Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment? -Malachi 2:17
The Jews who had returned from Babylonian exile wearied the Lord with their words. I believe that many professing Christians also weary the Lord with their words. The Lord clearly states what He means when He says His people have wearied Him with their words. He gives two different, though intertwined, statements. First, the Lord is wearied by those who claim that God loves everyone, regardless of their lifestyle. We have a glut of preachers and churches who claim that the outside does not matter; it is only what is inside that counts (ie: "God sees the heart."). This is not in tune with the Scripture in either the Old or New Testament. Leviticus 18:5 says, "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD." Ephesians 4:1 says, "I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called..." Both the Old and New Testaments call for believers to live, think, and respond like believers. I realize that not one of us is perfect, but this must be the goal of every born-again believer in Jesus Christ. If we love the Lord will all our heart, soul, and mind, we will also obey the Lord with all our heart, soul, and mind (Matthew 22:37; John 14:15). When we begin to make excuses for sin ("God loves me like I am."), we are guilty of making the Lord weary with our words. When we make excuses for ungodliness in the lives of fellow believers, we make the Lord weary with our words. We can even go so far as to say, "I know their life doesn't follow the Bible, but they are the best Christians I have ever known," we are making the Lord weary with our words. Second, The Lord is wearied by those who reject Him as a God of judgment. Too often, believers will talk about the "Old Testament God of judgment" that is always looking for something for which to punish His people. Then, they turn to talk about the "New Testament God of grace" that lets believers get away with wickedness and turns a blind eye to continuing bondage in sin. It might be hard for you to grasp, but we serve the SAME GOD in the Age of Grace that Moses served under the Law. He is not less holy than He was back then. He holds the same standard of holiness for His people today, regardless of whether His holiness is followed or rejected. He said in 1 Peter 1:15-16, "But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy." Notice how this applies to New Testament believers, but Peter reaches back into the Old Testament to prove the statement he makes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. God has the same standard of holiness for you as He had for Abraham, Moses, and David. Rather than making the Lord weary, we must live in such a way as to be refreshing to the Lord. That comes about by humility and total surrender to God and His Word. Without these two key ingredients, believers will continue to make the Lord weary with their words.
0 Comments
Back in the third century, something incredible happened. The churches in existence had gravitated into two camps. One camp held firmly to the teaching of Scripture, while the other camp felt that some Bible truth could be "tweaked" for the sake of convenience. One example of this "tweaking" is found in "clinical baptism:" a baptismal candidate, being too sick to be immersed, had water poured over him instead. The result of this "tweaking" was the churches in this camp teaching false doctrine, such as the necessity of baptism to forgive sins, the importance of the "saints," and other heretical doctrines.
In the middle of this conflict between these camps stood Novatian. He denounced the camp of corrupt churches, stating that their baptism was invalid due to their false teaching. He preached that any born-again believer coming from one of these churches to a church in the camp of faithful churches must receive Scriptural, valid baptism. Needless to say, the compromising churches reviled Novatian as "divisive." New Testament Baptist churches today are reviled as "divisive" when we refuse to accept any immersion from a church that is not a New Testament church in doctrine and practice. Things haven't changed that much over the centuries. The point is that the compromising churches "protested" against Novatian and those New Testament churches that stood faithful to the Word of God. They protested that their compromise was exposed for all to see and that there were real consequences for their compromise. These "protesters" began to deride these faithful churches as "Novatians" and "Anabaptists." These "protesting" churches further developed into the Catholic and Orthodox churches of today. The Bible teaches that "like begets like," so it is no surprise that in 1517 and after, many stood to protest the things in the Catholic church with which they disagreed. No, New Testament Baptist churches are NOT Protestant. They were the first to be protested against because they desired to remain faithful to the Lord and His Word. We, too, need to continue faithful to the Lord and His Word, no matter the names we are called and the "divisiveness" that is created. Much debate has occurred on the topic of Christian music. These debates have ended friendships and split churches. On the one side are those who believe music is "amoral" and, therefore, beyond criticism, regardless of its form. On the other side are those who believe music is a tool of God or the devil, and the Christian must submit his musical preference to the Scripture.
Whenever there is debate regarding Christian music, certain arguments inevitably find their way into the conversation. There are accusations of songs being too repetitive, too vague, too shallow, and so on. These may well be valid points, but they aren't the main issues concerning this ongoing debate. I believe there are four main issues surrounding the debate over Contemporary Christian Music and whether a Christian or church should participate in and listen to this type of music. If we can get a firm grasp on all four of these issues, we will be better prepared to judge what music is truly Christ-honouring and what music must be avoided. The Issue of Origin One of the biggest issues that surround the CCM debate is its origin. CCM came from a rebellion against "traditional" worship. It was produced as an appropriate alternative for those who have an appetite for the world's music. One "Gospel" group was promoting their latest recording. As part of that promotion, they pointed out that a guitarist from a major secular pop-rock band was involved in performing the music for their recording. They felt extremely honoured that someone "of that calibre" would play on their recording. In other words, this "Gospel" group was actively looking to the lost world for the music they would perform. This is not an isolated incident. The vocal playground (swings and slides), breathy style, and even how words are pronounced in CCM are nothing less than the imitation of worldly artists. This imitation contradicts what John told us in 1 John 2:15: "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him." The problem is that secular music promotes ungodliness (drunkenness, adultery, rebellion against authority, etc.) and that music should never be imitated to glorify a holy God. Secular music worships self, and this cannot be adapted to worship God. It is a trap to think that changing the words to ungodly music somehow sanctifies the music. When godly words are placed into ungodly music, the godly words are made null and void, for it is the music that drives the song rather than the words. "Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise (Deu 12:30)." The Issue of Direction There is a problem with CCM in the direction of the music. Godly music directs the attention to God, while most CCM directs the attention to man. CCM artists shamelessly promote themselves and their recordings. Their album art is generally all about them. The way that they sing their songs is designed to bring greater attention to themselves, taking away from the God for Whom they claim to sing. This is the opposite of the attitude displayed by John the Baptist. In John 3:30, he said, "He must increase, but I must decrease." We could do with more of this attitude in every aspect of the Christian walk, but it is impossible to possess this attitude while promoting self. The popular songs in CCM bring God in as a way of self-help. They do not promote selflessness or dedicated service to God. This is no surprise when we recognize charismatics are the majority of CCM artists. Their doctrine and philosophy are that believers are "little gods," who can selfishly declare and decree things into existence on their whim. That self-centred outlook naturally develops into music that sees self at the centre of everything. This type of music leads to self-worship rather than worship of the Lord of all. The Psalms are a tremendous resource for how God-honouring music should look. The psalmist often speaks of self and issues he faces but always turns his attention to God. Other psalms focus on God without any reference to self. I am thankful that there are godly songwriters today, writing songs that focus the attention on God rather than man. The Issue of Ideology Contemporary Christian Music, especially as it applies to a church gathering, teaches that music is used to draw the presence of the Holy Spirit into the service. This reminds me of a snake charmer, who plays his pipe to raise the cobra from his basket. This is man thinking that he can manipulate the Spirit of God through music. He cannot believe that worship can occur in the absence of music. The only instance in Scripture of "believers" seeking to attract the attention of their "god" is when the prophets of Baal competed with Elijah on Mount Carmel. They yelled and scream, in a vain attempt to gain the attention of Baal. I am sure that music was somehow involved in their efforts, although this is not stated in Scripture. The philosophy of these Baal-worshippers is exactly what is promoted and practiced among those who use CCM. On the other hand, the Scripture tells us something completely different. We are not to use music to conjure up the Spirit. We are to use music because of the presence of the Spirit. Ephesians 5:18-19 tells us, "And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;" Notice that verse 18 does not end with a period. The thought of being filled with the Spirit is carried forward into the next verse, where we find psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. That teaches us that songs of praise will come when the Spirit of God is in control. The Issue of Theology Doctrine matters! The New Testament is full of the importance of knowing right doctrine, teaching right doctrine, and standing for right doctrine. This cannot be emphasized enough! One problem with CCM is it promotes the denial of doctrine. They tell us that doctrine must be set aside so that we can "get a blessing" from the music. At any given concert you will find Baptists, Pentecostals, Catholics and other groups represented. How can these groups get together when their doctrine is not remotely similar? The only option is to deny or set aside doctrine for the sake of entertainment or "edification." Another problem with CCM is it promotes false doctrine. Time and space would not allow an exhaustive study of this issue but consider the following. CCM, as a whole, isn't looking for the Rapture; it is looking for the kingdom (Titus 2:13). This is an a-millennial point of view, and it is not supported by the Scripture. CCM tells us that a revival is sweeping the land, when the Bible clearly states that the Rapture will not occur without a falling away first (2 Thessalonians 2:3). Timothy was encouraged to preach the Word of God because the time will come when men will not endure sound doctrine. That is not a prophecy of an end-time revival, as is claimed by CCM artists and their music. CCM tells us that Christians can live any way they choose because of God's grace, but the Scripture teaches differently (1 Peter 2:16). Many CCM artists have mocked Bible-believing Christians for abstaining from smoking and drinking and for choosing to live a holy life for the Lord. More recently, many are coming out in support of "alternative lifestyles," which the Word of God declares to be sin. This is not in line with clear Bible doctrine. This is not a complete list of the doctrinal errors that are found among CCM songwriters, artists, and the churches that produce it. They are listed to open your eyes to the real issues of CCM. The issues with Contemporary Christian Music run much deeper than the repetition of the lyrics or the beat of the music. These are major issues that we must honestly consider. When we have completed our consideration of CCM based on these four issues, we will find it lacking any reason to be used in a Bible-believing, Bible-practicing church. We will also find it lacking any reason to be listened to by the individual believer. The internet age has made some great men of God generally available to the world. It has also opened the door for more heretical preachers and false teachers than we ever thought imaginable. Many believers are looking for new material on which to feast spiritually, whether through online videos, books, or other material but there is a dangerous minefield for the careless believer. Ecclesiastes 12:12 says, "And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh." This tells us that there will always be another book coming out to tickle our fancy or train us in further Bible truth. Every believer must exercise Biblical discernment to tell the difference between the good, the bad, and the heretical.
