OlanHicks.com

PURPOSE STATEMENT

LETTER TO A LIBERAL FRIEND

Dear brother;

Okay. So you are into the liberal agenda. Sad as it is I have no choice but to accept it as you stated it. I also have no choice but to try to dissuade you. Note that I am not one of those hateful “patternists” who is out to defeat you. I am a friend who, out of love for you, is trying to keep you from making a mistake that has eternal consequences, for you and for those you will influence. You have written some good things in the past. They were good because they were produced by some good Biblical research. But what you are writing now is not in the same ball park with that kind of Biblical loyalty. Your “sources” now are mostly human authors and you plead for your conclusions on the basis of inaccurate illustrations. You do not realize it but your focus has shifted. 

You seem to be obsessed with persons, the “patternists,” the “legalists,” etc. with a fixation that makes you unable to look at facts. A person is identified as a liberal not because of who he joins up with but because of what he says. It does no good to say in words “I have not joined the liberal faction nor the conservative faction,” as you did, and then turn right around and say things that liberals say, things which contradict Bible statements. That is what liberalism consists of. “While they promise them liberty they themselves are the servants of corruption…” Here are some facts I ask you to consider. Can you deny that these are facts?

This is a fact: Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of the Father in heaven.? (Mat. 7:21)  But you say that falling in love with the Lord will do it. “There are so many people in this world who have fallen in love with the Lord, and have sought relationship with Him, and, like Edward Fudge, I accept them as my brethren.” Jesus said obedience is the determiner. You say NO.

Another fact: Jesus said that keeping His commandments maintains a relationship with Him.  ”If you keep my commandments you will abide in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and abide in His love.” (John 15:10)  But you said, “I came to realize that my journey through life would require more than compliance with rules (indeed, that was not really the Lord’s focus at all).” Did Jesus lie in John 15:10?

Another fact: Paul wrote that the scriptures are the divine source for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness, that the man of God might be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3;16-17) But you say the scriptures are not that sufficient. You wrote: “Is ALL of the leading of the Spirit ONLY through the written Word (the Bible)?  No, I do not believe that.  I believe the Spirit has led me to prepare certain sermons, for example, or to call someone or go visit them.” Do you have any confirmation of that?

Another fact: In Acts 2:38 the promise to those who repent and are baptized for the remission of sins is, “You shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” But you say you did that and Edward Fudge did it, but it didn’t work. You say that later you both had to invite the Lord to come in. “I was baptized when I was 11 years old.  I knew that the Lord wanted me to do this, and I loved Him enough to do it.  I obeyed Him. ….However, as I grew physically, emotionally and spiritually (and this took me into adulthood), I came to realize that my journey through life would require more than compliance with rules (indeed, that was not really the Lord’s focus at all).  It would require relationship — me IN Him, and He IN me. Yes, like Edward, I realized the need for Him to truly enter into every aspect of my life, and, like Edward, I realized the need to ask Him in.  I needed to do this for me!  Oh yes, I had been through the motions of acceptance, but I myself didn’t fully grasp it.  When I did, I opened up to Him in more ways than just outward obedience; I opened my heart and really and truly let Him in.” This is saying that obeying the Gospel as written is just “going through the motions,” but saying “the sinner’s prayer” is the real deal.

Beloved friend, these are the core premises of denominationalism, man made. They are way off course. Every one of them is expressly contradicted in the Bible. (1) Saying “Lord, Lord, come into my heart,” will not put one into the kingdom of heaven. (2) A relationship with Christ is maintained by keeping His commandments, even as Christ was obedient to the Father’s commands. (3) The scriptures are God’s chosen way of revealing all that men need to know to have life and Godliness.  (4) God’s chosen way of putting His Spirit in a person is baptism. Men are not willing to have it this way, but this is what God said about it in writing.

The same deception: Eve was not liberated from the obligation to obey God’s command. She was sold a bill of goods, the notion that obedience was not necessary. The whole world paid a price for that. Just as Paul feared might happen, people are being sold that same bill of goods now. “With good words and fair speeches” Satan is still deceiving the hearts of the simple.  Brother, this is a fight “against spiritual wickedness in high places,” and you are on the wrong side of it. I do not believe you will continue to be happy there. You are too honest for that. 

