The worse social evil ever to infest this planet is quietly finding its insidious way, at least to some degree, into acceptability with the Bible-believng community. This paper confronts that reality.

This message is for “us.” And who is “us”? It is every child of God who is eager to find truth from God’s Word, the Bible, and to live by that truth, come what may.

If there be any justification for social drinking, it is completely nullified by the harmful effects that seek to overwhelm our society. Even among medical authorities one seldom hears the trumpeting of the use of alcohol for medicinal purposes any more. But, of course, this message is not about alcohol administered under the proper care of one’s physician. I am talking about “the bottle,” and we should just say “No!”

A word about social drinking as a Bible subject is in order. Well over two-hundred times the Bible speaks of “wine.” That fact is often cited by those who justify drinking alcohol. A full accounting of them is not the subject of this paper. Many factors and circumstances are involved in the total picture. What is clear, however, is that the Bible absolutely condemns the negative effects of drinking alcohol. The Bible NEVER recommends drinking alcoholic beverage for pleasure! On the other hand, many citations of wine serve as prohibitions of it.

Recent Changes in the Attitudes of Christians Toward Alcohol

Until recent times it was customary for Bible-preaching churches to oppose alcohol right down to placing an article against it in the church’s official papers. I am grateful the church I pastor has the same clause in its papers.

My home church, in Grand Rapids, that conferred ordination upon me, stated in its Church Covenant: “We oppose the sale and use of alcoholic drinks as a beverage.” At one time, that church turned down an applicant for church membership because he drove a beer truck for a living.

I attended a Christian college. It was common knowledge that if a student was caught with alcohol he or she was automatically dismissed from the school. The seminary I attended, had a similar rule. Since then, standards in most schools have been lowered considerably.

Recent articles printed in national Christian magazines now print, in the same issues, “pro” and “con” positions on the use of alcohol. Should or should not a Christian drink liquor?

In a personal letter to me not that long ago, a fellow seminary alumnus of mine picked a fight with me over the matter. He wrote, “Ken, although I don’t drink, I know many fine Christians who do.” He went on further: “The Bible doesn’t teach total abstinence. We need not labor under such a necessity.”

This man held the position of “research editor” for a large Christian ministry that publishes material that circle the globe. His easy dismissal of alcohol use by Christians needs to be answered.

Let me guess at what it means to “labor under the necessity” that the Bible teaches total abstinence.

You are at your boss’s birthday party. He has spared nothing to make the atmosphere warm and cozy. Delicate stem ware graces each guest’s place at the tables. Pretty attendants emerge from a serving area armed with expensive-looking bottles of champagne. The smiling waitress glides toward your table. In a few moments she tips the bottle toward your glass. What do you do at that moment?

At that point, you have two choices. You can remember the words of Proverbs 20:1 from your Bible: “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and whoever is deceived thereby is not wise.” Then you politely decline.

Your second choice will be a lot easier. You will not incur a look of surprise, or worse, disgust, from any of the smiling, affable guests near you. You may simply sit back and blend into the category of those around you. You can love the world, “the cravings of this world system” (I John 2:15). You can fall into line, thus setting the example for other Christians who know you to follow. Your family and friends who learn your practice will take note of your position as a believer. They may be confused at this point, but at least you will have avoided any uncomfortable embarrassment to yourself. They will note the compromise you have entered. Therefore you “need not labor under the necessity” that the Bible teaches abstinence.

My question is: “What changed Christian minds on the subject that once was taboo for the serious Christian to make it so acceptable now?”

Let’s Talk About the “Good” That Can Be Accomplished by Social Drinking

At a recent meeting of a pastor’s conference, our speaker who is pastor of a large church, told of some meetings which were arising spontaneously within his church. Some forty or so of his members, he related, were engaged in holding neighborhood get-togethers in which unsaved neighbors were invited to social gatherings in members’ homes.

The pastor was excited and pleased about this evangelistic outreach until he learned that these meetings of his members and neighbors featured the serving of wine. This, they said, was for the purpose of avoiding embarrassment to their neighbors who might have thought these Christian people were too “old fashioned” to serve alcohol. So we conclude that one “good” thing to come from social drinking would be to put others “more at ease.” Drinking alcohol together does indeed “put people more at ease.” I agree.

A second “good” to come from social drinking would be to demonstrate that Christians are not opposed to things that make us feel good. At a party, for example, there would be a more relaxed atmosphere, a casualness and open friendliness that might be missing if alcohol were not served. I grant that this is so. Alcoholic drink does foster a certain openness and casualness. It does break down barriers.

Thirdly, a “good” thing to come from social drinking would be that it serves to teach our children. We would be suggesting that “everything is all right if done in moderation.” That way, when they go off to college or business relations they would have been taught to partake of beer or whisky, “in moderation” of course, without thought of being out of step with their peers at such gatherings. I grant that this is so.

A fourth “good” to come from social drinking would be to follow the biblical suggestion that “every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving” (I Timothy 4:4). So, it would seem to some, even Bible authorities, some drinking is permissible, because alcoholic beverages are one those things “created by God,” and, as such, are ours to enjoy! We will have more to say on this point later.

Here, then, are four examples of “good” things that can come from the drinking of alcoholic beverage. I am sure that the proponents of social drinking can probably come up with additional examples. Anyone reading this is welcome to contact me to suggest any additional “good” to come from social drinking. I’ll be happy to respond. It is, however, my purpose to destroy all these above that are commonly thought to be “good” reasons to engage in social drinking. None is legitimate, in my judgment and all are merely dangerous excuses some believers use to justify mistaken and sinful conduct.

Refutation of Every Supposed “Good” to Come from Social Drinking

Social drinking and “putting others more at ease” with us is part of social drinking. Of course, that is true. The problem is that as a child of God, my responsibility is to represent the Lord Jesus Christ. Am I comfortable with the idea that the first thing someone knows about me as a Christian is that I am not uncomfortable with alcoholic beverage? I think not. This is a direct violation of Scripture: “It is better not to eat meat, or drink wine, or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall” (Romans 14:21, NIV).

Do I want my family or church to be known as accepting of alcoholic drink? Do I want others to be at ease with a substance that is so dangerous that the smallest amount of over-consumption can and often does lead to terrible sins and offenses, with possible injury or even death? So, to put my friends at ease with drinking is actually to put them off-guard with the truth. How can a Christian do this? It is in direct opposition to the Apostle Paul’s injunction: “… set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity” (I Timothy 4:12, NIV).

Secondly, I mentioned that social drinking brings a certain casualness, an open friendliness between men and women, husbands and wives and others present that without alcohol would not be present. Yes, and the more drinking there is the greater the relaxation to the point of almost anything happening.

When I was a sixteen-year-old boy I would go to a bar with my friends, some of whom were eighteen and legally entitled to buy 3.2% beer. Then they would bring it back to the booth where I would drink it too. On one such night at about three o’clock in the morning, my dad had to come down to our front porch and confront me, as I bragged and shot off my mouth to the high heaven after only one or two such drinks. I was not a Christian at the time. My disgraceful conduct is now a matter of deep regret to me.

We might say, after one drink, if men and women do not begin to feel sufficiently friendly toward one another, perhaps a second or even a third drink might help. True. Then what? How much would be just the “right” amount to have a lively party? And we are going to countenance this as approved by God for the Christian?

The third “good” I suggested of social drinking, you may recall, is that it is an example to teach our children. It certainly is! That is what the mother of the eighteen-year-old young lady was doing who sent her to Aruba so she could drink in a night club legally. Unfortunately, someone in that tavern that night had something other than one drink on his mind. Did her “friends” lead her out of that place for some purpose? She has not been seen since. Recently she was declared dead. Is her body is at the bottom of the Caribbean Sea? Fringe “benefits” of social drinking! Yep, some things are better caught than taught. You may be sure your children will catch what you teach them about social drinking.

It seems the local county jail had a run on orange juice some time back, from its breakfast menu. Were the inmates concerned for a healthy diet? Were they trying to stay fit? Not exactly! The corrections officers discovered they were hoarding and hiding it for long periods of time. Trying to get drunk in jail? I’m sure the sheriff didn’t approve. Keep this thought. We will be back to it soon.

Some Bible Reasons Why No One Can Be Both a Social Drinker and an Obedient Christian

We have already acknowledged that alcoholic beverage can be a mind-altering substance. What evil young man has not thought of trying to get his date to drink so she would be in a more cooperative mood? How, according to Scripture, should we have our minds altered? The Bible says, “Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess, but be filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18, KJV).

There it is. Alcoholic beverage is set in contradistinction to being filled with God’s Holy Spirit. God commands the Christian to be filled with His Spirit. As such, we must automatically refrain from any influence of alcohol. They are mutually exclusive.

Scripture teaches that the Christian is not to be brought under the domain or authority of anything, even good things:

“Everything is permissible for me-but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. Food for the stomach and the stomach for food-but God will destroy them both” (I Corinthians 5:12-13a, NIV).

Absolutely the only way to be sure that we will never be brought under the domain or influence of alcohol is simply to avoid it completely.

The Christian is commanded to avoid even looking upon alcoholic beverage favorably:

“Do not gaze at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it goes down smoothly. In the end it bites like a snake and poisons like a viper” (Proverbs 23:31-32, NIV).

There is a connection to immorality associated with alcoholic drink as old as history itself. Noah drank alcoholic beverage, uncovered his nakedness and was so seen by his son Ham. The Bible does not fully discuss this incident but the ramifications were so serious as to cause God’s curse (Genesis 9:21-22).

The saddest story in the Bible involves alcohol. King David, a “man after God’s own heart” (I Samuel 13:14) in a moment of weakness and sin, shamefully used booze to entice his young officer, Uriah, to go to his own house to be with his wife. It wasn’t David’s concern for this brave soldier’s happiness and comfort. David had committed adultery with Uriah’s wife while the soldier was away fighting for his country. She became pregnant. David’s motive was to make Uriah think he was the father of the baby to be born to her.

Unfortunately for sinner David, the young officer had more principal than his king. With the men under him away fighting on the battlefield, Uriah refused to go to his wife. Not long after, David had Uriah killed and then took his wife. Another fringe “benefit” of alcoholic drink with a Christian involved!

The prophet Isaiah of the eighth century before Christ, records the connection between drinking and misconduct of all kinds including disregard for the commands of the Lord. Christians may want to read verses 1-25 of Isaiah’s fifth chapter. There is a warning about this whole matter of characterizing alcoholic drink as something innocent: “Woe to those who call evil good” (v. 20).

Here is the most poignant part of the passage:

“Woe to those who rise up early in the morning to run after their drinks, who stay up late at night till they are inflamed with wine. They have harps and lyres at their banquets, tambourines and flutes and wine but they have no regard for the deeds of the Lord, no respect for the work of his hands” (vss. 11-12).

Managing alcohol is a little like herding snakes. When our two eldest children were schoolmates they clamored for a pet. Since we were away a lot, we looked for a pet or two that could be confined but would be fun pets for Melony and Kenny while we were home. We settled on two garter snakes. They were small. The larger they named “King.” The smaller we called “Grit.”

But, there was a problem. When we appeared at home with the twin snakes neither longer than two feet, my wife was petrified! We solemnly promised to keep them in their cages. But despite our best efforts we had to round them up from within the couch and other places in the house rather often. We tried hard to keep them confined, but they got out anyway!

Not long after, in the middle of the night, I was shocked from my sleep by a terrible shriek from my wife. She bolted up in bed and cried with the top of her voice: “The snakes have got me, the snakes have got me!”

Needless to say that was the end of our foray into snake-keeping. You just can’t predict snakes! They are “slippery customers.” And, my friend, that is true of alcohol as well. It may start off looking manageable and favorable. But, as we know, looks can deceive. So does alcohol!

No, my critics may say, what the Bible is referring to is drunkenness, not the social drinking we are talking about. Right! But these drunks of Isaiah’s description started out, without doubt to drink “a little” or “some ,” but not enough to become alcohol’s slaves!

The prophet, Habakkuk puts it very bluntly:

“Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbors, pouring it from the wineskin till they are drunk, so he can gaze on their naked bodies. You will be filled with shame instead of glory. Now it is your turn! Drink and be exposed‘!” (Habbakuk 2:15-16, NIV).

How many, non-drinking Christians have offered a can of beer to their yard man as a polite gesture after he has completed a hard task under the hot sun. Look again at the passage above. Giving your neighbor to drink of alcohol is breaking the Scriptures. You have other and better choices!

If you are a skeptical reader at this point, I can almost hear you say, “Oh, what the Bible talks about is drunkenness. I’d never do anything like that. I drink in moderation.” And, may I ask, what is “drinking in moderation?” There is not a person alive who can accurately define “drinking in moderation.” Break out the bottle and incur the wrath of God. Is it worth it? I don’t think so.

How many, I wonder started out to “drink in moderation”: who were, nevertheless, carried into shameful conduct by alcohol’s grip? No, there is one thing all drunkards at one time had in common: “I’ll just drink a little bit.” They all started out to “drink in moderation.” Who in his right mind thought before his first drink, “Now I guess I’ll just drink this booze, get bombed out of my head, and ruin my life?” How many helpless alcoholics began drinking, “in moderation”? Answer: ALL!

So, what is the absolutely certain course to take? Don’t take the first drink!

Conclusion

These Bible reasons for avoiding alcoholic beverage could be expanded easily to twice the number. But, the truth is clear: no obedient Christian can compromise with alcoholic beverage!

A careless reading of verses like I Timothy 4:4 might seem, on the surface, to countenance drinking alcohol:

For everything God created is good, and nothing to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer” (I Timothy 4:4, NIV).

There you have it. Alcoholic beverage is something God created, therefore we may partake. No, not so fast. God did not nor does He “create” alcoholic beverage! Decay and death create alcoholic beverage. Let me illustrate.

Suppose you are a member of the church I serve. We have a gathering for a sumptuous dinner in our fellowship hall. Each one has brought in the family’s favorite dish. We eat with great enjoyment and relish.

At the end of the meal, however, we do not do what we are accustomed to. We simply get up and walk away. Everything remains on the table just as it was-the meat dishes, the rich desserts, the fresh cider from the orchard, all of it!

Several weeks later, we decide to have another fellowship meal. Now all we do is return to the fellowship hall. We heat up the weeks-old meat dishes. We warm the vegetables. We ignore the mold and putrid smells. We chill the desserts that have remained all these weeks on the table. Finally, we dig in to this “meal.” Are you with me?

You would probably cry out in revulsion: “Are you kidding? We would all be poisoned!” Well, you are correct. What was once delicious and nutritious has now decayed and fermented. And there, my friend, is the explanation for alcoholic beverage. Alcohol is the ruin of nature’s creation. It is an anomaly. It is a substance that has passed into another realm. It has fermented. Fermentation is the necessary step in the development of alcoholic beverage. The modern brewery enhances the fermentation process and spikes the alcoholic content!

The American Medical Association includes in its large Medical Encyclopaedia a major entry on alcohol abuse. It defines drunkenness as “impairment,” as do law-enforcement agencies. This authoritative volume includes, in its 2003 edition, a detailed chart, provided by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, showing data related to drinking and impairment. The chart shows that impairment begins with the first drink. It declares further that the only safe driving limit is that which exists when a person has had zero numbers of drinks.

What further proof do we need to demonstrate that, since impairment begins with one drink, those who want to be unimpaired for Jesus Christ should take no drink?

Greg Buchanan is a world class harpist. He tours the country doing concerts with an enormous and beautiful custom-build harp. I never cared much for harp music until I heard this Christian brother play Christ-honoring music on this powerful instrument.

During his concerts Greg gives his testimony as a Christian. He was raised by his parents who were musicians. They sent Greg to a conservatory of music where he learned classical harp. He became very accomplished.

After he was grown, Greg relates that he got in with the wrong crowd. He tells that he went with his friends to a place where there was alcoholic beverage. Here is what Greg said of that night: “When I took my first drink, I knew that I was an alcoholic.” From there he went down into the dregs of sin and drunkenness. Finally God saved him. Today he has a wonderful family of his own and a very unusual and satisfying Christian ministry.

As a pastor for more than fifty years, I have many stories about the price people I have known have paid for no reason better than they tipped the bottle. Broken homes, ruined lives, death and Hell are all part of alcoholism. I make no apology for despising alcoholic drink and all that it stands for. This is the grand-daddy of all social sins. I implore you, my Christian friend. Just say, “No!”

When it comes to the bottle, every obedient Christian, every child of God who values his life and testimony, every soul who desires to protect his fortune, his family and his faith should just say “No!”

–
Rev. Kenneth F. Pierpont, D.Min.
Pastor, South Litchfield Baptist Church
Copies of this paper may be made if done so completely, unaltered, and in their entirety

Introduction

Mormonism sponsors musical extravaganzas, advertises the giving of Bibles and literature, features celebrities on television, and often includes politicians running for office. All these create a high profile. If you have ever talked personally to any of them, their conservative life style and often outgoing manner can be impressive.

You may have neighbors or professional people who are Mormons. They prefer to refer to themselves as members of “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” (LDS). You may be impressed by their upstanding private lives and more. They may very well portray a happy successful image. Who are these people?

Believers are not only entitled to know who these people are and what they believe, but, I believe we have a biblical obligation to settle in our minds what the truth is about Mormonism and to be ready to answer at least minimal questions about them.

We must know the gospel well to be good witnesses for Christ. Paul said: “…though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have received, let him be accursed” (Ga 1:8).
Knowing and defending the gospel to a believer’s loved ones and friends is an obligation we must take seriously.

So what about Mormonism and our Christian Faith? The subject comes up in politics, government, and religion. Let’s look into The Christian faith and Mormonism.

I. BASIC FACTS OF MORMONISM
 
In Sharon, Vermont, December 23, 1805, exactly one-hundred and four years before the birth of my father- baby Joseph Smith, Jr. was born. While he was young the family moved to New York State. His family was known for its peculiarities. One was in digging for hidden treasure. 

Young Joseph was arrested and tried over an incident of pretending to know where hidden treasure was buried. He was reported to have used some kind of “looking stone” or glass. He had apparently swindled people out of money promising to find money or other treasure for them. The court record is from the Palmyra, New York area. The warrant called him “a disorderly person and an imposter.” He was convicted. 

