As one considers the plethora of
"Promise Keeper" rallies there have been in the past few years, as well
as all of the unity forums and ecumenical efforts, one simply must
wonder how there could be any religious division left in America. How
many "lovefests" have occurred in which it has been announced that the
sounds the people gathered together were hearing were those old
"denominational walls" tumbling down. How many times has Max Lucado
oozed forth his false teaching on unity to the delight of
emotionally-guided sycophants?
YET THERE'S NO UNITY! First, people
left the Southern Baptists because in their conventions some thought
they ought to stand for something. When they did, some suggested an
exodus to a more moderate, tolerant (translate "spineless") group. No
matter what the cause, the idea of standing for what the Bible teaches
is viewed as a "risky scheme" by many. Oh, it is easy enough to
formulate a statement that harmonizes with the Scriptures and vote on
it. But then the news media jumps in, all aghast, and, rather than make
a defense, some prefer sidle off the stage of controversy.
Now the Presbyterians are the focus
of controversy, and who can predict what havoc their two current
conferences will wreak? So far, three issues have arisen. The Dallas
Morning News reported on June 9th concerning the first one with this
headline: "Some Presbyterians Fear Splintering Over Ordination of Gays"
(1G). Just about every different viewpoint has been reported. One
"interim pastor" from Austin said: "There's no consensus--no single mind
in Christ on these issues" (5G). He advocates "an incomplete
resolution."
What is that supposed to mean? "We
are resolved that people should either agree or disagree with ordaining
homosexuals." Say, there is a middle-of-the-road proposition! The
authoritative Word clearly teaches that a person cannot become a child
of God if he or she is a practicing homosexual, let alone attempt to
teach Christianity to others. It is a sin which must be repented of
(1 Cor. 6:9-11).
"I wish we could disagree and still
be able to love one another," one delegate said (5G). Love has nothing
to do with it. People ought to love as God does--He does not quit loving
us when we are wrong. Love and fellowship, however, are two different
things. If someone begins to teach the devil's doctrine, God still loves
him, but He will no longer fellowship him. Instead, He will call on him
to repent. Imagine Paul saying, "Lord, I have decided to quit preaching
against sin. I'm going to tell people that fornication, homosexuality,
and divorce for every cause are all right." How long would Paul have
remained an apostle? When God speaks on a subject, that ends the
discussion and any future debate.
Another "pastor" commented: "If they
let each presbytery decide whether to ordain gays and lesbians, then
what's not to stop them from letting each presbytery decide its own
theology?" (5G). Of course, control over all their members is the basis
for a denomination in the first place. All of them began with a specific
doctrine. Now they have annual conventions to decide what that doctrine
is. Of course, if they relied on the Scriptures in the first place, they
would neither be a denomination nor have an annual convention.
God never designed the church to
decide doctrine. Jesus is the head over the church, and he ordained
elders to lead each congregation in the Truth. Men have no authority to
invent their own teachings. Those who love God continue even to this day
"in the apostles' doctrine" (Acts
2:42).
The June 16th headline in The
Dallas Morning News was "Delegates Vote To End Presbyterians' Ban on
Gay Ministers" (1A). The assembly voted to give each of the 173
presbyteries an opportunity to ratify the proposal during this next
year. If the majority does so, their ministers can be openly homosexual.
The head of the Presbyterians for Renewal said: "What has crept into the
Presbyterian Church is not just a difference of opinion, but unbelief."
He is right. This decision is a
rejection of what the Bible teaches. But so is denominationalism itself.
One wonders when was the last time that he or other denominational
officials were called upon to defend their existence. What passage
speaks of the Presbyterian Church? Who were Presbyterians in the Bible?
In what passage did Jesus decide to build His church and divide it into
various branches? May those who see this General Assembly decision as an
assault on faith and the integrity of the Scriptures use it as a
springboard to re-examine
ALL their practices! May
this defeat serve as a catalyst to cause them to return to the
Scriptures in all things!
