Take Care, Brethren II
With all the warnings in the Bible concerning falling away
from the faith (Matthew 7:15; Acts 20:29ff; Romans 11:21; 16:17-18; 1
Corinthians 15:33; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15; Galatians 3:1; 4:11; 5:1-4; 2
Timothy 4:2-4), I am amazed that some professed Christians seem to have
completely turned a blind eye to all these warnings. Some are arguing that
people are more important than rules (that is, God’s commands in
Scripture). Yet Jesus and the apostles
consistently argued that those who do not comply with God’s commands, even
though they are made in the image of God and valuable, will still be condemned (Matthew
7:21-23; 2 Thessalonians 3:6,14; 2 John 9).
People also tend to place a false distinction between
“relationships” verses “rules”. The
truth of the matter is that all healthy relationships are governed by divine
rules (James 2:8-12; Romans 13:9).
Neglecting doctrine does bring an earthly consequence. Some will say that baptism is necessary for
salvation, but will at the same time fellowship those who deny baptism precedes
salvation. Some are arguing that
baptism is necessary for obedience, but waffle on whether it is necessary to be
saved. Here I am amazed at the hairs
people can split. Yes, one must be
baptized in order to obey God, because baptism is a command, but Jesus is the
one who plainly linked the term “saved” to baptism, as did His apostles! (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21). Some are equally uncertain that all the
of the New Testament came by verbal inspiration. “They do not affirm that every verse is inerrant and utterly
trustworthy. Instead, they accept
Scripture as having errors and inconsistencies we cannot explain” (The
Spiritual Sword, October 2002, p. 9). Yet
this was not Jesus’ view of Scripture (Matthew 5:17-19), nor Paul’s (2
Timothy 3:16-17). “Some will tell
you they are personally opposed to instrumental music, for instance, because a
cappella music is part of ‘our heritage’, but they do not believe instrumental
music in worship is a ‘salvation issue’.
It is becoming common among some to oppose the use of the instrument
during normal Sunday and Wednesday services but permit and endorse it in
classes and devotionals” (p. 9).
The word “heritage” in the previous quotation sounds nice
and respectable on the surface, but the problem is that Jesus is not impressed
by a human religious heritage. The word
“heritage” means, “something handed down from one’s ancestors or the past, as a
characteristic, a culture, a tradition” (Webster). When Jesus came to this earth, the Jewish people had a
definite “heritage” and Jesus rebuked them for passing down human religious
traditions (Mark 7:3 “observing the traditions of the elders”; 7:4 “and
there are many other things which they have received”—that is what a “heritage” is! Our task as Christians is not to observe some human religious
heritage; rather it is to observe the word of God (Luke 11:28).
In the book Radical Restoration, the author F. LaGard
Smith, argues that if the church does not have a social meal in conjunction
with the Lord’s Supper, that it has departed from the New Testament
pattern. Others are making the same
argument. Some congregations are
meeting in small groups on Sunday night for the purpose of observing the Lord’s
Supper in the context of a social meal.
John Mark Hicks in the book, Come To The Table: Revisioning the
Lord’s Supper, argues that the discernment of the body means that the
church needs to restore the “table as a meal”.
At the end of the Lord’s Supper, he suggests that those partaking of the
communion finish by serving dessert (p. 165). Anyone who has seriously studied Paul’s letter to the
Corinthians is astounded by such claims or suggestions. The Corinthians were eating the Lord’s
Supper in the context of a social meal and were condemned (1 Corinthians
11:22 “What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God?”). Carefully note that the Holy Spirit
clearly separates a social meal from the observance of the Lord’s Supper, to
the point that social meals are placed in a completely different setting (11:22,34). In addition, the Holy Spirit does not
advocate any of the above positions. If
the Lord’s Supper can only be properly eaten as part of a larger meal, then why
did God clearly separate the two?
Please note, neither does God allow the church at Corinth to divide up
into many little groups and all have their own individual social meal and
communion. In Acts 2:46 we find
that the early Christians met for worship and study in the temple area, and
then had social meals in private homes.
The Love
Feast: 2 Peter 2:13; Jude 12
It is argued that the "feast" mentioned in these
two verses were church-funded dinners or potlucks. The idea that the "love
feast" was a social meal connected with, following, or before the Lord's
supper is a common denominational view. Such a view contradicts what Paul says
about the Lord's Supper. Paul not only
separates the Lord's Supper from a social meal, but he commands all such meals
to be eaten "at home" (1 Corinthians 11:22; 34). Some contend that Paul is simply
correcting the Corinthians abuse of "fellowship dinners", and that we
are not to interpret Paul as saying that all such church sponsored dinners are
wrong. In response: When correcting an
abuse of something legitimate, Paul never completely outlawed the practice,
rather he would proceeded to regulate it
(1 Corinthians 10:25-33). Paul never regulates "church
dinners". He places all such
social meals in the private sector (11:22; 11:34). Even many
denominational commentators argue that the "love feast" was not a
social meal at all; rather it is simply another name for the Lord's
Supper. “When we come to Justin Martyr
(ca. A.D. 150) we find that in his account of church worship he does not
mention the agape (love feast) at all, but speaks of the Eucharist (Lord's
supper) as following a service which consisted of the reading of Scripture,
prayers, and exhortation” (I.S.B.E. revised. “Agape”, p. 66). Someone
also pointed out that from simply reading 2 Peter 2:13 or Jude 12
(if this was a social meal), the text says absolutely nothing about where
these feasts took place. Did such
feasts take place in private homes, or were they church funded? A recognized method of interpretation is to
let the Bible interpret itself. The
social meals of the early church in Jerusalem happened in the private homes
of the members (Acts 2:46), and Paul places all social meals outside
the assembly (1 Corinthians 11:22,34).