In this unusual and superstitious atmosphere Joseph Jr. claimed visions and divine revelations as early at 1820 and 1823. In his book The Pearl of Great Price Smith relates a complicated story of confrontation with angels, occurrences of visions et cetera resulting in his finding of certain sets of brass plates and a pair of magic spectacles by which he read the plates written in “reformed Egyptian caracters [sic].” Apparently Smith was not deterred by the fact that the Egyptian language is divided off by scholars into five periods, none of which is “Reformed Egyptian.” The great likelihood is that he had little or no real knowledge of the Egyptian language from any era.  

The plates were supposedly hidden in the earth in the “Hill Cumorah” about the year 428 A.D. The spectacles he referred to as the “Urim and Thummim. With these brass plates were the spectacles. In a vision Smith was ordered to dig in the hillside near his home and there he claimed he found on September 22, 1823, these objects which produced “The Book of Mormon.” With the help of the Angel Moroni’s spectacles Smith translated from the “Reformed Egyptian caracters,” English grammar not being his strong suit he was able to spell characters without benefit of an “h.”

From this beginning the enterprising Joseph Smith began to gather followers in an atmosphere of doubt and rejection by Christian people and churches of the day and in particular their pastors.

II. SO WHAT IS THE BOOK OF MORMON?

Primarily the Book of Mormon is about two ancient civilizations that supposedly existed in the Americas. About 2,250 B.C. a group referred to as “the Jadedites,” left the Tower of Babel, and made its way to the eastern coast of what we now know is Central America. The book of “Ether” in the Book of Mormon describes their journey across the Atlantic Ocean on “barges that were light upon the water.” Along with the people were “flocks and herds and whatsoever beast or animal or fowl that they should carry with them” (Ether 5:4). This was, we are told, a divinely appointed trip for “no monster of the sea could break them [their vessels], neither whale that could mar them…” (Ether 6:10). 

These Jaredites were hardy souls. Their trip makes Noah’s voyage in the Ark look like a Sunday school picnic as they battled the elements “and were thus driven forth, three hundred and forty and four days upon the water” (Ether 6:11). Over time this Jaredite civilization was punished for “corruption” and completely disappeared.

The second civilization, we are told, dates from about 600 B.C. Just before the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, a group of Jews left, traveling across the Pacific Ocean in a large ship they were told by the Lord to build. During the trip some of the group (the bad guys- “sons of Ishmael”) rebelled and placed Nephi (the good guy) in bonds. The divinely provided “compass” Nephi was using refused to guide the rebels who were forced when “the tempest became exceeding sore” to release Nephi. The group was thus guided by the faithful compass under Nephi’s seamanship so that “after the space of many days we did arrive at the promised land” (I Nephi 18:23). 

This second civilization divided into warfare and eventually the evil “Lamanites” destroyed the entire Nephite group not before, however, Moroni, a descendant of godly Nephi finished writing all the history of these civilizations on the brass plates and hid them in the hill Cumorah in New York in A.D. 428. Thus Joseph Smith Jr. had the good fortune to “find” them more or less in his back yard in 1823 as mentioned earlier!

It should be pointed out that The Book of Mormon clearly teaches the origin of dark skin was a curse upon the wicked Lamanites so that their black skins would “not be enticing unto my people” [i.e. the Nephites], (2 Nephi 5:21). That is Mormonism’s explanation for dark skins upon the American indians!

Anthropologists do not take seriously the fanciful story we have just related. In summary, not a shred of evidence has been produced to validate anything of these so-called ancient civilizations. One wonders if any Mormon, beyond the most gullible, puts real stock in these absurdities trumpeted by The Book of Mormon. Over the years the Smithsonian Institute has been contacted to substantiate various Mormon claims relating to archaeology in the New World and has poured cold water on them all! [A-78, p. 1]

Some earlier Christian apologists have sought to trace the origin of The Book of Mormon to a fanciful novel written by a retired Presbyterian minister named Solomon Spaulding. Joseph Smith is reported to have had access to the writings of Rev. Spaulding through fellow Mormon and writer Sidney Rigdon and the print shop where the manuscript awaited publication. For some years this explanation for the origin of much of The Book of Mormon was confused by the fact that Rev. Spaulding wrote two such novels. Mormon authorities have tried to show that Spaulding’s writings are totally different than The Book of Mormon by avoiding comparison with both of Spaulding’s books, a denial, of course, that Rigdon or Smith stole Spaulding’s writings. 

The Book of Mormon is filled with long quotations from the King James Version Bible (1611 A.D.). Cult authority the late Walter R. Martin writes: “According to a careful survey of the Book of Mormon, it contains at least 25,000 words from the King James Bible” [K-29, 165]. Before you breathe a sigh of relief, that the Bible is quoted, let me remind you that these brass plates date variously from 420 and 600 A.D. In other words, quotations from the KJV, complete with italicized words from the translators, appear in The Book of Mormon supposedly more than a thousand years older—quite impossible! So what is the explanation? Simple —- Joe Smith plaglarized them, that is he stole them from the Bible. The only other explanation is that he stole the whole thing from someone else (like Sidney Rigdon or Solomon Spaulding) and didn’t write the The Book of Mormon at all.

Bear in mind that The Book of Mormon is presented by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) as the very word of God.. The book from beginning to end is written in would-be imitation Bible style, complete with Elizabethan language similar to the King James Bible of the seventeenth century (from which much of it was copied). Apart from the Scriptures it copies, it is a book filled with silly religious nonsense.

We should mention here that I believe Mormonism would survive and expand even without The Book of Mormon. Very little of modern Mormonism has anything to do with The Book of Mormon. The primary use of The Book of Mormon, as I see it, has to do with undermining the Scriptures and replacing their authority with that of self-serving religionists. In Mormonism, for all practical purposes, Joseph Smith replaces the Lord Jesus Christ. They bandy about the name of our Saviour as few religious groups do, even calling themselves, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” No doubt millions of them believe they are Christ’s true Church.  

III. THE EARLY HISTORY OF MORMONISM

As Joseph Smith sought to spread his incredible story he was joined by the zealous Church of Christ preacher, Sidney Rigdon, from Ohio. He and other early leaders, under persecution in New York, moved the group to Kirtland, Ohio in 1833. They bought a parcel of land there which they dubbed “hallowed ground.”

It wasn’t long until outrage against the conduct of Smith and Rigdon arose and they were treated to tar and feathers and run out of town. Next the move was made to Nauvoo, Illinois. There the outright immorality of the leaders of the group led to the storming of the Carthage County Jail where Joe and his brother Hyrum were shot to death by an outraged mob. 

A colorful and impressive book of art work [Gospel Art Book, G-58, undated] is in my possession. It is designed to impress you with the grandeur of Mormonism. It was given to me by a well-heeled Mormon dentist. It represents the finest in persuasive literature designed to convey the image of truth and beauty and success of the Latter Day Saints (LDS) Church.

A second piece of literature is found in Appendix A, at the end of this paper. It is the historical record [Salt Lake City Messenger, May, 2009, p. 5] of a very immoral man whose lust seduced many women in his short life. This document shows that Joseph Smith “married” at least thirty-three women. No doubt, had his madness for women not ended with his lynching in a Missouri jail, the list would have been considerably longer.

Brigham Young, who replaced Smith upon his death as the leader of the LDS, is reported to have had a mere twenty-seven wives but those in a position to know claim many more women were “sealed to him.” His own boastful words about his shameless wanton polygamy are sickening in the extreme!

We do not imply that all or even most Mormons are immoral or devious or openly wicked. Our observations are about LDS itself. No doubt many relatively innocent Mormons have never taken the time to examine what they are into.  

The contradictions of these two documents are typical of Mormonism, even to the point of hoodwinking many of its kind, my dentist acquaintance very probably being one of them.

From the point of Smith’s death on the larger part of the group was led by Brigham Young, another adulterer and polygamist. A cult of leadership has succeeded him over the years and is today represented in each succeeding President of the LDS Church. A smaller group moved to Independence, Missouri where it remains today called “The Josephites” or the “Reogranized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” The Brigham Young group is, of course, a major part of the population of Utah and is headquartered in Salt Lake City. The goal of this latter group is to build a utopian society representing the State of Utah.

IV IS MORMONISM A BRANCH OF CHRISTIANITY OR A CULT OF CHRISTENDOM?

Actually it is technically neither. It is a polytheistic religion of its own making. If Mormonism is not a cult, one wonders what could be called a cult! Of course, in every Bible-believing Bible college or seminary in America it is common knowledge that Mormonism is absolutely cultic and has been from Mormonism’s outset! Let us hasten to the facts which very amply prove my point.

By definition, in its simplest form, a cult of Christianity is any form of religion attaching itself to Christianity that represents a corruption of its essential biblical doctrines. This is particularly true of the corruption of the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.  

As an example of the corruption of our Saviour’s holiness Brigham Young taught that Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus and Mary Magdalene were His plural wives!

The term Christendom means that Christianity is involved in some form or reference. True Christianity and Christendom are not one and the same in that mere identification with something called “Christian” does not in and of itself make it truly biblical Christianity. The mere use of Christian terms simply identifies a movement with “Christendom,” not at all a measure of its devotion to the true faith of Christ. 

Both Smith and Young taught that there are many Gods, that God was once a man and that God be correctly referred to as “gods.” Smith is reported to have said he could not worship a god who did not have an “eternal mother.”

Statements such as these (and there are thousands more) identify Mormonism as part of “Christendom.” Such statements are not “Christian.”

V. WHAT ABOUT THE SCRIPTURES?

Every Bible-taught believer should be eager to ask this question: “Is the Bible the Word of God according to Mormonism?

The answer a Mormon would give is “Yes.” He would then probably hope you didn’t investigate any further or might not know to investigate beyond the beginnng. Other writings are claimed by Mormons to be the Word of God as well. In addition to The Book of Mormon, Mormons claim the following as sacred and authoritative: Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price and the “inspired” pronouncements of the presidents of the LDS Church from the First Presidents, Joseph Smith to Brigham Young and to the present.

At one time the LDS claimed as authoritative a writing based on papyri and Egyptian mummies that Smith discovered from a traveling exhibit that came to Kirtland, Ohio in 1835. Smith called it The Book of Abraham  that he had personally translated from Egyptian hieroglyphics. At one time the LDS church boasted of them. But as the light of enlightened scholarship inevitably fell upon them they are today passed over by the LDS church to bury Smith’s absurd interpretation of them. 

In actuality the authority of the Scriptures is eclipsed by these latter so-called “authorities.” Note these words from The Book of Mormon:  

Second Nephi 29:3,4,6,and 11 “and because many of the Gentiles shall say: A ‘Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible. But thus saith the Lord God! O fools, they shall have a Bible and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they receive from them?… Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible…Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.”

The religious climate in which Smith grew up was one of religious strife and confusion. He states that his father “proselytized to the Presbyterians” during young Joseph’s earlier days. Smith relates arguments he had with ministers who doubted the lad’s claims of visions and revelations. No doubt, this colored his thinking to record this passage from  The Book of Mormon:

“… thou seest the foundation of a great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away…Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book which is the book of the Lamb of God” (1 Nephi 13:26 and 28).

Smith was writing his “Inspired Translation” at the time he met his fate , but [I cannot resist this thought] his untimely death “robbed the world of the benefit of his scholarship.” The earliest editions of The Book of Mormon required extensive editing to cull out his spelling and grammar errors. How about these examples for “inspired writing” as cult writer J.K. van Baalen, puts it:

“These our dearly beloved brethren, who have so dearly beloved us.”

And there is this one: “Yea, if my days could have been in them days… but behold, I am consigned that these are my days.”

Here is another example: “And they having been waxed strong in battle, that they might not be destroyed.”  

And finally, “Even until they had arriven to the land of Middoni.”

So, “Is the Bible the Word of God according to Mormonism?” They say so and they even give away copies of the King James Bible freely, but they ignore the teachings of Scripture, relying instead upon Joseph Smith and the other so-called authorities they have introduced.

The inexcusable treachery of giving away copies of the beloved King James Bible while impugning the “great abominable church,” as having corrupted it seems to escape most people, perhaps even LDS itself! 

VI. WHAT ABOUT SALVATION?

Mormons believe the fall of man was a fall upward. They teach that God was once Adam and that Eve, his wife obtained access to the Tree of Life, thus introducing them to godhood. Adam became God. A favorite saying among Mormons is: “As man now is, so God once was… As God now is, so man may become.”

Physical baptism by immersion is absolutely necessary for salvation. And citing I Co. 15:29, they defend baptism for the dead as allowing those who have left this life to be baptized by proxy. This explains the strange appetite Mormons have for family genealogies. They are trying to save their entire family tree by being “baptized” for them! On this point we would do well to heed Paul’s words in I Timothy 1:4:

“Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith…”

Sandra Tanner, wife of the late Jerald Tanner, both lifetime authorities on Mormonism and scholars of the “Utah Lighthouse Ministry” in Salt Lake City, has pointed out the complicated gradation of all after death, who, according to the Mormons, will mostly be relieved of perdition. It is clear that Mormonism associates the doctrine of hell mostly with the “great abominable church” (The Book of Mormon catch phrase for us).

In 1984 Ed Decker and Dave Hunt released a book entitled “The God Makers,” in which they prove that Mormonism is really about men and women becoming gods and goddesses, the latter being eternally pregnant so as to people planets throughout the solar system for all eternity. A Christian film by this title is available.  

When the film was released the makers invited Mormon authorities to attend its first showing. Several Mormon attorneys did. They hurriedly left after the showing. The book has never been answered by the Mormon Church. 

Any idea of salvation based upon the person and work of Christ is totally denied, warped or undermined by the Mormons though they seek to use Christian terminology.

Walter R. Martin’s brief summary of Mormonism’s requirements for salvation reveals that justification by faith and redemption solely by grace through faith in Christ is totally foreign to Mormons:

The Mormon doctrine of salvation involves not only faith in Christ, but baptism by immersion, obedience to the teaching of the Mormon church, good works, and ‘keeping the commandments of God (which) will cleanse away the stain of sin’ (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2:4 by Brigham Young). [K-29, 190].

For all its supposed presentation of Jesus Christ, the LDS most assuredly does not present the finished work of Christ as the sole means of salvation from sin and entrance into heaven.

VII. WHAT ABOUT THOSE NICE YOUNG MEN WHO COME AROUND TO OUR DOORS?

These youths are entirely supported by their families for one year of what they call missionary service away from their homes. They are referred to as “elders,” though they are very young men, about twenty years old. 

They distribute Books of Mormon, seek to explain Mormonism and are under the authority of a nearby “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” Oddly enough, for all their display of Christ in their church name and literature, their doctrines are a treacherous misrepresentation of the simple gospel He preached. 

The clean-cut appearance, the sense of mission, the self-sacrifice, the wholesome demeanor all combine to impress the world around them that their religion must be valid.

Underneath this façade is an agenda that includes deception in word and deed. Some years ago, my sister-in-law, herself a Bible school graduate, reported that two of the young Mormon men came to their Bible study and prayed during their prayer meeting. “They were very nice about it,” she told me.

A few years ago two of them came to our door at our church in Jonesville, where they have a building on the northeast side of town. They came in the afternoon and announced to me, “We will be coming to your prayer meeting tonight.” I politely told them, “No, you won’t!” 

When the surprised youths asked me why not I pointed out to them what they had in their hands. One held up his arm and said, “ A Bible.” And I replied, “And what else is in your hand?” He sheepishly replied “A Book of Mormon.”

I went over to the Mormon church after our service that night and talked to the head fellow who had a few years before sought baptism from my predecessor at our church and whom I had met in my door-to-door calling. I explained why I ordered the boys not to attend. It happened that we were listening to an audio tape of Sandra Tanner. I knew they would create a scene. I handed my copy of Mrs. Tanner’s refutation of Mormonism to the startled Mormon leader and asked him to play it. Later, on the street, that same evening, I found the youths , going door-to-door and witnessed to them again. A few days later my tape came back in the mail with no explanation attached. 

The youths are considered successful if they bring one person each into the Mormon fold in a year of service. We could learn from their zeal and I have told them to that effect. Nevertheless, no amount of zeal will turn error into truth!

VIII. IS THE BOOK OF MORMON VALID AMERICAN HISTORY?

The short answer is, “No, it is not.” According to The Book of Mormon great civilizations in South, Central and North America existed as early as the time of the Tower of Babel.  

 As we have mentioned, the first was supposedly founded about 2,250 B.C. as an off-shoot from the Tower of Babel by a group that ended up in Central America. Another group was supposedly Jews coming to South America by way of the Pacific Ocean about 600 B.C. Warfare took place among them called variously Jaredites, Nephites, and the evil ones, the Lamanites.

The Book of Mormon  is supposedly a condensation of these histories and is reported to have been written by a prophet named Mormon with an abridgement made of this period of history by Moroni, son of Mormon.

Note this summary statement from renowned cult expert, the late Walter R. Martin: “The Mormon’s record claims that Christ visited the American continent, revealed Himself to the Nephites, preached to them the Gospel, instituted baptism, the communion service, the priesthood and other mystical ceremonies” [K-29, 157].

The world received this vast history, we are told after Moroni buried three sets of brass plates in the ground at the site of the last great battle of these civilizations, near what is now Palmyra, New York in the Hill Cumorah. Enter one Joseph Smith, Jr. 1400 years later who, armed with the magic spectacles I mentioned earlier, was enabled miraculously to translate them from Reformed Egyptian to English.

Now with all this vast history, great battles and civilized people there must be archaeological evidence everywhere. Right!

On April 10, 1870, Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt made claim that “external evidence” for The Book of Mormon had been found by way of Hebrew characters, with the words of the Ten Commandments “almost verbatim.” This evidence was found buried near a mysterious stone in some mounds near Newark, Ohio. Strangely enough as later more mounds were opened more “evidence” was “found.”

Then stepped in the Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society. It seems when the bottom line was reached one David Wyrick, the reported “finder” of the stones, the writings and other objects became known, it was further investigated and, after his death, a Hebrew Bible was found in his work room. Some metal objects were found there that appeared to be someone’s crudely done practice at forming Hebrew language characters. The final verdict passed along by the Society was that Orson Pratt’s beloved artifacts were forgeries.

Newark, Ohio, being my hometown, and some of those mounds being my romping ground in youth, I have heard many stories about the “mound-builders.” No one has ever known who they were. It is a secret of antiquity.  