The moderator of the General
Assembly "asked the assembly to pause for prayer four times during
debate. After the votes were tallied, he asked for silence and another
moment of prayer" (20). Is prayer supposed to sanctify the decision?
Will prayer somehow take corruption and turn it into purity? Will prayer
take error and transform it into truth? Too often people assume that,
once they have prayed about something, their decision must have been
prompted by the very wisdom of God. No wonder foolishness reigns!
The
Battle
Over John 14:6
One would think that the General
Assembly of Presbyterians would have been worn out over the decision on
ordaining homosexuals, but no--they also decided to tackle an even more
controversial topic: whether or not to believe John 14:6. Of
course, that was not the way they put it. Rather, they voted on "Is
Jesus the only way to salvation?" Having already voted down Romans 1 and
Jude 7, guess what they decided? According to a June 15th article in
The Dallas Morning News, a majority of more than 500 delegates voted
against a proposal "that said Jesus is the lone vehicle of salvation"
(4A). As one person put it, if salvation does not come through Jesus
alone, "who are the other deities we are talking about?" Also, what does
John 14:6 mean?
"One side called for tolerance of
non-Christian faiths." So what did the other side call for--shooting
them? People misunderstand tolerance. Christians can be civil and
non-threatening to anyone who is not a Christian: atheists, Buddhists,
Hindus, Jews, Muslims, etc. Tolerance, however, does not mean refusing
to tell them that these religions are wrong and that they will be lost
in their sins unless they come to God through Jesus. Since when has it
been a matter of: "Agree with me, or I'll kill you"? Did the apostles
and Christians in the first century go forth with swords to convert the
world? No, they were armed with the Gospel. If people cannot be
converted with reason and evidence, they will just have to remain part
of the majority (Matt.
7:13-14).
One delegate commented: "I don't
have the right to say that other people can't find God in other ways."
Why not? Jesus said it. People are afraid to speak the truth because of
the way the "politically correct" will pillory them. At least when Peter
denied the Lord, he feared for his life (he still sinned in so doing),
but this individual and others like him are perpetually spineless. Peter
stood up on the day of Pentecost and for the remainder of his life. He
was not ashamed to tell the Jews that they were wrong in crucifying
Jesus (which was not a lack of love on his part), nor did he hesitate in
saying, "There is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we
must be saved" (Acts
4:12). But those who are
afraid to say the same thing today demonstrate continual cowardice.
Either Jesus is THE way, or He is
not. He is not A way, implying that other "Saviors" may also get people
to Heaven. If He is not THE way; then He is NO way. Jesus told people
that they were either for Him or against Him (Matt.
12:30).
No Scripture says, "I am sort of the way, kind of the
truth, and perhaps the life (for some)." Denominations have been
insisting, in response to criticism of their existence, "We are all just
trying to get to Heaven. We're just traveling different roads." They
should not be surprised that some are now willing to let some of those
other roads belong to various "world religions." Pluralism is making
great headway. Even the columnist acknowledged this fact and said that
once a question such as this one would have been a "no-brainer."
One "Senior Pastor" here in Dallas
commented on this decision. He accused the General Assembly of
exercising "creative unbelief." (The
Dallas Morning News,
June 23, 28A).
After stating that Jesus is the only path to salvation, he
commented: "Every once in a while we have a General Assembly that,
unhooked from its Biblical/theological moorings, kicks against the
goads...." He concludes by saying that "it truly is a sad day in the
life of the Presbyterian Church USA." Unbelief is an appropriate
designation for doctrines that oppose the Scriptures. Again, the very
concept of denominationalism unhooks people from their Biblical
moorings.
Days of Creation
Heretofore we have been discussing
recent events occurring in the Presbyterian Church USA. Meeting the week
following this group was the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).
According to The Dallas Morning News, the "more conservative PCA
is the smaller of the country's two main Presbyterian denominations"
(June 16, 5G). The PCA is slightly more than 10% of the PCUSA. For those
who are wondering about the difference, the smaller group would not
currently even consider ordaining homosexuals; they also do not believe
in ordaining women as "pastors."
