Truth Magazine

By Richard J. Boone

Sodom and Gomorrah — just the mention of these ancient cities shudders anyone familiar with Bible history. Their inhabitants’ horrific wickedness and God’s utter destruction of them for their wickedness stand as a testimony for all generations (2 Pet. 2:6; Jude 7). For ten righteous people they would have been spared (Gen. 18:32).

I believe America has more than ten righteous people in her midst (1 Kings 19:18; Rom. 11:4-5). I firmly believe that God is in full control of the universe (Isa. 40:10-31). I also believe, based on what I learn from the Bible, that God allows individuals and nations to make moral choices (Prov. 14:34). I am concerned that unless some of our national moral choices change, we are racing toward catastrophe — and for the same sins as Sodom and Gomorrah.

“Sodomy” — a modern term and practice whose origin is in the ancient city destroyed by God. Why do I suggest that we are heading in their direction? If so, what can we do about it? These and other questions I will pursue here. Please stay with me — you need to read this; it is that important for our country’s future!
 
Prevalence Of Homosexuals

How common is sodomy (homosexual conduct — men having sex with men, women having sex with women)? While it is not possible to document every encounter, it is estimated that of the general population, 2-3% of Americans are homosexual (LaGard Smith, Sodom’s Second Coming, 41-52). (This is a significant downscale from the admittedly flawed Kinsey surveys of 1948 and 1953 which estimated 1 in 10 were homosexual.) Based on the 1990 U.S. census (250 million), this tallies to between 5 and 7.5 million people. By comparison, the last estimated populations for Atlanta and New York City I recall were 4.5 million and 8 million. Perhaps this helps us to better realize the magnitude of the situation.

Progressive Exposure To Homosexuals

Though we could begin much earlier, I will document the push of the homosexual movement to the front burner only from the 1990s. Each year brought an increased exposure to this lifestyle.

The March 12, 1990 issue of News- week reported more than 50 openly homosexual elected officials; by 1993, it would be more than 75 in local, state and congressional positions (Smith, 7). A 1991 episode of Roseanne drew fire from viewers as the result of unashamed bisexual Sandra Barnhart’s and actress Morgan Fairchild’s “near kiss.” The May 11, 1992 issue of The Tennessean carried “Gay TV Comes Of Age” (3-D) listing shows with homosexual characters from ABC (Civil Wars, Life Goes On), NBC (L.A. Law, Quantum Leap, Seinfeld), and CBS (Northern Exposure, Murphy Brown). A January 15, 1996 article in the Chattanooga Free Press was titled “TV Makes Room For Gay Characters, But Not Sexuality.” 1997 was a banner year for homosexuals — Ellen Degeneres announced her gayness on Ellen (April 30, 1997). She appeared on an April cover of TIME Magazine (“Yep, I’m Gay”) and was interviewed on ABC’s 20/20 by Diane Sawyer (April 25, 1997). (Ironically, her show was canceled in 1998. Entertainment Weekly titled the story, “Yep, I’m Too Gay.”)

Public education in America is  shamelessly used as the humanist pulpit (James P. Needham, Humanism: Devotion to Man [1985 Florida College Lectures] 13-14). Elementary school children have been targeted for indoctrination by homosexuals with such books as Heather Has Two Mommies, Daddy’s Roommate, Gloria Has Gay Pride, and How Would You Feel If Your Dad Was Gay? As recently as November 1999, U.S. public school superintendents were mailed a 12-page booklet “informing them that there is ‘no support among health and mental health professional organizations’ for the idea that homosexuality is abnormal or mentally unhealthy” (The Indianapolis Star [November 23, 1999], A1; via Truth Magazine [44:2.59], “Quips and Quotes,” January 20, 2000). This booklet is a lie!