Jared and Sandra Tanner wrote the book Archaeology of the Book of Mormon in 1969. It has been updated during the past few years. The purpose of its writing was to examine the various claims by the LDS Church that there were many archaeological remains in the Americas to substantiate the claims that ancient civilizations such as are described in The Book of Mormon existed in this part of the world.

Years ago and even today claims are made that “archaeology proves The Book of Mormon correct.” One by one the Tanners address such claims in their book. As one reads the book and its exhaustive documentation it is clear that no solid evidence for the historicity of The Book of Mormon has been unearthed.

One of the last things in the book explains that the Department of Archaeology at Brigham Young University is not undertaking studies to prove the claims of The Book of Mormon. One or two professors have done some private studies but not the university itself. 

 The LDS Church of Utah is a powerful religious movement. Its carefully crafted image of “Mr. Clean” and its square-jawed commitment to family values make it very attractive in our day when American culture has declined drastically both financially and socially. If there were any way to “prove” the truths of The Book of Mormon such proof would have been plastered in print, in pictures and in politics long ago. 

IX. DOES MORMONISM DEVIATE FROM CHRISTIANITY IN ANY OTHER WAYS?

It would take a paper the size of a substantial phone book to deal with Mormonism to the full extent. Even then, The wealth of information available on the LDS Church would be a task far beyond the goals of any average pastor or serious Bible student. Let it suffice to offer the following bits of information to round out this brief study.

We have already pointed out that Mormonism effectively does away with the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Bible Christian knows it. The original sin of Adam took our Saviour to the Cross to effect forgiveness to all mankind. Mormonism teaches that the fall of man was a plus in the economy of eternity because it opened the way for man to become God and to populate the universe with his descendants. This alone is a blatant denial of the truths of Scripture. 

Paul said in our text in Galatians 1:8 that if even an angel appeared and preached another gospel than that of Christ he was to be accursed. According to Mormonism that is exactly what Moroni did on the American continents. That simple gospel is defined by the Apostle Paul as one’s faith in Christ’s death, burial and resurrection, according to the Scriptures. That humble, honest faith in the gospel determines one’s destiny (I Corinthians 15:1-4). This biblical faith is falsely misrepresented by the Mormons at every turn. 

If Joseph Smith is correct in his translation of The Book of Mormon then vast chapters of the King James Bible of 1611 A.D. that appear complete in every detail were actually written many centuries earlier and were first written in The Book of Mormon. This so-called “revelation” to Joseph Smith is truly a jumbled mess of misrepresented Bible characters with words put into the mouth of Christ in a context historically before He was even on earth to speak them Himself.[See: K-29, 165-6]

Altogether The Book of Mormon contains at least 25,000 words copied verbatim from the King James Version Bible. When The Book of Mormon character Nephi supposedly brought the brass plates to America the Mormons claim he brought copies of the Hebrew Scriptures with him which would explain quotations in The Book of Mormon from the Old Testament of the Bible. Strangely though, in The Book of Mormon they are identical to the King James Bible, even when translators’ slip-ups occurred and italicized words were inserted by the translators! 

As we have earlier pointed out, this is unassailable evidence for the plain truth: the Bible quotations were copied into the Book of Mormon from the King James Bible first published in 1611. This fact alone demolishes the credibility of The Book of Mormon, since,  it is claimed, its contents pre-date the King James Bible by more than a thousand years!

X. WHAT IS THE MOST EGREGIOUS HERESY TAUGHT BY THE MORMON CHURCH?

The most painful error taught by Mormonism must certainly be its doctrine of celestial marriage, its emphasis upon “Temple Marriage” with all its secret trappings and inventions of men leading to the outrageous lie that husbands and wives will inhabit and fill planets far and wide with their descendants forever. By reaching their ultimate goal of attaining godhood, Mormon men and their multiple wives (a doctrine clearly taught by early Mormonism) can do what Adam and Eve did—they can become gods on par with God Himself (whom they deny in the Biblical sense).

Because of Smith’s incessant preoccupation with plural marriage, “sealing wives for all eternity,” and his insatiable lust, I do not believe it is too much to suggest that Mormonism is not only a cult, but a phallic cult, a subject simply too sensitive for this paper.

For those interested in a full expose’ to this wretched lie, I refer you to Ed Decker and Dave Hunt’s book mentioned earlier, The God Makers. Mormonism’s teachings of this doctrine represent the very heart of this devilish system.

Conclusion

So what must we conclude about Mormonism? Is it a refined form of the Christian faith? Does the true faith of Christ date only from my great grandfather’s time? Is the Church of Jesus Christ as you and I know it only the abominable harlot of Revelation as Mormons teach? Are Mormons really the saints of “the Latter Days,” as they claim? 

No, let me tell you the truth in a nutshell. Mormonism is the product of a very wicked man whose unbridled lust for women and power misguided him into establishing a false religion whose claims today are as phony as were his. The robes of respectability surrounding this powerful cult have duped even countless thousands of its own adherents into thinking it is the true Church of Jesus Christ.

Many souls for whom Jesus died are headed for the Hell in which the founder of this evil religion languishes even today. They will someday know that the liar and imposter Joseph Smith Jr. was just playing a grandiose game of “I Got YA” for the enemy of our souls, Satan.

I repeat the Apostle Paul’s words: “…though we or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8).  Just two verses prior to this verse Paul laments that the Galatian believers had been turned away to “another gospel.” The word “another” represents the Greek word “another of a different kind,” being the word “heteros.” The Mormon error is most certainly “another gospel,” sadly, of a far different kind than presented by our dear Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore: beware of Mormonism!

It is not a pleasant experience as a Bible-preaching minister of the Gospel of Christ to even sort through Mormonism. Dear people, even innocent people, are caught in its web of error in the extreme. To say that its outward appearance is misleading would be an enormous understatement. At its core it is actually in its totality a most tragic lie.

May the Lord help us to be loving to those caught in this awful system of error and to so live and testify as to help them find their way to saving faith in the living Christ, He whose simplicity and beauty and Godhood are so amply taught in the Holy Scriptures, the very ones LDS so sadly misrepresents.

-Pastor Kenneth F. Pierpont, January 2012 All Rights Reserved

Pastor Kenneth F. Pierpont, D.Min.
CRI-43

Serious Christians ought to go deeper than this.   Not only: “Where is the church?” but “What does this church teach?”  If a family entrusts its children to a church’s ministries, won’t a concerned parent take note of what the children are being taught? Will not the place accorded to the Bible be carefully noted?  Some years ago, a young woman in our congregation returned from a vacation trip during which she and her family attended a church on Sunday.  She engaged me in conversation about it the Sunday she returned.  As she spoke of her family’s church experience, while on vacation, she seemed dismayed by their experience.

“Pastor,” she said, “the minister of that church got up and laughed at the Bible during his sermon.  He made fun of the Bible.”  I was sorry to tell her that I knew of other incidents, not too different from hers, in my own experience.   Not everyone, not even every pastor, is a friend to the Bible.  What happens to a young person who goes to a new church to find God, only to be told the Bible is more or less an outdated fictitious religious story book?  Ought church to be a place that questions, that tears down faith or that builds it?

In our earlier study we asked ourselves the question, “Why be a Baptist?”  In this study we need to ask exactly “What is a Baptist?”  Our earlier study gave some answers to this question, but we need to be more specific.  What precisely is a Baptist anyway.

WHAT MARKS ONE AS A BAPTIST?

Various means have been employed over the years to answer this question.   It is popular in pamphlets on the subject to use an acrostic, using the words “Baptist” or “Baptists.”  Each letter is used to portray a conviction Baptists have.  I will present a typical one here:

B    Baptism of Believers Only As Members of the Church
A    Acknowledging Salvation By Faith in Christ Alone
P    Priesthood of Every Believer
T    The Bible the Only Rule for Faith and Practice
I    Individual Soul Liberty
S    Security of the Believer
T    The Separation of Church and State

To be sure, a number of other groups adhere to some of these same principles.  Baptists believe their principles are derived from the Bible, God’s Word.  And, of course, some others do as well.  What makes Baptists unique, though, is their adherence to a solid core of Biblical teachings that together form what we call “The Baptist Distinctives.”  Let’s talk about them more in depth.  This time, we won’t concern ourselves so much with alliteration.  The usual number Baptists like to point out is seven.

SEVEN BAPTIST DISTINCTIVES

1.  Salvation by Grace Through Faith in Christ Alone

Baptists are fond of saying: “Salvation comes by grace through faith in Christ plus nothing.”  The point here is the critical matter of trusting in the finished work of Christ on the Cross of Calvary and not in any way leaning upon human merit.  Someone has expressed it this way: “If I can work my way to Heaven, why did Christ have to die.”  That is exactly the point that confuses many people.

So often we frail humans are prone to thinking we need to help God out in the matter of saving our souls.  Our conscience, guilty over our shortcomings, seeks a way to make ourselves at least somewhat presentable to a holy God.  We rummage around for some good deed to present to God to compensate for our guilt over failure in things we take for granted that God dislikes.

We may have heard a preacher or read a religious book that points out what sin is.  We measure against what is presented and find ourselves wanting.  Then, we try to “clean up our act.”  We try to make up for our perceived failure to please God.  Works of some kind are seized upon to gain God’s smile over our lives.

Baptists believe all such thinking and actions are wrong and out of harmony with that which God has revealed of Himself and His holy standards.  Baptists believe all attempts to come to God on the basis of human merit are doomed.  They are doomed, we believe, because the Bible makes it clear that works will not satisfy God’s holy requirements.  Let me cite a few passages from the Scriptures that point out these truths.

“Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ, plus nothing,” Baptists often tell inquirers.  Dozens and dozens of times, throughout the New Testament, faith in Christ is presented as the requirement for salvation.  Ephesians 2:8-9 is one such passage:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works lest anyone should boast.”

Another passage, part of an address given by the Apostle Paul during his first missionary journey, teaches the same thing:

“and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses (Acts 13:39).

According to the Roman government, when it became assumed that the Christian faith was some kind of threat to its continuance, Christianity became illegal.   Not until early in the fourth century, when the Roman Emperor Constantine professed faith in Christ did this change.  Oddly enough, the Church grew best when it was illegal and hounded and persecuted.  Historians are divided as to whether Constantine’s conversion was genuine.  However, after Christian faith became acceptable to the secular government, it quickly became greatly compromised.

Even during the first century, when the Church was in infancy, there is evidence of doctrinal error.  Warnings about such error are given by Paul in his letters as well as John and others.  For example, Paul told the Christians at Rome:

“… note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned and avoid them” (Romans 16:17).

The Apostle John, writing near the end of the first century wrote:

“Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ, does not have God… do not receive him into your house nor greet him” (II John 9-10).

Baptists have found that eternal vigilance is the cost of maintaining doctrinal purity in Christ’s Church.  We need to be able to face every person to whom we witness of Christ that He and He alone can save anyone from the sinner’s grave.

Adding to faith in Christ is an enormous mistake.  Over the centuries countless attempts have been made to mix all the trappings of man’s religion with pure faith in Christ for salvation.  The simple fact is though, that if man’s own effort can get him to Heaven; can justify him from his sins, then Christ died in vain.

Our Lord Jesus Christ replied to the question: “What shall we do that we may work the works of God?” with these words:

“This is the work of God that you believe in Him whom He sent”  (John 6:29).

Man, skewed  his thinking by his fall into sin, seeking to add to the perfect and all-sufficient work of Christ.  Baptists stand without apology against all such feeble attempts of men to cleanse themselves from sin apart from God’s singular requirement to believe on and trust Christ alone by faith.

2.  The Bible, The Only Rule of Faith and Practice

The existing Church in the Middle Ages paid little attention to what the Bible taught.  Corruption in the lives of church leaders, popes and priests,  was rampant.  In the year 1320 John Wylciffe was born in England.  He studied at the University of Oxford and later taught there.  The Bible in use by the Church of the day was written in Latin, not understandable to the common people.

Wycliffe began translating the Bible into English and his followers began carrying it far and wide.  He wrote many books based upon the teachings of Scripture instead of the traditions of the Church.  He was loved and protected by his friends and hated and denounced by the Church and clergy.

So complete was the hatred and disgust of Church authorities for Wycliffe that forty-four years after his death, his bones were exhumed and burned to blot out his memory.   But others following after him took up his love for Scripture and acknowledged the Bible as the “only standard of doctrine” (B. K. Kuiper).

Wycliffe was absolutely right in insisting that everyone should have access to the Scriptures in his own native tongue.  That great doctrine is one of the greatest principles Baptists hold dear.  It holds a sacred place among the Baptist distinctives.  Note these words from the Apostle Paul’s letter to the young preacher, Timothy:

“ All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (II Timothy 3:16-17).

The Psalmist clearly expressed an all-important purpose of the Bible:

“Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path” (Psalm 119:105).

A very  helpful study, reinforcing the importance of the Bible as God’s Word, consists of going through Psalm 119, underscoring every synonym for Scripture: As you do you will note them everywhere in that passage: “law of the Lord (v. 1), testimonies (v. 2), ways (v. 3) precepts (v. 4), statutes (v.5), commandments (v. 6).   Again and again, God Himself, in His Word, stresses the importance of Scripture.

The Lord Jesus Christ said: “Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will by no means pass away” (Matthew 24:35).   Of such critical importance are God’s words, spoken by Christ Himself that He warned: “He who rejects Me, and does not receive my words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day” (John 12:48).

Baptists hold high the Bible, as the very Word of God.  It is the believer’s standard for life.  It is solace for the hurting heart.  It is guidance for the one whose footsteps stray.  It is solemn warning to the unbeliever.  It is God’s guidebook to Heaven.  The Bible and only the Bible is God’s written message to a sin-sick world.  Unashamedly, Baptists proclaim the Bible as God’s absolute truth.  Yes, we believe the Bible is the believer’s only standard for all matters of faith and life.

Are Baptists the only ones who believe the Bible and accept it as their standard of truth?  No, by no means.  Thank God there are others.  Nevertheless, Baptists gladly and humbly and courageously take their stand on God’s Word, the Bible.  Their forefathers believed it, taught it, and in many cases died proclaiming it.  All hail to the Word of God, the Bible.

3.  Believer’s Baptism

Thousands of churches routinely invite parents to bring their newborn babies to the front of their church auditorium in order to have them “baptized.” As a baby, my parents told me they had me baptized by the method of having me sprinkled with water from the baptismal font standing at the front of our church sanctuary.

I remember, now with some amusement, that a Christian buddy of mine, in the Navy, knowing of my experience, asked me one day to find an example in Scripture of a baby being baptized.   I went to my barracks one Sunday afternoon, as I recall, and searched and searched.  Of course, I found none.   The Bible reveals nothing of this practice.  In fact, in every case where baptism is explained at all in the New Testament, it is clear that those being baptized had one thing in common—they were believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.

For example, on the day the church came into being, described in Acts chapter two, three thousand people were baptized.  But the Bible is careful to relate to us: “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized” (Acts 2:41).  Obviously any adults there who were still in doubt about their belief along with those too young to understand and believe were not baptized.

In a few cases, whole households are said to have been baptized in the early church.  The jailor at the city of Philippi is said to have been baptized “he and all his family…” (Acts 16:33).  But a careful reading of the passage (verses 30-34) makes clear that the gospel message was shared with the whole family and that the jailor believed that message with rejoicing “with” (Greek word “sune,” meaning “along with”) “all his household.”  If children were present, therefore, they were mature enough to exercise their own individual faith.  There are simply no examples of little ones being baptized at the request of a parent in disregard of the faith of each individual, regardless of age or maturity.

The church father Tertullian, is thought to have been the first to mention the baptizing of infants and he opposed it.  This was about the year 200 A.D.  In the third century Hippolytus, bishop of Pontus is recorded as saying:

“We in our days, never defended the baptism of children, which had only begun
to be practiced in some regions.”

Not only ought baptism to be administered exclusively to believers, following the New Testament example (See: Acts 8:36-38; 16:14-15; 18:8), but the manner in which baptism is done is important.  Baptists insist that the early church practiced baptism only by the immersion (lowering completely into and under the water)  of the person requesting it (often referred to as “the candidate”), but most historians concede that
immersion was the early church’s common practice.  Note the word of the following two writers whose followers often did not practice  immersion for baptism:

“Baptism is immersion into water, which is made with this admirable benediction.”—Malanchthon (a Lutheran scholar)

“The word baptize signifies to immerse: and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient Church.”—Calvin (founding father of Reformed churches)

Church history is replete with the accounts of many Baptists who suffered persecution, even death, in order to practice baptism for believers only by means of immersion.  Baptists have stood for this biblical practice in all their long history.  To be sure, we Baptists do not insist upon this formula for baptism as a means to salvation from sin.  That would be a betrayal of our first principle, salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone.

Baptism is necessary for one simple reason: Christ commanded it (Matthew 28:18-20).  Baptism is necessary for obedience in the Christian’s life.  It stands, when administered by immersion, as a beautiful picture of the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ.  When a believer is baptized he or she is declaring allegiance to the blessed Savior.  For every able-bodied person who has placed faith in Christ, baptism is most certainly necessary to the believer’s newfound walk with Christ.  Anything less than this is disobedience to Christ’s clear command.

4. A Regenerate Church Membership

By name, church membership is never mentioned in the New Testament.  A few groups have seized upon this fact to deny that there ought to be any such thing as church membership since it is not mentioned in the Bible.  That is a little like saying we ought not call the Scriptures “the Bible” since “Bible” is not mentioned anywhere in the Scriptures.  Or to disband our Sunday schools because the Bible does not speak of them.

Whether or not one wishes to use the term “membership”, it is clear that the early church kept account of those who were among them.  Acts 2:41 states that after baptism “three thousand souls were added to them.”

Moreover, the Apostle Paul instructed the young church at Ephesus about receiving widows in order to help those in need.  He ordered that under certain conditions they should be “taken into the number” (I Timothy 5:9).  If there was no record of membership, what could “taken into the number” mean?

In order for the church to protect its doctrinal purity, there needs be care to admit to its fellowship only such as are truly saved.  They should be committed to the truths of Scripture, etc.  A record of church membership would be necessary to carry this out.

