The Works Of The Flesh
Malcolm L. Hill

The works of the flesh that we will be considering are found in Galatians 5:19-21. God there tells us that those who commit such things cannot enter the kingdom of God. Can one obtain forgiveness for these things? Of course he can. There is no sin in the world for which one cannot obtain forgiveness if he truly seeks such. Repentance and confession to God is necessary to receive God’s forgiveness for any and all sin (I John 1:8-9). If one has never obeyed the Gospel then he must believe, repent, confess, and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) in order to be saved or get rid of his sins before God. We are going to give these sins mentioned in Galatians 5:19-21 by numbers so the material will be simple and easy to grasp.

1. Adultery. Adultery sometimes includes the overt sexual act. It sometimes includes the sentiments of the heart. Jesus once said: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:27-28). The key to understanding this passage more fully is the phrase “to lust after her.” To lust after a woman is to have strong feelings about her sexually and to say to oneself, “If I had the opportunity to have sex with that woman I would do so.” It would include starting the process to set up a way to have sex with her.
2. Fornication. Fornication is always the overt sexual act. It cannot be committed in the heart. This is why Jesus said: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery” (Matt. 19:9). Jesus did not say “except it be for adultery.” Why? Because adultery can be committed in the heart and this is not a reason for scriptural remarriage.
3. Uncleanness. Uncleanness includes a number of immoral and unclean things. It would include things like handling and fondling the opposite sex unlawfully. It would include immoral activity of many kinds such as suggestive songs, music, dancing, etc.
4. Lasciviousness. Lasciviousness is anything that would work up the baser nature of an individual: the unlawful handling of another person; kissing with great emotion and suggestive of a wish to involve one in an unlawful thing, etc. It certainly includes dancing in close proximity and lewd movements.
5. Idolatry. Idolatry is anything that comes between us and our acceptable service to God. It could be a man’s house. It could be a man’s car. It could be a man’s sport. It could be recreation. It could be materialism. It could be one’s bank account, etc. America is a most idolatrous nation and most people do not realize it!
6. Witchcraft. Witchcraft has to do with deception. In the ancient world it was practiced (Acts 8:9-11). Some made their living by deceiving people and claiming to have powers that were supernatural. However, anything that would have to do with deception in that fashion could be considered witchcraft. Any such art used to deceive people could be considered to be witchcraft. Some superstition falls into this category.
7. Hatred. Hatred is ill will toward others without a just cause. Even if we have a cause to hate others, we must love the person but hate his ways. This does not prevent justice or a desire for justice. We are to pray for our enemies and wish for them to be saved (Matt. 5:43-45). Some people hate others because of envy, jealousy, and spite.
8. Variance. Variance includes the idea of separating good friends. It includes showing partiality. It means to start a wrangle. It carries with it the idea of looking for a place to start an unnecessary fuss. A man of variance has meanness in his mind and wickedness in his heart.
9. Emulations. Emulations has to do with wickedness and jealousy. There is a good jealously. God is a jealous God (Exod. 20:5). A man has the right to be jealous of his wife. A Christian can and should be jealous about the truth. What do we mean by this? We do not want people tampering with and changing the truth of God. But emulations has to do with wicked jealousy. Some are jealous because others have more than they do. Some are jealous over houses, cars, paychecks of others, businesses, etc. This is precisely condemned in the Bible. It is a work of the flesh and not of God.
10. Wrath. Wrath is the flash of anger over nothing. It is to be quick tempered. It has to do with being ready to fight physically at the drop of a hat. It is the kind of wrath that takes the name of God in vain and talks filthy. It is the wrath that knows no reasoning. It is the kind of wrath that kills the innocent and destroys infants and children. All of us must have wrath but it must be controlled in every facet of life. God became angry many times, as the Bible sets forth, but it was a righteous wrath. Christ did the same.

To be continued in the next issue of Living Oracles.

EDITORIAL

It is often the case that a man and his wife cannot have children because of some physical handicap. It used to be that the only way to have children when such existed was by adoption. Science has discovered much in the past few years. I hesitate to say they have made progress in some things because of ethical considerations. The standard for right and wrong must be God and the Bible. There is absolutely no way to have ethics that will stick without God and His Word. So when we talk about artificial reproduction we must find out if it is right or wrong based on the Bible.

