Sunday Sermons
Take Care - Part 1
In the Bible there are many passages that warn Christians to “take care”, or “take heed”. “Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you any evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God” (Hebrews 3:12). Vine defines the word rendered “take care” as meaning “to look, see, usually implying more especially an intent, earnest contemplation”. “To paraphrase, we could say that the writer of Hebrews urged Christians to see what was there to be seen. They were to open their eyes and contemplate the reality that lay before them. ‘Take heed, brethren’, look at what lies before you and be mindful of the dangers” (The Spiritual Sword, October 2002, p. 1). The word is also in the present imperative, denoting continued diligence on the part of God’s people. In like manner, Christians need to have their eyes open today and observe what is transpiring in their own lives and in the world around them. In this lesson I want to point out departures from the truth that are happening especially in liberal or institutional congregations, but that are creeping into non-institutional congregations as well. Good and faithful brethren surround us, yet we are also in the larger community being surrounded by error, and compromise as well. God’s method for encountering the tide of error has always been consistent, strong and faithful preaching of His message. In the face of apostasy, Timothy was told, “preach the word” (2 Timothy 4:2-4). “Andrew Connally once observed that when Jesus rose from the waters of baptism He did not draw out a butter knife but the sword of the Spirit” (p. 7). (SeeMatthew 4:4,7,10). “Butter knife” preaching, that is, making people feel good, has never accomplished God’s purposes. It failed to warn, convict, and bring about righteousness in the time of Jeremiah (8:11), Isaiah (30:10), Samuel (1 Samuel 3:13);and the early Christians (2 Timothy 4:3-4). One writer noted that among some liberal churches elderships have even instructed preachers not to expose denominational error, which would equip the saints to have a ready answer for their hope and win souls for Christ and His church. They do not want to hurt anyone’s feelings, but all the while God’s feelings are never considered (p. 7). When men do this they are giving more respect to man than to God (Malachi 1:6ff).
Just another Denomination?
Various prominent voices among liberal congregations are arguing that the church of Christ is just another denomination. In the book entitled Radical Restoration, F. LaGard Smith, former law professor at Pepperdine University, and currently a scholar in residence at David Lipscomb University argues that churches of Christ are denominational. He argues that we “definitely have our own distinct form, easily recognized as denominational” (pp. 25-26). “One example, employed to illustrate ‘how unwittingly denominational we have become’, is illustrated as follows. If a brother should say, ‘I’m a member of the church’, he has revealed a denominational mentality. In such an affirmation, he should have said: ‘I’m a Christian’ (p. 38)” (The Spiritual Sword, p. 32). Yet, what is denominational about saying that one is a member of the church? Does not the body or church of Christ have “members” and are not these members Christians? (1 Corinthians 12:27). When people claim that we are just another denomination, they need to prove it. Denominations are man made religious groups, with human names; human traditions, doctrines, and practices that keep them separate from other groups. Is what churches of Christ are doing man-made? What human doctrines are we teaching? What practices are nothing more than tradition? Smith argues that first-century Christians would hardly recognize what we today call the churches of Christ (p. 24). Now that may be true of liberal congregations or the congregations that he associates with, but that is not true of all churches of Christ. Would not early Christians recognize the organizational pattern of elders and deacons? (1 Timothy 3:1ff) How about meeting on the first day of the week, praying, singing, giving and observing the Lord’s Supper? (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 11:23ff; 16:1ff; Ephesians 5:19) Would he recognize the plan of salvation: hearing, believing, repenting, confessing, and being baptized? (Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16) What is it that they would not recognize?
Fellowshipping the Denominations
“The ‘Conference on Spiritual Renewal’ was conducted April 18-20, 1996, at Florence Alabama. Rubel Shelly, minister of Woodmont Hills Church of Christ in Nashville, was one of the speakers, along with an assortment of denominational preachers and charismatic leaders. He began his presentation with the following: ‘One of the things that I think is so wonderful and precious and dear to the heart of God about a conference like this is that it is a conference that cuts across the lines that we have erected to keep us separate’. Shelly told the group that ‘we need every one of us on the same team’. He made clear, however, this did not require anyone to leave his present denomination affiliation. He explained: ‘We will not lose our separate denominational identities, we will not give up our particular heritages and histories, we will not have to give up our distinctive practices with regard to our different organizational structures, worship, and so on. I see no need for that” (The Spiritual Sword, October 1996, p. 3). Please note that what divides people in the religious world is precisely what Shelly says does not matter that is, human, denominational doctrines, traditions and practices. Yes, these things do matter, anything matters that is a violation of the Word of God! (Matthew 15:9) Anything that is an addition or subtraction to the Word of God also matters! (Galatians 1:6-9; 2 John 9). He further stated, “I believe it is perfectly all right for us to live in different houses, and to have our distinctives, and our preferences, and our tastes”. Wait a minute, whatever happened to such passages as John 17:20-21 and 1 Corinthians 1:10? In addition, have we forgotten about God’s preferences and His tastes? On April 2, 1995 Max Lucado, minister of Oak Hill Church of Christ in San Antonio, exchanged pulpits with Buckner Fanning, pastor of Trinity Baptist Church. In his sermon he began by saying that we have enlisted in God’s Navy. There is but one ship; there is but one captain; and, there is but one destination; and ‘though there may be many cabins below and decks in which we live, and where we choose to bunk, when God calls us to all stand on deck and face the enemy, shoulder to shoulder, we need to take the command seriously”. He asked his audience: “If God is willing to overlook our puny and small doctrinal misinterpretations, can’t we find it in ourselves to do the same for others?” First, Lucado should have noted that baptism for the remission of sins is the entrance into the one body (Acts 2:38; 47; 1 Corinthians 12:13), and then pointed out to his audience that for that reason they were not even in the body yet. Secondly, the illustration of all the denominations comprising a ship is nowhere found in the Bible. Third, if he feels that the differences between the denominations and us are puny and small, he needs to re-read his Bible. God takes doctrine very seriously (2 John 9).
