Truth Magazine

By Mark Larson

When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none. Then he says, “I will return to my house from which I came.” And when he comes, he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first. So shall it also be with this wicked generation (Matt 12:43-45, NKJ). 

The Scriptures teach that demon possession came to an end when Christ completed his Messianic mission and the Kingdom was established and confirmed by apostolic signs. With the coming Messianic kingdom, demons were to pass away for good as prophesied by Zechariah (Zech. 13:1-2). This prophecy was fulfilled (Acts 10:38). Although there are no unclean spirits as such that possess our bodies today, there is still a powerful lesson we can learn from the parable of the empty house and eight spirits.

The parable is addressed to “this wicked generation” or to the people of Israel during the time of Christ. Perhaps the evil spirit could represent the idolatry that Israel was engaged in as a result of their Babylonian captivity. Once they were delivered up from slavery they got rid of their idolatrous practices. However, the people of Israel failed to replace that evil with good. Genuine love for God and faith in the Lord did not replace the gap that remained in their hearts. As a result, Satan sent seven more demonic spirits along with the first to lead Israel into a deeper apostasy. Since the people of Israel failed to fill the void with good and righteous things, it made the last condition of their “house” worse than the first. 

For the present generation of God’s people, the lesson is very much needed. We too must heed the warning of this parable. When we dispose of our sins, we must be sure to replace those sins with the good things that God commands. Otherwise, we are like “sitting ducks” just waiting to be devoured by the adversary the devil (1 Pet. 5:8). No one is safe who leaves his or her house “empty.” It is not enough to simply avoid doing evil, we must replace the evil by doing good.

To begin with, we must not leave vacant minds for Satan to fill. Jesus taught that even to look on a woman lustfully is adultery (Matt. 5:27-28). Therefore, even our thoughts must be pure. After those immoral thoughts are removed, what do we then replace them with? Rather than being held captive through philosophy, deception, traditions of men, and principles of the world, instead we should let our mind be captive to Christ (Col. 2:8). Let us put on the mind of Christ and dwell on those things that promote godliness and goodness. “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things” (Phil. 4:8, NAS). This of course does not take place easily without some effort on our part. We must watch, listen, and read about those things that edify and promote purity of mind (Bible study, conversation with godly friends, wholesome TV shows and music, sermon tapes, etc.).

The same is true with reference to our speech. We are warned by God through the apostle Paul not to even speak about the wicked things people do in secret for it is shameful (Eph. 5:11-12). Once evil speech is removed from our mouths, what do we talk about? It is not enough to simply keep our mouths shut. We must replace rude, slanderous, lewd or corrupt speech with “what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers” (Eph. 4:29). Rather than be void of speech, we are to offer words of encouragement, exhortation, joy, and comfort. 

In addition, we must not leave our lives empty after removing those evil activities. The Bible emphasizes replacing the old man of sin with the new man created according to God (Eph. 4:17-24). Becoming a Christian is indeed more than just simply giving up a few bad habits, it is about living for Jesus and doing those things that are required by his word. “Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” (Jas. 4:17, NIV). Let us do the good we know we ought to do such as prayer, evangelism, serving others, hospitality, giving, Bible study, visiting the sick, etc. so that our “houses” may be filled up with no room left for evil.

There are severe consequences of failing to replace the evil with good. Satan will re-enter our lives with greater force: “Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first” (Matt. 12:45). In order to avoid such a fate, we must not leave an empty house. We must take heed to the dangers of temptation and sin because not a one of us is exempt. “For if after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first” (2 Pet. 2:20, NAS).

All who have been “born again” (John 3:3) through obeying the gospel (Acts 2:38) are regenerated into new creatures in Christ Jesus (Tit. 3:4-7; 2 Cor. 5:17) by God and his word. Let us not only reform ourselves by getting rid of evil practices. May we also allow Christ into our hearts, lives, and “houses.” May we all be committed to replacing evil with good.

3900 Ashcraft Rd., Century, Florida 32535 mark61372@juno.com

Truth Magazine Vol. XLIV: 12  p21  June 15, 2000

By Ron Halbrook

I have been asked to explain the meaning of the term “liberalism” as it has been used to describe problems and issues among churches of Christ since the 1950s. We are always glad to receive and answer questions from those who are “searching the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11; 1 Pet. 3:15).

