Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Much of what the Christian believes runs counter to the culture in which he lives. That is true today and has always been true. First century Christians rejected the values of the world in such things as the following:

• Monotheism
• Idols
• Fornication
• Salvation through Jesus
• One way to be saved

These first century saints were faced with the dilemma of clinging to divine revelation or clinging to the predominating religious beliefs and philosophies of the age. The Lord assured them that final reality is revealed in his revelation. We need the faith to cling to that revelation.

Years ago, the Psalmist wrote:

The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul:
The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.
The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart:
The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.
The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever:
The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether (Psa. 19:7-9).

Consider the implications of the statement that “the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.”

The Lord’s Word Is His Testimony

There are several synonyms for the word of God used in Psalm 19:7-9:

• The Law
• The Testimony
• The Statutes
• Commandment
• Fear
• Judgment

The word of God is God’s testimony. The noun ÔÙdžt is derived from the verb Ôžd which means “bear witness.” The noun  ÔÙdžt refers to the testimony that is given by a witness. In the use of the word “testimony”  with reference to the word of God, the witness is God and his revelation is his testimony.

The text states that God’s testimony is “sure” (from the Niphil participle of ÕŒman, “confirm, support,” used in the Niphil with reference to the words of God to mean “verified, confirmed,” BDB 53). The point is that God’s word is reliable. It can be trusted to be the truth. Because God’s word is the truth, the “simple” (from pŽt», “simple, poss. as open-minded,” [BDB 834], probably included the inexperienced and easily misled) can become wise through adhering to the testimony.

That the simple can become wise through the study of God’s word is affirmed in other texts, such as the following:

The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple (Ps. 119:130).

Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me (Ps. 119:98).

Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day? (Deut. 4:6-8).

The proverbs were written to give light to the simple (cf. Prov. 1:4; 2:6). Men should have confidence in the Lord’s testimony.

Areas in Which God’s Testimony Is Being Challenged

Creation (Gen. 1). Modern scientists reject the idea of the Lord’s creating the heaven and earth and his creating it in six days. Men who have been influenced by the thinking of the world are looking for ways to harmonize the creation account with existing philosophies about the origin of the world. Some of their solutions are: (a) Theistic evolution or progressive creation; (b) Gap theories; (c) Day/age theory; (d) Days are used as a pattern for revelation. All of these theories have one thing in common: they do not believe the Bible account that God created the world out of nothing in six literal days.

None of the scientists was present on the morning of creation. They have seen nothing about which to testify. The Lord from heaven was present (Gen. 1:1) and he has given his testimony about what happened.

What is a simple person to do? Does he fall in step with the modern wise men or does he adhere to the words of Scripture? The Scripture reminds us that the Lord’s testimony is “sure,” reliable. There are no errors in it.

Spanking children. The wise men of our day and the popular TV hosts (such as Oprah Winfrey) teach that spanking one’s children is child abuse and destructive to their personality.

The testimony of the Lord teaches that spanking one’s children is an act of love designed to give direction to their lives:

He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes (Prov. 13:24).

Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him (Prov. 22:15).

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die (Prov. 23:13).

Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Prov. 23:14).

The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame (Prov. 29:15).

Correct thy son, and he shall give thee rest; yea, he shall give delight unto thy soul (Prov. 29:17).

A person with a newborn must decide whom he is going to believe. The Lord reminds us that his testimony is sure, making wise the simple. The child of God who has faith to follow God’s word knows more about rearing children than the educated psychologists who preach that spanking is harmful to children.

Homosexuality. The world is teaching that homosexuality is a morally acceptable form of sexual expression. Those who condemn homosexuality as sinful conduct are homophobic and responsible for speech that engenders hate crimes (and therefore should be suppressed).

In contrast to this, the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. It was partially the cause of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19). It is condemned in the Old Testament (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Deut. 23:17). It is condemned in the New Testament (Rom. 1:27, 28; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10).

Our religious culture is debating, not whether or not homosexuality is sinful (which is already conceded), but whether or not a practicing homosexual can be a preacher.

The testimony of the Lord is sure. The child of God must have enough confidence in God’s revelation to reject the thoughts and teachings of men, knowing that God’s word is true.

Oneness of the church. The Scriptures clearly affirm the “oneness” of the church (Eph. 2:16; 4:4; cf. Matt. 16:18). Modern thought finds the doctrine that there is one church narrow-minded and bigoted. They preach that one should “join the church of his choice.” “One church is just as good as another.” The concept that one can be saved only through faith in Christ is contrary to modern belief (John 14:6). A person is faced with the decision of whether to listen to the educated theologians or the Bible.

