Anti-ism
Ronald D. Gilbert

A failure to properly understand how the Bible authorizes has produced two extreme positions, liberalism and anti-ism.  In some ways these two are far apart and yet they are very much akin.  Liberalism denies Bible authority by loosing where God has bound.  Anti-ism, on the other hand denies Bible authority by binding where God has not bound.  Some, no doubt will be offended because of the use of the labels liberal and anti.   However, using labels and terms to identify people is a scriptural practice.  Consider these:  Matt 7:15—false prophets, Matt 23:13—hypocrites, Rom. 16:17—those who cause, division, II Tim 2:18—erring brethren, Tit. 1:9—gainsayers, unruly, vaintalkers, deceivers, Tit. 3:10 heretic.

Also consider the use of such terms as faithful and unfaithful, sound and unsound, abides in the doctrine and abides not in the doctrine.  It is scriptural to use such terms.

Earlier I mentioned that liberalism and anti-ism are very much akin, let me clarify.  Both liberalism and anti-ism would disappear if those holding these false positions had the true picture of how the Bible authorizes.  Bible authority is established by approved example, direct statement, expediency and implication.  Both liberals and antis fall prey to picking their favorites from these four.  Let me illustrate the point. Roy Merritt in Africa writes a pamphlet on singing groups.  What does the Bible say about them?  He said on page 4, “First I decided to write on this page a list of all the verses in the Bible that oppose choirs, quartets and singing groups!  You can read them here!   N-O-T-H-I-N-G!   N-O-T   E-V-E-N   O-N-E   V-E-R-S-E!  If God says nothing, who are we to say something?"

Notice his reasoning since the Bible does not say not to use them then they are authorized.  That sounds like the Baptist church preacher attempting to say instrumental music in worship is authorized because where is the verse that says not to use them.

Rubel Shelly is quoted in Behold The Pattern, p. 276 with a similar statement.  “Adultery and lying are explicitly condemned in the scriptures; whatever else one can say about pianos and organs in worship, he cannot find their explicit condemnation in the Bible.  Acceptance of their use certainly does not repudiate any of the seven essential items of Christian faith identified in Ephesians 4:4-6.   At best, one comes to regard their use as wrong on the basis of a process of inferences concerning Biblical authority.”

The problem with brothers Merritt and Shelly is not understanding how the Bible authorizes.  The Bible authorizes by what it says not by what it does not say.  Where is the approved example, direct statement, expedient or implication for special music in worship?  And where is the authority for pianos and organs; not where does it say not to have them.  This is the wrong question.

Antis fall into the same type of faulty reasoning.  They manipulate the four ways the Bible authorizes to their own preconceived ideas.  For example, they understand the idea of expediency in some areas and use it but deny it in other areas.  How do you suppose the antis find authority for the following: church buildings, a preacher's home, a water fountain, air conditioning, sinks and commodes, padded pews, a P.A. system, song books, a paved parking lot, fertilizer for the lawn?  They authorize these by expediency!  And yet in their arguments many times they say things like “where is the command or example for having a kitchen in the church building or supporting an orphan home?   When talking about orphan homes and kitchens they act as if the Bible authorizes in two ways only that is by command or example.  But when talking about water fountains and church buildings and other things they have and use they authorize these by expediency.

Some antis say show me one verse that says it is OK. to have or support:

1. kitchens in the church
2. orphan homes
3. women teachers
4. Bible classes
5. churches cooperating

1. to have special music in worship
2. women preachers, elders, deacons
3. instrumental music in worship
4. the church to fellowship denominations
5. take the Lord’s Supper on days other than Sunday.

We can clearly see the question of how the Bible authorizes and a failure to understand these points produces both liberals and antis.  Sometimes I hear well-meaning brethren say that the antis are closer to the truth than the liberals.  How is that the case?  One is making laws where God has not and the other is loosing where God has bound.  Both are serious, deadly errors.  The issue of Bible authority is at the heart of most error.