Two Attitudes: Conservative and Liberal

“Conservative” and “liberal” may be used to describe basic attitudes toward any law, document, or standard of authority. Conservative means a commitment to strictly follow, protect, or preserve the standard without changing its instructions, which is the spirit of Philippians 1:17 (“set for the defense of the gospel”), Jude 3 (“earnestly contend for the faith, which was once delivered unto the saints”), and Revelation 22:18-19 (not to “add unto” or “take away from the words” revealed). Liberal means not strictly following the message or pattern of teaching, but allowing unauthorized changes to be made.

“Liberal” and “conservative” can have many applications. In the period 1875-1925, liberal thinking infiltrated the restoration movement, which allowed instrumental music to be added to the worship and missionary-society centralization to be added to the organization of the church. In the 1950s, liberal thinking again infiltrated churches of Christ, which had four basic applications.

Social Activities

1. In the New Testament, the work of the church was limited to evangelism, worship (to glorify God and edify saints), and benevolence to destitute saints (1 Tim. 3:15-16; Acts 2:42; 20:7; 2 Cor. 9:1). In the 1950s, churches began to provide social activities such as social meals, parties, and ball games. Then, churches began to add to the church building special rooms called “fellowship halls” which were actually kitchens and dining rooms. Now, some of the big rich churches even build gymnasiums. Such social and recreational work is not the proper work of the church. This is one form of liberalism.

Centralized Organization

2. In the New Testament, each church sent support directly to preachers in the field and also sent benevolent help directly to destitute churches (Phil. 4:15-17; 2 Cor. 11:8; Acts 11:27-30). There was no centralized board, bureau, or agency of any kind. In the 1950s, the “sponsoring church” arrangement provided a plan for many churches to send donations to a large church, which in turn oversaw the funds to send and support gospel preachers into the world and to send benevolent help to destitute churches. This has the effect of transforming a local eldership into a board of directors to oversee the work of many churches. This human plan of centralizing the work of many churches under one eldership is liberalism, reflecting the centralization found in denominationalism and Catholicism.

3. In the New Testament, each church did its work of evangelism and benevolence without building and sustaining human institutions to do the work for the churches (Phil. 4:15-17; Acts 6:1-7; 11:27-30). In the 1950s, human institutions such as colleges, summer camps, childcare agencies, medical clinics, and retirement centers obtained donations from the treasuries of the churches. These became church supported institutions. This is the same principle violated by the missionary society, centralizing the work of the churches through a human institution. This is a form of liberalism, reflecting the same centralization found in denominationalism and Catholicism.

Church Benevolence to Sinners

4. In the New Testament, local churches gave benevolent help from the treasury to needy saints, but not to sinners in the world (Acts 6:1-7; 2 Cor. 9:1). In the 1950s, some brethren advocated the church should give benevolent help from the treasury to sinners in the world. This is another form of liberalism.

Spirit of Compromise

Liberalism also has a spirit of compromise rather than a spirit of warfare against sin and error (2 Cor. 10:3-5). Many liberal churches try to preach a “positive” gospel setting forth the true plan of salvation and worship, but they avoid exposing false doctrines, false religions, and false teachers by name as was done in Bible days (Matt. 16:12; 2 Tim. 2:16-18). Some of these liberal churches try to preach a “positive” gospel about the need to live a pure and godly life, but they do not openly fight against worldliness and expose the sinfulness of social drinking, smoking, gambling, immodest dress, profanity, dancing, fornication, adultery, unscriptural divorce and remarriage, “and such like” (Gal. 5:19-21). Such churches do not practice discipline or withdrawal from unfaithful members (1 Cor. 5; 2 Thess. 3). This “positive” approach gradually allows the leaven of sin and error to work among God’s people. Less and less direct teaching is done on more and more Bible principles. Fewer and fewer warnings are given against more and more forms of sin and error. The church becomes weaker, softer, and more open to false teaching and sinful conduct in many forms. Such churches will gradually lose more and more distinctive marks of New Testament Christianity and become more and more like modern denominations.