Artificial reproduction is brought about in at least four different ways. They are artificial insemination (known as AID or AIH), in vitro fertilization (called IVF), surrogate parenting, and embryo transfer. We are told that more than 20,000 children are brought into the world by artificial insemination each year. Artificial insemination is the oldest way of artificial reproduction. Artificial insemination (AIH—artificial insemination by the husband) is done because it circumvents problems of male infertility. We can see no wrong in this process at all since the husband and wife are the only ones involved in it. The Bible authorizes a man and his wife to be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. Sometimes they have to have some help to do this so they turn to AIH.

Sometimes a donor is needed to furnish the sperm. This method is known as artificial insemination by a donor—AID. A man other than the woman’s husband is sought to furnish the sperm and it is used to impregnate the woman. There is no sex between the woman and the man in AID. The work is done by a physician. Do we have problems with this type of situation biblically speaking? Indeed we do. First, where does the Bible authorize two unmarried people to have children in this way? Second, the Bible teaches that each person is responsible for his or her offspring. All of us are to bring our children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4). How can this be done when the sperm or egg is given away? You see, there is more to it than giving the sperm or egg away when it comes to living up to the teachings of God’s Word. Third, we are responsible for our child or children when it comes to food, shelter, and clothing. The Bible says, “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (I Tim. 5:8). When sperm or an egg is given away the donor loses control of the child that is born. God will hold the man or woman accountable for this.

What about surrogate parenting? This takes place when artificial insemination is used to circumvent female infertility. A surrogate mother is sought and is artificially inseminated with the sperm of the donor father. She carries the child until it is born and then gives it to the donor father and his wife. Thus, the surrogate mother loses all control of the child which is a part of her—she furnished the egg and carried the baby until birth. The same ethical problem would exist here that exists in the case of artificial insemination by a donor. Check the material in the previous paragraph of this article.

What about embryo transfer which is the newest technique in artificial insemination? Embryo transfer takes place when a “surrogate mother” is impregnated but early in her pregnancy the embryo is taken and planted into the wife. We have the same problem with this that we do with surrogate parenting and artificial insemination by a donor. The woman loses control over her offspring.
What about a man and his wife who cannot have children due to some physical hindrance? The egg is taken from the wife and the sperm taken from her husband, then fertilization takes place. This is known as in vitro fertilization (IVF). The fertilized egg is then planted into a surrogate mother who carries it until the baby is born. The baby is then given to its mother and father. Would this be ethical? We do not see why not. The surrogate mother is only helping the literal father and mother to have a child. What would be the difference in this and in giving a blood transfusion to help save a life? The surrogate mother is used as somewhat of an incubator in this case.

We are not in any way upholding flushing fertilized eggs down the commode. To do this is but to take human life since life begins at conception according to Bible teaching. Man is in serious business when he starts destroying the unborn even at conception or fertilization. We urge all Christians and every person on this earth to check with someone who knows the Bible before they start experimenting with human life.
—Malcolm Hill

Which Way Now?
Kerry Duke

For several years some have been trying to change what they call the traditional church of Christ. As with any movement perceived to be anti-abuses-of-the-establishment, their rally cry attracted the ignorant, the disgruntled, and the unconverted among churches of Christ. Thousands have joined their cause. As the trend gained momentum, its chief spokesmen became more critical of the “old ways” and less inclined to attempt to justify their liberal theology. To some extent, they have achieved their goal. They have changed the worship, doctrine, and life of the church. With numbers on their side, they feel they are in a position to openly make fun of the old, rigid conservatism of previous generations of “Bible-thumping” members of churches of Christ.

Now the leaders of this movement stand at a critical juncture. The cry for something new is now an old plea. They have already, to a large degree, changed the old and adopted the new. What is left to change? They have already evangelized existing churches of Christ to a large extent. How many more can they convert? If the movement is to continue its aggressive growth (and the egos of its leaders want this badly), then it will have to pull converts from the world and from denominations. But in converting people from these groups the liberal church of Christ movement will have to do one important thing. It will have to change more, and it will have to change again and again.

The leaders of this movement seem to be feeling the impact of this decision. The excitement of the revolution has faded, and the movement is in a lull. Since the movement began upon and is based primarily upon change and excitement, it cannot maintain its appeal unless it adapts. Rubel Shelly’s plea for change is too old, and his style is too stiff and formal for the next generation changers. The newer generation of change agents will not be very much moved by sermons directed at criticizing traditional churches of Christ. Many of them won’t even know the issues, much less be interested in them. They will just want to “praise the Lord and have a good time.” They will not want to listen to men in their fifties and sixties still whining about how bad things in churches of Christ were when they were younger. You see, Rubel and others have created a monster that will turn on them and discard them for something newer. These leaders pushed doctrinal limits as far as they could, but they have not pushed them as far as many outside this movement in denominations would like for them to be pushed. As ironic as it may seem, unless Rubel and his friends are willing to keep changing, they will be viewed as too conservative to really appeal to the only base of people who will maintain the growth they desire—denominational and “unchurched” people.