Editorial

There has always been false doctrine and there will always be false doctrine.    To have false doctrine there must be human beings to perpetrate such.  False teaching is not some hazy, self-existent, self-creating thing, that floats from here to there with no attachment to human beings.  The devil is behind all false teaching and the father of such (John 8:44).

How does the devil work through human beings?  This I cannot explain and I do not know of anyone who can.  How powerful is the devil?  I know that he is not as powerful as God and I further know that God keeps the devil in subjection as He wishes (Job 1 and 2).  How much does the devil know?  God has set limitations on the knowledge of the devil and I do not know where they start and stop.  The devil thought he knew about Job but in reality he did not know all about this great man of God.

The devil is a lying spirit (I Kings 22:22-23).  But how does he influence people to lie?  This I do not know.  Satan is called the prince of this world (John 12:31).  But how does he influence men to rule?  This I do not know.  He is referred to as the prince of the power of the air (Eph. 2:2).  What is included in this statement?  Much that I do not understand.  Satan is called the ruler of the darkness of this world (Eph. 6:12).  How does he rule the dark world?  He is referred to as the spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience (Eph. 2:2).  How does his spirit work in the children of disobedience?  Does he work directly or indirectly in children of disobedience?  The devil is called the god of this world (II Cor. 4:4).  How did he get to be the god of this world?  Just a thought here.  Does it really matter how Satan works and how he has done all the things he has done?  Must we understand all these things to please God?  Or is it not enough to know that what the Bible says about Satan is true and it is not necessary that we explain all of it?  And what about the Holy Spirit of God?  Must we know how He works in order to please God? Is it not enough to believe what the Bible says about the Holy Spirit?

Now the sum of the origin of false teaching and false doctrine is that it originated with the devil and still does.  I occasionally run upon a brother who holds to false teaching who tells me that he does not nor will he teach his false teaching in a public way.  He says it is a private matter with him.  If it is a private matter with him, pray tell me how it became public that he holds the view or views he does?  There is not nor has there ever been a false doctrine that did not have a personality attached to it.

Sometimes I run upon a brother who tells me that he wishes I had not responded in a public way to his false doctrine.  Well, he did not contact me before he published his false teaching.  It seems to me that he is just as beholden to me before he declares his false doctrine as I am to him when I answer it.  When false doctrine is made public then there  is a responsibility for us to answer it in a public way.  What are all the epistles of the New Testament about if they are not to correct false doctrine?  Sure, there are other things dealt with in these epistles but there is not one that does not deal with false teaching more or less.

All the Bible preachers both Old and New Testament dealt with false teaching and false practice.  Jesus Christ dealt much with false teachers and false doctrine during His public ministry.  I have always been told that the hit dog always barks and I have learned that false teachers whine and howl when slapped to face the consequences of their false position.  I have no apologies to make along this line nor shall I.  I appeal to all faithful and true preachers to pour it on all those religious politicians in the church of Christ who are nothing but sectarians in reality (Gal. 6:11-13).  Most of the "big name" preachers belong to this society.  They are an abomination to God and make the righteous sick to their stomachs.  One of these big boys said not long ago that he did not intend to argue about what is going on in the church today.  If he has a spine, I have not detected it.  He would have gone home with John Mark as recorded in Acts 13:13.  People of a cowardly sort are one of the greatest enemies to the cause of our Lord Jesus Christ and are numbered among the abominable in Revelation 21:8.  God deliver us from this sort!

My prayer is that God will greatly increase the people of the Apostle Paul's kind.  If the church ever needed them, it is right now.  If you are carrying the banner of the Lord, lift it high and be strong in the Lord and the power of His might (Eph. 6:10-17).
—Malcolm L. Hill

Strategies to Employ with Epistemological Agnostics
Mac Deaver

(Continued from July/August 2003 Issue)

All men comprehend, in general, the relevance of truth.  Friendships, marriages, businesses, societies cannot exist without deference to truth.  All men pay homage in practice to the value of truth every day.  Contracts, vows, promises, affirmations all attest the value of truth to any people.  And yet, for some reason, in the domain of religion, all of a sudden to many people, truth becomes unimportant and the knowledge of truth unnecessary.  Such a state must make the devil smile.  How stupid we men sometimes are.  The Bible shows that God's truth is the most important (John 8:32) and thus the most relevant.