Denominations have not escaped untouched. Several fully accept homosexuals (individuals and couples), ordaining them and performing “union” ceremonies. In November 1999, the Georgia Baptist Convention “withdrew fellowship” from two Atlanta-area churches — Oakhurst and Virginia-Highlands — which violated an explicit 1998 GBC constitutional amendment forbidding homosexual ordination and union ceremonies (John D. Pierce, “Georgia Baptists dismiss two churches for affirming homosexuality,” The Christian Index, November 1999, 1-2, via materials from the Georgia Baptist Convention [Atlanta, GA] and The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention [Nashville, TN]; January 21, 2000). A January 18, 2000 article by AP Religion Writer Richard N. Ostling entitled “Clergy Endorse Sexual Declaration” stated, “Dramatizing the most divisive issue in American religion, 850 mostly liberal members of the clergy and other religious figures issued a declaration Tuesday urging all faiths to bless same-sex couples and allow openly gay ministers” (http://www.infobeat.com/stories).

Churches of Christ are affected, too. Don’t doubt it! I have a brochure advertising “A Cappella Chorus: Gay and Lesbian Members of the Churches of Christ,” a group formed in the Houston, TX area in 1979. It states, “In 1979, gay and lesbian members of the Houston area Churches of Christ formed a fellowship to provide educational and spiritual support to each other and the Church as a whole. . . . Gay Christians seek the opportunity to worship the one God in peace and love supported by the Church as we are supported by God. We seek no more, and no less, than acceptance, as does everyone who believes, in the fellowship of those who are striving to do God’s will.”

Moreover, I conducted an informal survey among preachers in June 1999, asking this question: “Without stating the names or localities of the persons involved, how many cases of homosexual conduct have you encountered among Christians?” From 16 responses received, there were more than 60 cases covering a wide spectrum — teenagers, young adults, middle-aged couples, and elders, deacons, preachers and their wives. Some situations were corrected and restored, other relationships ended in divorce. In September 1999, I learned about a brother whom I have long known whose wife was lured into lesbian relationships with multiple women through an Internet chat room! Brothers and sisters, we cannot ignore the reality — homosexual conduct is a problem we must face and address, not only in society but even among our own number!

The Homosexual Agenda

There are numerous homosexuals who militantly push their agenda through groups like Act Up, Queer Nation, etc. Far beyond “don’t ask, don’t tell,” their quest is for legitimacy and equality (sometimes more) in every respect to the “tradi- tional family” – father (male), mother (female), child(ren).

Philosophically, the goal is to make all ethics situational — no moral absolutes. If there are no moral absolutes, then complete freedom exists to express one’s sexuality. Any vestige of divine authority (God) or unchangeable moral codes (the Bible) must be removed. A careful reading of Humanist Manifestos I and II (Prometheus Books) will show how pervasively our society has been infected. This philosophy, though, has been pushed through a covert war.

Practically, the “Trojan Horse” has been used — disarm opposition from within the ranks. The following summary reveals how successful they’ve been: “1. Boldly claim freedom from social restraint and demand independence from the moral order. 2. Associate homosexuals with others in order to achieve legitimacy. 3. Depict decent folks with traditional family values to be the bad guys. 4. Promote the proven lie that gays constitute 10 percent of the population, so that there is legitimacy through sheer numbers. 5. Confuse the terminology so that no one realizes the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. 6. Enlist science and medicine in a bogus search for some genetic cause for homosexual behavior. 7. Don’t let anyone know what it is that gays actually do sexually. 8. Find creative ways to sidestep what the Bible teaches about homosexual conduct.  9. Open the door to the church and get its blessing for homosexual expression. 10. Break down legal restrictions against sodomy and instead establish legal restrictions against discrimination. 11. Dismantle the American family and make it possible for gays to marry and adopt children. 12. Perpetuate myths about heterosexual AIDS so that the disease becomes a political asset for the gay movement” (Smith, 18).

The Bible – The Insurmountable Wall For Homosexuals

The homosexual agenda will only be propagated, by necessity, through civil legislation, political activism and, increasingly, sheer intimidation. Endorsement from the religious community is sought and frequently received. No matter how much endorsement from men is received, though, one barrier eternally and unalterably stands against homosexual practices – the Bible.