Too often, at the core of the discernment used to judge false teachers is feelings. Feelings play a large part in discerning the "keepers." This is a subjective manner of dividing truth from error and will have mixed results, depending on our feelings at the moment. These feelings are based on a preacher's looks, the sound of a preacher's voice, the fit of a preacher's personality with the listener's personality, or the preacher's manipulation of the English language, to name a few. These subjective standards are not the proper way for the believer to find spiritual edification. The apostle Paul warned the church at Corinth about their lack of discernment and the resulting distraction and deception. In 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, Paul says, "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." He expressed his fear that these believers would accept any preacher, regardless of the falsehood of his message and spirit. Too many believers today fall into this same category. If they find one good thing written or said by their favourite preacher, they will ignore many errors. They will also defend that erroneous preacher with their last breath. Paul set the standard by which we ought to discern between a beneficial preacher/podcaster/writer and one that is dangerous for us to follow. He spoke of "the simplicity that is in Christ (2Co 11:3)." This is the "lowest common denominator." The lowest common denominator is the most basic of Bible principles by which we may separate the acceptable from the unacceptable. You may not agree with anything set out in this article, and you are free to make that decision. These Bible principles are presented to you as a helpful tool to aid your discernment process in making these decisions. Amos 3:3 tells us, "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" This teaches us that there must be a common agreement in some areas before fellowship can occur. This is true between God and man, between man and man, and between Bible teacher and student. When we use the term "lowest common denominator," we are identifying the areas where there must be agreement if we are going to fellowship, follow, or learn from some would-be Bible teacher. We are tempted to set the standard so low that the Devil himself could be acceptable. James 2:19 says, "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." We are often told that a self-proclaimed Bible teacher or preacher is acceptable because they "believe in Jesus," they claim to be Christian, or they have a large following. Our standard must be higher than this or else we will be influenced by outright heretics. The lowest common denominator, in my opinion, can be found in the B-A-P-T-I-S-T-S acrostic. This list of basic Bible principles will weed out many false teachers before we begin to read their books or watch their videos. Here are the principles behind the acrostic, along with some applications to help us understand how to use these principles to discern truth from error. B - Bible Is the Final Authority. When any self-professed Bible preacher claims to have extra-Biblical revelation, they do NOT believe that the Bible is the final authority. When any Bible preacher uses worldly psychology as proof of their points, instead of directing the believer's attention to the Scripture, they do NOT believe that the Bible is the final authority. When any Bible preacher uses the "Church Fathers" as the foundation for their preaching and teaching, they do NOT believe that the Bible is the final authority. When and Bible preacher attempts to set aside what the Bible says as being based on the "culture of the day," they do NOT believe that the Bible is the final authority. I would carry this doctrine so far as to say that if a self-proclaimed Bible preacher does not use the King James Bible, we should beware of their books and material. A - Autonomy of the Lord's Church. If a Bible preacher seeks to direct his follower into an organization other than a New Testament church, he does NOT believe in the autonomy of the Lord's church. If a Bible preacher holds to the usefulness or rightness of a hierarchal system (bishops, archbishops, superintendents, synod, etc.), he does NOT believe in the autonomy of the Lord's church. P - Priesthood of the Believer. If a Bible preacher seeks to become the sole source of spiritual sustenance for his followers, he does NOT believe in the priesthood of the believer. If a Bible preacher accepts or promotes believers going to a "priest" as a means of approaching God, he does NOT believe in the priesthood of the believer. If a Bible preacher will speak with another "preacher" that accepts or promotes believers going to a "priest" as a means of approaching God, he does NOT believe in the priesthood of the believer. T - Two Ordinances (Baptism & the Lord's Table). If a Bible preacher accepts the sacraments (a solemn religious ceremony enjoined by Christ, the head of the Christian church, to be observed by his followers, by which their special relation to him is created, or their obligations to him renewed and ratified - Webster's Dictionary 1828) rather than the two ordinances (A rule established by authority - Webster's Dictionary 1828) of the church, he does NOT believe in the two ordinances. If a Bible preacher adds to the ordinances (foot washing, the Lord's Day, etc.), he does NOT believe in the two ordinances. I - Individual Soul Liberty. If a Bible preacher teaches that the believer can live any way he pleases because of his liberty in Christ, he does NOT believe in individual soul liberty. S - Saved, Baptized Members. If a Bible preacher accepts, condones, or fails to denounce infant baptism, he does NOT believe in a saved, baptized church membership. If a Bible preacher downplays the necessity to follow the Lord in believer's baptism after salvation, he does NOT believe in a saved, baptized church membership. T - Two Offices (Pastor & Deacon). If a Bible preacher wants to be your online pastor, even though you have never met in person, he does NOT believe in the two offices. If a Bible preacher encourages elder-run churches, he does NOT believe in the two offices. If a Bible preacher nurtures the idea of women holding the office of pastor and/or deacon, he does NOT believe in the two offices. If a Bible preacher supports the notion that a man may hold the office of pastor and/or deacon without fulfilling the Biblical qualifications, he does NOT believe in the two offices. S - Separation (Governmental, Ecclesiastical, and Personal). If a Bible preacher promotes churches and religious organizations working with the government to make the world a better place, he does NOT believe in separation. If a Bible preacher encourages churches from all parts of the doctrinal spectrum to get together to advance the kingdom of Christ, he does NOT believe in separation. If a Bible preacher approves of people living any way they please rather than living a holy, separated life, he does NOT believe in separation. I know that there are other doctrinal errors not addressed through this acrostic, yet most of the false teachers that abound in our world will be exposed if we are faithful to inspect each one through these basic Bible principles. Jesus said, "And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch (Mark 13:17)." This means that we must focus on the task at hand rather than become distracted by the false teaching that surrounds us. We must watch rather than take everything at face value. This points out one reason why many believers fall for false teachers: they fail to take the time to understand basic Bible doctrine and inspect Bible preachers according to that doctrinal standard. It takes work to study the Word of God. It takes work to apply the Word of God to our favourite internet preacher. Yet, this is necessary for us so that we are not "...tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive (Ephesians 4:13)..." These basic Bible principles are those things that we claim to believe and hold dear as Baptists. Why, then, would we not apply these basic Bible principles to those from whom we seek spiritual edification? It is time to be serious about the things we claim to believe. It is time to consistently practice the things we claim to believe. Failure to do so will promote compromise and bring harm to ourselves and those we influence. (Originally Published May 2006)
Recently someone called to ask for information about John Hagee. I wasn’t able to find much information in the materials I had on hand, so I began to look elsewhere for information. I was able to come up with quite a bit of information that, I believe, needs to be shared. John Hagee began his ministry in 1958 as an evangelist. In 1966 he went to San Antonio, Texas to found the Trinity Church. After resigning from the pastorate of the Trinity Church in May of 1975, Hagee took the pastorate of the 25-member Church of Castle Hill, also in San Antonio. That church was renamed Cornerstone Church in October of 1987 and today boasts an active membership of over 13,000. Hagee has received an honorary doctorate from Oral Roberts University. John Hagee has a reputation as an impressive preacher of God’s Word. He can be seen and heard on his television programs (Cornerstone and John Hagee Today), as well as in his frequent appearances on Paul Crouch’s TBN. He has written several books, most of which have become instant bestsellers. Personally Disqualified Certainly, there will be those who disagree with me, but I believe that Mr. Hagee is not qualified to stand in a pulpit and proclaim God’s Word. In May of 1994, the Liberty Flame reported that when Hagee was serving the charismatic congregation at Trinity Church in San Antonio, he divorced his wife, resigned and married a young woman in the congregation, Diana Castro. In a letter to the church, Hagee admitted immorality, which later became a part of the court records in the custody battle over his two children. Custody was awarded to his ex-wife, Martha. Under the Old Testament law, the high priest was not allowed to marry a divorced woman or a widow (Leviticus 21:13-15). God wanted His representatives to be holy and sanctified in all areas of life. The Lord reinforced and expanded this teaching when He said, “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery (Matthew 5:32).” No longer does this restriction apply only to the high priest, but to every man. In stating the qualifications of a bishop (pastor), the Apostle Paul lists “the husband of one wife” as the second of these important qualifications in both of the lists he wrote (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6). Some have tried to worm their way out of this by explaining Paul’s statements to mean “one wife at a time.” This is foolish, and a gross misinterpretation of Scripture. Even if all else were in order, John Hagee is still disqualified based on his divorce and remarriage. Typical Charismatic John Hagee is just like any other charismatic in many areas of his doctrine and practice. Ecumenical Those who are a part of the charismatic movement constantly speak of “tearing down walls” and “building bridges.” The whole charismatic movement has been used to bring about dialogue and cooperation between many different religious groups. John Hagee is no exception to this. The following are two examples of the many that could be pointed out. • In 2000, John Hagee worked in cooperation with Jack Van Impe to produce the movie, Revelation. • In 2002, John Hagee endorsed Bill Bright’s Global Pastors Network. Prosperity Gospel John Hagee believes that it is God’s will for God’s people to be healthy and prosperous, as long as they obey God’s ordinances. On April 16, 1993, John Hagee appeared on the Praise-A-Thon broadcast of the Trinity Broadcasting Network. During this appearance, he said that “poverty is caused by sin and disobeying the Word of God.” In another Praise-A-Thon broadcast on November 4, 1992, he said, “poverty is a curse.” According to Hagee, Christians achieve prosperity through giving. In the same November 4, 1992 broadcast he said, “When you give to God, He controls your income. There is no such thing as a fixed income in the kingdom of God. Your income is controlled by your giving.” Jesus, however, did not teach any such doctrine. He taught a future, heavenly reward, rather than a present, earthly, temporary prosperity. He taught that the poor would always exist on this earth. King Solomon and the Apostle Paul warned of the folly of seeking riches and prosperity. • And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh. Luke 6:20-21 • For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always. Mark 14:7 • Wilt thou set thine eyes upon that which is not? for riches certainly make themselves wings; they fly away as an eagle toward heaven. Proverbs 23:5 • A faithful man shall abound with blessings: but he that maketh haste to be rich shall not be innocent. Proverbs 28:20 • He that hasteth to be rich hath an evil eye, and considereth not that poverty shall come upon him. Proverbs 28:22 • But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. 1 Timothy 6:9-10 • Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy.1 Timothy 6:17 The Apostle Paul also tells us of the sacrifices of the poor, needy churches of Macedonia (2 Corinthians 8:1 5). Despite their “deep poverty”, they gave “liberally.” Yet they are still in deep poverty after all the sacrificial giving. They were given the grace to sacrifice, rather than being rewarded financially for their giving. Positive Confession This is what I have always called the doctrine of “Name it — claim it.” Recently I heard someone else call it the doctrine of “Blab it — grab it.” This is the doctrine that any believer can bring anything into existence, as long as the believer exercises enough faith to accompany the verbal confession. In the same November 4, 1992, Praise-A-Thon broadcast, John Hagee said, “There is a relationship between your soul and physical and financial prosperity. ‘This book of the law shall not depart out of your mouth.’ That’s the spoken Word of God. ‘And then shalt thou prosper and have good success.’ When? After you speak and act upon the Word of God. And you’ve been hearing that tonight out of the mouth of John Avanzini (well-known Faith teacher).” While this doctrine appeals to the flesh, it does not stand on a solid biblical foundation. Truly, God does instruct us to bring our requests by faith before His throne of grace (Matthew 21:22; Hebrews 4:16). However, it is the will of God which dictates whether a request will be granted, not the will of the believer (Matthew 6:10; 1 John 5:14). Dual Covenant Although John Hagee denies believing the Dual Covenant or Two Covenant doctrine, his words seem to prove otherwise. The Dual Covenant doctrine states that the Jews, in whole or in part, are saved, not by the completed work of Christ, but by the fact that they are Jews. For this to be true, there must be at least two separate methods of salvation. Of course, this is impossible, as we will see from God’s Word. His Words. Let us look and see exactly what John Hagee has said regarding the Jews and salvation. The following is a quote taken from an article entitled “San Antonio Fundamentalist Battles Anti-Semitism” on April 30, 1988, Houston Chronicle. Trying to convert Jews is a “waste of time,” he [Hagee] said... Everyone else, whether Buddhist or Baha’i, needs to believe in Jesus, he says. But not Jews. Jews already have a covenant with God that has never been replaced with Christianity, he says. “The Jewish people have a relationship to God through the law of God as given through Moses,” Hagee said. “I believe that every Gentile person can only come to God through the cross of Christ. I believe that every Jewish person who lives in the light of the Torah, which is the word of God, has a relationship with God and will come to redemption.” “The Law of Moses is sufficient enough to bring a person into the knowledge of God until God gives him a greater revelation. And God has not,” said Hagee... It is not possible to reject the Messiah and still have a relationship with God through the Torah. God has given further revelation to all the world, Jew and Gentile, through the person of Jesus Christ, and the writing of the New Testament. Paul made all of this crystal clear when he wrote “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster (Galatians 3:24-25) .” The fact that John the Baptist, the apostles, and most of the New Testament writers were Jews seems to disprove Hagee’s contentions. Also, Paul’s concern over the lost state of Israel, as a nation, seems to belie the statements of John Hagee. If the Jews held some sort of relationship with God through the Old Testament, Paul would not have said these words: “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth (Romans 10:1-4). ” In speaking to His Jewish disciples, Jesus claimed that no man can come to the Father except by Him (John 14:6), meaning that Jew and Gentile alike must come to God by Him. But John Hagee seems to think that the Jews have an excuse for their unbelief. According to Hagee, the Jews cannot be blamed for not coming to Christ, since it is Christ who declined their request to be their Messiah. “The [Jewish] people wanted Him to be their Messiah, but He absolutely refused. The Jews were not rejecting Jesus as Messiah, it was Jesus who was refusing to be the Messiah to the Jews! (Hagee, Should Christians Support Israel? p. 67–68)” Of course, this is contrary to Scripture, since John said, “He came unto his own, and his own received him not (John 1:11).” Nothing New under the Sun The false teaching that John Hagee teaches is not anything new, but it is interesting to note some of the others who espoused the same beliefs. The man most responsible for popularizing the Dual Covenant doctrine in the 1920s and 1930s was a Jewish thinker and author named Franz Rosenzweig. He sought to create a rationale for not evangelizing Jews while leaving intact the viability and acceptability of both Judaism and Christianity. He taught that Jewish blood inherently gave all Jews shelter under the Old Covenant while the New Covenant was for Gentiles alone. John chapter 1 teaches that salvation cannot be attained through lineage or blood (John 1:12-13). Another champion of this theology was none other than Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses). Russell may well have gotten his ideas from the anti-Trinitarian founder of the Christadelphian cult, John Thomas, as well as the Adventists and Mormons. Russell addressed Jewish gatherings in the United States and abroad to tell of the prophecies of the Jewish return to Palestine and the future Jewish government and State. His strong anti-missionary stance opened the doors to Jewish audiences in other countries as well. Russell’s doctrine of automatic Jewish redemption without evangelism or conversion was abandoned by his successor, Joseph Rutherford, in 1932. God Is Not A Respecter of Persons. The fact of the matter is that there is only one way of salvation. That is through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ. God tells us that He is not a respecter of persons, which means that this single salvation plan is for everyone. The Apostle Paul makes these things abundantly clear in the book of Romans. • For there is no respect of persons with God. Romans 2:11 • What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. Romans 3:9-11 • Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Romans 3:28-30 Jew and Gentile alike must come to God by faith in Christ, and so receive God’s eternal salvation. There is no secondary plan of salvation for the Jews. If that were the case, Jesus would be nothing more than a liar. God forbid that any of us fall for this false doctrine. The Apostle Paul said, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them (Romans 16:17). ” We need to apply this verse to John Hagee and avoid him, his books, tapes, and television programs. He is not a preacher of truth, but an apostle of error. Be warned and beware! The apostle Paul, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, told Timothy that a New Testament church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1Ti 3:15). Is it any wonder that Satan openly attacks New Testament churches in both doctrine and practice? People everywhere are clamouring for "reform" and "change" from Biblical standards of faith and practice for New Testament churches. They claim "culture" and "historical facts" as reasons to abandon what the Scripture teaches.