Finally, some have suggested that unless a man can know all truth, then he cannot know any truth.  But this is a great mistake.  The Bible teaches that man must learn truth.  Even early on, foolishness must be drive from his heart (Prov. 22:15,  cf. Gen. 8:21).  He must learn because he is not God.  Because he is not infinite in understanding as God is (Ps. 147:5), he must learn.  He must grow (II Tim. 2:15; II Pet. 3:18). Consider the statement:  Unless a man can know everything, he cannot know anything.  Is that statement true or false?  If it is false, then is it correct to claim that a man can know something without knowing everything, and the statement ceases to be a problem for us.  If the statement is true, then it cannot be known to be true.  That is, the man making the statement cannot be making a truth claim without also at the same time claiming to know everything.  Since he will not claim to know everything, he is claiming to know something without claiming at the same time to know everything.  In other words, in his practice he is denying what he is claiming in theory.  He is claiming to know something (that something is:  one cannot know anything without knowing everything) without at the same time his claiming to know everything.  And this is the very thing that he is doing that in his statement he is saying that one cannot correctly do.

It is amazing how God has made all reality including man and knowledge possibility.   How blessed we are to have His wonderful word which gives us proper direction.  May we never be confused and dissuaded by the seemingly ingenious tactics taken by spiritual opponents who would rob us of the right of claiming to know the truth.

Ladies and the Lord's Supper
Malcolm L. Hill

Speed seems to be picking up considerably when it comes to ladies passing the Lord’s Supper in some congregations.  The chief argument that I have heard made for such is that the women have been passing the Lord’s Supper for years while sitting in the pews.  I have been told that they pass the Lord’s Supper from one person to another even though the men are standing up and serving at the table.  So the question comes, if they pass the Lord’s Supper while sitting in the pew, then why not let them stand up and pass it?

How many people in the church of Christ want to take this position?  Are they willing to accept the consequences of such doctrine?  Let us see if they are.  Women pray while sitting in the pew, therefore they should be used in the public assembly for prayer?  Women study while sitting in the pew at the public worship service, therefore they should be used to preach and teach in the public assembly?  Women sing while sitting in the pew therefore they should be used to lead the singing when the whole church has assembled for worship?  Women read their Bible when sitting in the pew, therefore they should be used to read the Bible when the whole church has come together for worship? Alien sinners pass the Lord’s Supper while in the pew, therefore they should be used to preach, lead singing, wait on the Lord’s Table and any other work to be done in the church that Christians should do?  I never thought I would ever hear such foolish nonsense promoted in the church of Christ.

The holy rollers have been right in days gone by according to these denominational people who say they are in the church of Christ.  If we go with folks like this, we will have women preachers, women leading in public prayers in the assembly of the saints, women waiting on the Lord’s table, women leading the congregational singing, and women in the eldership.

The Bible still says that the women are to keep silent in the assembly of the saints and they are not permitted to preach to the whole church (I Cor. 14:34).  The Bible tells us that the women are not to preside over the men in public worship (I Tim. 2:11-13).  The men are to be over such and not the women according to Bible doctrine.  The reason is given:  “For Adam was first formed then Eve.  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (I Tim. 2:13-24).

No, I Timothy 2:11-12 was not just a custom, a tradition, nor a cultural matter.  The reason we know this is because Paul through the Holy Spirit goes back four thousand years for this authority.  He goes all the way back to Adam and Eve and shows that the man is to take the lead and be over the work of the church.  Some have said it is the kind of hermeneutics one uses.  I must confess men attempt to make the Bible mean what they  want it to mean at times but such is dishonest and un-Christlike.  The Lord has only one hermeneutic that please Him and that is rightly dividing the word of truth (II Tim. 2:15).