Lest we underestimate homosexuals’ disdain for the Bible, listen to homosexual theologian and advocate, Robert Williams: “The point is not really whether or not some passage in the Bible condemns homosexual acts; the point is that you cannot allow your moral and ethical decisions to be determined by the literature of a people whose culture and history are so far removed from your own. You must dare to be iconoclastic enough to say, ‘So what if the Bible does say it? Who cares?’” (Just As I Am — A Practical Guide to Being Out, Proud, and Christian, 42; via Smith, 117, 128, 249; italics mine-rjb). In other words, the Bible is irrelevant to our day; what it says can be disregarded. This is blatant blasphemy!

More subtle efforts to undermine the authority and force of Scripture continue. One method is to reinterpret (explain away) any passage opposing homosexual conduct; another is to suggest several homosexual relationships in Scripture (i.e., Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathon, Jesus and John, Paul and Timothy, etc.). While we are shocked to hear such arguments, we really shouldn’t be. The Devil and his disciples have always used this approach — when you cannot answer truth, attack the credibility of the Bible and/or teachers of truth (Gen. 3:1-5; John 8:44; 2 Cor. 11:3; 2 Pet. 2:10-11; Jude 4, 8, 10, etc.).

What The Bible Says About Homosexual Conduct
Due to space limitations, I will not discuss every pertinent passage. There are several (Gen. 19:4-11; Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Judg. 19:22-25; Rom. 1:24-28; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; 1 Tim. 1:8-10; 2 Pet. 2:6-10; Jude 7). My focus is on three key passages — Genesis 2:18-25, Genesis 19:4-11, and Romans 1:24-32.

Genesis 2:18-25: At Creation, God ordained the marriage relationship (Gen. 2:18-25). Companionship was a key factor (v. 18), but not the only one. Another factor is vital — God created a female for the male! The male-female relationship was upheld by Jesus Christ (Matt. 19:3-6; Mark 10:2-9). A scripturally-eligible man and woman who marry have chosen the relationship God ordained for our good (Deut. 6:24; Prov. 18:22; Heb. 13:4; 1 Cor. 7:3-5, 32-34; 1 Tim. 5:14; etc.). When God’s arrangements are maintained, he blesses that relationship! When that relationship is violated by fornication (pre-marital or extra-marital sex, bestiality, homosexuality, etc.), sin is committed and problems develop. No matter how much homosexuals try to blunt the force of this passage, they cannot!

Genesis 19:4-11: Before learning of Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction, we were told of their great wickedness (Gen. 13:13; 18:20). This assessment is powerfully confirmed in Genesis 19. Homosexuals have tried to reinterpret the sin of this event to be inhospitality. This explanation will not harmonize with this text or related ones.

The men of the city — young and old — called for the messengers in Lot’s house so they could “know them carnally” (Gen. 19:5; NKJV). To “know” one is a common euphemism for sexual relations in the Old Testament (Gen. 4:1, 17, 25; 19:5, 8; 24:16; Num. 31:17, 18, 35; Judg. 11:39; 19:22, 25; 1 Sam. 1:19; Jack Lewis, “The Old Testament and Homosexual Acts,” Counseling Homosexuals [Bill Flatt, et. al.], 3-7). It does not mean, in these passages, a lack of acquaintance or hospitality! Lot understood the nature of their request — it was for wickedness (Gen. 19:7). Furthermore, theirs was an act of choice — not genetic predisposition — as they refused Lot’s two virgin daughters (Gen. 19:8).

The “filthy conduct” and “lawless deeds” of those in Sodom and Gomorrah, according to 2 Peter 2:6-8, “oppressed” and “tormented” righteous Lot. Was this mere inhospitality? Jude 7 is another divine commentary. Sodom and Gomorrah had “given themselves over to sexual immorality” and went after “strange flesh.” Is this a lack of friendliness or hospitality? Such explanations do not correspond with the stated biblical reasons. Male-male sexual relations do!