One critical decision these leaders of change must make is whether or not to become Pentecostal. They have already adopted the worship atmosphere of Pentecostalism: hand-clapping, swaying, raising hands toward performers, and testifying continually about the work and presence of the Spirit in their lives. But, as the enormous appeal of full-blown Pentecostalism shows, if change agents in the church of Christ are to experience the excitement and growth of Pentecostal churches, they must go Pentecostal all the way and claim modern-day revelations and miracles. Some, such as Joe Beam and Edward Fudge, have begun making this claim. But others seem to have an odd hesitancy about this move. The February 2001 issue of Wineskins contained some revealing statements that seem to indicate that some are putting the brakes on in the drift toward full-blown Pentecostalism (even though Fudge has in the magazine advanced his belief in the possibility of modern-day miracles). Shelly urged readers to keep “our hearts open to the Holy Spirit” (p. 5). Yet another writes that “the simplistic view that emotion is the sign of the Holy Spirit’s presence worries me” (p. 11). But far more revealing is Lipscomb Professor John York’s claim that “‘Life’ defined by Spirit presence (no, not Pentecostalism) is a major issue for those hungering for change in our worship” (p. 27). Why give this disclaimer? Innovators in churches of Christ have shown no hesitancy in extending fellowship to Pentecostal churches. They have brought Pentecostal jargon and a charismatic atmosphere into worship services. Why not encourage tongue speaking and have healing services? This change may be next, but as far as some of these leaders are concerned, not yet. Perhaps some of them are too conservative (!!) themselves to agree to such. Perhaps others know that such a change would be more than many members of the church of Christ in their movement, having “baggage” from the old days, will tolerate. Perhaps the leaders of the movement believe that if they make a full transition into denominationalism and drop the name “church of Christ” as well as stop associating with churches with this name, they will be greatly overshadowed by much more popular, talented, and famous denominational evangelists. They may also fear losing their financial base. Whatever the reason, their boldness for change, at least in this direction, has cooled somewhat. How much farther they will go? Only the future will reveal!

Evolution: A Matter of Philosophy
Holger W. Neubauer

Although many scientists regard evolution as an established fact, there are other proponents of evolution who recognize that the boundaries of scientific knowledge have been overstepped by such a claim. Drs. Paul Ehrlich and L. C. Birch state in their book, Evolutionary History and Population Biology,


Erlich and Birch make revealing statements concerning the prejudice that is found in the scientific community as to this doctrine. Another renowned evolutionist admits that science and evolution are not compatible when he says,


Science is an observable method. It is an approach to finding certain data by empirical testing. Yet evolution is not an observable or testable hypothesis. No one has or ever will witness something non-human changing into something human. No one has or ever will witness something that is non-life transforming itself into something that is life. Evolution is a matter not to be finally determined by the sciences of hypothesis and observation but rather by philosophical scrutiny and the careful weighing of every implication of the position.

The doctrine of evolution concerns itself with the origin of man. But the origin of man is clearly not an observable matter, hence it becomes a philosophical study rather than a study built upon demonstrable observation.

The doctrine of evolution contends that man is a product of wholly naturalistic forces. H. L. Carson says, “The facts of evolutionary biology permit no conclusion but that man is a product of wholly naturalistic processes.”³ This understanding of origins denies any supernatural intervention in the forming of man. Also, an implication of this position is a denial of any objective law that the totality of man is amenable to. Basically, if evolution is true then God, His law, the Bible, and morality are all non-sensical concepts. If man is a product of wholly naturalistic forces and his contigency is built totally upon matter in motion, then what he thinks, feels, reflects, and philosophizes becomes his only standard by which morality, right and wrong, ethics, and scruples are determined. Evolution implies a subjective ethic, one built totally upon each man’s interpretation of any act. Therefore the words “good,” “God,” “cruelty,” “evil,” and “hate” will have a peculiarly different meaning to each subject using them. The logical consequence of this position implies that what evil is to one individual is actually love to another; what might be murder to one subject is only love to another. Who can agree to such rot? This system of subjective values and morals is a self-defeating system that is contradictory and, hence, ought to be given up.