The test of validity is not how loudly each side proclaims its rightness. The test of validity is whether or not a particular position lines up with what God has revealed in the Scripture. Isaiah said it best when he said, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them (Isa 8:20)." If we surrender our thoughts to the Word of God, it is a simple matter to find and follow what the Bible teaches about faith and practice. If, on the other hand, we hold tightly to our opinions, we will never be able to gain a clear understanding of what God tells us in His Word, no matter how much we learn. "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth (2Ti 3:7)." One of the most obvious areas of contention between Bible-believers and progressive Christians is whether or not ladies should hold the ministry positions of pastor or deacon, preaching and teaching men and women the unsearchable riches of Christ. The culture of our day dictates that ladies must be allowed the same opportunities to teach and preach that men have. They claim that prohibiting ladies from the positions of pastor and deacon within the church is sexist, misogynistic, and patriarchal. When the world comes from this position, we are not surprised. When progressive Christians come from this position, we are often blindsided. When progressive Christians take a stand for women in ministry, a love for the world is being dragged into a New Testament church and paraded as spiritual and godly. This is because progressive Christians have propped up the philosophy of the world as the standard by which church truth must be practiced. The apostle John warns us against clinging to the philosophy of the world. "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever (1Jn 2:15-17)." These verses should caution every honest student of Scripture before we even begin to study the topic. When is a Man a Man? One issue raised in favour of allowing ladies into the ministry is that the words "man" and "men" can be used in a generic sense. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned (Rom 5:12):" This verse teaches sin to be a universal problem, not simply a problem for men. "And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent (Act 17:30):" This verse teaches the universal need for repentance. In both cases, the word "men" speaks of mankind. This is not at issue. The question is whether the qualifications for the ministry positions of the pastor (bishop) and deacon can be understood in that way. When investigating the qualifications for a bishop (elder, pastor) in 1 Timothy 3, Paul constantly uses the word "man" and the pronouns "he (5 times)" and "his (3 times)." The argument is made that the word man is used in a generic sense, meaning mankind. This interpretation would justify ladies who feel God's call to preach. However, we must investigate deeper than this. 1 Timothy 3:2 tells us that a bishop is to have one wife. We are told that this simply means "spouse" because it is in a generic sense, just like the word "man.". If that is the case, that is the first and only time that God uses the word wife to refer to either a man or woman. A study of the book of 1 Timothy shows that Paul knew how to make a generic point referring to both men and women. "If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed (1Ti 5:16)." God would not have been vague about something as important as who is qualified to hold a ministry position within a New Testament church. 1 Timothy 3:4 tells us that a bishop must rule well his own house. If we follow the logical progression of the thought that the "man" is equivalent to "mankind," we have a real problem. If a woman "answers the call to preach," she must be able to rule her house well. Yet, if she rules her house, she is disobedient to other Scripture regarding the order of the home. "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God (1Co 11:3)." "For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing (Eph 5:23-24)." There is no way around the fact that the Scripture disqualifies any lady from these positions of ministry within a New Testament church. The fact that progressive Christians allow and support female preachers is no proof that it is correct and honourable before a just and holy God. When is a Deacon a Deacon? When these qualifications in 1 Timothy 3 are considered objectively, there is nowhere for progressive Christians to continue to support women in ministry, right? WRONG! As soon as these simple Bible facts are identified, the argument runs to the book of Romans. Here the progressive Christian will argue that Paul recognizes Phebe as a Deaconess from the church at Cenchrea. "I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea (Romans 16:1):" The word "servant" comes from the same Greek word from which we get the word "deacon." The argument is made that sexist translators purposefully mistranslated this verse and stole Phebe's proper title. Let's see if this is true. The Greek word "diakonos" is used nine times in the Greek New Testament. Of those nine times, it is translated minister(s) five times; servant(s) three times; deacons one time. When referring to deacons in 1 Timothy 3, a variation of the word is used (diakoneo) which is also translated as minister or servant (in their varying forms) in other passages of Scripture. It is interesting to see how this word is used. For example, Jesus used diakonos to describe how believers are to act toward one another. "But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant (Mat 23:11)." Jesus was not telling His disciples that they all had to hold the office of a deacon but that they were to serve one another. In the same way, Phebe is not described as a deaconess of the Cenchrea church, but as a believer who faithfully served the Lord through her church. There is no mistranslation or hidden agenda here. The Holy Spirit graciously guided the translators to provide us with His pure Word, and it would be wrong for us to throw a fit because God's Word does not align itself without preconceptions. The conclusion is that ladies have no place in the position of pastor or deacon. Where Do Ladies Fit? We do not want to give the impression that ladies have no place in a New Testament church or that their assistance is worthless. That is far from true. Most New Testament churches would have a very limited ministry were it not for the contribution that ladies bring to the table. Casual Conversation There is a temptation to point to Aquila and Priscilla as a justification for female preachers and a joint pastorate. Careful study of the Scripture passages relating to this godly couple shows that neither was the pastor of any church nor did Priscilla preach or teach in a church setting. When Aquila and Priscilla took Apollos under their wing, they were able to help Apollos iron out a few wrinkles in his theology. This was not accomplished by Priscilla taking the pulpit to declare God's truth. This was accomplished through casual conversation of both Aquila and Priscilla with Apollos. In these conversations, Aquila would have taken the lead role in directing the discussion, while Priscilla would contribute her "two cents worth." This "tag-team" approach can be a great tool in discipleship. My wife and I are on the same doctrinal page, but we look at things differently. I have my way of explaining Bible truth and she has her way of explaining Bible truth. When both of us share our thoughts regarding Bible doctrine in a casual conversation, it helps the listener to grasp the truth quicker. Using the example of Aquila and Priscilla, we learn that Priscilla did not try to go alone to teach anyone. She was on a team with her husband. Second, she was still under the leadership of her husband, allowing him to direct the course of the conversation rather than taking over the conversation. Third, we learn that this was not a teaching/preaching service at church but a doctrinal conversation among friends. Terrific Testimony Titus 2:3 says, "The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things;" This teaches us that godly women must have a testimony within the church. This testimony does not begin when a woman becomes "aged" but must be nurtured and developed from the time of salvation. We will not take the time to investigate each of the traits of this testimony, but they are worth spending time looking into during our personal Bible study. These traits offer a challenge to every believer, not just to the ladies. Tremendous Teachers Progressive Christians may look at the end of Titus 2:3 and point to the phrase "teachers of good things" as a justification for ladies who take the pulpit to preach God's Word in a church service. This is a hollow claim, though, when the context of the passage is considered. For example, Titus 2:3 does not end with a period, meaning the thought carries forward into the next verses. Titus 2:4-5 says, "That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed." These verses clear up any confusion about the students that these women are to teach. These older ladies are to teach other women. I believe that our churches would find great benefit in encouraging older ladies who are mature in the faith to teach the younger ladies what it is to live for the Lord Jesus practically. This teaching does not always need to come in a formal classroom setting, but it is needful to edify our churches. The Holy Spirit lays out the teaching plan for ladies teaching ladies. This is not the teaching plan that is adopted by lady preachers in these Last Days but it is God's will that these things be taught to the ladies of our churches. When ladies embrace this teaching plan, younger ladies will be encouraged to obey the Scripture, marriages and families will be strengthened, churches will be edified, and the world will be confused by the joy and contentment expressed by these ladies. God has given men and ladies unique roles to fulfill in the home and the church. These differences have nothing to do with suppression. Instead, these different roles have to do with how God created men and women and how He knows their abilities will work best together to accomplish His plan and purpose in this world. Rather than strain against the structure God created, every man and woman must submit to God's order so that we may glorify God in our lives, our homes, and our churches. The apostle Paul warned Timothy about the character of the Last Days. In 1 Timothy 4:3-4, Paul said, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” These false teachers come in all shapes and sizes as if they are custom-designed for each itching ear.