(Note: In conjunction with Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19, I highly recommend Sodom’s Revival USA by Terry Benton of Trussville, AL, a recent and excellent review of What The Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by homosexual advocate Daniel A. Helminiak, Ph.D., 1994.)

Romans 1:24-32: “This is a particularly painful passage for gays. And especially so for lesbians, since it is the only passage making direct reference to female homosexuals” (Smith, 129). Before stating their homosexual actions (vv. 26-27), Paul unfolds the step-by-step departure from God the Gentiles took (vv. 21-25). Included are significant statements about motive and mind set.

The Gentiles “exchanged the truth of God for the lie” (v. 25). They abandoned moral absolutes. They “worshiped and served the creature (themselves-?) rather than the Creator.” Their aim was to please only themselves. When a person, group, community, or society abandons moral absolutes and decides to live as they please, then anything goes (at least to them). For the Gentiles, anything went (vv. 28-32). When they were determined to so live, “God gave them up” to uncleanness, the lusts of their hearts, dishonor and vile passions (vv. 24, 26).

Some harsh realities about homosexual behavior are revealed in verses 26-27. First, it is a matter of choice — they “exchanged” and “left” the natural (male-female) for the unnatural (male-male; female-female). Second, their choice was “against nature.” Third, such behavior is “shameful.” (To understand how homosexual behavior is truly “against nature” and “shameful,” I defer to the descriptions by Smith [64-65, 101-115] and Tim LaHaye [What Everyone Should Know About Homosexuality, 21-59].) Fourth, there were consequences to their actions — “receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” We shouldn’t be surprised, then, when others are rightfully repulsed at such behavior and when depression, sickness, and disease riddle the mind and body. Finally, God, in his righteous judgment, deems this conduct — for those who practice and approve it — as worthy of death (v. 32). While “gay” it may be called, it is no laughing matter!

Eternal condemnation: If one is guilty of homosexual behavior and does not meet God’s terms of forgiveness (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:22, 24; 1 John 1:7, 9), then that soul is eternally condemned (Jude 7; Rev. 21:8). God desires all to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9), but his justice demands that sin be punished (Rom. 11:22).

What Shall We Do?

On Pentecost a multitude asked this vital question regarding their salvation (Acts 2:37). Our subject is different, but the question is equally vital — “what shall we do” regarding the increased practice and acceptance of homosexuals and their conduct?

We must know the truth about homosexual conduct from Scripture. As Jesus did when facing the devil, we must equip ourselves with truth (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10). The importance of truth is supreme (John 8:32; 17:17; Eph. 4:15; 6:14; Jas. 1:21; 1 Pet. 1:22; etc.).

We must “buy the truth and sell it not” (Prov. 23:23). We cannot compromise for any reason, no matter what the cost. This means teaching the truth to our families, in our Bible classes, from the pulpits and in any other teaching medium. It also means upholding each other as we do so (2 Tim. 1:8, 12-18).

We must inform ourselves about the progress and plans of the homosexual movement in our society. Jesus did not ignore the motives and methods of the devil (Matt. 4:1-11). Although it would be easier and more pleasant, we cannot bury our heads in the sand and ignore the realities before us!

We must suffer persecution for righteousness’ sake if necessary (1 Pet. 4:14-19). It means being ridiculed now for “bigotry,” but in the future opposition to homosexuals may rise to the criminal level — one could be charged with a crime for standing against homosexual behavior (study the Hate Crimes Prevention Act currently before Congress). It may mean that property and facilities will be lost in lawsuits. If the homosexual agenda continues in its current direction, it may even mean bodily harm or death. Don’t think it can’t happen — read Revelation. In all this, “we must obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29), no matter what!

We must remember that Jesus died for all sinners — including homosexuals (John 3:16; Tit. 2:11-14; Heb. 2:9; etc.).