Brethren who embrace this liberal spirit of compromise are highly offended and embarrassed by strong gospel preaching which deals directly with sin, error, and false teachers. Such brethren become agitated against and alienated from strong preachers and plain preaching. In this way, Satan builds a wall which protects the liberal-minded church from hearing the full truth of the gospel. Those who “will not endure sound doctrine” turn to teachers who will tickle their ears with smooth, sweet, soft preaching — just as Paul warned in 2 Timothy 4:1-5. 

In order to avoid liberalism in every form, we must preach “all the counsel of God” and “fight the good fight of faith” against every form of sin and error (Acts 20:27; 1 Tim. 6:12).

By Connie W. Adams

William D. Burgess taught Biology at Florida College for many years. He also wrote a short column nearly every month in Searching the Scriptures from the time it began in 1960 and for several years thereafter. In the June 1961 issue he wrote these words under his column heading “Science and Truth”: 

There appears to be evidence that the days of creation were days of ordinary length since there is mention of “evening and morning.” If these days were, as some contend, thousands or millions of years in length this would present quite a problem. In Genesis 1:16 we read that two great lights were made, one to rule the day and the lesser to rule the night. Since these days were divided, according to Genesis 1:15 into “evening and morning” we would have to assume that the sun came up but did not go down for a few thousand or a few million years! There is another problem if we assume the “days” were eons of time. The plants were brought about on the third day of creation and the sun on the fourth day. Plants must have sunlight in order to produce their food through a process of photosynthesis. Animals are dependent upon plants as a basic source of food. Carnivorous animals are ultimately dependent upon plants for food which are, in turn, dependent on the sun. It is inconceivable, in the light of the knowledge we have in this matter, that plants and animals could exist for these millions of years without energy supplied by the sun. It is contended that the plants could have been supplied by the “light” of Genesis 1:3. If this was done it would be necessary to contend that plants were supplied by this “light” for a great and unknown period of time and then their dependence was transferred to another source of energy, the sun, at the end of this period of time. 

God told Israel in Exodus 20 to observe the Sabbath Day because He rested from His labor on the seventh day. There is no evidence that either God or Israel observed a period of time longer than our normal day of today. Even “days” of millions of years would hardly satisfy the evolution theory. Even the evolutionists are not in agreement as to the millions of years needed for the evolvement of living organisms, according to their own theory. The evolutionists readily admit that they are not sure of the time necessary for the events of their theory to come to pass. They willingly or unwillingly must admit that they cannot be sure that their theories answer the questions as to how these organisms came about in the first place. In light of the lack of evidence to support their theory, they are ready to say that they are at least sure that the creation did not occur in seven solar days as indicated by the record in Genesis. This attitude is neither new nor limited to this area of discussion. Men have always been ready to reject evidence that does not aid their positions or beliefs.”

It is strange that a teacher, not in the Science Department, but in the Bible Department at Florida College should publish an article on “The Days of  Genesis” (Sentry Magazine, 21:I) in which he contended that the days of creation in Genesis 1 “cannot be literal” and that “the days must be ages.” While Shane Scott denies any view of theistic evolution, these statements from him are unsettling to say the least. He is completing his second year as a teacher of Bible. So far, the administration of the college has defended him and retained him in his teaching position. It is my understanding that every teacher in the Science Department believes the days of creation were literal solar days. I know for a fact that there are teachers at Florida College who are very uneasy about this expressed view of brother Scott.

When we send our children or grandchildren to a state university, we expect them to be bombarded with ideas which undermine faith in what the Bible says. One of the arguments made for a school run by Christians is that parents can have confidence that the faith of their children will be strengthened and not threatened by teachers who are Christians.

So far, brother Scott has not budged from his position. Numerous ones have complained to the administration about this to no avail. David Bonner of Dumas, Texas, himself a scientist who has presented numerous series around the country on the matter of divine creation, has offered to publicly discuss this with brother Scott. So far, there has been no positive response.