Eternal
Punishment
In 1982, Edward Fudge produced a book entitled, “The Fire
That Consumes”. In that book he
asserts that the unrighteous will be raised to judgment, punished for a while,
and then banished to total, everlasting extinction. Pepperdine University invited this author to present his
“conditionalist” doctrine at the spring lectureship in 1991. Here is one evidence that even proclaimed
churches of Christ are being affected by the liberal thinking among the
denominations. In fact, during the
April, 1988 Pepperdine University Lectureship, F. LaGard Smith argued that God
“will destroy (the soul). Not punish
it. Not dangle it. Not torture it. Destroy it” (A
Christian Response to the New Age Movement”, tape 3). The question with such comments is, “Where
did Jesus or the apostles ever teach such a concept?” Jesus spoke of the fire that is not quenched (Mark 9:48), and
the “punishment” that is eternal (Matthew 25:46). If hell is only temporary then why didn’t God clearly have
Jesus inform us concerning that truth?
The rich man is never told in Luke 16:19ff that his suffering
would only be temporary. John made it
very clear that the torment of the wicked never ends (Revelation 14:11;
20:10 “they will be tormented day and night forever and ever”). Some are arguing that the word “eternal”
when connected with “fire” does not mean that the fire is eternal but only that
the fire comes from an eternal God. Yet
Jesus did not say that, rather He spoke of hell has a place of eternal
punishment (Matthew 25:41). Remember,
any tinkering with the word “eternal” in reference to hell also impacts upon
“eternal” life. If the word “eternal”
has nothing to do with the length of the suffering, when what guarantee do we
have that heaven will be eternal in duration?
If hell is not eternal, then how does one prove that heaven is, seeing
that the exact same word is used for both? (Matthew 25:46) “John Clayton, a popular speaker among
(liberal) churches, gave Fudge’s book an enthusiastic recommendation, while himself
confessing: ‘I have never been able to be comfortable with the position that a
person who rejected God should suffer forever and ever” (The Spiritual
Sword, April 1997, p. 35). This
comment reveals the true issue when it comes Jesus’ teaching on eternal
punishment. Men sadly want a teaching
that is comfortable to their ears (2 Timothy 4:3; Isaiah 30:10 “Speak to us
pleasant words, prophesy illusions”). Imagine how such a statement, “I’m not comfortable with an
eternal hell”, looks to God! Did we
create the human race? Are people
violating the moral laws that are the outgrowth of our nature and blaspheming
our name every day? Did we give our Son
to die on the cross? Do we sit in
heaven and see all the evil things that people do day after day? Do we behold all the suffering that selfish
people bring upon others? Are we the
Judge? (James 4:12). Yet in
spite of these truths, we complain, “Well, I am not comfortable with sinners
being punished forever”? Could not God
say, “Who asked you?” Some argue that
the word “destruction”, when associated with hell, means that God actually
annihilates the soul in hell (Matthew 10:28). Yet, why would God resurrect the bodies of the wicked if He
was only going to annihilate them? (John 5:29). Jesus said that where the sinners goes is “unquenchable
fire”, where the “worm does not die” (Mark 9:43,44). Yet if the soul is obliterated, then the
fire does end and the worm does die.
Many have pointed out that the term “destroy” does not mean the loss of
being, but the loss of well-being. It
is the same word that Jesus used when He spoke of people “perishing” or being
“lost”. Compare with Matthew 8:25;
9:17; Mark 9:22; 11:18; Luke 4:34; 11:51; 13:3; 15:24; Romans 14:15; 1
Corinthians 15:18; James 4:12).
The Rejection
of Reason
On February 21, 1996, William S. Banowsky, former president
of Pepperdine University, spoke at the Abilene lectures on the subject, “The
Christ-Centered Church”. In that speech
he argued “faith is more a matter of intuition and feeling than logic and
reason”. He warns, “We will not win
this fight for faith if we wage it on the basis of reason”, and thus he pleaded
for a “heartfelt religion” such as manifested by Pentecostalism. God has a different perspective. Yes, God wants our hearts involving in
loving Him, but He also expects all of our “reason” as well (Mark
12:30). Through Isaiah, God said,
“Come, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18). God urges the nation to act with reason, and notice that God
knows that even sinners can make the decision to think correctly. “The Lord forces none to obey Him. His call is one that enjoins man to ‘reason’
or give consideration to the immutability of God’s word. All who reject Him suffer condemnation, but
those who obey have the blessed assurance of forgiveness” (Harkrider p.
11). To repent and obey God is the “reasonable” thing to do! Compare with 1 Corinthians 15:34; Romans
1:21-22; 2 Peter 2:10-13. “In the
light of the historically established evidence and the pragmatic proof of the
commandments and promises of God’s Word, unbelief is irrational, unreasonable,
and immoral. Only God knows where man
came from, what man’s purpose in existing is, and what man’s destiny is. All other thinking about these ultimates,
unless conformed to God’s revealed thinking, is irrational and untrue” (Butler
p. 79). Sin is irrational, because
it is the violation of what is true (John 17:17). God also warns us against operating on the
basis of feeling or intuition (Matthew 7:21-23).
Mark
Dunagan/Beaverton Church of Christ/503-644-9017
www.beavertonchurchofchrist.net/mdunagan@easystreet.com