One tremendous problem with identifying these false teachers is when they can articulate Bible truth in some areas and take a hard left turn in other areas. For Bible-believing Baptists, this issue arises most when dealing with pastors and churches who claim the title of “Baptist.” Too many people consider the name “Baptist” as a denominational name, meaning each one who claims the name also holds the same doctrine and practice. Honest study reveals many types of “Baptist” churches and pastors. Some of these churches are sound in the faith, while others are far from the truth. One group of Baptists that has caused harm to the cause of Christ is the “New Independent Fundamental Baptist (New IFB)” movement. This movement is led by such men as Roger Jimenez, Bruce Mejia, Adam Fannin, Jason Robinson, and Steven L. Anderson. The negative effect of this group has been felt by many New Testament Baptist churches and pastors. Recently, I met a family that had recently come out of a New IFB church. They seemed to have a real heart for God and the truth, but they had been damaged by their association with this group. It will take much time and care for these precious folks to fully recover from the harm they have endured. Recently, I was asked to watch a film produced by men in the New IFB movement. This film is entitled Dispensation of Heresy. This film is typical of the attitudes, teaching, and preaching found among the New IFB churches. By comparing this film with the Scripture, we find that the New IFB movement leads the believer to believe in fables rather than the clear teaching of Scripture. Consider the following takeaways from this film. The Spirit of the Video The attitude in this video is not one of love or concern for propagating the truth. Instead, the attitude in this video is one of hatred and disdain for those deemed “heretics” by the producer, Bruce Mejia, and presenters: Roger Jimenez, Bruce Mejia, Adam Fannin, Jason Robinson, and Steven L. Anderson. This is not the attitude of the apostle Paul, even though he called men by name and stood against error in all forms. When speaking of enemies of the cross he said, “For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ (Php 3:17):” There were no tears in this video. One example of this disdain can be seen during the credits of this video. The presenter began to make disparaging remarks about the physical looks of those he had termed “heretics.” These remarks reveal a childish, immature, and petty attitude at best. These remarks do not reveal a Christ-like attitude in any fashion. The attitude on display is a huge red flag for all discerning Christians. Consider this: Jesus never mocked the chief priests and scribes for their looks. He identified their error and called them to repentance, yet, there was no personal attack attached to His call to repentance. Consider another fact: Jude tells us about a dispute between the archangel Michael and Satan regarding the body of Moses. In verse 9 Jude says, “Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.” Jude continues by identifying the character of those who are disrespectful and disdainful toward truth and those they oppose. In verse 10 he says, “But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.” This is a strong warning to which to pay attention. These men display the character traits of the corrupt men described by Jude. The “passion” with which these men preach is a draw to some people because they believe that these men are standing up for Biblical truth. However, these men are displaying a different spirit than that which is required of the man of God (a charge that they were quick to make against nearly every man mentioned in this film). 2 Timothy 2:24-25 tells us, “And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;” There was a spirit of “strife” throughout this video, as well as a total absence of meekness, gentleness, or patience (some of these are the fruit of the Spirit - evidence of the presence of God’s Holy Spirit in the heart). These things identify the men in this video as failing to act as a servant of the Lord. Each “preacher” in this film was quick to point out that other men were not qualified to be a pastor (and they may be correct in that charge; that is not the point here), but what of themselves? 1 Timothy 3:3 lists a portion of the qualifications for a bishop (pastor): “Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;” There was no patience on display in this video. Instead, there was the attitude of a brawler on display. Their rambunctious presence in the pulpit causes these men to appeal to the carnal believer, but the spirit on display is not that after which a Bible-believing Christian should seek. Straw-Man Attacks Dispensation of Heresy tells us what they want us to believe is a dispensationalist, then attacks that definition. That is called a “straw-man” attack. What they define is what is commonly called a “hyper-dispensationalist.” They do not make this distinction but claim every dispensationalist believes exactly as they have defined. That is unfair to those who believe that God has dealt differently with men at different times, yet do not go to the extremes of the hyper-dispensationalist. That is also deceptive because they aren’t being honest with the viewer about the varying shades of “dispensationalism.” The producers then hold up Darby, Larkin, Scofield, and Ruckman as the originators and propagators of dispensationalism and direct their attacks toward them. The idea behind this version of the straw-man attack is that the teaching of dispensationalism will fall if the propagators can be shown to be in personal error. I have no intention of defending these men. They had areas of error. The truth that God has worked with mankind differently through the ages isn’t affected by the error of these men because it is God’s truth. The best way for me to explain the silliness of this kind of straw-man attack is to illustrate it. We believe in the Trinity and the virgin birth of Christ because the Scripture teaches both. Anyone who wishes to oppose these doctrines has a tremendous straw man open to them in the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church teaches both the Trinity and the virgin birth of Christ. Anyone who wished to “destroy” the doctrine of the Trinity and the virgin birth of Christ could spend hours talking about all the error that is within the Roman Catholic Church. These attacks could be correct in every charge against the Roman Catholic Church, but that does not change the fact that the doctrine of the Trinity and the virgin birth of Christ are both taught in the Scripture. In the same way, the producers of this film have plenty of ammunition with which to attack these men, but that has nothing to do with the Bible doctrine they seek to disprove and destroy. When you consider this film, nearly half of its 90+ minutes are taken up with personal straw-man attacks tog the “error” of this teaching. It is the Scripture by which we are to convince the gainsayers. Titus 1:9 says, “Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” While some Scriptures were read or mentioned, they were the sideline to the personal attacks. Some Scripture was used because of a phrase that fit their narrative, but the context of that Scripture did not agree with the point this film sought to make. Again, this is deceptive to the undiscerning believer. For example, their proof text that God has not dealt differently with mankind at different times is Hebrews 13:8: “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” I believe that Jesus (God) NEVER changes. But, to say that since Jesus (God) never changes, He never changes how He works with man is to ignore the whole Bible. The context of the book of Hebrews is all about the New Testament being “better” than the Old Testament. The Old Covenant is not the same as the New Covenant (Testament). That means that God currently deals with man differently than He did under the Old Covenant. This fact does not mean that God has changed, for He is always working to fulfil His purpose. This fact does not mean that God failed in His purpose (as this film charges); for His purpose is to always glorify Himself. These straw-man attacks only serve to divert attention from what the Bible says, and that is deceptive and dangerous for the believer. The Error of “Non-Dispensationalism” The beginning of this film showed several men proclaiming themselves to be “non-dispensational” independent Baptists. I have no problem if they wish to describe themselves with that term, as long as they remain consistent. A problem arises if they are dishonest and deceptive in claiming this label. Were the producers and presenters of this film misleading in claiming this label? Let’s think about what they said. Throughout this film, the producers tell us that God never changes and has always worked the same way. When we arrive at the section that deals with “Zionism,” the producers would have us understand that God has set aside Israel and is now working through the church (this is something with which I agree to a point). This one fact blows up their “non-dispensational” claim. They claim that God deals with mankind differently today than He did under the Mosaic Law, yet they want us to believe that “nothing has changed.” They can use any term they want to describe this, but it is dispensationalism by another name. It is hypocrisy to claim that nothing has changed yet also claim that Israel is not the people of God because something changed. The fact that things DID change gives us the knowledge that God has dealt differently with mankind through the ages. Jesus told the disciples of John that He was doing something different than what they were used to in Matthew 9:14-17. The word “dispensation” may not be used, but the concept of a “dispensation” is being taught by Jesus Himself. I’ll take His word over the producers of this film any day. Final Thoughts To wrap things up regarding this film, let me deal with things which did not fit under the previous headings. First, the producers of this film propose to convince the viewer that anyone who believes in dispensationalism is a heretic. “Heresy” is never defined in this film, yet the word is constantly used to convince the viewer that “heresy” is the worst thing that could be. The men in this film label all who disagree with them as “heretics.” This is extremism. The proponents of the New IFB movement are always quick to call names: heretic, hypocrite, sons of Belial, etc. At one time, someone in