who said, “I am for socialism…” and added, “communism is the goal.” It took the ACLU about 50 years to get prayer and all religious expression in American public life declared unconstitutional by the supreme court but they did it. They continue to file law suits against any Christian activity that can be seen by the public. Their primary weapon has been propaganda. It centers on denying America’s Christian heritage and the faith of the founding fathers.

They have a staff of lawyers in every state who constantly argue socialist-communist principles before the courts. Hugo Black, in the early 60s, was the first supreme court chief justice to buy into their unGodly premises. Based on a fallacious argument about a private letter written by Thomas Jefferson they  got the first amendment reversed. Instead of protecting the church from government interference as originally intended, it is now turned into a mandate to silence God in every area of public life. They created the concept called “separation of church and state.” Since then others have come on board and those falsehoods are now believed by many among the populace.

Using the lie that the constitution mandates separation of church and state, (it says the opposite) they focus on their main target, which is to reverse the idea that the founding fathers were men of faith and picture them instead as deists and agnostics, whose intention was to establish a society without God, essentially socialist-communism. The fact is several of the founding fathers were evangelists. What these founders actually said is displayed in documents at the museum in Washington so any honest person can know that they were men of strong faith.

History books changed to accomodate them.

Marxist socialism is an enemy of God because of the nature of what it is. Its basic thesis is that man is sufficient within himself to chart his own way and does not need God. The government can supply everything. So in every country where it has prevailed they had to evict God. They are in process now of “cleansing” America from all vestiges of faith and the religious concepts that go with it. They call themselves a “liberties union.” It is remarkable how many of our freedoms are denied in the name of “civil liberty.”

They have succeeded in changing what students now study in school as “history.” We used to read about the Christian foundations that produced our great country. We read about the “New England Charter,” which confirmed the purpose of the first pilgrims as being to advance the enlargement of the Christian religion, to the glory of God. But no more. We don’t hear about the statements of individual colonies, such as the Rhode Island Charter, which begins, “We submit our persons, lives, and estates unto our Lord Jesus Christ, the king of kings and lord of lords and to all those perfect and most absolute laws of His given us in His holy word.” Now hidden is the fact that those Biblical laws were the foundation for the United States constitution.

George Washington said it would be impossible to govern this nation without God and the Ten Commandments. President John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” Because of the ACLU not only is the faith of the founding fathers deleted from history but they are said to have been immoral men, without faith or patriotism. They have searched everywhere to find something dirty to discredit each of these men because they want to replace Americanism with socialism.

TV stations join in promoting this propaganda. The “History channel” presented a “documentary” on John Adams and did not even mention his faith. Recently they did one on Benjamin Franklin. They reported his earlier stance as an agnostic and gave that as who he was, along with the fact that he fathered a child out of wedlock, as though that were his life long moral character. We never hear them report the fact that the first Bible translated into English in America was published by the United States congress!

On the TV news channels there are many confusing discussions, often disputes, about the economy. This is because they are trying to figure out how to make socialism work, how to enable the government to take care of all our individual needs. They are into the socialist theory, without realizing it, and have no clue as to why it is not working.

It is not working because it is an idea that is not in touch with reality. The only money the government has is what it gets from us, by taxation or other means. There is no way to pour money into the economy from the government without getting that money from us, the tax payers. So when they promise they will cut taxes and increase government handouts at the same time, they are not adding two and two. The “Utopia” the politicians envision is a Marxist pipe dream. People who elect them are also living in a world of fantasy. America was founded on reality, especially including God. That is the only America that can retain its identity as the land of the free and the home of the brave.