We must not classify sin — God doesn’t (Gal. 5:19-21). It is right (and easy) to oppose homosexual behavior, but we must stand against all types of sin, regardless of their nature and source “Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good” (Rom. 12:9).

We must teach the gospel to homosexuals (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Paul did in Corinth and some of them changed. The same powerful gospel that changed them then is the same powerful gospel that can change them now (Rom. 1:16)! Though we may not observe the gospel’s effects, it will accomplish God’s purpose (Mark 4:26-29; Isa. 55:10-11).

Conclusion

Merciful Jehovah would have spared Sodom and Gomorrah for ten righteous souls, but they could not be found. Their doom was sealed because of their wickedness and impenitent hearts. Sodomy remains their legacy. As a nation, the United States is increasingly acceptant of homosexuals. We need to know about their growth and goals, but more importantly, we must stand for truth and righteousness, regardless of the costs, offering salvation through Christ to them. This “we” includes you and me — as individual disciples of the Lord, as families and as local churches. As long as we continue to proclaim and live the truth, we can “commit [our] souls to [God] in doing good, as to a faithful Creator” (1 Pet. 4:19). May we never consider any other option!

3020 Hampton Valley Dr., Loganville, Georgia 30052 paladin1965@juno.com

By Harry Osborne

Over the past few years, numerous brethren have redefined the term “false teacher.” We have been told that a false teacher is not known by the fact that he teaches falsely. Rather, we are told that we must see evidence of a despicable character before we may view the individual as a false teacher. Those suggesting this new definition of a “false teacher” appeal to 2 Peter 2 where the term is used and say that the characteristics noted of such men must be present before they can be called a “false teacher.”

Recently, this concept has been taken another step. Some are now saying that, since such evil characteristics as those listed in 2 Peter 2 are not apparent in teachers of error today, we have no false teachers among us. While admitting with some hesitance that there may be a few in the denominational world, we are assured that none exists among us as warned in 2 Peter 2:1.

If that assessment is correct, think what that means. We have had about 50 years since the division with the institutional folks and we are still free from any false teachers. Not a one! Yet, with the apostles of Christ present in the first century, there were already multiple false teachers present so much so that Peter had to warn of them within 35 years of the beginning of the church. If the teachers of false doctrine named by Paul and John are to be viewed as false teachers, there is evidence of yet more. Is it reasonable to say that this generation has done a better job in keeping false teachers from arising than was done in New Testament times?

Examining the Context

Look at the context which immediately precedes and follows 2 Peter 2. The emphasis is upon the need to heed the message of truth. In introducing the fact that we can have confidence in that truth, Peter says, “Wherefore I shall be ready always to put you in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and are established in the truth which is with you” (1:12). He then calls upon all to remember the testimony of Christ as given by the apostles (1:13-15). Why? The message delivered did not consist of “cunningly devised fables,” but was the product of “eyewitnesses” who “spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit” (1:16-21).

Immediately following chapter 2, Peter calls them back to remembrance of the “words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and the commandment of the Lord and Saviour through your apostles” (3:1-2). He then calls upon the readers to remember that they will be judged by that word of God as delivered (3:3-13). After again warning that “the ignorant and unstedfast wrest” the Scripture to their destruction, the readers are urged to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (3:14-18). What is the focus? Clearly, Peter’s focus is upon the need for us to hold firmly to the truth!

In the midst of these exhortations, Peter warns against whom? False teachers. Why? Because of the threat of their character? No, but because they called people away from the message of truth into doctrines which resulted in the condemnation of souls. Men who teach doctrines which result in sin and condemnation of souls when put into practice will produce evil characteristics as a rule. However, they do not begin to pose a threat to God’s people which must be exposed at the point of manifesting an evil character. That threat must be exposed beginning at the point when, though previously undetected, they “bring in destructive heresies” (2:1).