Most churches in America are incorporated under the laws of their respective states.  While even this has been objected to by a few, there is good reason to have a membership protected, as a group, by the laws of incorporation.  In this way the church itself can do business in a corporate way instead of placing liability on certain individuals within the church.   Tax exemption for the church’s ministries and gifts to its operation hinge on incorporation of membership.  In short, a church membership is important to a good working church.

Baptists have insisted upon receiving into their memberships only those who were baptized believers.  On the day of Pentecost, at the very founding of the Christian church, as mentioned earlier,  the Bible says “…those who gladly received his word were baptized…” (Acts 2:41).  This is referring to Peter’s sermon in Jerusalem to the Jewish people present who had been responsible for the crucifixion of Christ.  Simply put, these hearers who had been ordered to repent of their sins did so (verse 38).  They immediately surrendered themselves for baptism.  As a result of their having believed and been baptized they were “added to the church,” (verse 47).

Again and again the Apostle Paul directs attention to various believers of his acquaintance and associates them with the churches he knows of, has founded or has visited.  For example, read the final chapter of Romans (chapter 16).   More than two dozen persons are named who are refereed to as “brethren” or persons who have “labored in the Lord” or who are “chosen in the Lord.”  This is no simple collection of persons.  They have a single feature that connects them, namely, they are believers in Christ.

Membership in a Baptist church did not come about simply because one lived near the meeting place of Baptists or was acquainted with them.  Membership was confined to those who have professed faith in Christ and had, as a result, entered the waters of baptism.  Hence, historically, Baptist church membership consisted only of those who had confessed Christ and had received Christian baptism.

Furthermore, as we have already shown, Baptists have always believed that a proper understanding of baptism requires that one be immersed in water.  They remind us that when Jesus was baptized “he came up immediately from the water” (Matthew 4:16).   Why was Christ in the water unless He had been dipped or immersed within it for baptism?

The same point may be made about the baptism of the officer of Queen Candice of Ethiopia.  Having been led to Christ by the witness of the godly deacon Philip, the officer anticipated baptism as they traveled along together: “Now when they went down the road, they came to some water.  And the eunuch said, ‘See here is water.  What hinders me from being baptized?’” (Acts 8:36)  Obviously, baptism, properly understood, requires a sizable quantity of water.

It is conceded by nearly all authorities that baptism in the early church was done by immersing the candidate.  Not until time had passed and false doctrine had crept in did the practice of using the sprinkling of water for baptism begin.  Even then, such “baptisms” were done at first for the benefit of the sick who were too incapacitated  to enter water and be lowered under it.  This has been referred to as “couch” or “clinic” baptism.  We mention this here again because many Baptist churches observe baptism as the occurrence that constitutes church membership.  The candidate enters the baptistry as a non-member of the church and rises from baptism as one who is now a member of that local assembly.

The very word “baptize” in our English language is a transliteration of the Greek verb “baptizo” which means “to dip or immerse.”  Oddly enough, there is a Greek word for sprinkling but it is never used in the New Testament to describe baptism.  The word “baptize” carries with it the understanding that lowering into water is meant.

We may summarize this Baptist distinctive by repeating a simple sentence: Baptists believe that church membership ought to consist only of those believers who have been immersed in water as baptism, since and because of their having received Christ as their own personal Savior.  This conviction of a regenerate church membership has cost many dear Christians their lives who were persecuted by officials of the existing Church of an earlier age.  It is a precious doctrine that we must not take for granted.

5. The Priesthood of Every Believer

Revelation 1:6 states: “and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father,
To Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen” This beautiful doxology penned by the Apostle John, from the island of Patmos,  expresses the truth that every believer in Christ is himself or herself a priest before the Lord.

The priesthood of every believer is probably the least well-known of the principal Baptist distinctives.  Human priesthood can hardly be addressed in American culture without confronting  mistaken notions concerning it.   Loraine Boettner, writing in the Reformed tradition, has summarized this rather complicated subject for us:

“The really decisive answer to all theories concerning a human priesthood is found in the New Testament itself.  There we are taught that the priesthood, along with the other elements of the old dispensation, including the sacrificial system, the ritual, the Levitical law, the temple, etc., has served its purpose and has passed away.  With the coming of Christ and the accomplishments of redemption through His work, the entire Old Testament legalistic and ritualistic system which had prefigured it became obsolete and passed away as a unit.  It is very inconsistent for the Roman Church to retain the priesthood while discarding the other elements of that system.”

Boettner further explains with this helpful observation:

“Thus the New Testament sets forth a new and different kind of priesthood: first, Christ, the true High Priest, who is in heaven; and second, the universal priesthood of believers, through which they offer the ‘ spiritual’ sacrifices of praise, of gifts, and of themselves in Christian service… Every believer now has the inexpressibly high privilege of going directly to God in prayer, without the mediation of any earthly priest, and interceding for himself and for others.”

The Apostle Peter, addressing the dispersed and persecuted believers of his time, encouraged them with this important proclamation:

“But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light” (I Peter 2:9).

Baptists have carried the standard of the equality of every believer under this distinctive well.  We make no distinction between what is referred to as “clergy and laity” as it is termed.  It is not biblical to delineate between believers as though our pastors and people in the pew are of differing classes.  The Apostle Paul’s triumphant word from his great epistle of Christian freedom says it well:

“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus… There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:26, 29).

To be sure, the privilege of individual priesthood carries with it a solemn and challenging responsibility.  Disavowing any sacerdotal* role of religious priests over them, Baptists have universally acknowledged their responsibility to be a “spiritual house, a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (I Peter 2:5).  Humbly but firmly Baptists claim the rights and responsibilities of the priesthood of every believer.

*Sacerdotalism: that religious belief that emphasizes the powers of priests as essential mediators between God and mankind

6.  Soul Liberty

In 1984 a large demonstration of Christian believers, many of them Baptists, gathered on the grounds of the State Capital of Michigan in Lansing.  It became the largest such gathering in State history.  Thousands of Christians, mostly in buses, rolled into the city, so many that the capital city’s downtown area was gridlocked.  All the major streets near the capital grounds had row upon row of buses parked side-by-side, end-to- end for hundreds of yards in every direction.  Soon the Capital lawns were covered by teachers, parents and  school children, many thousands of them.

The purpose of this demonstration was to convince the law-makers that the rights of Christian parents to place their children in Christian schools should be protected.  Those parents were expressing their soul-liberty.  The church of which I was then pastor was operating a Christian school.  We accepted no public money and asked no favors from the educational world as we sought to educate the children of our parish.  Nevertheless, the State Board of Education had decided to impose unreasonable requirements upon us.

The rally of tens of thousands of concerned parents, teachers and students on the Capital grounds was our orderly and peaceful way to both call attention to our plight as well as to register our protest at the action being taken against us.  The demonstration was successful in dissuading the Board of Education from taking action.  Our schools were saved. This leads us quite naturally to the question: “Was that show of protest by over 10,000 Christians that day in 1984 biblically justifiable?”

Baptists have universally held the position that in matters of Christian conscience that, in the words of the Apostle Peter, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).   This example parallels the plight of the Christians at the Capital steps that spring day in 1994.  The Christians of the first century were arrested and warned not to preach publically about Christ.  We Christians of the twentieth century were on the verge of being ordered to close our Christian schools.  Those of Peter’s day believed they had a mandate from God to preach Christ.  We of our own day believed we had a mandate  from God to educate their own children.  Both these examples spring from a doctrine called “soul liberty,” or we could say “religious freedom.”

Historian Richard Schaff, writing of the early church’s struggle to see clearly and consistently the imperative of religious freedom, cites the teaching of second-century church  leader, Tertullian, whom he says:

“… in prophetic anticipation as it were of the modern Protestant theory, boldly tells the heathen that everybody has a natural and inalienable right to worship God according to his conviction, that all compulsion in matters of conscience is contrary to the very nature of religion, and that no form of worship has any value whatever except as far as it is a free voluntary homage of the heart.”

Hence, “soul liberty,” as Baptists call it, or “freedom of religion,” as we moderns term it, has an intrinsic and imperative place among believing Baptists.  The pages of church history are stained with the blood of the martyrs among our Christian forefathers who went to the stake and to the flames rather than relinquish their God-given right to worship Christ according to the dictates of their consciences.

While courts unfriendly to our faith and scheming opponents to our Christian freedom unite against Christians’ right to worship and serve God in freedom, the doctrine of soul liberty stands as a silent reminder of our responsibility to both express and guard our liberty in Christ.  Millions of believers of the past have languished under the repressive regimes of their day that neither knew nor acknowledged the precious concept of religious freedom, the one Baptists call “soul liberty.”

One final word is important, if easily misunderstood.  Baptists believe in the freedom of religion or soul liberty for themselves.  But, it is important to understand that this extends equally to those who disagree with us.  The right to believe carries with it the right to disbelieve!

It has been my experience to deal with cultists who have come into the community where I ministered for Christ.  In a couple of cases I have defended their right to be there though I most certainly disagreed with what they taught.  In the venue of public discourse and persuasion, we are free to express our biblical convictions.  It is important to protect the rights of others to reject the very Word of God we proclaim.   We must remember that our Savior’s posture is of One standing at the door and knocking.  That needy sinner on the other side has the right to refuse Him entrance.   This proper and honorable right is reason enough for we who exalt that holy Name to proclaim Him with all that is within us and to turn those rejecters from the error of their way.  But we must do so within the bounds of soul liberty.

7. Separation of Church and State

Without doubt, the final Baptist distinctive under consideration, that of the sepa-
ration of church and state, has been the most difficult of all to both establish and maintain.  In the earliest history of the Church, as early as the apostles themselves, persecution threatened to destroy it.  But, early in the fourth century, under the Roman Emperor, Constantine, Christianity that had been “a religio illicita… a religion contrary to law,” (A. H. Newman) came into great favor.

Historians have debated the motives and sincerity of Constantine who led his armies into combat with the tyrant Maxentius, a ruler over Italy and North Africa.  Nevertheless, it is said that Constantine, on the eve of the battle , “saw a cross above the sun as it was setting in the west.  In letters of light the cross bore the words: Hoe Signo Vinces, which means, ‘In this sign, conquer.’  The next day, October 28 in the year 312, the battle was joined…. The army of Maxentius was completely defeated” (B. K. Kuiper).

The results of this battle can hardly be overstated.   Constantine was made master of the entire western part of the Roman Empire and, in 313 issued the Edict of Milan  which “placed Christianity upon a footing of equality, before the law, with the other religions in the Empire” (B.K.  Kuiper).

So, our the practice of our Christian faith, the defense of which had taken multitudes of Christians to an early grave, now became not only a legal option, but it soon became the prevailing religion of the western world.  As the Roman Catholic Church grew out of this culture it became completely entangled  in the political world as well.  Though there were benefits from the now exalted position of the Church, State dominance that was to prevail for fifteen hundred years began here.

The history of our Baptist brethren is that of constant strife between the free exercise of our faith and government control and constraints.  In our own day, it is a matter of constant vigilance to guard against the intrusion of government into our churches.   Nevertheless, as our Saviour enjoined us to do, we must “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.”

Conclusion

Baptists believe the distinctives we have discussed above formulate a set of divine principles that go to the core of the very justification for our existence.   Many additional  doctrines and privileges and responsibilities of life could easily be added.   However, we hold these biblical principles as imperative to our obedience to our risen Savior.

Rev. Kenneth F. Pierpont, M.Div., M.Ed, D.Min.

You probably know of a church that “used to be a Baptist church” but now goes by another name.  Maybe the new name is “Community Fellowship” or “Abundant Life Church,” or something similar.  But the word “Baptist” is no longer in the name.  This is certainly a growing trend.

Some churches have dropped the Baptist name in recent years in order to appeal to a wider range of the general public.  As the world around us offers more and more leisure-time activities churches and pastors find themselves hard-pressed to bring people under their ministries.   The percentage of population that identifies with any church grows smaller with each passing year.

Of course, it is commendable to reach out to one’s community.  Needy souls are everywhere.  Churches need to put forth earnest efforts to reach people for the Lord.  No doubt a part of the motivation of those who drop “Baptist” from their church name is to obey the Lord’s command to evangelize.   Having a denominational name seems, to some at least, counterproductive to their basic purpose.

So, why then does a church like Evangel Baptist [in Taylor, Michigan, where my son of the same name is pastor] continue to use the word “Baptist” in its name and to otherwise clearly identify itself as “Baptist?” Evangel Baptist Church is well known as a place that is concerned for people.  Why does it continue as “Baptist?” Wouldn’t it be better to follow the trend to forget about  some denominational name from  the past and  concentrate on the present?  These are good questions and, to be sure, they are important ones. For proper  answers we need to turn back some pages in history.

Baptist Beginnings

There is a bit of a mystery surrounding the subject of when Baptist churches first appeared in history.  Without being too technical, we can safely divide the opinions of historians three ways.  Let me name them for you.

The first theory of the origin of Baptists has been referred to as the Jerusalem, Jordan, John theory.  I have personally had folk playfully say to me, “I suppose you Baptists go back to John the Baptist.”  Well, now that you mention it, that is precisely what some Baptists believe.  We’ll come back to this, but let me mention the other two principal views of the origin of the Baptists.

A second view is usually called the Anabaptist Spiritual Kinship theory or simply The Spiritual Kinship theory.  Through the earliest centuries of the Christian church’s existence many groups of believers existed that more or less represented the views Baptists hold on major Bible doctrines.  Not Baptist in name but Baptist in sympathy or kinship, is the linkage with the past.

The third view of the origin of Baptists traces their beginning to the early English separatists of the seventeenth century.  Because this is of the relatively recent past, it is much easier to establish an unbroken relationship with these believers to modern Baptists.   This is by far the simplest view but it has its share of objectors.  It is usually referred to as the English Separatist descent theory.

Now let’s take more of an in- depth look at each of the ideas about Baptist beginnings.  After all, what we believe is important.  It is important from the standpoint of how we square with the teachings of Scripture and how we line up with history.

The Jerusalem, Jordan, John Theory

Here is a brief quotation from an American writer as a typical defense of this view:

“THERE is nothing new in this book. Every truth contained therein can be found in the New Testament. The Lord Jesus was very fond of the Baptists. His forerunner was called by His Father “The Baptist.” He himself walked 60 miles to  get Baptist baptism. The only time that the three persons of the Godhead ever manifested their presence on earth at the same time was at a Baptist baptism, when the Son of God was baptized. The most intimate associates of God’s well-beloved Son were all Baptists. In selecting His companions, He chose Baptists to be with Him. The first 12 missionaries sent out by the Son of God were all Baptist preachers. He was not ashamed to call them Brethren. He organized His church out of Baptists. He had these Baptist preachers do all His baptizing. There wasn’t anybody present when He instituted His supper, except these same Baptist preachers.” [Why Be a Baptist by H. Boyce  Taylor Sr. (Second Edition, 1928, p. 7]

To be fair to the vast majority of those who claim to be Christians, to those who truly love Christ who are not of the Baptist persuasion, the contention of Mr. Taylor, quoted above, is quite a stretch.

The wording of Mark 1:4 is the basis for referring to the forerunner of Christ as “John the Baptist.”   It is clear that the argument presented by Taylor hinges upon this title.  However, the Greek text at this point ought more precisely to be rendered “John, the one baptizing.”  The construction is a participle, not a noun.  With this understanding, the thrust of  Mr. Taylor’s paragraph above falls apart.
The connection with Jerusalem refers to the notion that the believers in Jerusalem, prior to Pentecost, were already a church. But there is a problem here. The principal historical view is that the Church did not come into being until the day of Pentecost.   When Christ stated that, upon Peter’s great confession of Him as the Christ of God, “I will build my church…”(Matthew 16:18) He was clearly speaking of a future church.  Most Bible students see the establishment of the Church as happening on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts chapter two, not earlier so as to connect John and Christ’s earlier ministry in and around Jerusalem to an already existing Church.

Our purpose, at this point, is not a refutation of any of the theories of Baptist origin, but it is fair to say that the view that takes Baptists back to John and the River Jordan is definitely a minority view in our day.

The Anabaptist Spiritual Kinship Theory

His tormenters dragged him from a German prison cell near Vienna.  His appeals to the Emperor for clemency and reason had gone unheeded.  His wife, along with this Anabaptist leader, Balthasar Hubmaier, were facing death for the “crime” of denying infant baptism, among other differences with the Roman Catholic Church.   These “Anabaptists,” so named for their practice of rebaptizing persons who came to faith as a result of hearing the gospel as adults, were rugged separatists* who opposed the Pope and the established Church and its control over the lives of the common people.

*We should probably stop here and define “separatist or Separatist”, as the term is used by historians. By Separatist, at this point, (and the term has been applied in several ways throughout church history), we mean freedom from government interference in matters of conscience and from the Roman Catholic Church and its many practices and dogmas not supported by Scripture. After the establishment of the Church of England at the time of the Reformation, the term is often used in reference to that body that demanded conformity and branded the Separatists as “heretics” as did the Church of Rome.   At times, even the principal Protestant Reformers held these “Separatists” in disdain as “heretics” and persecuted them, often without mercy.

Virtually everyone in much of Europe and England was “baptized” as a baby in the established Church.  This was a matter of public record.    Up to even our own day, problems of a date of birth have been settled by giving reference to baptismal records from a given church.  It is difficult for we moderns to appreciate the weight this matter carried in church history.

In April, 1525, the well-educated scholar and preacher, Hubmaier, had himself accepted rebaptism.   At the front of his church, on Easter Sunday, he used a milk pail to baptize by affusion (pouring) over three hundred men in his parish.  The homely pail, perched on the baptismal font at the front of his church, represented a strong protest to the practice  of infant baptism that had invaded the Christian church in its earliest centuries.

From that time on, he was recognized as an Anabaptist leader.  He debated the Swiss reformer, Zwingli, in a dispute over infant baptism.  Unfortunately he incurred Zwingli’s wrath by exposing his inconsistencies.  Imprisoned by the reformer and threatened with torture and having fallen ill, Hubmaier recanted.  A public ceremony was called for at which Hubmaier was expected to recant his Anabaptist teachings.  When Hubmaier stood to speak, however, he retracted his recantation and, as historian Robert Torbet states, he “thereby incurr[ed] further imprisonment and worse treatment.”

Assuming the role of leader and reformer Hubmaier saw the conversion of six thousand in a single year.  He published numerous  pamphlets and treatises.  These led ultimately to his arrest and  imprisonment. Now, on March 10, 1528, he was to be executed.