Baptism. The theologians deny that water baptism has anything to do with one’s salvation. The Bible teaches that water baptism is essential to salvation (John 3:3, 5; Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21). A person is faced with a choice of whether to believe the educated theologians or to believe the divine revelation of God.

Conclusion

Christians need to be reminded that God’s “testimony”
6567 Kings Ct., Avon, Indiana 46123 mikewillis1@compuserve.com

By Mike Willis

Every western nation could legitimately say that it was influenced by the Grecian culture developed in Athens. Today, more than one-third of the Greece’s ten million population are centered around this metropolis. There are  many remains of ancient Athens, the city that Paul saw when he came there on his second missionary journey, for one to see.

Acropolis. The Acropolis is the heart of the ancient city and the logical starting point of a visit to Athens. Literally the “upper city,” the Acropolis is a great table of limestone rock which rises 300 ft. above the Attic plain. It became a fortified city in the 13th century B.C. (Mycenean period). Peisistratos built a palace there 700 years later. In 480 B.C. the Persians destroyed the temples, but Pericles (the Grecian ruler who was perennially elected ruler from 460-430 B.C.) restored them, making them more splendid. Most of the monuments on the Acropolis were in honor of Athena — protectress of Athens, goddess of war, handicrafts and practical reason. In spite of all the ravages of the Roman, Byzantine, Turkish, and Venetian invaders, what one sees today is essentially Pericles’ 2500-years-old conception of a sanctuary for the Greek nation.

Entrance to the Acropolis is through the Beule Gate, which was built in A.D. 267 after the raid of a Germanic people. It was named after the French archaeologist Ernest Beule who discovered the Roman construction of the 3rd century A.D. in 1852.

Propylaea. The Propylaea, a monumental gatehouse, is the grandest of all surviving secular edifices of ancient Greece.

It is made of white Pentilic marble. Its construction was begun in 437 B.C. The central building has a portico of six Doric columns flanked by two wings that serve as reception halls for visitors to the Parthenon.

Parthenon. One of the world’s most famous buildings, this temple was begun in 447 B.C. under Pericles. Its original foundations were already present for it had previously been used as a location for the worship of Athena. The Parthenon was built primarily to house the statue of Athena Parthenos sculpted by Phidias. The statue was a 38 feet tall statue of the virgin goddess constructed of ivory and gold.

The Parthenon temple is built in Doric style. Over the centuries the Parthenon has been used as a church, a mosque, and an arsenal. It has suffered severe damage. In the nineteenth century, the British Lord Elgin was concerned about preserving the Parthenon. He was given permission by the Turks to take whatever he wanted from the ruins, which proved to be almost all of the sculptures from the Parthenon. They are now on display at the British Museum in London, much to the dismay of the Greeks. They consist of about 50 marble statues and are generally known as the Elgin Marbles.

The Parthenon at one time served as the meeting place of the court or council of Areopagus. This group considered itself responsible for religion and educational matters and by Paul’s time met in the Royal Portico, located in the northwest corner of the Agora.

Under Emperor Justinian, the Parthenon became the Church of Saint Sophia, with galleries added for female worshipers. It was a Catholic Cathedral until the 13th century, and then the Turks used it as a mosque. It was shelled by the Venetians in 1687. There are surviving fragments of the pediment gables in the British Museum and in the  Acropolis Museum.
Temple of Athena Nike. Dedicated to the goddess in her role of “bringer of victory” (built 427-424 B.C.), this temple commemorates the Athenian victory over the Persians and points to the Parthenon (Callicrates designed both). During the Venetian invasion of l687, the temple was dismantled by the Turks and used as an artillery position. The masonry was later gathered up by 19th and 20th century archaeologists and reassembled using drawings from another temple designed by Callicrates as a guide. It was reconstructed in 1834-38 and again in 1935.