God’s word is where the truth is. It will not fail but will accomplish the purposes for which it was sent, including remission of sins, life and Godliness, a continuing relationship with the lord, and eternal life with God in the end. Before the court of human judgment you will have the praise of men. But what about when we stand before God’s judgment at the end of the way? We will be judged out of the things written in the books, not out of what is preached at the tulsa Workshop or Pepperdine or ACU lectures. What will it be like on that day when those Jesus spoke of in Matthew 7 are turned away because they practiced lawlessness, and some turn to you and say, “Why did you tell me that commandment keeping is not the way to be saved?” What will you say, that you didn’t know?

May God bless you with wisdom.

Olan Hicks

FROM WHENCE COMES OUR PRESENT INSANITY?

Before the first world war Nocolai Lenin returned to Russia from exile and founded the Bolshevick faction. This faction instigated a revolt and overthrew the czarist government and become the ruling party. In 1918 they changed their name to “communist” and issued a manifesto embracing socialism. The country came to be called “The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.” In America an attempt was made to chart a similar course, led by Roger Baldwin. But it was not successful here. As an alternative way to accomplish the same goals, Baldwin established the ACLU in 1920. “I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.” Roger Baldwin

 Their first open assault on Americanism was in 1925, the Scopes “Monkey trial.” They did not win that case but they got a foot in the door. The Christian concept of creation which had been taught in the schools, eventually came to be banished and now only the theory of evolution is allowed. For years the ACLU has had a staff of lawyers in every state who constantly argue before the courts on behalf of atheistic communist principles and it has become more and more effective as time passed. Their litigations and other propaganda outlets have gotten these philosphies into circulation among the common people. Now we are hearing a lot of wrong ideas from numerous sources, especially our schools. Even churches, in many cases, have embibed these principles and our TV networks are buried up in it. Americanism is being defeated in its own land.  

 In the name of “liberty” the Bible and prayer are banished from our schools. Religious displays such as the 10 commandments are outlawed. They have attempted to also get nativity scenes outlawed. The ACLU legally litigates against Christian activities and legally defends all sorts of evil and immoral acts.

 The reason they see Christianity as an enemy is that they call evil good and call good evil. To them “liberty” means the approval of such things as homosexuality, prostitution, child pornography, civil anarchy, anti-American activities, drug abuse, etc. At Rensalier, Illinois they sued the city to remove a nativity scene from a public park, but lost the case in court. At a city north of there they went to bat for the neo-Nazi party to coerce the city into allowing their convention in a public park. They fight for evil causes and against good causes. 

 For 90 years their lawyers have spewed forth anti-American and anti-Christian propaganda, in the highest courts and all over the land. Atheists also have organizations and are legally pressing their premises. Several high court judges have been convinced of some of these ridiculous notions and have ruled accordingly. The Roe vs. Wade decision giving government approval to abortion is an example as is the supreme court ruling that banned religious expression in schools and the forbidding of the display of the 10 commandments in public places.

 They have succeeded in rewriting much of our country’s history so that it now says our founding fathers were not Christians, but were a bunch of deists and agnostics. The idea is cast that their intention was to write a Godless constitution and to produce a Godless society, basically atheistic communism like it was in Russia.

 Thankfully there are others whose eyes are open to this and they are standing up with us. David Barton is the founder of “Wallbuilders,” devoted to bringing the facts before the public. He is exhibiting copies of the original documents, the declaration of independence, the constitution, the bill of rights, and individual writings and sermons by those men, many of whom were evangelists and even publishers of the Bible. The original documents almost always began with a petition to almighty God for help in carrying out the intentions of the document.

 And there are others. Jay Sekalow is a lawyer who has created the ACLJ, American center for law and justice. He and his associates are contending before the courts for the original American way, including religious freedom. Coral Ridge Ministries in Florida have been airing messages on behalf of Americanism for many years. There are other smaller groups who are rising up in local areas to contend on behalf of our freedoms.