Led  from his prison cell, Hubmaier faced death “with serene courage and pious resignation,” says venerable historian Philip Schaff.  Baptist historian, Torbet, puts it this way:

“As the wood was kindled and he saw the fire, he cried out, ‘O my Heavenly Father, O my gracious God!’  Even while his hair and beard burned, he prayed: ‘O Jesus, Jesus!’  Then overwhelmed with smoke, he died a true martyr.”  His wife was condemned as well and three days later was thrown, bound into the Danube River.

It should be noted that Hubmaier was a quietist, far from the radical Anabaptists better known to history.  Hubmaier’s contributions  to the history of true Separatist believers are nicely summed up by Torbet this way:

“For at least three great principles he should be remembered: (1) the supremacy of the Scriptures, (2) religious liberty, (3) believers’ baptism.  For these he gave his live.”

Many thousands of Separatist Christians who stood against the prevailing teachings of the medieval Church of Rome were put to death as Anabaptist teachings spread.  Protestant leaders like Zwingli and Luther persecuted them as well.  Even the renowned Calvin heartlessly  rejected the digressions of “individual belief” which was the core  of the Separatist movement of Hubmaier and the Anabaptists.

These rejections from the Protestant Reformers form part of the basis of denial by some Baptists that they be regarded as “Protestants.” The vast majority of historians, though, list Baptists with Protestants.  Those holding the third view of Baptist origins would probably agree.

English Separatist Descent Theory

E. T. Hiscox, in my well-worn copy of his New Directory for Baptist Churches, says: “At what time the Baptists appeared in England in definite denominational form, it is impossible to say.”

Respected historian Lars P. Qualben (pronounced: gual-BANE), a Lutheran scholar, dismisses the subject with a single sentence: “The Baptist church originated in England near the beginning of the seventeenth century.”

More specifically, on the other hand, Henry C. Vedder, church historian of Crozer Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania through the first quarter of the twentieth century, says: “… after 1610 we have an unbroken succession of Baptist churches, established by indubitable documentary evidence” and “from about 1641… Baptist doctrine and practice have been the same in all essential features that they are today.”   Torbet, supports this view.

Hostility to Separatist views of denial of infant baptism and espousal of freedom of worship, among other differences, drove some of these early Baptists from England to Holland.  Persecution in England of early Baptists is a sad fact of history.   The extent of this persecution with death at the stake, drownings and merciless whippings, often to those whose only crime was a burning desire to worship Christ freely, makes for most unpleasant reading.

It is probable that the first Baptist church in England was established in 1610 or 1611 under a former Congregational leader named John Smyth.  He was influenced by the Mennonites who, in turn, can be traced back to the earlier Anabaptists.

Smyth was originally a clergyman in the Church of England.  He adopted Separatist Congregational principles and began to gather together first one and later a second congregation in England.  When persecution broke out against dissenters in England he and his congregation sought refuge in Amsterdam, Holland.  It was a portion of his church that  returned to London where they established a Baptist church.  Under this view, Baptists trace their beginnings to this particular point.

While by no means universal, this third view, tracing Baptist beginnings to seventeenth century England, is the most generally held today.

Baptist Expansion and Development

The Anabaptist tradition turns, at this point, to Menno Simons whom the Mennonites see as their founder.  Non-involvement with government, refusal to bear arms and strong Arminian views drew a major distinction that most Baptists did not share though some held general Arminian views.

B. K. Kuiper comments that in the Netherlands the Baptists “had been influenced by Arminianism which rejected the doctrine of election.”  These received the name “General Baptists.”  In both Holland and England these Baptists sought to maintain some meaningful relationship with the Mennonites but it seems this ended about 1626 over the issues of “administration of the sacraments, oath-taking and the holding of government positions.” (Torbet)

A Separatist or independent congregation was organized by Henry Jacob, a Congregational pastor and leader in London who had emerged from Puritanism about 1616.  This movement has a very involved history.  Some of its leaders were persecuted and imprisoned.  Jacob moved to New England, dying in 1624.  But in 1638 of a Baptist church was organized that was sympathetic with the Calvinists.  At this point we are referring to predestination and limited atonement.   This church espoused believers’ baptism and advocated religious liberty.  These believers came to be known as “Particular Baptists,” or later as “Regular Baptists.”  Gradually baptism by immersion was taken up that had been discontinued by the Church of England

Baptists have traditionally rejected creeds and any binding authority they imply though they have adopted “articles of faith.”  In London in 1644 seven Particular Baptist churches adopted a “London Confession” which included a definition of baptism by immersion among its fifty articles.  An expression of Calvinistic theology and advocacy of religious liberty “took Baptists another step away from their Anabaptist forebears” (Torbet).

As late as 1612 the Church of England condemned a Baptist to death for non-conformity.  Persecution of dissenters, you will remember, was a primary motivator for the establishment of the American colonies by those fleeing.   Even here, only Rhode Island, under Baptist clergyman, Roger Williams, was free from religious persecution.  In other parts of New England Baptists were banished, fined and imprisoned.

The uniqueness of the founding of Rhode Island under Roger Williams, great Separatist leader banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony, has been pretty well lost upon freedom-loving people today. To miss this is to misunderstand Baptist history.

The prince of Baptist historians, Thomas Armitage in his monumental work History of the Baptists, credits Roger Williams and the colony of Rhode Island with a charter fully implementing religious freedom.  Note this provision cited by Armitage:

“No person within said colony at any time hereafter shall be in any wise molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question for any differences in opinion in matters of religion…” that they may “freely and fully have and enjoy their own judgements and consciences in matters of religious concernments.”

Other than Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, all the colonies persecuted non-conformists such as Baptists.  Each colony  (state) had a state church.  The people were taxed for its upkeep.  Baptists led the way in seeking religious freedom for America.  Civil and religious liberty has been a fundamental principle among Baptists from earliest times.  Today we would call it our “five-star conviction!”

Upon entering Congress, James Madison, who was called “friend of the Baptists, offered and secured the adoption…” (P.E. Burroughs) of the First Amendment to the Constitution which, as we know, prohibits Congress from establishing any religion or prohibiting the free exercise of such.  Free exercise of one’s faith, a tiny light nearly extinguished from the world through ages of time,  was thus vindicated as the heart of biblical and Baptist faith.  Baptists understood this from earliest times and paid a dear price for daring to exercise it.

Baptists organized a “Triennial Convention in 1814.  Almost immediately those known as “Primitive Baptists” objected to missionary efforts, educational ministries or forms of benevolence.  They held a position opposite to that of missionary Baptists.  By 1840 a complete separation of these groups was finalized.  By 1845 the Southern Baptist Convention formed as a result of differences over the slavery issue.  In 1907 the Northern Baptist Convention was formed in the North which continues today as “American Baptists.”

The first Sunday Schools can be traced to the year 1791 and thereafter Baptists were active in establishing them in both North and South as important Bible-teaching tools.    Various boards were organized to provide for literature for the schools and numerous agencies sprang up which carried out Sunday School work in publications and expansion in the various states, North and South working independently.

In both England and America Baptists were involved very early in answering the challenge of world missions.   William Carey, Adoniram Judson and Luther Rice were three early missionaries who adopted Baptist views and furnished proof of the need for boards of missions to work in foreign lands.  The burden  missions, organized around scriptural principles, was the very thing that  led to the establishment of independent Baptist groups like the General Association of Regular Baptists in the first third of the twentieth century.  It was the issue of theological modernism that finally forced the establishment of this group independent of the Northern Baptist Convention.

Conclusion

So, why be a Baptist?  We have tried to show, and I hope fairly, something of Baptist beginnings.  As one studying this brief sketch of who they are and where they came from, I hope you will continue to inquire of them in areas of your own concern.  You can answer the question yourself.

Then, the question: “Does it really matter that we identify with Baptists of the past?” I believe it does, especially if they were right on their teachings of Scripture.  Baptists of the past have paid with their lives to confess a faith in Christ free from government interference, papal dictation and departure from Scripture.   Whether we can trace our heritage in an unbroken succession back to the time of Christ is debatable.  Whether we hold the faith of Christ is essential.

Today there are hundreds of thousands of God’s children who identify themselves as conservative, God-fearing, Christ- loving, Bible-believing people who are not ashamed to be called Baptist.  Down through the centuries they have stood without apology for individual faith and the freedom to worship  a mighty Christ. They have loved and learned their Bibles.  Without apology they  have risked  their lives and fortunes to spread a message of freedom in Christ to all the world.  Probably many, by their name, will still be alive to greet Him when He comes.  Maybe you will be one of them.

Our Savior said: “… when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8)   He meant that body of truth that when faithfully lived and preached brings men to His salvation. Our Baptist forefathers understood this. What a privilege it is to stand shoulder to shoulder with humble, gentle God-fearing men and women of the past.  They were often misunderstood and reviled, yet they pressed on in Christ.  We are inviting you to become one of them.  But, remember, freedom of faith is our hallmark, so we say, “You will have to decide that for yourself.”

End Note

Without doubt, Thomas Armitage has written the preeminent work on Baptist history ever (The History of the Bapists, James and Klock Christian Publishing Co., 2527 Girard Ave. North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55411).  If you are particularly interested in the early history and establishment of Baptists, I highly recommend this excellent two-volume work.  I conclude with this pregnant citation regarding supposed apostolic succession of Baptist churches:

Is an unbroken, visible, and historical succession of independent Gospel Churches down from the apostles, essential to the valid existence of Baptist Churches today, as apostolic in every sense of the word?  This question suggests another, namely, Of what value could any lineal succession be, as compared with present adherence to apostolic truth… the New Testament alone?”  (p. 1, Vol. 1).

Any or all portions of this paper may be reproduced for study or distribution provided acknowledgment of authorship is clearly given.  All other rights are reserved.  Kenneth F. Pierpont, 2009

Zechariah 14:4-5; Romans 8:18-22

Introduction

It has now been three weeks and five days since the mighty earthquake struck tiny Haiti on January 12, 2010.,  A school teacher in an orphanage was instructing his class.,  Suddenly the building began to tremble and shake violently.,  The terrified children scurried for the door as the,  teacher struggled for composure and shouted for them to flee. Thank God, they made it out!

The paved highway in the major part of the capital of Port-au-Prince began to pitch and sway, bucking up and down as security cameras recorded the terror of those moments.,  Soon the highway was a shambles,  as though some giant had kicked and torn it to shreds.

The National Cathedral, the pride of the capital city, with its majestic roof and ceiling in the shape of a giant cross, presenting a gorgeous aerial view,,  trembled and pitched,  before the entire roof collapsed making a mockery of this symbol of,  the pride of the tiny impoverished nation.

Government buildings constructed mostly of concrete and steel were quickly overwhelmed by the mighty power of this massive earthquake. Hundreds of them pancaked, floor after floor. Violent immediate death plunged many into eternity.,  The Richter Scale marked more than 7 which surely,  struck terror upon the seismologists who monitored it from numerous places around the globe.

So thousands of Haitians who worked in and around these large buildings were overcome in the awful fury of their collapse.   Known only to God are the names of this mass of humanity still buried under this crushing debris.

The Presidential Palace was not to escape this holocaust.,  Many parts of it lay in ruin after the short minutes of quaking it took to devastate the capital city and its environs.,  Haiti’s president was quickly made a homeless man.,  Before this evening of terror was over he was to have plenty of company.,  It is now believed that three million of the country’s nine million or so are now residents of the broken streets and applicants for a place in the tent cities donors are setting up for them.

The shantytown hovels where numberless thousands led squalid lives were unbelievable and tragic,  masses of ruin.

I was aghast at a large color photograph in the January 25, 2010 issue of Newsweek magazine.,  It pictured the front of a morgue.,  A man was making his way from the morgue and was sensitively stepping, again and again over a heartbreakingly large mass of corpses that lay on the ground but there was no room left for them inside.

On and on one might go with this catalog of human misery.,  I think it is fitting to,  remind ourselves of the statistics of death and privation it caused in terms closer to home for us in the good old U.S. of A.,  Let us move into south central Michigan, for example. Let us imagine what the statistics would look like due to a quake if one came in our area.

MICHIGAN’S EARTHQUAKE THAT HAS NOT COME— YET!

Had this mighty quake come in our area, it is possible to compare its
destructive force to some degree at least.

Therefore, in the mind’s eye we see what it did to our neighbors.,  All the residents of these cities combined would have been victims of a violent,  death: Hillsdale, Coldwater, Marshall, Jackson, Battle Creek and even Kalamazoo. No less than 200,000 people, souls for whom Jesus died, all gone in basically a moment of time.

Then there are the homeless.,  Imagine the size of the great metropolis of Detroit.,  In our imaginary setting of this earthquake’s power we see this city of Detroit where every citizen, every citizen, has one thing in common.,  Drive up and down the streets and boulevards, the freeways and side streets, the housing projects and,  businesses, the government buildings and the sprawling,  blue collar housing developments.,  Here is a city of well over a million persons and every single one of them is homeless.,  In fact as I speak news reports have stated that,  Haiti has an incredible,  three million such displaced persons. Such depth of human misery I am unable really to grasp.,  Even churches and mission stations were leveled, killing some of those who had come to Haiti to help.,  The United Nations Headquarters completely collapsed killing many hundreds who were there trying to make a difference in,  this poorest of nations.

DARE WE ASK GOD WHY,  THIS HAPPENED?

Not surprisingly, news magazines are already asking why.,  They are reminding us that God allowed this to happen.,  They openly ask: “Would a loving God allow the horrors of this enormous killer earthquake to happen.”

I find it interesting that secular venues that hardly ever give the subject of God a second thought or a first word are vocal in their offers of criticism.,  The article mentioned above in Newsweek depicted theologians and ministers as totally inept in coming to grips with any sensible explanation for the,  January 12th killer quake. The author’s glib remarks barely masked her scorn for the things of the Lord.

One minister, a television preacher, suggested the practice of voodoo in Haiti had led to a pact with “the devil” that had sealed the Haitans’ fate.,  In other words, because of their evil,  religion, God slew them hip and thigh.,  Many registered objection to this characterization of Haiti.

When sensible people look at this enormous visitation of death, destruction and human misery, I personally believe it is absolutely fair to ask ourselves, and even the Lord, “Why?” Let’s spend a few minutes asking the important “why” question.

We could simply do what one of our former presidents did when he was asked the “why” question about Hurricane Katrina that devastated New Orleans and other parts of the South.,  When questioned, he merely replied, “God has nothing to do with natural disasters.”,  Then he got on his airplane and flew away. Is that true? Is God uninvolved into natural disasters?,  Is someone else the author?,  The simple answer is, of course not!

It would be difficult to convince the Egyptians that the ten plagues visited upon Pharoah and his people were not from God.,  Those hail stones that killed animals and people and ruined crops certainly got Pharoah’s attention. He knew they were from God.

The wind storm God sent for Elijah the prophet’s benefit was from the Lord.,  So was the earthquake that followed it (I Kings 19).,  God also sent a miraculous fire.,  They got Elijah’s attention.,  But the lesson he learned came when he listened to the “gentle whisper”,  (,  v. 12).,  God sent the gentle whisper too.

Upon the death of our Savior the earth experienced a great quake.,  It caused the Roman Army officer to confess that the “criminal” they had put to death was really, in the officer’s words, “the Son of God” (Mt. 27:54).

No, it won’t do to try to shift responsibility away from God for natural disasters, whether from fire, wind, disease or the earth itself. And He wouldn’t want us to miss the meanings they hold for us.,  Let’s take a deeper look at the terrible earthquake of January 12th and how God might be using it.,  I don’t happen to have some new revelation from God as to the “why” of this most devastating disaster, but I don’t need one.,  I have my Bible and the knowledge of what God has done in the past.,  We have His infallible Word and we know the Scriptures,  give us warnings to about the future too (I Co. 10:1-7: READ).

DARE WE IGNORE THE LESSONS OF THIS EARTHQUAKE?

Let me spend the last of my minutes today sharing with you five lessons I believe the Lord has used to remind me of things I need to learn from this awful holocaust.,  I consider it my Christian duty to learn and remember them.

Lesson one:,  The Privilege of Being an American

Within hours after the quake soldiers of an advance party of our 82nd Airborne Division were forming up to go the Haiti to prepare for the sending of an entire brigade there to help.,  The first pictures showed them helping and speaking kindly to these Haitian survivors.,  Troops from an African nation, also shown, were addressing some of the same Haitians with kicks from heavy boots and threats from rifle butts. The compassion of our soldiers was clearly evident.

Soon, our Marines were there.,  They were not threatening the citizens. They were passing out MREs (meals ready to eat, the same as they themselves,  eat while in the field).,  They were passing them out at the rate of 50 per minute!,  Our Marines are trained to kill their enemies when they are called upon to do so.,  I loved it when I saw them feeding our friends instead.,  The morale among our soldiers and marines there is sky-high the reporters say.

Our giant aircraft carrier the USS Carl Vinson quickly turned to this island nation.,  As soon as it was within range combat helicopters began flying in our military and,  relief supplies.,  She is now tied up just off the coast, a floating command station.

The beautiful USNS Comfort, the most sophisticated hospital ship in the world, got up steam and made for Haiti, a week’s sailing distance away.,  As soon as she got within helicopter range her flyers began rescuing horribly injured survivors from Haiti for surgery in her dozens of operating rooms. Soon her mighty crew of doctors, nurses, technicians and support personnel were overwhelmed with the need.,  On they work to this day!

By God’s grace I will never lose appreciation for my beautiful country. God made me an American.,  Thank you Lord Jesus Christ!

Lesson two: The Privilege of being a member of the Church which is His body.

Every believer is a part of the church universal.,  Oh, yes, we may be and should be a member of a certain local church.,  But, every believer is a member of the body of Christ, the church universal.

You say, how did that happen?,  It happened when you got saved.,  You joined the ranks of those covered by His blood.,  Some day you will live and reign with Him in His Kingdom, praise God almighty!

As a part of that great company of the redeemed kindly missionaries are going about bringing water, food, tents, clothing and counsel about our loving Savior.,  I am so grateful for them.