“False Teachers” Were Not Recognized Initially

Remember that Peter warns brethren to be watchful for these “false teachers” who would be “among” them as though they had slipped in unawares and unrecognized. Brethren, could you tell me how one would have all of the characteristics described before he could be called a “false teacher” and yet slip in unawares and unrecognized? Wouldn’t most brethren notice a fellow who was presumptuous, self-willed, evil speaking, having eyes full of adultery and speaking great swelling words of vanity?

It is clear even by the immediate context that Peter is noting the end of these false teachers who in the end would be fully corrupted as a result of their error. (The growing corruption of error is elsewhere attested as in 2 Tim. 3:13.) But what was the first sign? The destructive heresies!

Key Word: “Destructive”

Notice also that in the first three verses of chapter 2, a form of the word “destructive” is used three times.

First, the message taught is characterized as “destructive heresies.” Not all teaching which is incorrect is necessarily destructive in that it leads to sin and condemnation if practiced. An example can be noted in McGarvey’s Sermons where he noted the possibility that the young prophet going to Bethel could have believed a lie which would not have led to his death:

Shall we think, then, that every man who believes a lie in regard to God’s will shall perish? I think not. If a blind man is guided by another blind man along a smooth road, where there is no ditch, I don’t think either of them will fall into a ditch. It is only when there is a ditch in the way that they will fall into it. So, if this young prophet had been told to do almost any thing else than what he was told to do, we have no reason to think it would have been fatal. If, for example, the old prophet had said, An angel sent me to tell you to get from under this tree and run for your life, and not to stop until you get home, the young man would have been scared, and would have run himself out of breath; but the lion would not have killed him. In like manner, I can imagine a man believing some lies in religion, which, though they may injure him some, and I suppose there are very few that would not, might yet fall short of proving fatal to him (J.W. McGarvey, McGarvey’s Sermons, Gospel Light, 1975, 333-4).

Other examples of being incorrect about the interpretation of a given passage not necessarily leading to sin if put into practice could be given (early date or late date of the book of Revelation, whether Ephesians 4:12 specifies the three areas of legitimate work of the church in one verse, the exact meaning of the “gift of the Holy Spirit” in Acts 2:38, etc.) A doctrine is destructive if it will cause one to commit sin if put into practice, thus causing the soul to be in jeopardy of hell.

Second, as a result of bringing in the “destructive heresies” the false teachers bring “upon themselves swift destruction.” Before any evil character is said to be present with these false teachers, Peter declares their fitness for destruction based upon the heresies they introduced among the people of God.

Third, the false teachers’ decline into benefitting themselves through their “feigned words” showed the fact that “their destruction slumbereth not.” As noted above, they would indeed wax worse and worse. From that point, the chapter continues to denote that decline.

All Characteristics or Limited Number?

If it is true that false teachers must have the corrupt characteristics noted in 2 Peter 2 before they can be called “false teachers,” would not consistency demand that they have every single one of them before they could be called “false teachers”? If not, how many of them must they have? One? Two? Six? If not, how many?

If our redefining brethren answer that false teachers must first possess every characteristic named, they would be hard pressed to find one among the very vilest of men, much less in the midst of God’s people. If they answer that false teachers may have less than all of the characteristics named, please tell me why we cannot use the same logic to conclude they may be recognized by the first one listed: “bring in destructive (damnable) heresies.”

False Teachers and False Prophets

Also of interest is the parallel of “false prophets” to “false teachers” in this context. The fact that the exact phrase “false prophet” is not found in the Old Testament does not keep us from identifying them. Every time you find a prophet speaking falsely while claiming it is the truth of God, you find a “false prophet.”

In the case of the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18, it is clear that they are very sincere in their actions. But we would still rightly recognize them as false prophets because they prophesied falsely. Hence, there is no exclusive pattern suggesting that all false prophets had to have despicable character.

If that is so regarding false prophets and they are parallel with false teachers by Peter, what is the necessary conclusion? No exclusive pattern exists suggesting that all false teachers must first have despicable characters before being called “false teachers.”