So there is hope if enough Christians will recognize the source of the nonsense with which we are being flooded and will stand on Bible truths and not allow themselves to be deceived by unGodly lies. Special interest groups with wrong motives are constantly lobbying congress, filing law suits, and staging protest marches in the attempt to get laws enacted, not for the common good, but for selfish purposes.

 What more people need to see is that the formula for a good land is to follow the way of God as set forth in the Bible. This is demonstrated in what America came to be when laws were being made on the basis of Bible commands and God was being recognized as sovereign. It is the widespread rejection of this way that is in the process of destroying everything America stands for. Right conduct by the people brings the blessings of God. This is what they need to see and hear from us. God appointed the church to be the pillar and ground of the truth. But a church that embraces the evil concepts of the enemy will make matters worse instead of better.  

 Socialist communism failed in Russia and the country collapsed. It is disturbing to see America heading more and more into that philosophy. It will fail here too. Certainly atheism will always fail. Each one of us needs to adopt the Joshua attitude, “As for me and my house we will serve the Lord.” This will mean standing up for the right every time the opportunity presents itself. This is what America has always been about, a nation whose God is the Lord.

REVIEW OF MDR DEBATE

On Monday & Tuesday nights, October 12 & 13,  I engaged in public debate with Patrick Donahue in Florence, Alabama. The first night Pat affirmed “The Bible teaches that if a man divorces his scriptural wife, for any reason other than fornication, and marries another, he commits adultery, and repentance would demand that he get out of that marriage.” I denied this proposition because, although the first statement is accurate to the text, the second statement, that he has to get out of that marriage, is not scriptural. 

Through out the debate we found that Pat alters virtually every passage he refers to on this subject. He pretty much followed the same route as other traditionalists have in past debates. The first plank in their platform is to change Matthew 19:6 from “Let not man put asunder,” to “man cannot put asunder.” He tried to prove that the unscripturally put away person is still bound to their mate in God’s sight and forever will be. This was a bit weird in as much as he said, “they are not still married.” He insisted throughout that they are bound but not married. This seems a very strange idea to me. The bond between a man and a woman is the marriage bond. If one is not married,what kind of a bond does he have? Is he bound to a woman who is not his wife?

They also change Matthew 19:9, as Pat did. The text says “adultery,” is committed when one divorces and marries another. Pat changes that into a sex act. He admitted that a couple is “married” when the ceremony is finished but said that adultery is not committed until they cohabit sexually. He tried to illustrate this nonsense by saying that when one swallows food it is not digested until later. We never did find out what he saw as a connection between these two things.

On 1 Corinthians 7:2, “Let every man have his own wife and let every woman have her own husband,” he changes it to say, “Let each one have a mate who has not married before.”

On 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 he changed “depart” to “divorce.” Yet he agreed that “chordzo” means depart and does not mean divorce. But he said that when two people divorce they always depart, so the meaning here is divorce though the word does not mean that.  Curious reasoning? Yes. All through the debate he presented rationalizations of this kind, not express Bible statements.

On verse 28, which says that if a man is put away by his wife he does not sin if he marries, he denied that “lelusai” means “having been put away” and revised the passage to say “If a man is scripturally released from his wife he can marry.”

In my negative material, I first presented Foy Wallace’s idea that this judgment of that sin is human legislation. The Lord did not give it. Jesus did not prescribe “a disciplinary procedure.” Then I presented the scriptures showing that God, Christ, Paul the apostle, and the Holy Spirit all disagree with Pat’s proposition, that “repentance demands that he get out of that marriage.” 

“Exhibit A” was the case of David and Bathsheba. David committed adultery and murder in the course of taking another man’s wife. God’s prophet, Nathan, taught David about repentance but did not require that he get out of that marriage. Instead he said, “God has put away your sin.” That is a concept those brethren do not understand at all, a sin being put away, or pardoned. They are very certain that the only way this sin can be dealt with is to pay it all back, make restitution.

“Exhibit B” was John 8 where Jesus was asked to judge a case of adultery. His first step was to ask about their own sin. His statement to the woman was “Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.” “Exhibit C” was the way the apostle Paul dealt with this sin among the Corinthians. He said that some of them had been adulterers, among other things, but “you were washed, sanctified, justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” In other words God put away their sin also. Yes, they repented, did not repeat the sins, but they did not pay it all back. In the next chapter Paul said all of them must be allowed to marry. (7:2) The phrase “By the Spirit of our God” shows that the Holy Spirit also was in on this judgment. So God, Christ, Paul, and the Holy Spirit all disagreed with Pat’s proposition that marriage must be forbidden to all who have committed this kind of adultery.