Some Consequences Of Evolution

1. Evolution implies a subjective ethic and a subjective ethic implies that there are no objective laws governing what is right and good. A subjective ethic implies that there are absolutely no absolutes in matters of values. Yet by denying that there are not any absolutes they affirm one, which demonstrates the entire system is contradictory and false.
2. A subjective ethic implies that murder, rape, incest, and vice could possibly be right if they were so interpreted. Any heinous crime could be turned into a glorious act of virtue and honesty if morality is totally dependent upon interpretation.
3. A subjective ethic implies that Adolf Hitler in murdering six to ten million Jews was justified and ought to be praised because he acted upon and practiced what he believed was proper and good.
4. A subjective ethic denies the “principle of contradiction” which says that precisely stated propositions cannot be both true and false at the same time. Yet a subjective ethic says that murder is both right and wrong at the same time, dependent upon the subject’s interpretation of the situation.
5. Evolution implies a subjective ethic and a subjective ethic is utterly ridiculous.
   

ENDNOTES

¹ Ehrlich, Paul and L. C. Birch, “Evolutionary History and Population Biology,” Nature, Vol. 214, April, 1967, p. 352.
² Ayala, F. J., “Biological Evolution,” American Scientist, Vol. 62, November/December, 1974, p. 700.
³ Carson, H. L., “Evolutionary Biology: Its Value To Society,” Biology Science, Vol. 22, June, 1972, pp. 349-350.

Euthanasia
Ronald D. Gilbert

The word “euthanasia” comes from the Greek en meaning good and thanatos meaning death. It conveys the idea of a good death as opposed to much pain and suffering involved in a bad death. Many are confused concerning the current debate on euthanasia. Some have defined passive euthanasia as hastening the death of a person by withdrawing some form of life support and letting nature take its course. They would say for example that removing life support equipment from a person or not doing CPR on a person whose heart has stopped is euthanasia. This, however, is misleading and is not euthanasia. Concerning this point one RN wrote:


Being told that you have terminal cancer and that radical surgery might add a few weeks to your life and your refusal of this surgery is not euthanasia. It would, on the other hand, be euthanasia to be told that you had terminal cancer and that you have only a few weeks to live, and then ask the doctor to give you some type of medicine that would kill you.

Euthanasia or “mercy killing” is nothing new. Many societies and cultures have practiced euthanasia. There has been much debate in the USA during the past thirty years or so concerning this issue. But it goes back beyond thirty years. In 1938 Charles F. Potter, calling himself Reverend Potter, founded the Euthanasia Society of America. Among those serving as president for this society was Dr. Joseph Fletcher (father of situation ethics). The name of this organization was later changed to Society for the Right to Die, Inc. Dr. Winston Duke, while defending euthanasia, said:


First, there was abortion, next comes euthanasia; the two go hand in hand. Here the fruit of Darwin’s evolution is seen. The Russian poet and philosopher Dostoevski said, “If God is not, then nothing is morally wrong.” For the past several years our society has drunk from the depths of atheism, evolution, humanism, materialism and selfishness. No wonder Dr. Winston Duke could see no difference in killing an adult chimpanzee and a newborn baby. In fact, his implication is that since the adult chimpanzee has more “mental awareness” it would be worse to kill an adult chimpanzee than to kill a newborn baby. It is quite revealing that he did not speak of killing an “unborn baby” but a “newborn baby.”

Truly, without a divine standard man is traveling without a compass in a vast sea of moral uncertainty. However, we do have a divine standard: God has spoken. In the long ago God said, “Thou shalt not kill” (Exod. 20:13). In Matthew 19:18 Jesus, quoting from the Old Law, said, “Thou shalt do no murder.” God’s Word makes a distinction in killing and in murder. Government has the right to execute justice on evildoers (Rom. 13). God’s Word calls upon us to rise up with respect for the elderly (Lev. 19:32), not to kill them. Children are to honor their fathers and mothers (Eph. 6:2). Killing them so they won’t be a burden or expense for us is not what God had in mind! The heathen of Romans 1:31-32 were “without natural affection” and God condemned them for their evil. Paul Marx said:


In the Supreme Court of the United States, October 1996, State of Washington against Harold Glucksburg, a brief was prepared by Mark A. Rothe. Notice some of the things Mr. Rothe said. “It has long been a principle of the criminal law that if at the time of defendant’s conduct the victim is living, it matters not that he was dying, as from a mortal wound inflicted by a third person. Defendant is guilty of homicide if he merely accelerates the victim’s death.” It is homicide, not a merciful killing or dignified fundamental right, “to kill one already dying, to accelerate one’s death, to kill one condemned to be executed the next day, or to kill a worthless victim.” “Hales v. Petit has stated the case law on suicide for over four hundred years. In it, Judge Lord Dyer stated that suicide is a grave wrong.” Judge Dyer defined suicide as malicious, premeditated murder.