Erechtheion. The Erechtheion is the last of the four great monuments on the Acropolis. This structure features Ionic styles. It is dedicated to three dieties (Erechtheus, Poseidon, and A-  thena) and is built on two levels on the north side of the plateau. (Parts of this structure are in the British Museum.) The temple marks the site of Athena’s mythical contest with Poseidon for the patronage of the city. Poseidon supposedly struck the rock with his trident next to the Erechtheion and created a spring; Athena created an olive tree, the staple of the Grecian eco­nomy. The judges declared Athena the winner. The most celebrated feature of the Erechtheion is the southern Porch of the Caryatids. Six maidens support six columns (four at the front and two at the sides) with baskets of fruit on their heads. They take their name from the girls of the Spartan valley of Caryai who were admired for their upright posture. Today’s statues are replicas — five of the original statues are in the Acropolis Museum and one is in the British Museum.

Areopagus. West of the Acropolis are three hills (Areopagus, Pnyx, and Mousion) that played an important role in the city’s history. The Areopagus is the hill of Ares (a war god unpopular with the Greeks because he sided with their enemies). According to tradition this little hill was the place where Ares, the god of war, stood trial for slaying the son of the sea god, and thereafter this place served as the meeting place of the most ancient court and council of Athens. The Areopagus was synony­mous with the aristocracy and supreme court which judged capital crimes of murder and treason. The Areopagus (Acts 17:19) was where Paul was taken by the philosophers. The Acropolis itself was formerly the site of the fortress that protected the town. In Paul’s time the Areopagus had control over teachers like Paul who were expounding a new philosophy. Paul was invited to go to this little hill to expound his philosophy (vv. 22-31). In Paul’s famous sermon on Mars’ Hill, he quoted two poets here: Epimenides — “we live, and move and exist”; Aratus: “We are all his children.”

On the north side of the hill, where Paul spoke to the men of Athens, are traces of a 16th century church. It was dedicated to Dionysius the Areopagite.

James Thompson wrote with reference to the altar to the unknown god: “‘To the unknown god.’ That such altars were known in Greece, and in particular in Athens, is borne out by two writers of ancient times. Pausanias, who lived in the second century A.D. and traveled widely, observed in his description of Greece, that at Athens there were altars of gods called ‘unknown.’ Again Philostratos in the early third century spoke of Athens, ‘where even unknown divinities have altars erected to them’” (Archaeology of the Bible 101).

Theater of Dionysious. The Theatre of Dionysious stands almost directly below the Parthenon. It was built in the 5th century B.C. as a place to perform the plays of Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, and Aristophanes. There was a front row of 67 marble “thrones” for VIPs but the rest of the people had to sit on ledges of beaten earth (17,000 — full house). The Romans installed the curved terraced seating of marble and limestone. Next to the auditorium there is a double-tiered colonade, the Stoa of Eumanes (2nd century B.C.), a sheltered promanade for theatre-goers. The performances were always in the daytime. The original Stoa linked up with a smaller theatre seating 5000, the Odeon of Herodus Atticus (built around A.D. 161). It has been restored with white marble and is used during the Athens Summer Festival.

At a bend in the main road between the Acropolis and Syntagma, Hadrian’s Arch (A.D. 132) marked the border betwen Old Athens and the emperor’s new city, Hadrian- opolis. Hadrian completed the Temple of Olympian Zeus. It was the largest temple in Greece (672 x 423 ft.) — 15 of the original 104 Corinthian columns remain. The temple was begun in the 6th century B.C. The Corinthian columns were added by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (lived approx. 165 B.C.).

Agora. The agora was the political heart of ancient Athens from 600 B.C. Socrates was indicted and executed in the state prison here in 399 B.C. The theaters, schools, and stoas (roofed arcade) made the agora the center of social and commercial life. The American School of Classical Studies began excavation of the ancient agora in the 1930s and vast remains have been revealed. The Hephaisteion, a temple also known as Theseion is the best preserved building in the ancient agora and was built c. 449-440 B.C.

The Agora looks like a mess of rubble. This area sprawling below the northern ramparts of the Acropolis was “downtown,” the heart of the ancient city and the ancestor of every city center and village square in Greece. From the entrance one looks down on broken pillars, walls and paving stones that once were shops, banks, schools, libraries, temples, courthouse, etc. A panoramic pictorial reconstruction helps one visualize the original buildings.

The long porticoed gallery closing off the east side of the Agora is a reconstitution of the 2nd century B.C. Stoa of Attalos which served as a promanade and pavilion. It was made into a museum in the 1950s by the American School of Classical Studies in Athens, which has been excavating at the Agora since 1931. The museum exhibits major archaeological finds from the site.

The Doric-columned Temple of Hephaistes (god of fire, patron of metalworkers) is the first of the temples built by Pericles after the Persian Wars. Archaeologists have uncovered traces of iron foundries and workshops near the temple. This is the best preserved of Athens’ temples.