Efforts to say that a false teacher in this context is one who first possessed the evil character misses the point of both the immediate and extended context. The false teachers were first known because of their teaching. Hence the term, “false teachers,” not “false characters” or “false hearts.” Failure to detect their false teaching would lead brethren to forget the truth which Peter continually urges the readers to remember.

False Teaching of New Testament Times

Please think for a moment about the errors refuted most in the New Testament and the view the inspired writers had of those advocating such. The Judaizing heresy and Gnosticism probably receive more attention than any others. Could we agree that those condemned for advancing these views could rightly be called false teachers? Yet, many of them would have been exemplary in their character.

For example, the Gnostics who took the ascetic view would have been anything but people with despicable characters. Would that preclude them from being described as false teachers? Yet, Paul clearly refers to the advocate of that type in Colossians 2 and warns faithful brethren that the effect of the teaching was to make “spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Col. 2:8). There are other ways for advocates of error to make spoil of the hearers other than physically enriching themselves at the expense of those hearers. They could make spoil of them in the spiritual sense as well. Would such make the advocate of error any less a false teacher?

Are Other Terms Acceptable?

The objection to the use of this one description of those teaching error puzzles me. If we say those teaching error are causing divisions and occasions of stumbling contrary to the doctrine of Christ and should be avoided, would that be more acceptable? That is the way Paul expressed it in Romans 16:17. If such men were named and it was said that their word ate like a cancer, would that be more acceptable? That is what was said of Hymenaeus and Philetus in 2 Timothy 2:17. If we were to say that the teachers of error contrary to the doctrine of Christ were “anti-christ,” would that be acceptable? Yet, that is how John described the Gnostics of his day in his epistles.

It is obvious that the same brethren objecting to the use of the term “false teacher” would also object to those biblical terms. The fact is that some brethren are becoming very hesitant to rebuke error and the advocates thereof with the same rebukes stated in Scripture. There is no essential difference in such efforts today and that of the identical argument made on the same subject by Leroy Garrett as follows:

A false teacher is a liar, and he knows he’s a liar; or he is so corrupt of mind and heart that he no longer distinguishes between right and wrong. . . . It is unthinkable that such characterization as this should be laid upon any sincere, well-meaning, God-loving person, however misled he may be on some ideas. One may even be caught up in the clutches of an insidious system and still not be a pseudo-didaskalos. The nun that marches her girls in front of you as you wait at the light does not necessarily deserve the epithet of false, whatever judgment you make of Romanism (Leroy Garrett, Restoration Review [1976], 264).

We should remember where this principle was taken by those in the “Grace/Unity Movement.” It is troubling to hear the same argumentation from brethren today. How far are we willing to take this idea? Today, we are to believe there are no false teachers among us. Could the day be coming when there are none in the denominational world either? Brethren, let us take the sum of God’s word on this matter and speak as the oracles of God. Let us never obscure the clear terms of inspiration with the uncertain sounds of compromise and tolerance with evil.

2302 Windsor Oaks Ave., Lutz, Florida 33549

By Mark Reeves

I heard it on the news the other morning while listening to the radio. We were being informed that the Pope would be visiting Mount Nebo, the place where, according to tradition, Moses viewed the “Promised Land.” I must admit that I was very irritated when I heard it, and my anger had nothing to do with what was said about the Pope (not this time!).

It was that subtle phrase that the announcer slipped in, according to tradition.” I got to thinking, I wonder if I could get on the radio and announce, “According to tradition this country’s first president was named George Washington.” Or maybe I could declare that “according to tradition, Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the moon.”

I might not have been so incensed had it been an isolated case. Unfortunately it was announced on the same radio station a few weeks earlier that “Mount Sinai was the place where tradition has it that Moses received the Ten Commandments.”