On the second night I was in the affirmative on the proposition that “God approves marriage for every unmarried person, including those who have been divorced, regardless of the reason for the divorce.” I simply read my proposition in the Bible text. In 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 Paul said expressly “To the unmarried and widows….let them marry, for it is better to marry than to burn.” That this included the divorced is stated at verse 28 where he said concerning a man who had been put away by his wife, “If you marry you have not sinned and if a virgin marries she has not sinned.” The reason for his being put away is not mentioned, therefore is not relevant. So the Bible says let the unmarried marry, and it specifically includes the divorced.

In my final speech I pointed out that the people who are pushing this anti-marriage doctrine need to stop and realize that they are jeopardizing their own souls. When the Pharisees wanted to impose the maximum sentence on the woman taken in adultery, Jesus called attention to their own sin and asked, in effect, ” Are you qualified to judge and punish?”

I presented 1 Timothy 4:1-3,which predicts the falling away from  the faith in the last days and indicates that “forbidding to marry is a doctrine of demons.” There the scripture says it is a departure from the faith, is hypocritical, and reflects a seared conscience, a lack of feeling. And I posed the question, “Are you sure you want to go before the judgment seat of Christ still standing on that position,  you saying “Don’t let them marry” when God has said “Let them marry”? Do you want to leave it that way? These books will be opened at the judgment and we will all be judged by what is written there. They will still say the same thing then that they say now. Are you sure you want to go there with this situation still the way it is, you saying the opposite of what God has commanded? Then I cited James 2:13, “He shall have judgment without mercy that has showed no mercy.” No wonder Jesus asked “What about your own sins?” You had better look at this now instead of then.

I think Pat wanted to be non-hostile but he really doesn’t know how. He was very inconsistent and the manner of his delivery was a bit rude. If it were in a courtroom it would be called “badgering a witness.” On the football field it would be called “taunting” and  a flag would be thrown. He comes from a background we usually refer to as “anti,” meaning against everything. Those brethren are accustomed to binding legislations for God about all sorts of things the Bible does not speak of. They are all based on theories and rationalizations. They bind laws that are not express Bible statements but human theories. I say again, I think they mean well. They want to dot every “I” and cross every “T” and get everything precisely correct. But they just have a very unsound hermeneutic. They do not recognize a human judgment when they see one, especially in their own viewpoints.

This debate will be circulated widely on DVD and it is my hope that it will make available for a lot of people an understanding of how the grace of God offers to everyone a new beginning, a release from all past sins. 

Review written by Olan Hicks

IS GOD’S LOVE UNCONDITIONAL?

To this question the Bible answers “Yes” and “No.” On the one hand Jesus said, “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son...” (John 3:16) and Paul said this love was before we became obedient. “But God demonstrates His love toward us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8) So God loved the world before they gave Him a reason to love them. This love was unconditional. 

On the other hand Jesus said, “He who has my commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” (John 14:21) Here the Lord states that keeping the commandments is a condition of this love. At verse 23 He said that if anyone loves Him and keeps His word, both the Father and the Son will love him and will come and “make our home with him.” So according to Jesus this relationship with God is conditioned on the kind of love that keeps His commandments. So which is it? Does God love us unconditionally or not?

In a court of law a witness must swear to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”? Why is that? Why not just “the truth”? It is because a half truth can be misleading and a truth imbellished with speculation can be a distortion. So they want the facts to be stated, presented in full, and they want speculation and opinion omitted, so that the conclusions reached, or judgments, will be correct. These same facts are true as concerns Biblical truth. Half truths are a most often used method of Satan to lead people to wrong conclusions, and Biblical facts when imbellished with speculation and theory can lead to mistaken ideas.