Archaeology and the Scriptures: Athens

One of the contributions of archaeology to the text in Acts shows Luke’s intimate knowledge of the places Paul visited. William Ramsay wrote that “in Ephesus, Paul taught ‘in the school of Tyrannus’; in the city of Socrates he discussed moral questions in the market place. How incongruous it would seem if the methods were transposed” (Thompson 389).

In light of archaeological excavations that have uncovered the many temples and religious statues on this site, one can understand Paul’s statement that the Athenians were “too superstitious” (Acts 17:22). Also the reference to the image with the inscription “To the Unknown God” is confirmed by two extant writers: Pausanias who lived in the second century A.D. and Philostratus of the third century.

When Paul spoke to the Athenians he quoted from Aratus, a Stoic poet of the third century B.C. (Acts 17:28). Aratus had written,

    Zeus fills the streets, the marts,
Zeus fills the seas, the shores, the rivers!
Everywhere our need is Zeus!
We also are his offspring (Unger 238).

6567 Kings Ct., Avon, Indiana 46123 mikewillis1@compuserve.com

By Connie W. Adams

Both brother Caldwell and brother Scott replied to my July 6 article in good spirit as all of us would have expected. I am thankful for their responses because it affords an opportunity to focus the discussion on the precise point of concern. 

The Issue of Character

Brother Caldwell states that he knows Shane Scott to be a man who “has a humble spirit, and tender heart, and a sincere desire to know and teach only the truth of God.” I have never doubted that nor did anything in my article even approach the issue of character. The point of my criticism was the published views of brother Scott on the days of the creation week. Also, brother Caldwell expresses concern for “how many souls may be lost because of my impatience and persistence in discrediting a brother who is sincere and honest.” While all that may be true, it evades once again the point of criticism. As brother Scott suggested, he has established a “track record” and is known and loved as a sincere brother. While I do not know him personally, I do know a good many who know him well and who think highly of him. I have no reason to doubt that. None of that changes what has been taught in the public record.

Brother Scott is concerned that I have never contacted him personally “though he knows who I am and where I work.” I felt no need to contact him personally about something he has openly taught. It is where he works that gives me cause for concern about what he has openly taught.

Read For Yourself

We thank brother Caldwell for providing information as to how to access the materials to which he referred. I urge any who has not done so, to avail himself of this information. While I commended the good material against evolution, I say again that it avoids the point of complaint. Listen carefully, you are not dealing with the real complaint. What about the days of the creation week? Is it impossible for them to be literal 24-hour days or MUST they be ages, as brother Scott taught? What compels brother Scott to conclude that these days must be taken figuratively and not literally?

As to the speeches of brother Wolfgang at the Florida College lectures in February 2000, I was present and heard them. I also appreciated his warnings and appeals to the school in his closing remarks the second day. But whatever brethren have said on this subject in the past, while of interest historically, does not address the problem of a present teacher of Bible at Florida College. That concerns us in the here and now. We have children and grandchildren to consider. 

The Background

Both men referred to the background which led to brother Scott’s article in Sentry in 1995. Brother Caldwell said, “Without some of this background one would see brother Scott as dogmatic about this topic.” Well, brethren I knew the background. I thought brother Greg Gwin did an excellent job in reviewing the piece written by brother Scott. Perhaps others did not know. But now that this has been spelled out by brother Scott, I have a simple question. Do you still believe the days of creation cannot be literal and that they must be ages? Those were section headings in your article. Our brother Scott said, “At the end of my article I allowed that the literal day view may be correct, though in my opinion it is not the best interpretation.” So, he is of the same opinion still and that is why I am concerned about where he works.

He says he has never “bombarded others” with his views. But he has publicly advocated them, though brother Caldwell reports that he has changed his position since 1995, brother Scott still says, “In my opinion it is not the best interpretation to say that the days of the creation week were literal days.” Whatever has been changed, he is still set  in that opinion. Brother Scott, have you changed on that?

Where Brother Scott Works

While conservative brethren may have held these views throughout the history of the restoration, to my knowledge this is the first time one of such views has been a teacher of Bible at Florida College. Brother Caldwell said, “Because he admits to being unsure about parts of this study, he (Shane Scott) does not present a conclusion in class.” Now let’s look at this picture. Here is a teacher dealing with the very first chapter of the Bible (even if it is just in one class period in the whole year), he presents alternative views of the days of creation and offers a critique of the strengths and weaknesses of each, and then leaves it up in the air for the students to decide. Well, of course, students will reach their own conclusions. But if the teacher is unsure about some of this, where does that leave the student?