this group produced a “blacklist” of all the “heretics” and “sons of Belial” with whom they disagree. They went so far as to imply that the men on their “blacklist” are on their way to eternal damnation. Second, the preachers of the New IFB movement identify themselves as “hard preachers.” They claim that they are “passionate” about the truth. The website that contained their “blacklist” stated: “Only the hardest preaching will be featured on this site.” Truly, it is not “passion” or “hard preaching,” but anger that these men display. The Lord teaches us against living and walking in anger. The book of Proverbs teaches us, “Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go: Lest thou learn his ways, and get a snare to thy soul (Proverbs 22:24-25).” Another warning about the angry man is “An angry man stirreth up strife, and a furious man aboundeth in transgression (Proverbs 29:22).” Instead of anger against those who are bound in wickedness and evil, we are commanded to have compassion. “And of some have compassion, making a difference (Jude 22):” The mocking, demeaning, belittling attitude that is on display throughout this film is devoid of Christ-like compassion. Beware of the New IFB movement! This movement does not display the Spirit of Christ. Instead, this movement manifests a carnal, childish spirit that cannot tolerate any deviation from what they have decided is true. If you disagree with them, they will come after you. Beware of the New IFB movement! This movement does not soundly teach and preach the Scripture. They will cherry-pick what they like and scream at you for pointing out the context and proper interpretation of Scripture. Beware of the New IFB movement! This movement denounces “heresy” on the one hand and holds to a version of that same doctrine on the other hand. This practice is manipulative and dangerous for any believer. While these thoughts are based on one film produced by the New IFB movement, there is much more to consider regarding the error of the actions and teachings found in this movement. For more information, please download the free eBook entitled, What about Steven Anderson. This free eBook is written by David Cloud and is available from wayoflife.org. The Book of Enoch has gained interest and popularity as we pass through these Last Days. Many look to it as if it is inspired Scripture with equal status with the book of Genesis or any other book in the Bible. Others admit that it is not inspired Scripture, yet they continually quote it and find "additional truth" in its uninspired pages. If the Book of Enoch is inspired, why is it not included in our Bible? If the Book of Enoch is not inspired, why do people read it and recommend it to others?
The Book of Enoch's Claim to Fame Those who support the inspiration of the Book of Enoch will point out that Jude 13-14 quotes from the Book of Enoch. "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him (Jude 13-14)." What is ignored is the fact that Jude does not quote from the Book of Enoch. Jude quoted Enoch. There is a tremendous difference between these two things. The Holy Spirit inspired Jude to write the words of Enoch, even though there was no written record of these words. Jude did not quote from a book that, at its best, is suspect. This reasoning is not the only thing to consider about the Book of Enoch. There is much more! The Book of Enoch's Discovery The Book of Enoch is NOT of ancient origin, as would be required if the book were written by Enoch. Historians tell us that the origins of this book range from 200 B.C. to 200 A.D. The Book of Enoch was discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, along with most books of the Old Testament and several apocryphal books. The dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls can go as far back as 140 B.C. and as late as 70 A.D., after the fall of Jerusalem, depending on which set of caves in which the scrolls were found. The knowledge that the Book of Enoch was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls causes some to immediately assume that the Book of Enoch must be inspired since the Jews accepted it and hid it with other scrolls of Old Testament writers. What we must understand is that the Jews who possessed and hid these scrolls were part of the Essenes rather than the traditional orthodox Jewish community. The Essenes were the smallest of the three Jewish communities during the inter-Testament period. The other two Jewish parties were the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The Essenes were unique for several reasons. First, they promoted communal living, contrary to Old Testament teaching. The Essenes prohibited their priesthood from marrying and practiced daily immersion. Another interesting point is that this Jewish sect was mystical in its outlook and practice. That final point regarding the Essenes explains why they possessed the Book of Enoch. The Book of Enoch is mystical, meaning "sacredly obscure or secret; remote from human comprehension (Webster's Dictionary 1828)." Much like the Gnostics who twisted first-century Christianity, these Essenes twisted Old Testament Judaism to teach that they were the only ones with secret knowledge from God. Some things are mentioned in the Book of Enoch that are found nowhere in the Scripture, as we will mention later. The Book of Enoch's Problems I have not done an extensive study throughout the Book of Enoch. Instead, I read through the first chapter (a total of eight verses) and found enough discrepancies with the Scripture to discount it in its entirety. Let's consider a few of these discrepancies. First, the Book of Enoch begins by telling us that Enoch talked with God on account of the angels. "...This the angels showed me...Upon their account I spoke and conversed with him, who will go forth from His habitation, the Holy and Mighty One, the God of the world... (The Book of Enoch 1:1, 3)" This is not in harmony with the Scripture. Throughout the Old and New Testaments, we find angels conversing with the saints on account of the Lord God, rather than the other way around. The Book of Enoch subtly makes the angels of greater power and importance than God Himself. This is a slight that the Holy Spirit would never allow to occur. Jesus tells us what the Holy Spirit would do in New Testament ages: "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me (John 15:26)." The Holy Spirit will identify and exalt Christ rather than a created being, such as an angel. You may think that this argument against the Book of Enoch is trifling, but we need to recall the words of the apostle Paul: "But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord (2 Corinthians 10:17)." It is of utmost importance to recognize who is being exalted by the Scripture and by the life of the believer (including ourselves). If we find that other than Christ is exalted, we can be assured that we are not headed in the right direction in our thinking, decisions, and doctrine. The Book of Enoch is guilty of exalting the mystical angel above God Himself. Another interesting point is how the Book of Enoch addresses "the High and Mighty One" as "the God of the world." Nowhere in the Old or New Testaments do we find this terminology used to describe the God of creation. We do, however, find a very similar expression used to describe someone else. Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 4:4, "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." Notice how Satan is described as the "god of this world." That is so similar to the terminology that is used in the Book of Enoch. That ought to frighten every born-again believer away from accepting this book as legitimate in any fashion. The third problem point for the Book of Enoch is that it disagrees with the prophet Zechariah and New Testament prophecies regarding the place in which the Lord will descend from heaven back to the earth. "Who will hereafter tread upon Mount Sinai; appear with his hosts; and be manifested in the strength of his power from heaven (The Book of Enoch 1:4)." According to the Book of Enoch, Christ will return to the earth via Mount Sinai. Yet, Zechariah tells us, "And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south (Zechariah 14:4)." There is a difference of 159 km (99 miles) between Mount Sinai and Jerusalem. This is not a simple discrepancy that can be easily ignored. Isaiah 31:5 says, "As birds flying, so will the LORD of hosts defend Jerusalem; defending also he will deliver it; and passing over he will preserve it." Is this not a beautiful picture of the Lord Jesus returning to defend repentant Israel after the Tribulation Period? The prophecy of Acts 1:10-11, concerning Christ's return, says, "And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." When the prophecy says that Jesus will return "in like manner," it not only means that Christ will descend from the heavens, it also means that He will descend to Jerusalem; the same place form which He ascended. The conclusion that we must draw from these glances into the Book of Enoch is this: "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them (Isaiah 8:20)." These dissimilarities between the Book of Enoch and the Scripture (Old and New Testaments) tell us that this book did not come from the Lord by way of inspiration. Instead, we must conclude that the Book of Enoch is of human origin. The Book of Enoch's Dilemma Even after the clear presentation that the Book of Enoch is not inspired Scripture and is contradictory to the Bible, there is still an issue to face. What about Jude's quote from the Book of Enoch. These quotes are similar, but they are not identical. "Behold, he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him (The Book of Enoch 2:1)." "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him (Jude 14-15)." It is interesting to note that the Book of Enoch only refers to "he," while the Bible refers to "the Lord." This, in itself, is not conclusive but, it is suggestive. Who would like to be a high and mighty one like the Most High? It is Satan who desires to be recognized as being just like Almighty God. We never find Satan addressing himself as "the Lord" or "Jehovah," but we often find him inserting himself into positions that are reserved for the Lord. Another interesting note regarding the similarity, yet disparity, of these two quotes, is the consideration of other seemingly similar quotations. Back in Genesis 3:1, the serpent said, "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" This is very similar to what God said to Adam, yet it is