The matter of the nature of God’s love is a classic example. Satan is “the lawless one.” (2 Thess. 2:8) His aim is to get us to accept and practice an ideology that does not see obedience to God’s commands as essential. He uses half truths about the nature of God’s love, coupled with some faulty reasoning, or speculation, to lead us to the conclusion that a love relationship with God is separate and apart from commandment keeping.

While working on my book on “Calvinism” I got to wondering how it was that many of the famous preachers of past years reached the conclusion that God loves us unconditionally and that salvation is received as a separate matter from obeying commands. What was their thought pattern? So I researched the writings of several of them, such as Charles Spurgeon, John Calvin, Adam Clark, etc. in pursuit of this question.

I found out that their reasoning always started at the same place. Premise #1 was “We cannot save ourselves.” They all started here, and it is an absolute truth. Their next step was to ask, “What can save us?” The answer was, “Only the blood of Jesus can save.” This also is a Biblical fact. Up to this point they were getting a Bible answer to a biblical question. But from that spot their reasoning went awry. The conclusion drawn from these facts is where the error was made. They concluded that “therefore nothing man can do can affect his salvation.” 

That is a mistake in reasoning. It is based on a half truth. They did not ask “How is the blood of Jesus applied?” They were asking “What can merit, or purchase salvation?” Then the answer to that question they took and applied to a different question, “What can affect our salvation?” In spite of the fact that the Bible specifies baptism as how we get into His death, (Romans 6:4) and repeatedly states that salvation is given in response to obedience, (Hebrews 5:9) and the details of that obedience are spelled out, they still held the conclusion that salvation is given apart from obedience to commands, and that conclusion still prevails throughout evangelicalism today. Even in churches of Christ many brethren are leaning that way.

A more thorough consideration of Biblical facts would dispel that notion. For example, the Biblical fact that all the people outside Noah’s ark were lost while Noah and his family were saved? Why? The Bible says it was because Noah had a faith that obeyed what God said. (Hebrews 11:7) Verse 30 says that the walls of Jericho fell down “after they were encircled for seven days.” Looking back at the account in Joshua 6 we find that God said to Joshua, “See I have given Jericho into your hands.” Then He told him what to do to get this gift, which was encircling the city for seven days, followed by trumpet blasts and a shout by the people. As Hebrews 11:30 says, they got the gift after they met the conditions. In both these cases the acts of obedience did not have the power that made these things happen. God made them happen. The acts were the conditions on which the gifts were given. They got the promised gift by obedient faith.

So men have been asking the wrong question. They have been asking, “What can I do to purchase my salvation?” The Bible has answered that clearly. Nothing can purchase salvation except the blood of Jesus. We should be asking, “On what conditions does God offer the gift of salvation?” The Bible also answers this clearly. “Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said to them, Repent and be baptised, 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) “Do not touch the unclean thing and I will receive you.” (2 Cor. 6:17) “Be faithful unto death and I will give you the crown of life.” (Rev.2:10)

The chief reason this particular kind of deception is dangerous is what Jesus said will happen when folks who buy into this deception come before Him at the judgment.   “I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me you who practice lawlessness.’” (Matthew 7:23)

Satan wants us to arrive at and hold a concept of lawlessness. Half truths and human speculation is the means of getting us there. The way to avoid that mistake is to embrace “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” The half truth is that God loves us regardless of what we do. The rest of the truth is that this does not mean He will receive us into a saved relationship with Him unconditionally. He offers that relationship, based on conditions. We will not be lost because God did not love us. We will be lost because we let Satan sell us the counterfeit doctrine of lawlessness. God loves us unconditionally. But this does not mean He will save us unconditionally. Nothing is more clearly stated in the Bible than the fact that the dividing line between the saved and the lost is obedience. It has always been so from the very first of creation. It is not mistake free perfection that is required, but commitment to obedience. Let’s appreciate what God has done for us and let’s love Him for it. Don’t let Satan pervert that into lawlessness. 

Check your Bible as to whether this is legalism or the whole truth of what the Bible says.

Why I believe the Bible teaches 1st day of the week communion

Many brethren today question whether first day of the week communion is mandated in scripture because of the fact that in Koine Greek the phrase “break bread” is the same whether it refers to the Lord’s Supper or to a common meal. (klasai arton) So they draw the conclusion that one cannot tell the difference and so the example in Acts 20:7 might be just a common meal. This conclusion needs to be reconsidered.