Furthermore, if the announcer had been making the point that the site of Mt. Nebo was established only by tradition, then I would have had no quibble. We all would do well to recognize that many so called “holy sites” in Palestine are established largely by tradition, and may or may not be the actual place where a particular Bible event took place. This radio announcement did not speak of the Pope visiting the traditional site of Mt. Nebo, but rather by its wording, cast the shadow of “tradition” over Moses and the Bible event.

“How crafty is our adversary,” I thought to myself (John 8:44). There was no blatant statement that the Bible is a hoax or something equally defiant of God. Just a quiet, unobtrusive remark which referred to an historic account as merely a tradition. The insinuation of course is that the Bible record is tantamount to a fairy tale or a myth. The cunning strategy behind those godless men who control the media is to lower the Bible account to the level of any dubious belief that all cultures and peoples have. Satan wouldn’t mind if you and I came away thinking that the Bible account of Moses on Mount Nebo was no more real than the Bigfoot monster or the superstitions of some African tribe.

Once the Devil gets us accustomed to the word “tradition” in connection with references to the Bible, then it will be just a short hop over his next objective. According to modern thought, we should be tolerant of all cultural traditions and treat them with equal importance. Soon we will begin to believe that the Bible “tradition” is just as valid as the tradition presented in the Koran or the traditions of Buddhist philosophy.

I doubt that this one statement which I heard on a news broadcast is going to be solely responsible for the apostasy of some child of God. It is the steady erosion of our faith, like the constant dripping of water on a rock, that concerns me.

We write these things in the spirit of Paul who said, that “no advantage may be gained over us by Satan: for we are not ignorant of his devices” (2 Cor. 2:11). Let us take advantage of these opportunities to point out to our children and our youth the fallacy of such statements. May none of us, while having our guard up against immorality and false doctrine, be brought down by a fiery dart of the Devil piercing from behind. 

3402 Karen Ave., Long Beach, California 90808-3005 markhreeves@juno.com

The beginning of the congregation was most unusual. It had its beginning about 1850. It was in a sleepy little town of about 100 people. They had a general store, a school, and a “Baptist Church.” One day a preacher rode into town on horseback. He asked if he could preach a few nights in the local church building. Permission was granted and the preacher preached nightly for about two weeks. The night the “Revival” came to an end, the congregation came out of the building and tore the sign, “Baptist Church” off the building. A day or two later a new sign went up which read, “Church Of Christ.” All other details of the event have been lost in time.

My association with the church began a little over 100 years later. However, when I rode in, I was riding a “Ford” not a horse. One hundred years later the town still numbered about 100 people. But, they had grown! At that point, they had added another grocery store and a feed mill. And, the church had also grown, averaging about 200 for Sunday morning services. 

By the time I arrived the church was in its second building. Originally it had been a typical one room auditorium. It was larger than most rural buildings with a seating capacity of well over 200. A few years before my arrival they had added a baptistry, two dressing rooms that doubled as classrooms and a furnace. However, two well built out houses still served as “rest rooms!” Cold in winter and hot in summer!

With the increased attendance, it was time to enlarge the building again. Plans were drawn up to add a basement with two class rooms and a ground level section with a cry room and two rest rooms. Yes, by that time the community was served by a rural water system, but we would have to put in our own septic.

The men had met several times to discuss the matter and they would carry the details home to their wives and children. Workmen were brought in and the addition began to take shape.

In the congregation there were two “old maids.” They had inherited their parents farm and had farmed the place as if they were men. They never owned an automobile and so they would walk the mile or two into town from time to time to get supplies. Since the church building was on the road into town, when they would walk by, they stopped to observe the construction work. During the basement construction little comments were made. Then it was time to frame the upper section. The carpenters laid off the rooms and the plumbers began to install the sewer pipes. That was the day the old sisters stopped by for another look. They were well into their 60s and had never known anything but outdoor toilets! When it dawned on them that there would be indoor rest rooms in the church building they were shocked! With anguish they discussed the matter at length and then wondered off down the road with the lament. “The next thing you know they will bring in the piano!” As they saw it, indoor rest rooms were the beginning of apostasy.