different enough to cause doubt. When Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, he almost quoted Scripture. He made subtle changes that would cause doubt. Subtle changes are Satan's specialty. It should come as no surprise that Satan would subtly change a quote from a man of God to cause people to doubt what is truth and what is error. The dilemma is answered when we recognize the subtle ability of Satan to quote and misquote men of God. He does so to dupe the believer into swallowing other error that is hidden away in the Book of Enoch. The Error of Holding an Uninspired Book Some believers readily admit that the Book of Enoch is not inspired by God, but they continue to read it to "gain further illumination" regarding Bible prophecy and truth. This is acceptable, isn't it? NO! God has given to us what we need to know, even though He doesn't explain everything we would like to know. There are two reasons why God reveals things to us through His Word. First, God reveals things to us through His Word so that we will believe on Christ. "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name (John 20:30-31)." Second, God reveals things to us through His Word so that we will obey Him. "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law (Deuteronomy 29:29)." When we being to read the Book of Enoch to "gain insight" into what God has done or will do, we have gone outside of the stated purpose for which God gave His Word. We are indulging our curiosity and opening ourselves to the distraction and blinding of Satan (2Co 4:3-4). Another issue to consider is this: since the Book of Enoch is NOT inspired by God, why does it contain mystical imagery, such as angels and visions? You see, if the Book of Enoch contained historical matter, we might tolerate it for the sake of understanding the culture and worldview of the time. Instead, the Book of Enoch is all about supernatural things, which could only be correctly recorded for us through the inspiration of God (2Ti 3:16). With the lack of inspiration of the Book of Enoch established, the details concerning angels and visions become doubtful. Either the details given were dreamed up by man or they were provided by Satan. In either case, there is no benefit to the believer, and there may be great harm. John warns us against taking everything at face value. Instead, he warns us to "...try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world (1 John 4:1)." We cannot blindly take the Book of Enoch at face value, hoping for some spiritual benefit along the way. Our brief test of the Book of Enoch plainly shows that it is not of God and cannot be trusted. Since the Book of Enoch is not of God, believers must stay away from its mystical content and protect themselves from the efforts of Satan to blind the lost and hinder the saint. Let me be clear from the outset: I am not writing to promote the COVID vaccine, to try to convince you of its effectiveness, or to justify the many draconian measures that have been instituted in order to coerce individuals to take the vaccine. Each one of us must seek the face of God for wisdom concerning whether or not to take the vaccine, which vaccine to take, and when.
The point that must be considered is whether or not the COVID vaccine is the “Mark of the Beast.” This accusation has been raised ever since the announcement of the vaccine’s release. It is sad to watch as Christians become “rabid” in these erroneous claims, even cutting off those who fail to agree with them on every point of their claims. The extremes of this position are heard in statements such as “No Christian would ever get the vaccine.” Over the years, many different things have been identified as the Mark of the Beast. Some of these same people who now trumpet about the vaccine being the Mark of the Beast also trumpeted that Social Security (Social Insurance) Numbers, bar codes, tattoos, National ID cards, microchips, etc. were the Mark of the Beast. Rather than recognize that they are in error, they leap to the next popular wave concerning the Mark of the Beast. Making a claim about the Mark of the Beast, regardless of the particulars of that claim, ignores a number of important Biblical truths that we want to identify. When we gain an understanding of these truths, we will gain assurance that COVID vaccines are not the Mark of the Beast. Ignoring the Context The Mark of the Beast is not a central theme of the Bible or even of Bible Prophecy. We do not read about it until we reach Revelation 13. When we recognize this fact, there are some things that immediately fall into place. The Mark of the Beast will not be put into place until after the Beast (Antichrist) is revealed. The Scripture tells us that the Beast will not be revealed until the One who prevents his working is taken out of the way (2Th 2:6-8). Careful study of the text shows that “He Who now letteth” is the Holy Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit, then, must be removed from the earth before the Beast can be revealed. That removal cannot occur until all New Testament believers are raptured from the earth, because the Holy Spirit indwells every believer. Setting out the events of Revelation 13, the first mention of the Mark of the Beast, also shows us that the image of the Beast will be revealed before the Mark of the Beast is forced on the nations. The image of the Beast will be brought to life through the demonic power of the False Prophet (Rev 13:14-15). This sort of “miracle” would make worldwide news, and we have heard nothing of the sort in the news. When we put together the prophetic timeline in which the Mark of the Beast is introduced, we realize that this Mark will not be introduced until at or near the middle of the Tribulation Period. The Scripture is very clear that New Testament believers will not go through any part of the Tribulation (1Th 5:9). The Bible teaches a pre-Tribulation Rapture of the saints . That means that New Testament believers will have been gone from the earth for as long as three and a half years before the Mark of the Beast is introduced. As we consider these aspects of the Scriptural context of the Mark of the Beast, it is blatantly obvious that the COVID vaccine is not the Mark of the Beast. Ignoring the Mark Revelation 13:16 says, “And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:” Unlike the COVID vaccine, the Mark of the Beast is a mark received in the right hand or forehead. The Word of God is not speaking metaphorically, simply meaning that the mark is injected or inserted into the body in some way. When it says the right hand or the forehead, it means exactly that. Ignoring the Promotion Revelation 13 also states that the False Prophet will be the main influence behind the Mark of the Beast. It is not the one-world government that will push for the Mark of the Beast, but the one-world church. Today we have neither a one-world government nor a one-world church. Nor do we see all religions pushing for everyone to get the COVID vaccine. I cannot claim that vaccine mandates and vaccine passports have nothing to do with laying the groundwork for the coming of the Mark of the Beast. I can confidently state, however, that the COVID vaccine is not the Mark of the Beast. To make this claim is to ignore too many things that are clearly stated in the Scripture. As I stated at the beginning of this article, I am not encouraging anyone to get the vaccine. You must seek the Lord’s direction about that. I am encouraging and warning everyone not to fall prey to the false teaching that the COVID vaccine is the Mark of the Beast. Stay away from those who would encourage you to ignore what the Bible says plainly so that you can become their disciples (Rom 16:17-18). The most important thing for every Christian today is to stick with the Book! Also, if you choose to get the COVID vaccine, do not criticize those who have not. If you choose not to get the COVID vaccine, do not criticize those who have. Show Christian love to your brothers and sisters in Christ (Rom 14:1-23). Cults are everywhere. Many religions in the world are cults or, at the very least, display many of the attributes of a cult. If we are not careful, we can fall prey to these cults and get sucked into their manipulative ways. One gentleman, D. M. Canright, was brought into the Seventh-Day Adventist Church shortly after his salvation, and it took twenty-five years for him to recognize the fallacy that surrounded him and make his way out of that cult. For this reason, we must constantly fill our hearts and minds with the Word of God so we can recognize and avoid the traps of these cults.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a Cult as: "a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious." A religion with questionable beliefs and/or practices can be described as a cult. This is totally subjective, meaning that one individual would consider a particular religion to be a cult based on their personal feelings while another individual would consider that same religion to be "mainline." An example of this is seen in Germany where Baptist churches of any stripe are considered cults. This thinking is the result of one group of so-called "Anabaptists" in the city of Munster during the 1500s. This group neither believed nor practiced like other Anabaptists of the day, yet the fact that their enemies called them Anabaptist was enough to paint every other Anabaptist with the brush of a cult. There has to be a better way to determine what is and what is not a cult than attempting to apply a subjective definition. We will mention the names of several cults throughout this article so that we understand the practical expression of the various attributes of a cult. Some religious groups display cult-like tendencies by adhering to one or two of these attributes, but may not be a full-blown cult because they do not adhere to all these attributes. What is bothersome and sad is that some Independent Baptist churches fall into the category of cult-like tendencies. We must learn to recognize these so that we save ourselves, and our loved ones, from the pain and suffering of the cult mentality. Absolute Authority As Bible-preaching, Bible-practicing Baptists, our absolute authority is the Word of God. Psalm 119:101 tells us, "I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word." It is the Word of God that commands our movements, our thoughts, our attitudes, and our actions. When we get away from the Word of God, we inevitably fall. The cult may pay lip service to the Bible as their final