As a former student and long time friend of Florida College, I wonder how long it is going to take the board and administration to take this matter seriously and resolve to do something about it. How long do they think we will encourage our young people to go there and be exposed to such an influence? I do not personally know brother Scott. I have no axe to grind with him. But I can read, and I have read several times the article he published in Sentry. I do not believe it teaches the truth. I also am convinced that the college has stonewalled this issue. Yes, I know that they published a bulletin in which some good material was presented against evolution. And yes, I know that there were quotations from various teachers stating opposition to theistic evolution, including one such statement from Shane Scott. But that issue did not touch top, side, or bottom of the complaint about the days of creation. If it had been said that he did not know exactly how old the earth is then nobody would have thought much about it. But to adamantly say (in caps as paragraph headings “THE DAYS CANNOT BE LITERAL” and then head the next paragraph with “THE DAYS MUST BE AGES” is another matter.

There are some good people and some good teachers at Florida College. But as long as the school appeals for students and for financial support, they ought not to be too defensive about criticisms in such a sensitive area. It was bad enough to invite Hill Roberts to lecture for three days during the 1999 annual lecture series. But to employ on the faculty a teacher of Bible who has publicly advocated such a position as Shane Scott has done, is inexcusable. We hope for better things from the banks of the Hillsborough River.

By Dick Blackford

Congregations often engage in practices that are questioned and defended on the basis that these are “good and wonderful works.” But are these from heaven or from men? In whose eyes are they good works? Inspiration recognizes two kinds of good works. Those in the eyes of men and those in the eyes of God. This was recognized even in the Old Testament.

Numbers 24:13

Balaam said to Balak, “If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the commandment of the Lord, to do either good or bad of mine own mind, but what the Lord saith, that will I speak.” Note the contrast between doing good of mine own mind and doing what the Lord said. He could not do good of his own mind if it meant going beyond the commandment of the Lord. See the distinction? There is a difference between the good works that are “of men” and good works that are “of God.”

Matthew 7:22, 23

The New Testament makes this same distinction. “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not . . . in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Jesus called their “wonderful works” iniquity! Wonderful works in the eyes of men are not necessarily wonderful works in the eyes of God. They claimed they had done these things in the name of Jesus. Just because someone claims to be acting in the name of another person doesn’t make it so unless that person has really authorized him to do so. Affixing the Lord’s name to a practice or project does not automatically mean he authorizes or endorses it.

When the Pharisees were keeping the traditions of washing their hands, pots, cups, and vessels, they considered these as good works and questioned why Jesus’ disciples did not do likewise. Jesus responded, “But in vain do they worship me teaching for doctrine the commandments of men” (Mark 7:7). These were good works in the eyes of men but not in the eyes of God.

2 Timothy 3:16, 17

The Scriptures claim to be profitable for everything we need in religion. They “thoroughly furnish unto every good work.” There is not a good work which the Lord wants us to do that is not furnished in Scripture. The church is authorized to engage in evangelism (1 Thess.1:8; 1 Tim. 3:15). It is authorized to engage in benevolence by taking care of its needy (Acts 6:1-7). It is authorized to engage in edification (Eph. 4:16).

In Whose Eyes Are These Good and Wonderful Works?

Churches are sponsoring bingo, mothers-day-out, adopt-a-highway, gymnasiums, video arcade, men’s macarena class, fireworks, antique car show, church operated day care centers, schools (where secular education is taught for a fee), food court, car wash, coal mines, apartment complexes, and financial planning classes (how to invest in the stock market, etc.)

Do these fall under evangelism, benevolence or edification? If evangelism, benevolence and edification can be done without any of these (and they can!) then they are no part of evangelism, benevolence, or edification, nor are they necessary to the process. They are good works which community organizations may do to make life better on earth “here and now,” but they are not authorized for the church to do. Church financed institutional boards, separate and apart from the local church, which are set up to decide how to spend the churches’ money in evangelism, benevolence or edification are not authorized in the Scriptures.

We cannot do these “in the name of Jesus” if we cannot find where such things are authorized. We need to be extremely careful lest we substitute “good works” in the eyes of men for those authorized by God. The Scriptures furnish us for every good work in the eyes of God.

P.0. Box 30321, State University Arkansas 72467 rlb6l2@aol.com