If one is going to change the place that God gave the woman in the church, then why is it so bad to change His sex plan for man and woman?  If we are free to change what we wish in the Bible, then why would it be wrong to change any and everything we wish?

One of the most evil and wicked things man can do is add to and take from the Bible.  There is no greater slap in the face of God than to change His word (Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:18-19).  When we change the Bible we are in essence saying that God did not know what to say.  Only devils change God’s Bible (Gen. 3:1-4).  Hell will be full of Bible changers which will include the liberal mess in the church today!

One Way or the Other: How Jack Evans and James Maxwell Justify Adulterous Marriages
Kerry Duke

There are two basic ways people use to deny the plain teaching of the Bible.  One way is to deny that the passage under consideration applies to our time or to all men.  The other is to reinterpret the passage and give it some meaning other than its obvious meaning, especially by assigning a figurative meaning to a literal passage or by giving a literal meaning to a figurative passage.  Both of these tactics are used by those who deny the plain meaning of Matthew 19:9.  Many say this verse does not apply to non-Christians.  E. C. Fuqua and James Bales were proponents of this view, and many have accepted their teaching.  Another tactic is to say that “adultery” in Matthew 19:9 is not literal but spiritual adultery.  This view says adultery simply means covenant breaking, not the sex act in the type of marriage forbidden by Jesus.

Strangely, some appeal to both of these approaches.  Jack Evans, Sr. and James Maxwell of Southwestern Christian College in Terrell, Texas have an odd concoction of teaching on divorce and remarriage.  On one hand, they claim that adultery in Matthew 19:9 is not the sex act.  Evans writes, “Jesus is dealing with the attitude of adultery (the mind), while some today are missing the point and are trying to deal with the act that takes place in bed, calling it ‘continuous adultery.’”¹ According to Evans and Maxwell, adultery in Matthew 19:9 is divorcing unscripturally and getting married to another but not staying married to that person.  So their view says a person can repent of the one-time act of getting married and remain in that marriage with God’s approval.  They and others go to great lengths to try to prove that adultery is not the sex act.  But they also teach that Matthew 19:9 does not apply to non-Christians!  What an absurdly awkward doctrine!  If non-Christians are not subject to Matthew 19:9, what difference does it make what adultery in this passage means?  According to Evans and Maxwell, non-Christians cannot commit the adultery of Matthew 19:9 anyway because they are not under this law.  Even if you were to prove to them that this adultery is the sex act, they would still argue that non-Christians cannot commit this adultery because only Christians are under this law.

Why do Evans and Maxwell spend time and effort saying that adultery in Matthew 19:9 is not the sex act if they end up teaching that it does not apply to the non-Christian? Because one way or the other, they are trying to justify people in adulterous marriages.  If the “adultery is covenant breaking” view won’t convince a person, they will use the “Matthew 19:9 is not for the non-Christian” view.  They use both of these views together, even though the one leaves no reason to use the other, at least as far as the non-Christian is concerned.  But here is the real crux of what their doctrine implies.  Given their view, the non-Christian does not commit the adultery of Matthew 19:9, regardless of what that adultery is.  They thus justify all marriages contracted by non-Christians contrary to Matthew 19:9.  But their definition of adultery also justifies any marriage of Christians contrary to Matthew 19:9 as long as those involved say they are sorry for entering the marriage.  They use the covenant view of Matthew 19:9 to justify the adulterous marriages of non-Christians, and their definition of adultery justifies adulterous marriages of Christians!  The whole idea of non-Christians not being under Matthew 19:9 is a smokescreen.  Even if you disprove this doctrine, they will still accept adulterous marriages because of their definition of adultery.  One way or another, they are going to justify adulterous marriages, no matter how inconsistent or futile their doctrine is!