They follow the Westminster
Confession of Faith which states: "It pleased God the Father, Son and
Holy Ghost...in the beginning to create...the world...in the space of
six days; and all was very good.Ó This smaller group is now debating
whether the days of Genesis are literal or not. Theoretically, they must
also be debating whether or not their Confession of Faith also meant six
literal days.
Last year their General Assembly
decided that there were four possible interpretations to the means by
which God created the world. The article does not state what they are,
beyond mentioning the literal and the figurative. Presumably there is a
"gap" theory in there somewhere and perhaps even a "modified gap"
theory. None of these, except the literal, is correct. The rest came
into being to try to accommodate evolution, which some mistakenly
thought had been proved. Yet after 142 years since Darwin wrote The
Origin of the Species, evolution remains an unsubstantiated theory,
and the numbers in Genesis are still literal.
A day may stand for
more than a twenty-four hour period of time in the Bible, but not when
it is preceded by words such as first, second, third, fourth, fifth,
sixth, and seventh. Day is not used figuratively when it has an
evening and a morning, either. Exodus 20:11 is not the least ambiguous
as it explains the reason for the fourth commandment, keeping the
Sabbath day holy: "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the
earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.
Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."
There is not one reason ever given
in the Biblical text to doubt that these were six literal days. If
someone wanted to convey the idea that these were six literal days, what
more could have been written toward that end? How many Israelites ever
doubted that it was six literal days? Only when evolution demanded eons
of time did anyone ever consider any other explanation. But all
alternate explanations are vain because this truth is so well
established in the Scriptures. It is strange that a "conservative" group
that believes the Bible is inspired would question this teaching.
Denominationalism and
Unity
So what have we seen about unity?
Unity can exist in one of two ways: 1) By regarding the Bible as it is
in truth--the inspired Word of God (2 Tim.
3:16-17),
or 2) By disregarding the Bible and any
doctrine whatsoever. This last method is advanced by Rubel Shelly, Max
Lucado and others. Forget any specific Bible teaching; let's just affirm
our love for each other. Hugs can hide a multitude of instructions.
The problem with unity rallies is
that they only last so long as people do not attend worship anywhere on
a regular basis. Sooner or later, somebody is going to insist that the
Bible be studied, and then there will be disunity. There are already two
large groups of Presbyterians. Members of the denomination cannot get
along with each other: hence, two groups. But they cannot get along with
each other, either. The larger group just resolved to ordain
homosexuals; some will rebel against that. They refused to uphold that
Jesus is THE way to eternal life, and some are upset about that. The
more conservative group is debating the literalness of Genesis 1. If
there are four interpretations, and all of them are equally acceptable,
that is tantamount to saying that we cannot know the Truth.
See what a problem doctrine is? No
wonder unity meetings are about feeling good. Thinking
would kill them. No wonder shallow messages are gaining in popularity
and people prefer entertainment to reason and analysis. The minute
something of substance is taught, disagreement erupts.
How did Jesus deal with this
problem? He chose substance. What about when people disagreed with Him?
He showed them where they were wrong and what the Truth was (Matt.
22). "But He didn't unite all of them," someone observes. Sure He
did. He united them against Himself and His disciples. Unity is
desirable, but Truth is paramount. Jesus would have united all of Israel
if He could have; it was His devout wish (Matt.
23:37).
But Truth (doctrine) is more important--even if disunity results and
prevails.
Only a few will choose to walk in
Truth. The rest will reject it--because of tradition (Matt. 15:1-9),
immorality (2 Peter 2), the desire to have their own following
(Acts 20:30),
peer pressure (Matt. 26:69-75), lukewarmness (Rev. 3:15-16),
or because they have lost their first love (Rev. 2:4). All of
them will have to live eternally with their decision.
So long as
doctrine thrives, there will be division among God's people. Even
man-made denominations cannot avoid it. It is simply a fact of spiritual
life. We do not rejoice in division, but we do rejoice in the Truth and
in the God who revealed it to us. Only those who love Him will
experience true unity forever.
Other Articles