Ephesians 4:4-7
For years the denominations have argued that the seven ones in this section of Scripture are the only doctrines that we need to agree on, yet they do not even believe that. At the conference, Shelly proposed the seven ones of Ephesians 4 as the doctrinal minimum for unity, yet then he compromised even on these. He noted that some believe in the idea that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God, while others have a “oneness” theology, that is, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all the same person, which denies such simple passages as John 1:1. He said that he believed in three personalities who constitute the Godhead, but he also said, “I don’t think we all have to parse that the same way…..If you don’t parse it in Trinitarian terms, as I do, I don’t think that disallows you as a Christian” (p. 3). Thus even the doctrine of the Godhead is expendable in order not to offend the “Jesus only” charistmatics. Compare with Paul’s attitude in (Galatians 1:10).
The One Baptism
For years various voices have been trying to move brethren toward embracing the denominational world, but the teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation (Mark 16:16) stood as a very inconvenient obstacle in the way, therefore we should not be shocked if liberal brethren have decided to ax Jesus’ teaching on this subject as well. “In the July edition of the Christian Chronicle which is the public relations arm of Oklahoma Christian University, whose president is Mike E. O’Neal formerly with Pepperdine, the paper, which has a circulation of 103,000 monthly, presented the views of Max Lucado against the one baptism in the Bible. He is quoted as saying, ‘I strongly resist any effort to trust the act of baptism to save’” (The Spiritual Sword, October 2002, p. 6). However, the inspired apostle Peter said, “Baptism now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21). He also rejected the necessity of baptism by bringing up the example of the thief on the cross as an example of a “baptism-less conversion”. Such an argument manifests a very poor understanding of the Scriptures, especially the division between the Old and New Covenant (Hebrews 9:16-17). The thief is forgiven prior to the death of Christ, and thus prior to the New Covenant which includes the command to be baptized to be saved (Mark 16:16). The following is a statement put out by the Oak Hills Church of Christ in San Antonio, Texas where Max Lucado preaches: “Once a person admits his sin and turns to Christ for salvation, some step must be taken to proclaim to heaven and earth that he is a follower of Christ. Baptism is that step. Baptism is the initial and immediate step of obedience by one who has declared his faith to others….Indeed, baptism is a vow, a sacred vow of the believer to follow Christ. Just as a wedding celebrates the fusion of two hearts, baptism celebrates the union of sinner and Savior…Is it possible for an unbaptized believer to be saved? Yes, definitely. Should every believer be baptized? Yes, definitely”. Apparently this statement was written in order to try to please everyone, the problem is that it contradicts what Jesus and the apostles taught. Jesus did not give a verse that opens up the possibility for an unbaptized believer to be saved. He placed baptism in the position of being just as essential as faith, repentance or confession (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Acts 8:37-38). To claim that an unbaptized believer can be saved is like saying that a baptized unbeliever can be saved, or, that an unrepentant believer can be saved, or a believer who refuses to confess Christ can be saved (John 12:42-43). Added to this, if baptism is not necessary to be saved, then what other doctrines in Ephesians 4:4-7 are unnecessary? As a side note, the managing editor of the Chronicle, lamented that despite Lucado’s prominence as an author, his “name is absent from any lectureships and publications among churches of Christ”. This is not something to be lamented; rather it demonstrates that many professed Christians still understand the clear meaning of what Jesus taught. The editor questions whether it is “envy” or “fear”, or Lucado’s teaching on baptism that hinders his acceptance on lectureships and in publications. Let us hope that the reason that liberal churches are not using Him is because some members still have enough fear of passages like Revelation 22:18-19 and Galatians 1:6-9 that they refuse to use someone who is contradicting what the Son of God taught. Yet, Lucado is not alone, Professor Carroll Osburn of Abilene Christian University argues that the issue of the design of baptism (that is, is one baptized because one is already saved, or is one baptized for the remission of sins) is immaterial. Did Jesus or the apostles teach that the purpose for being baptized was irrelevant? (Acts 22:16). Others are arguing that a person being baptized does not have to understand that it is for the remission of sins, but only that one wants to obey God. Yet the very passages that “command” baptism also clearly reveal its purpose (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). Finally, some are saying that baptism is not part of the core gospel and is thereby inconsequential. Is that what Jesus said? (Mark 16:15-16).