Of these two false doctrines on divorce and remarriage, the defining of adultery as a one-time non-sexual act is the more dangerous view in terms of the scope of its application.  The view that non-Christians are not subject to Matthew 19:9 justifies adulterous marriages in the world.  But the view that adultery is mere covenant breaking justifies adulterous marriages in the church as well.  This view is becoming more widespread.  Perhaps it is beginning to be used by some teachers more than the covenant view of Matthew 19:9 because it is less complex.  Whatever the reason, it is a false view that distorts the Lord’s teaching, and it needs to be exposed and refuted.

There is not enough space to examine and respond to this definition of adultery.  I have written 26 pages on this question in a booklet entitled, “The Meaning Of ‘Commit Adultery’ in Divorce and Remarriage Texts.”  You can obtain a copy by contacting Tennessee Bible College.  I sent a copy of this paper to brother Evans and brother Maxwell at Southwestern and offered to debate Evans both at the TBC campus and at the Southwestern Campus.  As of the date of this writing, I have heard nothing from him.

¹Jack Evans, Sr., So What’s The Big Issue?, p. 37.

Mac Deaver and the Holy Spirit Issue
Malcolm L. Hill

The work of the Holy Spirit has been a living issue in the church of Christ all along the way so far as I am able to see and it is a more or less issue—sometimes more and sometimes less. One of the great blessings of my life was to know very well men like B.C. Goodpasture, Gus Nichols, Guy Woods, Thomas Warren, and others like them.  I know what Brother Woods believed about the work of the Holy Spirit as well as B.C. Goodpasture.  These two men were in agreement on the work of the Holy Spirit.  But Tom Warren and Gus Nichols believed the same thing about the work of the Holy Spirit and they did not agree with Brethren Woods and Goodpasture.  But fellowship was never broken between these brethren over the work of the Holy Spirit and it should not have been.

In 1967 brother Warren and brother Woods had a face-to-face discussion in the Henderson church of Christ building during the Freed-Hardeman lectures in the open forum on the Holy Spirit. After that forum was over brother Warren and I were walking back to the Administration building when brother Gus Nichols trotted up behind us and said in a quiet tone to brother Warren:  “I don’t believe brother Woods answered your questions do you?”  I have cited this incident because of recent things that have been said about brother Mac Deaver.  Some have said that brother Tom Warren did not agree with brother mac Deaver on the work of the Holy Spirit.  I beg to differ with this.  Brother Warren told me about a year or more before his death that Mac Deaver had the truth on the work of the Holy Spirit and he said Mac was capable of defending his position. Brother Warren was disappointed with me for using some men on the Tennessee Bible College lectures whom he (Tom Warren) said had misrepresented Mac Deaver’s position on the Holy Spirit.

It is because of the misrepresentations of brother Mac Deaver’s position on the work of the Holy Spirit that I am printing some questions Mac filled out for me at my request.  Let us be honorable and truthful, brethren, when we present the other fellow’s position.  I believe that Godliness demands that we do such.  To do otherwise is but to be dishonest or ignorant of the facts.  If brethren Gus Nichols and Tom Warren were still alive, I would have no trouble fellowshipping them when it comes to their position on the work of the Holy Spirit.  How can anyone be consistent when he fellowshipped brethren Warren and Nichols eventhough he differed with them on the work of the Holy Spirit but refuses to fellowship Mac Deaver who holds the same position?  Come on brethren, let us be gentlemen and Christ-like.

Please read Mac Deaver’s answers to my questions of January 19, 2001.  If anyone has trouble understanding these questions and answers, his salvation is an election sure (II Pet. 1:10).