authority, but the final authority is found elsewhere. The cult will say things like "the Bible is our final authority, as interpreted by our leading council." This is the teaching of the Jehovah's Witness. They teach that the Watchtower publications (beginning in 1879) are the only proper avenue of Scriptural and spiritual interpretation. This has ever been the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, telling us that we must believe whatever the priest tells us because he represents the "Church." The Pope, speaking "ex-cathedra (from the throne)," can confirm doctrine that is not found in the Bible: i. e.: The immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, Purgatory, etc. Yet, there have been some Independent Baptists who have also fallen into the trap of teaching that the Pastor must be believed and obeyed, even if he has no Biblical basis for his doctrine or practice. This is an attribute of a cult among people who should know better. The cult will also say things like, "I know the Bible says that, but I've had a vision and/or an experience!" This is true of most, if not all, Pentecostal and Charismatic groups. When confronted with the teaching of Scripture, they will fall back on their own experience as a reason to ignore what the Bible has said, or they will point out some vision or dream they have had. The Holy Spirit will NEVER lead anyone contrary to the Scripture (John 16:13-15), and He would never give a dream or vision in contradiction to God's written Word if He were still speaking through dreams and visions today. Abnormal Doctrine When the leader(s) interpret the Bible according to their ideology, it is easy to see where abnormal doctrine will be the outcome. We already mentioned the various non-Biblical doctrines that have been affirmed by the Roman Catholic Church. Another example of abnormal doctrine is found in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church. The Seventh-Day Adventist Church holds the prophecies of Ellen G. White to be of equal standing to the Bible. Many of these prophecies have been proven untrue, yet the SDA Church ignores these "problematic" prophecies and continues to promote other prophecies. It is through her prophecies that "cold cereal" was popularized, because, according to her prophecy, it would make men express less "toxic masculinity." Due to this prophecy, one of her adherents, W. K. Kellogg, established Kellogg's cereals. Some of these abnormal doctrines will be less glaring than these examples. In an Independent Baptist church, the abnormal doctrine will be seen in carrying any practice beyond the dictates of Scripture. Consider church discipline as an example of this truth. Many Independent Baptist churches do not practise church discipline at all, even when there is an obvious need for it. This is abnormal when compared to 1 Corinthians 5:2, "And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you." Other churches believe church discipline to be at the whim of the Pastor. When a church allows the Pastor to decide that an individual member is no longer a member of the church, they are practicing Pastoral discipline rather than church discipline. 1 Corinthians 5:4-5 make it clear that the whole church was to be involved in deciding to remove a member of the church: "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, (5) To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." There are other aspects of church discipline that we will deal with as we consider other attributes of a cult. Allegiance Demanded Cults and cult leaders demand allegiance or loyalty that is unreasonable and unquestionable. While the Bible teaches that every Christian should be loyal to the Lord and the church to which the Lord has directed him, that loyalty is not blind loyalty. Biblical loyalty is based on the teaching of the Scripture rather than the manipulation of men. When you read the Gospels you will find that the disciples constantly peppered Jesus with questions about His teaching. Jesus did not show offence at being asked to explain what He believed, but a cult leader will be highly offended that anyone would dare question his teaching/doctrine. When you read the Gospels you will find instances where the Lord did not answer the questions of the religious crowd and those who asked questions to get "dirt" on Jesus. There are times a Pastor will discern this as the attitude of the questioner and refuse to answer a question. That is legitimate. However, to have a consistent pattern of failure to answer honest questions should be a red flag that you are rubbing shoulders with a cult/cult leader. Absence of Soul Liberty Soul liberty is a wonderful thing that can be twisted into something detrimental to the individual. Soul liberty states that every born-again believer can be lead and taught by the Holy Spirit of God (John 16:13), and is not answerable to anyone but the Lord for his doctrine and practice. Of course, there are some boundaries to soul liberty: it must be used to edify other believers (Romans 14:19) and it cannot be used to produce arguments over petty disagreements (Romans 14:1). Also, a believer who is not in doctrinal agreement with the church of which he is a member may not be able to hold a particular position within the church. This is because every New Testament church is supposed to show unity in doctrine rather than diversity in doctrine (1 Corinthians 14:26; Ephesians 4:5). A cult, however, allows for NO dissent. You cannot believe differently and be a part of their group. If you happen to disagree with the cult or cult leaders, you will be identified as a troublemaker and removed from the group. On top of that humiliation, the cult will ban any of its adherents from any sort of contact with you. Again, this can be seen in Independent Baptist churches in the area of church discipline. The Pastor or church will point out that the disciplined church member is to be treated as a publican or a heathen man (Matthew 18:17). The Pastor or church will proclaim that this means every church member must treat the disciplined member as if they had died. This is beyond the teaching of Scripture: Jesus Himself sought to reach the heathen man and the publican. He did not associate with them in their sin, but He did seek to reach them for God. In church discipline, the church member should not go out of their way to maintain contact with the individual under church discipline, but when they have contact it must be to promote reconciliation. So, these churches have taken the truth too far; demanding that every church member falls in line. Aggregate Control This has been hinted at in previous points, but it is needful to bring it to the forefront. Cults/cult leaders will seek to control every aspect of your life: where you go, who you see, what you do, etc. Again, this is extreme. The Pastor ought to preach the Word of God with authority, telling folks what God expects of them in every aspect of their lives. However, this bold preaching does not translate into dictatorship, where the Pastor or church-appointed official enters the home of the member to correct detected error (misuse of money, inappropriate music habits, attendance to worldly entertainment, etc.), except in those areas where church discipline would be necessary. Cults have a "snitch system" or "secret police" built into their religion which spies on various members to bear tales to the leadership. The cult leaders then approach the individual cult member in a heavy-handed manner to maintain total control. This sort of control has been known to occur among Independent Baptist churches, too. I can recall staying in the home of a family during a visit to a particular church. The wife had 4-5 children, home-schooled most of them, cared for one child that had special needs, arose every morning at 5:00, walked 5 miles every day, baked homemade bread every day, and a host of other responsibilities all because the Pastor had said from the pulpit that every wife should be doing those things. Of course, the Bible says nothing about what time to rise each morning, how far an individual should walk every day, whether bread should be homemade, etc. This was a Pastor taking total control over the daily lives of every individual. What every Pastor of every Independent Baptist church should pray for and promote is a people who will look to the Word of God and follow that as their pattern for living. That would be a blessing to every Pastor and church member! Avenue of Salvation Finally, a cult has the attribute of claiming to have a corner on truth. This is usually seen in the area of salvation, but not always. The Bible teaches that Christ is the only way to heaven (John 14:6)! Sadly, the majority of "Christian" churches do not teach this, having fallen into the trap of adding the works of man to the work of Christ. Some would claim that we are a cult because we believe this, but that is not the case. Many people have been saved outside of an Independent Baptist church, and I am thankful for every soul that has come to Christ, no matter the church or denomination that was involved. A cult, however, believes that no one can be saved unless they are a part of their group. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that they are the only way to heaven. The Jehovah's Witness teaches that they are the only way to heaven. The Seventh-Day Adventist teaches that they are the only way to heaven. The Mormon teaches that they are the only way to heaven. And the list goes on. Some point to a group of Baptists called "Baptist Briders" and claim that they are a cult because they believe that they are the only ones going to heaven. Having known many who called themselves "Baptist Briders" and having discussed this issue with them, I can honestly attest that they do NOT believe that only Baptists go to heaven. This claim is a gross misrepresentation of what they believe. In these Last Days, believers need to recognize a cult when they see one, even if that cult claims to be "Independent Baptist." We must avoid these cults, and pray that we never find these attributes of a cult to be a comfortable place for our church to stand. |
About Jerry JacksonJerry has been writing for many years now. He has written tracts for several churches, as well as his ministries in Papua New Guinea and in Canada. He has had the opportunity to have many of his articles published in several Independent Baptist periodicals over the years. His main goals are to teach truth and lift up the Saviour. Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|