Ten Baptist missionaries have been trying to get Haitian children to the neighboring Dominican Republic.,  They say they have signed papers allowing them to do so. Somehow, apparently, not everything was done right.,  If they are criminals, their pictures from jail cells are deceiving.,  Their faces and demeanor and testimony betray the innocence of new-fallen snow.
The missionaries are in a jail in Port-au-Prince. They may be prosecuted.,  I’m betting their motives were pure. Let’s pray for a good outcome that honors the Lord.

World Vision is the largest distributor in the world of food from the World Food Programme.,  When the quake struck they had about 370 workers there.,  They began distributing aid minutes after the quake struck.,  Now there are 700 there.,  In Christ’s name they are bringing life-saving help to multiplied thousands.,  I’m glad I am a part of the Church of our Savior. Many years ago their founder, Mr. Bob Pierce, coined a phrase.,  He said, “Let my heart be broken by the things that break the heart of God.”,  I know mine is.

Lesson Three: The Privilege to Know that God wants Haitians to be Saved

One man, in my hearing said, a day after the quake, “Those people in Haiti don’t do anything to help themselves. They just stand around.”,  I asked myself, “What would I do if I were in their shoes?”,  Well, for one thing, many don’t have any shoes.,  They don’t have clothes except for the soiled ones on their bodies.,  They don’t have a house to go to.,  They don’t have food to eat.,  They don’t have water to drink.,  They don’t have a place to get water,  to wash themselves.,  They don’t have toilets to use.,  They don’t have lights at night.,  They don’t have shelter from the sun glaring down its 100+ degree heat every day.,  They don’t have a Bible to tell them about God.,  They don’t have protection from the 5,000 hardened criminals roaming the streets of Port-au-Prince with machetes.,  And, finally, many have never heard the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ given even one time in their lives. I guess the man I heard was right: all they do is stand around or faint or die!

They don’t help themselves.,  Of course one of the things they also don’t have is tools and shovels.,  If they did they wouldn’t have to use their bare hands to try to dig their loved ones from under tons of concrete in which the earthquake buried them.,  Too bad. But, my Bible says God loves the world of men. Did you ever stop to think that God’s heart must be broken too?,  READ: Jn. 3:16-18, NIV.

16,  “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
17,  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

What a privilege to know that God wants Haitians to be saved.

Lesson Four:,  The Privilege to Knowing the truth that sin has awful consequences

But why would God allow Haiti to suffer such devastation?,  The answer if because of sin.,  The Bible teaches us that the very “ground” is cursed because of Adam and Eve’s sin (Ge. 3:17).,  Paul said the whole creation is in bondage because of sin with its decay, its groaning, its subjection to frustration (Ro. 8:18-23).

You mean, earthquakes come because there is sin?,  Absolutely.,  Do you think for one moment that God would have brought any earthquakes to the Garden of Even?,  Of course not.,  If I didn’t know the Bible, I wouldn’t know the terrible consequences of sin. God’s wrath is “being revealed from heaven against all godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness” (Ro 1:18).

Could it be that the effects of sin extend even to the earth itself?,  I believe they do.,  The “creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God” (Ro. 8:21). It will be liberated when Christ’s Millennial Kingdom comes.,  No wonder our Savior taught us to pray “Thy Kingdom come!” No wonder natural disasters take such a toll on life.,  All of nature is out of kilter because of sin.

Wow!   I’m glad I’m not in Haiti to suffer the wrath of God.,  Really!,  Me too, but I am afraid there is more.,  Please don’t misunderstand me.,  We can’t, any one of us, speak for the Lord, specifically why He allows this or that.,  I would never attempt that.,  On the other hand, when the Scriptures,  state that sin has consequences, it must be true.

We poor fallen men can easily rationalize: “Why can’t God just let bygones by bygones and take us all back into His good graces.,  Answer: He could if He were not holy.,  On the other hand, if He were not holy He would not be God.,  Therefore, sin has its consequences.,  To save all humanity, God had to do something. He did.

Sin nailed our dear Savior to the cross of Calvary.,  Sin breaks hearts, ruins marriages, perpetuates warfare, wrecks lives and,  plunges the whole civilization into failure.

When we face honestly,  God’s standard of holiness, we can understand why He says: ¦your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear (Is. 59:2, NIV).

A lost world will never understand this but we who have been saved by the Lord are privileged to know this holy and awful truth: sin has consequences.

The big question that jars my mind is not why Haiti had a killer earthquake, but why we don’t.,  Between the years 1973 and 2005 45 million babies were put to death,  by abortion in the U.S.A.,  We don’t have statistics about the past four years, but it is bad.

Listen to the “Creation Psalm” as some like to say: Ps. 139:13-18, NIV

“you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
How precious to me are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them!
Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand. When I awake, I am still with you.”

Ignorant of or hardened against the truth that all life comes from God, the slayers of little unborn babies, pull them,,  with their mothers’ permission, from the womb into this world where they never live to grow up, but are dead and discarded like road kill.,  And now the conclusion.

Conclusion

Lesson Five: The Privilege of Surrendering Myself to God to help hurting People

I can’t go to Haiti to help.,  But there are three things I can do:,  I can give of whatever resources God has given me to those who are there.,  I can, in Christ’s name, help someone here who is hurting. And I can pray for and encourage the cause of righteousness in Haiti.,  The real tragedy of Haiti is if I merely do nothing.,  If I forget why God allowed this worst disaster perhaps ever to occur in the western hemisphere, I am part of the problem.,  May the Lord,  God help me never to forget!

Ladies and gentlemen.,  Don’t you think there is something we can all do to help?,  I pray so! — In Jesus’ Name,,  Amen.

Major Nidal Hasan M.D. and his unthinkable crime of slaying and wounding dozens of our troops and others makes abundantly clear the fact that “radical Islam” is perhaps the most dangerous threat to peace-loving people in the world today.

Read again my paper “Muhammad’s Quran Examined by the Scriptures.”,  (below)

President George W. Bush referred to Islam as “that great religion of peace.” President Obama said, “Islam never has been the enemy of America and never will be.” Understandably, both presidents wanted to be fair to those followers of Muhammad who are peace-loving.,  Yet, all nineteen hijackers of those aircraft that brought down the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, were followers of Muhammad.,  In both the Iraq and the Afghan Wars we have been fighting since shortly after that unspeakable crime, we have faced the same enemy: followers of Muhammad., 

The moral outrage of our American government at the cowardly attacks of September 11, 2001 is shared by multitudes of Americans and citizens the world over, as it should be.,  Counting those killed at the Pentagon where a third aircraft was intentionally crashed and those who died in Pennsylvania, where it is believed the passengers on a fourth hijacked plane fought their captors until the plane crashed in a field, the total loss of life was over 3200.,  This eclipsed the previous record for cowardly attacks upon U.S. citizens set at Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941 where 2330 of our gallant servicemen died.

In addition our country has lost, in Iraq and Afghanistan, to injury and death, enough soldiers and marines to fill over two modern infantry divisions, eighteen thousand each, fighting on soil claimed by Islam.,  The response of some Americans to this is, “It is better to have them threatening us over there than over here.”,  The facts are, however, they are threatening the whole world, including “over here.”

Of course, many who follow Muhammad’s Quran (“Holy Book”) are not warlike terrorists trying to bring down our country.,  In fact, it is perfectly legal for them to exercise their religion in America and that fact is not the problem. Those who wish to peacefully follow the teaching of Muhammad are entitled to do so. Our courts are even used to protect the rights of Islamic prisoners taken in the Iraq and Afghan wars.,  Hopefully, we can take at face value the peaceful intentions of Muslims who plan no violence.

In the interest of truth and vigilance however, two facts need to be pointed out respecting Muhammad’s followers and the violence of September 11, 2001.,  First, “Where was the moral outrage by peaceful Muslims, in America and elsewhere around the world,,  at the destruction of the World Trade Center by fellow Muslims?”,  Its basic absence deserves serious thought.

The second fact is that the hijackers themselves cast their act as one of worship of their god.,  Mohammad Atta, the leader of the nineteen, wrote the following in a document he and his co-conspirators used in worship just before their dastardly act:

“As the prophet said, “˜A raid on the path of Godis better than this world and what is in it’” [ The Age of Sacred Terror, Benjamin and Simon, Random House, 2002, p. 40].,  In commenting about this act, the above authors concluded the following:

“The hijackings were the performance of a sacrament, one intended to restore to the universe a moral order that had been corrupted by the enemies of Islam and their Muslim collaborators” [Ibid.].,  And still later, this comment:

“What appears to be senseless violence actually made a great deal of sense to the terrorists and their sympathizers, for whom this mass killing was an act of redemption” [Ibid.).

The religious nature of the unspeakable crimes committed against thousands of innocent people on September 11, 2001 must not be ignored or gainsaid away.,  In addition, the television coverage of,  many acts of treachery,  against our troops in the Iraq and Afghan Wars has demonstrated, again and again the environment of acceptance,  by Muslim civilians over the carnage caused by fellow Muslim fighters to,  our soldiers and marines.

What American has not been repulsed by pictures of those our troops went to help dancing over the corpses of our fallen soldiers and marines It matters little that some Muslims do not share this sick amusement.,  The fact remains that these are religious zealots carrying out a jihad, a so-called "holy war," against freedom-loving people and they have plenty of sympathy among many of their Muslim friends. That is an unvarnished fact!

The question before us is this: "Is the religion of Muhammad, in whose name worldwide warfare such as we have described is being conducted, the truth or is it error?" Great deference is being shown regularly,  in American newscasts and by our governmental authorities to Islam. In some cases American public schools openly teach of Islam as an acceptable lifestyle. More than one American school district has gotten into trouble at the bare favorable mention of Christianity. It is high time we addressed this discrepancy.

If Muhammad's religion is the truth, it can stand on its two feet.,  If it is essentially error then we owe it to ourselves to recognize this and to repudiate it. After a brief overview of the religion of Islam and the background of the prophet Muhammad himself, we shall use the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to find out.

Background Of Islam

The term "Islam" means, in Arabic, "submission," supposedly to Allah (god).,  That fact in itself is of no particular significance.,  Coupled with threats against non-Muslims, and Islam's history of conversion of multitudes at the point of a sword however, it renders a very ominous meaning.

There are more Muslims in America than there are Methodists.,  Their numbers are increasing rapidly.,  Everyone in America and around the world is,  entitled to know what they believe.,  The only safe way to know if what the followers of Muhammad believe is true is to examine their beliefs against the Bible, God's holy Word.

Christians do not apologize for their conviction that the Bible is God's true revelation.,  Followers of Muhammad claim his Quran is a true revelation from Allah, their god.,  As a Christian, committed to the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, I wish to place the teachings of the Quran under the searchlight of the Bible.,  Let the reader decide which faith is true.,  We shall soon see that it cannot possibly be both.,  Some, even in Christian circles, try to reconcile basic tenets of Muhammad's religion with Christianity.,  Such a course is patently absurd if we allow the facts to speak for themselves.

Introduction To The Quran's Author And Personal History

"About the year A.D. 570 there was born in the city of Mecca near the west coast of Arabia [now Saudi Arabia] a boy who was named Mohammed, which means “˜praised.’,  His father Abdullah (“˜Slave of Allah’) died before his son was born, and the mother Amina died when Mohammed was only six years old.,  The child was brought up first by his grandfather and then by his uncle, Abu Talib, who were members of the influential tribe of Quraish in Mecca.” [Willim McElwee Miller, Religions in a Changing World, Moody Press, 1959].

“Muhammad,” (the currently popular spelling of the older Mohammed) as a boy took care of flocks in the desert and sometimes went with camel caravans carrying merchandise from Arabia to Syria.,  In so doing he came into contact with people of a higher civilization and religion that was “better” than the polytheism of the heathen Arabs. The boy grew up in relatively poor circumstances and is believed,  to have been a lifelong illiterate.

The people of Arabia worshipped a number of gods but believed in a supreme god they called “Allah.” Mecca had a small temple called “the Kaaba” where numerous idols were set.,  Built into the temple’s wall was a black stone which was considered very sacred.,  The stone was a meteorite.,  The heathen Arabs made pilgrimages to the Kaaba (sometimes spelled “Kaba”) to circle round it and to kiss the stone.

In this context the religious Muhammad became acquainted with a group of men in Mecca who rejected the idolatry there and followed what they called “The Religion of Abraham.”,  Being made somewhat acquainted with both Jews and Christians, no doubt Muhammad was influenced against the evils of idolatry and came to favor monotheism over the worship of myriad idols associated with the Kaaba.

The religious young man would retire to a cave a few miles from Mecca from time to time to meditate.,  It is there that he claimed to have received a visit from the angel Gabriel when he was about forty years old.,  Other revelations, he claimed, followed.

Muhammad later recited the words of the angel’s visits, as he claimed, and these became the basis for the Quran or Qur’an or the older name, Koran (“the Recitation)” considered now to be the most sacred of all writings by Muhammad’s followers. The writings, compiled later,,  were captured on the bark of trees, the skins of animals and any other object obtainable plus the memories of those who heard them from “the Prophet.”

Some, who have studied Muhammad’s so-called encounters with Gabriel,  and his subsequent conduct, have advanced the theory that Muhammad was probably epileptic.,  Of course that possibility may or may not have been the case.

At first, Muhammad’s only followers were members of his family.,  Gradually he quietly preached against idolatry and gathered followers.,  Mecca was not favorable to his views and he fled and established himself in the city of Medina where he gathered others.

Muhammad and his followers tested their strength by making raids upon camel caravans.,  Bloody battles followed which finally led him back to Mecca with a large army.,  He established a theocratic government in which there is no distinction between politics and religion.,  The result is that orthodox Muslims came to see the state and their religion as one. That Muhammad’s religion was established at the point of the sword cannot be denied.

Islamic law is the stated goal of Muslims living in many countries today. The concept of “separation of church and state” is a completely foreign notion in Islamic countries.,  Anyone who has studied the “progess” of the “new Iraqi government” since President Bush sent our troops in years ago can easily see that a truly,  democratic government in that Islamic setting may never materialize.

In later years Muhammad’s supposed “divine revelations” were used to justify actions that even some heathen Arabs opposed, suggesting some “revelations” to Muhammad were of convenience, something less than “divine inspiration.”,  The “revelations” forming the Quran were recited to Muhammad’s followers over a twenty-year,  period.,  We shall examine some of these as we move to place the Scriptures into contradistinction to Muhammad’s Quran.

The Substance And Organization Of The Quran

The finished Quran, dictated to his followers by Muhammad, forms a book approximately the size of the New Testament.,  Muslims disdain all translations of it from the original Arabic.,  There is the question of whether it is an accurate rendition of what Muhammad said.,  He, apparently, had no ability to read his own dictation plus the fact that many of the writings were produced after Muhammad’s death, through the memories of those who heard them from Muhammad.

There are, however, numerous translations of the Quran available today and it is relatively easy to make one’s way through it. The vocabulary is relatively simple as is its organization, if indeed there is real organization.,  After Muhammad’s death the Quran was arranged in “Suras” (chapters) with the criterion being to place them in the book by size, the longest to the shortest, without regard to any chronology or overriding theme.,  There are 114 suras in all.

The copy from which I have worked was translated by N.J. Dawood, an Iraqi scholar and obviously a practicing Muslim.,  Mr. Dawood sought to depart from the traditional arrangement to something more chronological but retained an index so the reader may work from the original order. Dawood states that his aim was to first present the more “Biblical and poetic revelations” and to end with “the longer and often more topical chapters.”,  The difference is hard to perceive. Let us get to their content.

An Overview Of The Quran

The translator’s Introduction of my copy of the Koran [spelling used by Dawood, the translator in this case] begins with these words: “The Koran is the earliest and by far the finest work of Classical Arabic prose. For Muslims it is the infallible word of God, a transcript of a tablet preserved in heaven, revealed to the Prophet Mohammad by the Angel Gabriel.”

Contrast that appraisal with these words of Scottish scholar Thomas Carlyle about the book: “It is a toilsome reading as ever I undertook, a wearisome jumble, crude, incondite [badly put together].,  Nothing but a sense of duty could carry any European through the Koran” [Islam Unveiled, Robert Morey, The Scholars Press, 1991, p. 104].

The Introduction also reminds the reader that in most of the Koran,  “God speaks in the first person plural which often changes to the first person singular or the third person singular in the course of the same sentence.”,  Each “Sura” [chapter] is also given a title.

After a few sentences of praise to Allah entitled,  “The Exordium,” the first full chapter, numbered “2″ begins.,  It is entitled “The Cow.” Try as I may, I was not able to find the word “Cow” in this sura, the longest in the Koran.,  I did find the word “swine” in the context of denying its flesh to Muhammad’s followers.

The subject matter of “The Cow” chapter encompasses in part the following by order of paragraph: Do not doubt the Book [Koran]; Grievous punishment awaits the unbelievers; There is a sickness in the hearts of unbelievers; Do not commit evil in the land; Unbelievers are fools; Allah will mock pretenders; Those who barter away guidance for error will be left deaf, blind and dumb; Allah has the power over thunder and lightning; If you,  doubt “what We revealed to Our servant,” try to produce a comparable chapter like this Book; Believers who have faith and works “will dwell in gardens watered by running streamsbe [w]edded to chaste virgins, they will abide there forever.”

The above is a simple summary of barely two pages of this rambling thirty-one page chapter.,  A skilled English teacher or writer would have an imposing challenge in constructing a sensible outline of this “chapter.”,  Before we leave it, however, note this passage, chapter and verse numbered 2:228:

“Women shall with justice have rights similar to those exercised against them, although men have a status above women. Allah is mighty and wise.”

Women are mentioned in “The Cow,” but mostly with respect to instructions to them.,  I found no word of comfort or assurance of salvation for women in the sura (chapter) at all, rather mostly thinly veiled threats such as the quotation above.

The various names of the suras mostly bear little resemblance to the content, as with this section, Suras,  3-8, for example:

“3. The Imrans; 4.,  Women; 5. The Table; 6. Cattle; 7.The Heights; 8. The Spoils.”

As we noted, nearly all the Quran is presented as though God (Allah) were speaking.,  All the pronouns, therefore with Allah as the antecedent are capitalized, as: We, Us, He, etc. For example Sura 21:27: “We inspired all the apostles whom We sent before you, saying: “˜There is no god but Me. Therefore serve Me.’”

Often, arguments are put forward to oppose “the unbeliever,” and many are prompters with the exact words with which to respond.,  Take these examples from Sura 13, entitled “Thunder”:

“All who dwell on the earth shall prostate themselves before Allahtheir very shadows shall bow to Him morning and evening.