Under the heading of “It is not possible for the law to recognize any right to be dead or to be non-existent,” Mr. Rothe wrote:


The law has been clear for many years on suicide and assisted suicide; however, some want to rewrite the laws of the land and the laws of God.

Those who believe the Bible know that existence does not cease at physical death. Death is a separation of the body and spirit (James 2:26). The story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 clearly shows that death does not bring on nonexistence nor does death stop physical pain. “And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame” (Luke 16:23-24).

Evolutionists and atheists would have us to believe that it is good to kill a person who is in much pain. They fail to understand that at death those who are not Christians are not mercifully delivered from pain but are in more pain than they can imagine and that the pain for the wicked dead is eternal (Matt. 25:46). Those who do not believe in God and the Bible many times see no value in human suffering. Notice what David said: “It is good for me that I have been afflicted; that I might learn thy statutes” (Ps. 119:71).

Murder has been and always will be wrong, no matter what it is called. In the long ago God told His people to plead the cause of the poor and the oppressed (Isa. 1:17, 23). It is time that as God’s people we rise up and speak for the unborn and the elderly.

The words of Martin Niemoller, a Protestant preacher who was killed by the Nazi government, shows why you should be concerned for this topic: “In Germany they came first for the Communists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

ENDNOTES
¹ Leah Curtain, R.N., The Mask of Euthanasia (Cincinnati: Nurses Concerned for Life Inc., 1975), p. 4.
² “The New Biology,” Reason, August 1972.
³ R. A. Gallop, The Mercy Killers (Palo Verdes Estates, CA: Right to Life, 1974).

The Abomination of Homosexuality
Glenn B. Ramsey

Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary defines “homosexual” as: A person who is attracted sexually to members of his or her own sex.

The practice of homosexuality resulted in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18-19). The Bible says “Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground” (Gen. 19:24-25). This abomination is remembered by Isaiah. He said, “Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah. Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah” (Isa. 1:9-10).

Ezekiel records these words: “And thine elder sister is Samaria, she and her daughters that dwell at thy left hand: and thy younger sister, that dwelleth at thy right hand, is Sodom and her daughters. Yet hast thou not walked after their ways, nor done after their abominations: but, as if that were a very little thing, thou wast corrupted more than they in all thy ways. As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy” (Ezek. 16:46-49).

Amos says, “I have overthrown some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a firebrand plucked out of the burning: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD” (Amos 4: 11). Paul says in Romans 9:29: “And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.”

Other references to the destruction of these cities for their abominable practice of homosexuality include: Matthew 10:15, 11:23-24, Mark 6:11, and Luke 10:12.

Paul describes this abominable practice of sin with these words in Romans 1:22-27: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

Paul said, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind” (I Cor. 6:9). As already noted in Romans 1:26-27, Paul declares that God will hold all such behavior, whether practiced by men or women, as an abomination that is due proper punishment.

If there is any sin that is more obvious than the practice of homosexuality, what is it? The very nature of the home—God’s first divinely appointed institution—is undermined by this sin. The nature of the government—God’s second divinely appointed institution—is laid waste by this sin. The church of the Lord—God’s third and final divine institution—is jaded and corrupted by any such practice of sin!

Yet there are people in our society in these United States of America, and multitudes of people like them throughout the world, that cry out for acceptance of this sinful practice. The practice of homosexuality (including, of course lesbianism) is an abomination to the God of heaven. He has demonstrated His displeasure at such sin. He does not change. He will take vengeance on any, even today, who practice such—whether nation or individual!

Let us all pray that men may repent so that God will not give them all up to do that which is an abomination before Him. Remember that God allows men to do what they choose. But He holds all men responsible for their choices. His justice is perfect. His memory is complete.

Those who have wallowed in this abominable sin can repent and turn to God. He will hear and forgive those who obey His Gospel. All others will have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone—the second death (Rev. 21:8).