For any who may not know, I am a graduate of Florida College. I began in 1948, the last year L.R. Wilson was president. I was there when James R. Cope came in 1949. I was a four-year student when the school offered a four-year degree the first time around. I graduated with Melvin Curry and John Clark. Over the years at least twenty people who are related to me have attended Florida College. I had a granddaughter there last year. We have tried to be a friend to the school in whatever ways we could. I had many classes in which various erroneous positions were examined, but I was never left in doubt as to where the teacher stood. We might not always agree with the teacher, but we knew what he believed, where he stood, and how he arrived at his position. Classes that leave vital issues up in the air with a scattering of alternative views are dangerous. Paul’s question here is appropriate: “For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for the battle?” (1 Cor. 14:8). 

Were His Views Known in Advance?

We ask brother Caldwell if he knew brother Scott’s views on this matter before he came to Florida College. I did. So did a number of others. Why were these views not known in light of the 1995 article? Why that was not more of a concern baffles me. One of the reasons brother Scott gave for believing the six days of creation could not be literal days was that there was just too much for the Lord to do on the sixth day. I mean, there the Lord was with the task of creating land animals, man and woman, all in one day! Adam gave names to the animals. Given the nature of God, may I ask what was the problem that demands long ages of time? No, brother Caldwell, with all due respect, that is not the kind of teacher this brother wants for the children and grandchildren of his friends, nor for his own.

Conclusion

Brother Scott says his track record stands in “sharp relief to brother Adams’ assertions.” I have not heard brother Scott teach or preach as others whom I know have. I offered no criticism of any of that, not even one “assertion.” My criticism was aimed directly at what he taught in the Sentry article and at the school administration for employing a teacher to teach Genesis, among other things, who holds such a view, when admittedly, every one of the teachers in the science department holds that the days of creation were literal days. This became even more troubling with the classes taught by Hill Roberts at the 1999 lectures when many brethren around the country knew what he believed. Had they said, “We goofed and should have known better” then I, for one would have said, “Forget it and move on.” I am confident others would have as well. But couple the defensive stance taken about that with the attitude taken about the presence of brother Scott as a Bible teacher and the ignoring of the real complaint while raising side issues, and that only aggravates the problem. Others will have to speak for themselves, but I would dearly love to recapture the confidence I once had in Florida College and count myself as one of its chief promoters. Given the current atmosphere, sadly, I cannot do that.

P.O. Box 69, Brooks, Kentucky 40109

By Olen Holderby

Will anyone seriously question the presence of frustration in our society today? In the time of heightened prosperity such as we live in, it seems that something better should be expected. A portion of our local paper was recently headlined “Americans are Wealthier but not Happier.” Some have much, but are seeking more; and it doesn’t appear to make any difference how they get it. Corruption runs rampant, not only in politics, but in all levels of our society. Dishonesty is commonplace and disrespect for the law of our land can be seen on almost every street corner. The goal of many seems to be the satisfying of their every lust, even if it ruins a few lives in doing so. And, this is only a partial picture.

Indeed, there are those who strive to live above this; they are in the minority and many of these have lost heart — they just do not have the “grit” to continue their resistance. Yet, there remains many who continue and strive to improve the situation. These are known as “Christians.” Perhaps we should narrow this a bit, and say that we make reference to the “real conservative Christian” — the ones who are not satisfied with anything more or less than what God’s Word teaches.

What Is Wrong with Me?

I believe in the God of the Bible (Gen. 1:1). I believe Jesus Christ to be the Savior of the world (1 John 4:14). I believe the Gospel of Christ is the one and only standard of morality (Phil. 1:27). I believe that abortion violates the command “You shall not murder.” I believe that homosexuality is immoral and sinful (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:27). I believe that the Gospel is the absolute standard that is to regulate all activities which God has given man to do (2 John 9). I have never tried to force my convictions upon others; but I am always willing and anxious to share my convictions with others and to offer reasons as to why I believe what I do (1 Pet. 3:15).