“Say: “˜Who is the Lord of heaven and earth?’
“Say: “˜Allah.’
“Say: “˜Why then have you chosen other gods besides Him”¦’
“Say: “˜Are the blind and seeing alike? Does darkness resemble the light?’”

Scattered all through the book are these “Say” remarks, given at no particular intervals but are nevertheless profuse throughout.

The Quran ends with Sura number 114, entitled “Men.”,  It comprises only a single “Say” remark:

“Say, “˜I seek refuge in the Lord of men, the King of men, the God of men, from the mischief of the slinking prompter who whispers in the hearts of men; from jinn [spirits, created by God, some good, some evil'] and men.”

Such is the construction of this Muslim “Holy Book.”,  Subject and word flow vary,  and change unpredictably. One reading this document quickly learns to expect the unexpected. Constructed, as it is reported to have been, over a twenty-year period, often from the memories of those who listened to Muhammad recite to them, the reader is treated to a wide-ranging and rambling challenge.

Much of the Quran is simply a rehash and embellishment of Bible stories with fanciful additions of words put in the mouths of Bible characters. For example, the story of Joseph’s confrontation with Potiphar’s wife is given many fictitious details featuring generous additions to the dialogue of Joseph and others.,  The most noted Bible characters in the Quran,  seem to be: Noah, Moses, Lot, Abraham, Ishmael,,  Isaac, John, David, Saul, and our Savior referred to again and again as “Jesus, son of Mary.”

Bear in mind that the completed Bible would have been available in the seventh century in which Muhammad lived.,  Many sections of the Quran consist of paraphrases of and commentaries on Scripture. Any idea of an historical setting or a consistent narrative, however, is absolutely missing from the Quran.,  Often Old Testament characters are mentioned,  and mixed together in a given commentary without regard to chronological order, context or even the Testament in which they appear.

There is no attempt to deal with prophecies of Old Testament prophets and no reference to events of the Book of Acts, the Epistles or the Revelation.,  The term “Gog and Magog” appears a few times but not with any meaningful explanation.

One annoying fact about the Quran is its redundancy.,  Assembled, as it was, from memory evidently led to the repetition of numerous injunctions.,  It is difficult not to be impatient working one’s way through these.,  I, personally found it almost amusing, reminiscent of children play-acting the teachings of school or home.

The Overriding Theme Of The Quran

The pages of the Quran are filled with condemnatory references to “People of the Book (Christians and Jews), unbelievers, infidels, disbelievers [sic], idolaters, aggressors and transgressors.”,  A multitude of references to these are accompanied with threats using words like:,  “Hell, flames, grievous punishment, shameful scourge, evil fate, woeful punishment, lost, doomed, heirs of hell” and more. The relatively restrained truths of Hell written in the Scriptures are embellished with,  gruesome and terrifying details in numerous parts of Muhammad’s Quran.

The conflict between the forces of “Allah” and Christians, Jews and other “unbelievers” is unquestionably the overarching theme of this book.,  While there are pages devoted to regulations and in some cases protections and the offer of forgiveness, these do not apply to the enemies of “Allah.”,  It is not too much to say that the Quran, taken as a whole, must be considered a diatribe against the Christian faith, our Christ and Israel, the nation from which He came.

The Quran Is Not The Holy Scriptures

The Greek word for “Scriptures” is,  “graphas,” or “graphan,” depending on how it is used in a sentence.,  It is the standard Greek word for “writings.”,  It is used numerous times in the Bible with the definite article so as to render “the Scriptures” or “the writings.”,  It was said of our Savior, after His Resurrection that he appeared to two disciples on their way to Emmaus: “Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures” (Luke 24:45).,  It could have been rendered “the Writings” at that point as well.

Our Savior, in instructing the Sadducees that there is no marriage nor marrying,  in heaven, rebuked their ignorance saying: “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures” (Matthew 22:29).,  Our Lord used the words “tas graphas,” or “the writings,” as,  the consistent New Testament term for “the Scriptures.”,  In its many uses, it is clear that this is the Greek term for “the Bible”,,  as we would say today.

The word “Bible” never appears in the Scriptures, as any thoughtful Christian knows, the word meaning simply “Book.”,  The Quran refers many times to “people of the Book” or merely “Book.” Often it is in criticism or derision of the Christian faith and sometimes of the Jewish faith.,  As a Christian, I have no problem being referred to as a “person of the Book” or a “believer in the Book.”,  That simply means I exalt the Bible.

The important point, imperative point really, that I am making, is simply this: The Bible assumes its own place of preeminence.,  When we say “the Scriptures” or “the Writings” it is as though we are saying the Scriptures or the Writings.,  The Bible does not apologize for its own superiority over the writings of men for it is the Book of God, virtually unlike and unmatched by any other set of writings this world has ever seen or ever will see.

The claim of Muhammad’s followers that the Quran supercedes the Bible is something on the order of the elementary school child who sets about to correct his teacher on the basic facts of addition.,  No, 2 plus 2 are still 4 notwithstanding the little boy’s insistence to the contrary. The claims of Muhammad, that his Quran, diminishes the mighty truths of Scripture is as a child with a flashlight blinding out the sun!

Christ said: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away (Matthew 24:35, NIV).,  Further He said: “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day (John 12:48, KJV).,  According to the Bible, the words of our Savior hold absolute preeminence over any words that will ever be written or spoken subsequent to His.,  Christians need to get over apologizing for or negotiating with Muhammad’s followers about what is truth.,  Jesus said, “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life” (John 6:63). He, personally said, “I am the truth” (John 14:6).

If it seems arbitrary to the reader that I simply state the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are truth over the supposed “holy Quran,” the fact is that the Bible itself warns against elevating any other writings above itself.,  Isaiah wrote, more than fifteen hundred years before Muhammad’s birth:
“To the law and to the testimony!,  If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn” (Isaiah 8:20, NIV).

This consistent exclusiveness of the preeminence of Scripture carries through in the Revelation as well:
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book” (Revelation 22:18, KJV).

While this verse, and the one following, warning of detracting from the book, are understood to apply primarily to the Revelation itself, historically, Christians through the ages, have understood the words to apply to the entire New Testament as well.,  It is this universal recognition that stands as a bulwark of condemnation to tampering with God’s Word.

Muhammad and his followers claim to accept much of the Bible as from God.,  In fact, however they teach that the Scriptures “have been tampered with” and thus are not reliable.,  In their haste to claim the Quran supercedes the Bible they unwittingly bear testimony that they are elevating Muhammad’s bizarre claims above God’s holy Word, effectively making “the commandment of God of none effect” (Matthew 15:6), as our Lord said.

Informed Bible students are well aware of the truth that the Bible is the Word of God, that “the Writings” are the very words God gave mankind.,  The meticulous care of the manuscripts from which our English translations of the Scriptures have been formed is a science in its own right.,  No council of scholars or clergy ever “made” certain books into the Bible.,  The supernatural character of the Scriptures themselves emerged after the books were written to demonstrate this truth. To put it another way, the Scriptures themselves have inherent authority,  to exalt themselves above the writings that do not have God as their Author.,  Believers in the earliest history of the Bible books saw this truth for themselves.,  The scope of this paper does not allow us to delve into this beautiful tribute to the Scriptures.,  We will see glimpses of it, however, as we place them beside the words of Muhammad’s Quran.

Basic Scriptures That Contradict Muhammad’s Quran

Christ, the Son of God

The Quran: “They say, “˜Allah has begotten a son.’ God forbid! Self-sufficient is He” (Sura 10:68).

The Quran: “Those who say: “˜The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son’ preach a monstrous falsehood at which the very heavens may crack” (Sura 19:88).

The Quran: “Such was Jesus, the son of Mary.,  That is the whole truth which they are unwilling to accept.,  Allah forbid that He Himself should beget a son!,  When He decrees a thing He need only say “˜Be,’ and it is” (Sura 19:36).

The Scriptures: “No man hath seen God, at any time, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (John 1:18).

The Scriptures: “But about the Son he says, “˜Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom (Hebrews 1:8, NIV).

The Scriptures: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Mt. 3:17).

The message of the entire New Testament is predicated upon the premise that Jesus Christ is God’s Son.,  That is the point of the visit of the angel Gabriel to Mary, His mother, and his,  announcement,  that the Lord Jesus’, conception would be a miracle provided by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35).

It was the angel Gabriel who was sent to Mary to announce the coming birth of Christ, God’s Son.,  This,  miracle of God is,  an inescapable fact reported in Luke chapter one.,  The angel, appearing to Joseph as recorded in Matthew was probably Gabriel.,  There is no way to reconcile how this same angel, who had,  appeared to Mary and Joseph would appear to   Muhammad six hundred years later with a flat contradiction to,  the Sonship of our Savior.

The denial that the Lord Jesus is God’s Son, expressed in the citations from the Quran, as quoted above, is repeated over and over again in Muhammad’s Quran, a blasphemous statement in hopeless opposition to God’s Word.

Salvation by Faith Without Works

The Quran: “On that day no soul shall suffer the least injustice.,  You shall be rewarded according only to your deeds” (Sura 36:14).

The Quran: “Those that give alms by day and by night, in private and in public, shall be rewarded by their Lord.,  They have nothing to fear or to regret” (Sura 21:274).

The Quran: “As for those that have faith and do good works, Allah will admit them to gardens watered by running streams.,  They shall be decked with pearls and bracelets of gold, and arrayed in garments of silk” (Sura 22:23,24).

The Scriptures: ” But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident; for, The just shall live by faith” (Galatians 3:11).

The Scriptures: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God — not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesisans 2:8-9).

The Scriptures: “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5).

Any alert Sunday school child knows from his Bible that faith in Christ for salvation is the recurring theme of the New Testament.,  He has been taught the Scriptures’ most basic fact: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36).

The Truth About the Hereafter

The Quran: “He that chooses a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him and in the world to come, he will be one of the lost” (Sura: 3:81).

The Quran: “blessed shall be those on the rightthey shall recline on jeweled couchesthere shall wait on them immortal youths with bowls and ewers and a cup of purest winewith fruits of their choice and fresh fowls that they relish.,  And theirs shall be the dark-eyed houris [voluptuously beautiful young women- Webster], chaste as hidden pearls: a guerdon [earned reward] for their deedsWe created the houris and made them virgins, loving companions for those on the right” (Sura 56:3ff).

The Quran: “As for those who deny the life to come, We make their foul deeds seem fair to them, so that they blunder about in their folly.,  They shall be sternly punished and in the hereafter have much to lose” (Sura: 27:3).

The Scriptures: “I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.,  And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die” (Spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ, John 11:25-26).

The Scriptures: ¦Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.,  And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away” (Revelation 21:3-4).

The Scriptures: ¦Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him” (I Corinthians 2:9).

Muhammad’s Quran in reference to the joys of the hereafter for its devotees speaks consistently from the man’s point of view.,  Almost never is there any assurance to women respecting the hereafter.,  Here and there are a few mild references to the hereafter for Muslim women such as this reference: “Be they men or women those who embrace the faith and do what is right We will surely grant a happy life; we shall reward them according to their noblest actions” (Sura: 16:96). But note how vague is its promise!

The Place of Women

On the whole, the Quran is a book written for men and it appeals again and again to men’s prurient interests.,  For example this blunt injunction: “Women are your fields: go, then, into your fields as you please” (Sura: 2:223).,  It is obvious what Muhammad taught as the “delights” of the hereafter for his followers.

The Quran: “Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the others, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient.,  They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them.,  As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.,  Then if they obey you, take no further action against them.,  Allah is high, supreme” (Sura: 4:34ff).

The Quran: “A male shall inherit twice as much as a female” (Sura: 4:11).

The Quran: “Believers, you have an enemy in your wives and children: beware of them” (Sura: 64:14).

The Quran: “If you fear you cannot treat orphans ["Orphan girls"- footnote] with fairness, then you may marry other women who seem good to you; two, three, or four of them” (Sura: 4:3).,  This sura goes on to permit the marrying of “any slave girls you may own.”

The Scriptures: “ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life” (I Peter 3:7).

The Scriptures: “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it”¦so ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself” (Ephesians 5:25,28).

The Scriptures: “Let the husband render unto the wife her due; and likewise also, the wife unto the husband” (I Corinthians 7:3).,  It is important to note that in every context in the New Testament where husbands and wives are mentioned, monogamy is the standard.

God tolerated the sin of polygamy among Old Testament believers despite its heartbreaking consequences which those Scriptures dutifully record, sometimes in painful detail.,  It is worth noting that though Muhammad had access to both the Old and New Testaments, he patterned his own lifestyle against the monogamy of the New Testament marrying at least twenty-two women, one “woman” at the age of nine years!

The Lord Jesus clearly taught that the biblical ideal and proper life for men and women on this earth is one man and one woman for life.,  The easy divorce trumpeted throughout the Quran is also,  sharply contradicted by our Lord’s teaching, for example in Mark chapter 10:1-12.,  The sins of both multiple wives and divorce of the wife are there, as well as elsewhere, condemned.

The preoccupation of Muhammad’s Quran with acquiring multiple wives, ruling and divorcing them and focusing upon sexual appetites, creates a carnal atmosphere quite in contrast to the basic biblical purpose of sexual union and monogamy so clearly expressed in the Scriptures. The critical nature of the family unit, as a building block of society as taught by the Apostle Paul and elsewhere in Scripture, is a glaring and foreign concept to the Quran.

Conclusion

It is entirely possible to place the Quran side by side with the Scriptures and to find it wanting with respect to the Trinity, the regeneration of sinners, miracles, fulfilled prophecy and the host of other doctrines essential to the purpose of man upon earth and God’s plan of redemption.

Primarily, however, the fatal flaw of Muhammad’s Quran is that it is the product originating from the hand of a mere sinner who created a pagan religion attractive to the fallen appetites and warring propensities of lost human beings.,  That religion was foisted upon the world in the seventh century and its phenomenal growth stands as a testament not to truth but to a mixture of truth (borrowed and corrupted from the Scriptures) and Satanic error. Its devotees are driven not by a love for fallen humanity so singularly exemplified by our Savior, but by the hatred of the Jews, the Christians, “the people of the Book,” as Muhammad referred to us.

And what about this core question: “What is the Quran’s plan of salvation?” The answer is a startling one: “The Quran does not portray any “˜plan of salvation’” As shocking as this may seem, it is true.,  As we have shown above, there is a constant appeal for good works. There is the condemnation of “unbelievers,” a buzz word for all those outside the realm of Islam.,  But the Quran is simply devoid of either a path to salvation or the assurance that one is on it.,  This is a grievous and eternally fatal shortcoming in the religion of Muhammad.

It is high time the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ faced squarely the fact that we must stand without apology for the eternal truths of Scripture and renew our best effort to present them to a lost and dying world.,  If we do not, I am afraid the answer to the question of our Savior, recorded in Luke 18:8, may be recorded in the negative: “When the Son of man comes, will he find the faith upon the earth?”

To every Christian I appeal.,  Let us redouble our efforts to stand for the mighty Christ who yet holds out His offer of salvation to all the lost of this world so helplessly trapped in the quagmire of their own sins as you and I once were in ours.,  Dear Lord Jesus, make it so, I pray.,  Amen.

A Final Word To Muslims, The Followers of Muhammad

Nothing in this small paper should be interpreted by anyone as hatred or even dislike for the followers of Muhammad.,  Every Christian, including the one writing these words, is commanded to love others.,  Love for others, regardless of who they are or what they have done, is the Bible norm for every Christian.

Should someone, a Muslim, or someone sympathetic to Muhammad, read these words, please, allow me to reach out to you.,  Jesus Christ,,  God’s Son, the One who died for the sins of the whole word, loves you.

The Quran knows nothing of the debt of sin for which Christ paid on the Cross when He died there for you and me.,  The Bible speaks clearly and often of this fact:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:16-18).

To anyone reading these lines from this simple attempt to describe and fairly analyze Muhammad’s Quran, please let me burden you with your need to open your life to the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Receive Him as your own personal Savior from sin, as I did many years ago to my everlasting satisfaction. Call out to Him in prayer to make Him your Lord and Master.

On April 3, 2008, the State of Texas raided the compound of the Fundamental Church of Latter Day Saints near Eldorado. Child Protective Services (CPS) with a signed warrant was the authority for the raid.

Local authorities claimed that they had suspected the ranch called “Yearning For Zion” was actually a polygamous community operating in violation of Texas law. The local sheriff was interviewed on television and indicated that he had an “inside person” giving him information about the group. He denied that the person was actually a member of the group, however.

The basis for seeking authority for a raid by the CPS was the claim that a sixteen-year-old girl had made a frantic call to an aid agency, identifying herself as in a captive marriage to a fifty-year-old man who was abusing her and by whom she had borne a child.

It has since been discovered that the phone call was traced to Colorado Springs, Colorado to the apartment of a young woman who had a history of making false reports to police. The young woman is said to have had a twelve-month prison term pending at the time the call was made.

The Texas State authorities were reportedly shocked at the large number of persons they discovered in the compound. They had estimated the number of children they were intending to rescue from sexual and other abuse at about 100. Instead, about 400 children were living there in all age ranges.

Now, one month later, about 437 children have been placed in state foster care. Over the weeks since the raid the number of persons in state custody has continually changed in that the state has reclassified some of the older teenage girls as “children.” In one case a young woman so classified has given birth to a baby.

The action of the State of Texas raises numerous questions for Bible-believing Christians who are concerned about their children with regard to state control. It is too early in the development of this occurrence to know all the ramifications for those of us who cherish both our children and our Christian freedoms but some issues need to be addressed even at this early stage. There are several issues vital to the interests of our country. I will deal with just four of them.

I. THE ISSUE OF DISAGREEMENT WITH THIS LATTER-DAY SAINTS GROUP

First, the group that was raided is an avowed Mormon group. It identifies with Mormonism which Bible-believers regard as cultic since it adds other authorities along side the Bible which, in turn introduces a host of doctrinal errors abhorrent to Christians everywhere.