We can tell the difference between a spiritual assembly and a social assembly, not by the phrase “break bread,” but by the word “assembled.” When scholars say that in Acts 20:7 the reference is to the Lord’s supper it is not just an unfounded opinion. They are recognizing that “sunegmenon” means an assembly for a spiritual purpose. The KJV translation “When the disciples came together” is not quite correct. It is a perfect tense passive voice participle and therefore means that they were already assembled. The disciples did not “come together.” They were assembled, having come together earlier. The word that tells us the type of assembly it was in which they would break bread, is the key. It is a word whose first three letters are “sun.” This tells us that “sunegmenon” indicates an assembly for a spiritual purpose in which they were united in more than just a physical way. They were united in worship. Thayer says that “sun” refers to “a fellowship far closer and more intimate than mera.” (Lexicon, page 598)  Thus the “sun” syllable is not used when the passage says they came together to eat a common meal or some other social purpose.

To better understand the sun syllable note that it is the first part of the word “synagogue.” (“sunagoge”) It was first used of the assembly and then came to refer to the place of assembly. Once in the New Testament it is used of the Christian assembly. (James 2:2). Inherent in the word is the idea of being assembled together for a spiritual purpose. In other kinds of coming together a different word is used.

In 1 Corinthians 11 Paul’s criticism of the Corinthians had to do with this very thing. They professed to be assembling for the Lord’s Supper, and the sun word is used. But they used it more like a common meal. To Paul this was perversion. This word occurs at verse 18 in saying they “came together as a church” but had divisions. The word means united but they were divided. It occurs again at verse 20, “when you come together in one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.” In other words, you call together a spiritual assembly but it really isn’t that. You use it for social purposes. That was wrong. Paul said, “I do not praise you in this.”

 To fully understand the Lord’s will concerning the communion we need to realize that this is not a law matter. It is a love matter. There is no biblical statute saying “Thou shalt take the lord’s Supper every Sunday.” But that does not mean God’s intention isn’t clearly expressed. Acts 20:7 is indeed a divinely authorized example of the disciples being assembled on the first day of the week for the purpose of uniting their hearts together in the Lord’s Supper. The purpose of this memorial is specific, to remember Christ’s death. It is not as the Jewish sabbath, a memorial to their deliverance from Egypt. The Lord Jesus himself asked His disciples to “do this in remembrance of me.” When someone asks “Do we have to take the Lord’s Supper every Sunday?” He is asking the wrong question. This is not a “have to” thing. It is a “want to” thing. It is like giving my wife a present on her birthday. It is not a law matter, it is a love matter. I don’t have to, but I will insist on it. 

Paul told the Corinthians that taking the Lord’s Supper in an “unworthy manner” consisted in “not discerning the Lord’s body.” If you partake of these emblems for a reason other than the fact that you love Him for what He did for you, you eat and drink damnation to your soul.  As far as the appropriate time is concerned, Jesus rose from the grave on the first day of the week, ascended up to heaven on the first day of the week, and John referred to it as “the Lord’s day.” (Rev. 1:10). The example at Troas tells us that the first day of the week was when the disciples were assembled for this purpose. History is clear that this practice was continued in the early church from the time of the apostles for hundreds of years forward. I believe that anyone who tampers with this tampers with something very sacred and tampers with a practice on which God has shown us His will. I know of no sensible reason to do that. My love for the Lord makes me want to honor Him in His own chosen way every Sunday. If you don’t, maybe you should ask yourself why?

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 “restoration” 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.” (Eph. 4:4) 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

FLORENCE DEBATE ON MDR: NOW AVAILABLE ON DVD. This was a two night debate, Oct. 12 & 13, 2009. Four hours of debating, 12 twenty minute speeches, on one disc. Order from us.  The price is $15 plus $2 first class shipping.

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

Regular DVDs available. We 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.

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 by experience 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, the idea that “strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life and few there are who find it,” is viewed as judgmental and intolerant. They prefer to see “the way” as broad  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 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 a higher authority than the divine 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 scriptures are profitable for “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.