A while back a man was criticizing an article which I had written for the local paper. I was told that believing and teaching what I did made me a part of the “religious right.” I never did find out just what he meant by “religious right,” but somehow I was to be a danger to this country. Since then, I have found out that this was not an isolated case, but such is being voiced by many today. True Christians have a lot of enemies in this land, and some of them are quite vicious. “Christian-bashing” is rather common, often in news programs, where Christian principles are rejected and abhorred. Like unto ancient Rome, true Christians today are blamed with just about everything — we are the real troublers of the land and need to be squelched.

Even sadder is the fact that many Americans, perhaps unintentionally, have accepted this idea of the “religious right.” Many today, especially our enemies, are “willingly ignorant” of what the Bible teaches (2 Pet. 3:5), and they “speak evil of those things that they understand not” (2 Pet. 2:12). Christians are being reviled, slandered, lied against, accused of being narrow-minded, fanatical, bigots, cranks; yes, even “religious righters.” This is, of course, a form of religious persecution, and I do not believe that the persecution will stop with just verbal abuse.

Why?

But, why are true Christians being thus persecuted? There may be several reasons, but I shall mention only a couple. First, Christians are different. We are to be a peculiar people (Tit. 2:14) who teach and practice purity (Eph. 5:25-27; 1 John 3:3). Just the presence of such examples in morality is deeply resented by many. Secondly, Christians are to refrain from and rebuke evil (1 Thess. 5:21-22; Eph. 5:11). In the last of these two passages, the Christian is told to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” Obeying these instructions of the Lord will interfere in the lives of those in sin, and all who wish to continue in sin are going to deeply resent such interfering. The world has a standard, but the Christian cannot be guided thereby (Rom. 12:2). 

Our enemies “think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot”; therefore, “they speak evil of you” (1 Pet. 4:4). They want no part of that which demands self-control, restraint, or common decency; they must be able to set their own standard without anyone telling them that they are wrong. When we Christians try to share God’s Word with such, we are utterly condemned. They have no respect for our standard, though they demand that we respect theirs. All of this is nothing short of bigotry.

I have been accused of being allied with Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. This charge I would strongly deny; for, neither of these gentlemen respect the Gospel as I try to do. 

A Serious Mistake

Everybody or everything referred to as Christian just may not be Christian. Claiming to be a Christian is quite different from actually possessing the marks of the Christian. Therefore, it is a mistake to “lump” together all who claim to be Christian and call it true Christianity. The true Christian recognizes the Bible, and only the Bible, as his standard. Human creeds, whether Catholic or Protestant, are unacceptable to the true Christian. The Gospel would have the Christian to treat even his enemies with due respect. True Christians respect the laws of the land in which they live (Rom. 13:1-7); and the only time they are not to do so is when that law conflicts with the higher law of God (Acts 5:29). True Christianity has never endangered any country at any time. But, our enemies either have not recognized this distinction, or they have ignored it.

The Solution

First, it is likely to get worse! So, how does the Christian react to all this? What solutions are available? Perhaps we could just ignore such and refuse to become involved one way or the other. Such reaction would not cause the problem to go away. It would, in fact, allow it to become worse more quickly. But, can we still claim to be a Christian and react in this way?

It may be that we can find a way to compromise with our enemies. We could sit down at the conference table with the abortion clinics, homosexuals, smut peddlers, movie makers and all their supporters and reach some sort of an agreement. It could, perhaps, be just a “gentlemen’s agree- ment” to let each other alone. Again, we must ask that troubling question — Can we accurately claim to be a Christian and do such?

The Christian is taught to teach (Matt. 28:18-20; 2 Tim. 2:2). He is to teach the Gospel (Mark 16:15), and he is to do so whether it is liked or not (2 Tim. 4:2). He is to teach “all the counsel of God” on any subject under consideration (Acts 20:27). I know of nothing else that we could do that would stand a chance of making the situation better. So, let us resolve to continue to preach God’s Word in its purity, and conform our own lives thereto, that our example, along with our words might be pleasing to him who shall judge all — both us and our enemies. Since the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), man can be saved only by following that Gospel, God’s Truth (John 17:17; 1 Pet. 1:22).

What Next?

Of course, no one really knows for certain. However, if we are permitted to judge on the basis of the way things have gone the past three decades, it will be getting worse and worse. Christians will be limited more and more as to what they can do or what they can teach, yes, and even where they can teach it. According to papers which I have read, some such restrictions are already under way in some places. Are you ready for this? When we are ordered to do differently from what our God has ordered, how shall we react? Where shall we stand? May God help each of us to build the strength which we shall need. We may need it sooner than you think!

1515 Walnut St., Alameda, California 94501-2826