M. Hill's Questions and Mac Deaver's Answers

1. Do you believe the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian today? Yes.
2. Do you believe the Holy Spirit works miracles through men today? No.
3. Do you believe the Holy Spirit gives revelations to men today? No.
4. Do you believe the Holy Spirit gives nudges and hints to men today? No.
5. Can you explain all things about the Holy Spirit today? No.
6. Must all men agree with you about the Holy Spirit in order to be saved? No.
7. Can brethren be saved if they believe the Holy Spirit dwells in Christians today only through the Bible—the Word? Yes.
8. What do you mean by supernatural? That which is beyond nature.
9. Can you explain everything about divine providence? No.
10. Can you explain how God answers every prayer? No.
11. Do you believe those who believe the Holy Spirit dwells in the Christian only through the Word should be disfellowshipped? No.
12. Do you believe the Holy Spirit works conjointly with the Word in the Christian life? Yes.
13. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit works directly on the Christian today separate and apart from the Word? If yes, please explain. No.

Signed: Mac Deaver
Date: January 19, 2001

The False Doctrine of Premillennialism
Glenn B. Ramsey

Interest in events that will occur at the end of time have always held the attention of religious people.  This interest has spawned a variety of fanciful theories about what will happen at the end of time.  One such theory on this subject is the false doctrine of premillenialism.  Basically this doctrine (and there are variations of its teachings) argues that since the Jews rejected Christ as their king He had to take an alternate route and set up the church until such time that people would accept Him as king!  Thus the argument is that the establishment of the kingdom (which was the purpose of Christ's coming) had to be postponed until a later time.  This essentially argues that God was not able through Christ to do what He had planned to do!  Who can believe this?  The fact is that millions of people believe this theory.  This makes it the more dangerous and damnable.

The premillennial time line is something like the following:  During the personal ministry of Jesus, Israel rejected Him as king, thus postponing the kingdom's establishment.  For the interim period Christ had to settle for the establishment of His church.  This church age or Christian age continues until a time when the first resurrection (the resurrection fo the righteous) will occur.  At that time the living saints will be raptured up to be with Christ for seven years.  These seven years will see tremendous tribulation on earth.  Then Christ will return with the saints for a 1000 year reign from his Kingdom throne in Jerusalem.  During this time Satan will be bound and all the Jews will be gathered to Jerusalem.   At the end of this 1000 years period the second resurrection (resurrection of the wicked) will occur.  Then judgment is pronounced and the righteous go on to heaven and the wicked to hell.  This, essentially, is a description of the doctrine of premillennialism.

In order to support the theory of premillennialism several false teachings must be upheld.  We will study the major errors.

The first error is that the premillennialists argue that God did not know that the Jews would reject Christ.  This is false.  John records these words: "But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report?  And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? (John 12:37-38).  Thus God DID know that the Jews would reject Jesus.

Then the argument is that Christ established the church because He was rejected.  This is not the reason for the church's establishment.  Paul wrote in Ephesians 3:10-11: "To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, According  to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:" God had "eternally" purposed that through the church His wisdom would be made known.

The premillennialists argue that the kingdom has not yet been established.  Yet Jesus said in Mark 9:1:  "Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."  There would have to be living people over 2000 years old today if the Kingdom has not come!  Also the Scriptures teach that the apostles were to receive power of the Holy Spirit that would enable them to preach the Gospel to the whole world (Acts 1:8).  This power came to the apostleson the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4).

The premillennialists argue that the land promise made to Abraham was never totally fulfilled.  Yet Nehemiah 9:7-8 says that God had "performed thy words" to give the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Jebusites, and Girgashites to Abraham's seed!

The premillennialists fail to see that the kingdom and the church refer to the same institution (Matt. 16:16-19) and that the kingdom of Christ is spiritual in nature (John 18:36).

The premillennialists fail to recognize that the Bible speaks of only ONE resurrection (John 5:28-29).  They misrepresent through faulty interpretation the meaning of Revelation 20:1-6 and they fail to recognize that Jesus' work on earth is FINISHED.   Jesus said, I have glorified thee on earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do (John 17:4).

The premillennialists are victims of the fruitful imaginations of theologians.  They should reject all the theories of men and go back to God's Word to see the true nature of the church of Christ, which is the Kingdom of Christ.