At one time Mormons in the large Utah group advocated and practiced polygamous marriage. The founder, Joseph Smith, Jr. was known to have had a minimum of twenty-seven wives. Brigham Young, who took over the movement at the death of Smith is known to have had at least fifty or sixty wives, conservatively speaking. Other authorities cite the number of wives “sealed” to both men in the hundreds! These Mormons are said to have abandoned the practice of polygamy about the time President Buchanan was ready to send troops to Utah to enforce federal law against it. In 1890 if officially abandoned polygamy.

In the most adamant terms it needs to be said that Bible-believers absolutely reject the teaching or practice of polygamy in any and all its disgusting forms. This paper is certainly not intended to protect or excuse this group or any group from such horrendous sin before a holy God.

In addition, it has been alleged that the Texas Mormon group has been abusing young girls by pushing them into marriage while still in their mid-teens, often with men far beyond the girls ages. It is further alleged that the young men are being raised in an environment that fosters “male domination” and sexual predatory conduct. Again, if such is the case, the Bible Christian absolutely rejects such practices in the firmest of terms. True Christianity aims for the highest standards of personal conduct and respect for all men, women, boys and girls. Let this be underscored. No approval of this group, or any groups anti-biblical teachings is implied by anything further written in this paper!

II. THE ISSUE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the Congress (and hence all branches of government) from “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. In other words. freedom to believe and carry out ones faith or to refrain from doing so is an absolutely private matter safeguarded to the preferences of each citizen. This right is so sacred as to have led the “parade” of amendments to the Constitution, called the “Bill of Rights” that was ratified and made a part of the Constitution on December 15, 1791.

Granted, this right must needs be balanced with the prohibitions of criminal law which preclude anyone from flaunting such laws in order to exercise his or her “religious freedom.” In cases where criminality or insanity are at the heart of so-called “religious freedom,” it should be understood by all citizens that religious rights do not eclipse the rights of others.

This would mean, in the setting before us, that the “Fundamental Mormons” there in Texas, are not free to break the law with impunity, such as is alleged to be happening. It would further mean that the various agencies of the government do have responsibility in upholding the laws of Texas and of the United States just as they would in any other case of wrongdoing. Religious freedom is crucial to a free people. But, of course, the protection of citizens is equally important. When the exercise of religious freedom becomes an abuse to someone elses freedom and wellbeing, the state does have an obligation. The Bible teaches that the “higher powers” [government authorities] are the “minister of God” for good (Romans 13:1-4).

On the other hand, regardless of how outrageous the various teachings of any group seem to be, it is still true that such beliefs are to be safeguarded to those devotees. Regardless of how much from the mainstream of modern society a religious people seem to deviate, that in and of itself is no justification whatsoever for attacking, thwarting or abridging the rights of such persons or groups. The right of a cultist to teach error is protected by law in our country. My right to teach the Bible is also protected by the same laws. We cannot have one without the other.

When Adolph Hitler began provoking, attacking and subjugating small groups of people in Europe in the 1930s, it raised little serious attention at first. Even brazen and merciless attacks upon Jewish people did not arouse many to action. Only after it became clear that this madman was intent upon ruling the world were his intentions seen as the destruction of everyones freedoms. By that time persuasion of words had to be replaced with a call to arms.

Much of my observation of the “news” regarding this raid and the people at its center has been to see and listen to outrage against these Mormons for what is being said of them by people on the outside. Critics of them dominate the news. Coverage of their defense counsel, on the other hand, has been sketchy at best.

What little television footage has been made available inside the compound (referred to by critics of the Mormons as a “fort) has portrayed modern clean and humble quarters where the children in question have been living. Interviews television reporters have made with a few of the mothers have registered in my mind the agony these parents must be experiencing at the sudden loss of their offspring. As a father of four, the very thought of having any one of them torn from my arms to face an uncertain future in the hands of people who neither understand them nor hold a parents affection for them is terrifying.

The excuse the CPS has publicly given for taking all the children, even down to toddlers less than two years old, is to avoid the possibility that the children would “be coached to protect their parents.” And what is the implication in this remark? It is altogether obvious: the CPS personnel will be subjecting them to its own brand of interrogation instead. And all this because a group dared to practice a religion out of the mainstream of modern acceptability.

Both my wife and I practiced Christian schooling for our youngest two children because the corruption we saw and knew in the public schools to which our children would otherwise attend was an unacceptable breach of our Christian principles. We decided to go to jail, if necessary, to protect our religious freedom. We, being educators, were not in opposition to others, Christian or not, who did not choose our path. We honored the attempts of other Christians who stayed in public education with their offspring to give them an “accredited education.” Nevertheless, I left public education to administer a Christian school where both my wife and I taught. We did not seek to be law-breakers but our God-given religious freedom dictated to us the necessity to follow what we believed in our hearts to be the best for our children. Do these Mormons have the same right that my wife and I and many other Christian parents exercised? Do they have the same rights as you? Or are they inferior citizens?

III. THE ISSUE OF PROBABLE CAUSE

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to our Constitution reads in part as follows: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The Fourth Amendment, coupled with the above, form a bastion of freedom guaranteed to every citizen. Note the powerful wording of this amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”

So, what of “probable cause” with respect to the Fundament Mormons? Well, there was the supposed “frantic telephone call from the sixteen-year-old girl.” But a number of sources have alleged that the authorities had already traced this phone call to Colorado, not to the inside of the Mormon compound hundreds of miles away, and had done do before launching the raid. If this is the case, probable cause would have to have hinged upon something else. At this point, numerous complaints have been lodged challenging the propriety of this phone call to establish probable cause. To date no probable cause has been brought forth. Therefore, there may have been no probable cause. This is a very sobering thought for Christian people who find themselves out of step with the value system of the lost world around us that is far from Christ.

Could it be that someday, maybe not that far away, you or someone you know may fall victim to a rumor that will eventuate in a raid upon your home or church? It looks as though it has happened in Texas. It may happen anywhere.

IV. THE ISSUE OF PARENTAL RIGHTS

To whom do your children belong? In recent years numerous laws have been passed that have impacted the influence parents may exercise over their children. Numerous attempts have been made to deny parents the right and responsibility of exercising corporal discipline over their children. Now the laws dictate which seats in YOUR vehicle your children can ride in. Laws dictate the necessity of immunizations for your children. Laws dictate to teachers, counselors and clergymen a mandate to report even the suspicion of any form of child abuse. In numerous places children are subjected to sex education without parental permission. On and on it goes.

Probably a case can be made for the supposed protections the above-mentioned laws may afford for children. But, is it not possible that by these the stage is being set for a whole host of “child protection laws” that will leave parents at the mercy of the State with regard to raising their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord? Am I overdrawing the danger here. I think not.

What if the day comes when teaching ones child about the reality of Hell becomes looked upon as “child abuse”? What if the day comes when insisting that your minor child attend church with you becomes “abusive”? What if the day comes when your neighbor picks up the phone and reports you to “Child Protective Services” because he saw you give a few paddle strokes to your childs behind? For the person who says, “It can never happen” I respond that it already has. The children in Texas were torn from their mothers arms “for the good of the child.” I wonder how many of those terrified children taken away April 3rd this year believe what is being done to them is “for their own good.” Who decides what is in the childs best interest?

The Bible says the children of ones youth are as arrows in the hand of a mighty man. The Bible says parents are to train up their children. The Bible says that at the knee of the parent the child is to learn the holy Scriptures which are able to make him or her wise unto salvation. The Bible says that the one offending one of these little children which “believe in me [Jesus]“. ought better to be drown in the depth of the sea. The Bible says that ones children are the heritage of the Lord. That is very strong language. What a strange paradox that a mother can legally decide to slay the baby in her womb but cannot even keep the baby only two years outside her womb if the State claims custody. Is there danger over the custody of children in this country when a parents religion or cultural preferences conflict with the majority of the “experts” in child-rearing? From where I sit I see grave danger.

Conclusion

So does the State of Texas have no responsibility when it comes to investigating these reports of suspected abuse of children at the Mormon ranch? Of course, it has responsibility. Authorities in the greatest country in history have the collective means to monitor and investigate any matter that seems to be illegal. By following the law, the State of Texas could have continued investigating this matter if it so chose. If polygamy laws have been broken the men, not the children, ought to be the object of the authorities concern. We are a nation of laws, none of which include subterfuge as a means of fulfilling a governments legal obligations.

In 1972 the Supreme Court case Miranda versus Arizona established that every American has the right to the presence of an attorney when questioned by authorities and may exercise the right to remain silent to avoid self-incrimination. Not a few criminals have escaped prosecution because some law enforcement person forgot to “read him his rights.” One wonders what rights the 437 children of these Mormons were apprised of just before they were subjected to the interrogations that were intended to incriminate, perhaps damn, their parents.

How very vigilant we must be to protect our children, our rights and our country from would-be mere human “saviors” whose motives may be pure or they may be something far less.

This and related articles of the Christian faith at: www.kenwalks.com

A couple of weeks ago, I preached on “The Seven Baptist Distinctives.”

Here they are, shown for you, in the event you ever wondered what a Baptist was or is.

Sometimes you may see the Baptist distinctives shown by way of an acrostic such as the beginning of the one here:

B= Born again through God’s Word

A= Accepting the Bible as God’s Word

P= Priesthood of all Believers

T= Two Ordinances, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper

You get the idea.

This is all right but the listing I have given below is better and more to the point.

Before I show you the list of Baptist Distinctives together with Scripture references, let me say that throughout history there have been churches which have held to some or even all of the seven convictions I am listing, but not all that many. Baptists are not the only ones who “have it right” and we understand that. Nevertheless, Baptist believers have suffered much to defend these Bible principles. Many have died for them. Here they are:

1. SALVATION BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH IN CHRIST

Ep 2:8-9; Ga 2:16

2. THE BIBLE THE ONLY RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE

II Tm 3:16-17; Mt 5:17-18

3. BELIEVER’S BAPTISM

Ac 2:41; Ac 16:14-15; Ac 16:32-34

4. A REGENERATE CHURCH MEMBERSHIP

Ac 2:47; Ro 16:3

5. THE PRIESTHOOD OF EVERY BELIEVER

I Pe 2:9; Re 1:6; I Tm 1:5

6. SOUL LIBERTY (Sometimes called freedom of religion)

Ac 5:29; Ac 15:36-41

7. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

Lk 20:25; Ro 13:1-7; I Pe 2:13-14

CHU-19

Psalm 119:89 says: “Forever, O Lord, Your word is settled in heaven.” (NASB)
II Timothy 3:16 says: “All Scripture is inspired by God…” (NASB)

At the beginning of this twenty-first century the cock-sure ignorance of modern man has touched the subject of the content of Scripture in a number of ways with the result that now the formerly settled identity of Scripture is itself under fire.

Always, in my ministry, we have made Bibles available to boys and girls as a reward for reciting the names of the Bible books in order from Genesis to Revelation. Forty-five years ago, at the beginning of my ministry, I never dreamed that anyone would ever question whether or not these books themselves would come under question as belonging in the Bible and that to the exclusion of all others.

Alas, now a movement seems to be under way to subvert the confidence of Christian people as to what is truly the full Bible and what is not.

This subject necessarily involves a concept about which the Christian public seldom hears discussion or even gives attention. I refer to the word “canon.”

The word is “canon”, not “cannon” which would be the word if we were discussing an army field gun. Every Christian, in our day, needs to know the truth about the canon of Scripture, spelled c-a-n-o-n.

I. WHAT IS THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE?

To define the word “canon,” we turn to Galatians 6:14-16 where Paul is talking about the critical importance of the cross of Christ in the life of believers as more important than circumcision, that is, being a “new creation” in Christ. In verse 16 he says: “Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule…” The word “rule” here is the Greek word “kanon.” In Greek it is pronounced “canOWN.”

The only other place where canon is used in the New Testament is in II Corinthians 10:13,15 and 16 where it translates roughly “measure,” as in the noun form.

The Greek Old Testament [LXX] uses kanon to translate the Hebrew word “koneh” which means “rule” or “rigid rule” (Micah 7:4).

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, defines canon as “an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture.” This, being only one usage of canon described by Webster, doesn’t quite hit the nail on the head. The canon is that set of books and only that set of books that has survived the scrutiny of God’s people as to what writings comprise Holy Scripture. That is, only these “measure up” to being Scripture, God’s Word in written form.

II. PRESENT DANGER TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE CANON

I, personally, am not as concerned with the Old Testament canon, at this point, so my focus here is with regard to the canon of the New Testament. The subject of the Old Testament canon involves Judaism as well as Christianity for which a formidable apologetic could be mounted involving history, the transmission of Scripture and other arguments that safeguard these Scriptures. What I see is a subtle and sinister disregard for the more recent history of the Christian church as regards the New Testament canon.

We must face the obvious fact that modern Americans are woefully ignorant as to the content of Scripture. They are even worse off when it comes to a proper understanding of those writings.

Just before the turn of the twentieth century and since then, modern thinking Christians have become concerned with the effectiveness of existing English translations of the Bible. Varying opinions among scholars as to the pertinence of the many existing Greek manuscripts and variations among them were making it apparent that the older English translations were not the best representatives of the New Testament. More recently, change within the English language, coupled with poor performance among school children and young people in learning to read and grasp older established forms of English are making it difficult to understand the Elizabethan English so ably and beautifully portrayed in the King James version of the Bible.

Enter Bible scholars with a burden to correct this disparity between the all-important message of Scripture and the people’s ability to read and comprehend it. Some of the newer attempts at translating the Bible into modern English were only modestly successful. Finally, in 1973 the New International Version, primarily a product of Christian Reformed scholars, was published. This translation is now best represented in the 1984 edition. Though it is only a translation from the original Greek, like all English versions of the Bible, yet it now outsells every other. This and other worthwhile modern English Bible versions have adequately addressed the question of the clarity of language and vocabulary to the modern English reader.

So, today, the danger to the canon of Scripture is not so much getting at the meaning as it is in knowing for certain the scope of writings which includes Scripture. A poor grasp of English and indifference to what God has given as Scripture are at least part of the problem of defending the canon of Scripture. These questions, though, are outside the parameters of this paper. We are limited, here, to a discussion of the defense of the biblical New Testament canon.

There is though, one other factor that bears upon this discussion. The fundamentalist Christian public is, at present, being utterly confused by a continuing barrage of propaganda from some preachers and a few scholars to the effect that any and every modern language translation is not to be used because they represent corruptions of the text. Virtually every form of argument is employed against the newer translations, holding out the three-hundred year old King James as the only acceptable version of the Bible for the modern reader.

While disdain for modern Bible translations is not directly related to the problem of the canon of Scripture, the overall weight of contention does, I think, serve to discourage those who would otherwise be attracted to Scripture. I view it as one more tool in Satan’s arsenal of weaponry to discourage a proper understanding of Scripture. And, finally, while our “King James only” friends would not differ with us as to the content of the New Testament canon, some of them do hold to a novel notion of what preservation of Scripture is, and this confuses the issue unnecessarily.

Therefore, on the one hand, we have those who do not read Scripture or who find it too difficult. These could, I think in many cases, find themselves substituting non-biblical writings for Scripture, thus diluting and distorting the Word of God. On the other hand we have those whose allegiance to Scripture is not in question. But, their narrow reasoning that only their translation is acceptable serves to give the impression that the whole argument is about antiquity that has no bearing upon or relevance to modern life or God’s dealings within it. Little wonder, therefore, that postmodernism is having a field day with young minds, teaching, as it does, that there are no absolutes over which to be concerned. Hence: “One old-fashion idea is as good as another.”

III. PRESENT EROSION OF THE FINALITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

The popular American mind hankers for change. The Bible makes clear that God’s ways are not our ways and God’s thoughts are not our thoughts. God’s truth involves spiritual discernment. That discernment is available only to the person who surrenders to Christ and places himself or herself under the tutelage of God’s Holy Spirit.

Under this definition, therefore, many, if not most, will not appreciate nor accept the idea that “a book” as old as the Bible is absolute truth that ought not and must not be changed.

At Easter time this year (2006), “a great discovery” was announced. An ancient manuscript was found some years ago for which translation to English was recently completed. It is entitled The Gospel of Judas. Scholars have known of it for centuries but did not believe any copy of it existed. It is a work of second-century Gnosticism, a cultic movement that challenged orthodox Christianity. The only thing “new” about this manuscript is that, if authentic, we now have access to what was cited by the second-century church father, Irenaeus, as heresy in his important work Against All Heresies. Judas is portrayed in the book as a friend rather than a traitor of Christ.

Reaction to the appearance of this manuscript translation was swift. “Why didn’t this ‘gospel’ make the cut and be included in the Bible?” In response to this question one “scholar” remarked that it was because of one man’s pronouncement against it that it was rejected. No doubt, he was referring to Irenaeus. This is an outrageous misrepresentation of how the canon of Scripture came to be.

Hard on the heels of this “Gospel of Judas” has been the appearance of the movie based on the book The Da Vinci Code, a novel by Dan Brown. In the novel a supposed code transmitted through Da Vinci’s painting of the Last Supper leads to uncovering a hidden “truth” that Christ was married to Mary Magdalene and sired a child with her. Christians of all persuasions have expressed outrage over its appearance. Some foreign governments are seeking a boycott of the movie. Some think the Roman Catholic Church may file a lawsuit over its portrayal of the church and Christ.

U.S. News and World Report for May 22, 2006 reported in its cover story: “The secrets and lies perpetuated by the church, according to The Da Vinci Code characters, were transmitted through the least reliable of sources: the New Testament. [Dan] Brown’s British historian, Leigh Teabing, asserts midway through the book that ‘more than 80 gospels were considered for the New Testament’, but Constantine selected only four.” The article continues with a rebuttal by Christian spokesmen that the canon of Scripture was still under discussion by Christian scholars as late as 400 A.D. well after the time of Constantine. Conclusion: Constantine had nothing to do with the establishment of the canon.

Will a gullible public conclude, though, that these “fine points” of scholarship are merely “church politics” and that Jesus was just a man like the rest of us and that the Bible is merely an old book without special relevance to modern man? I think that, in too many cases, that will happen.

IV. THE FOREVER-COMPLETED NEW TESTAMENT CANON

The real truth is that, with respect to the New Testament, it came directly given by God’s Holy Spirit through human writers and that the writings established themselves in the hearts of men as the very Word of God. However, the process that caused this is not a simple story.

For about twenty years following the Resurrection of Christ, the only Bible the Christian church possessed was the Old Testament. After the pattern of the synagogue, the services of the New Testament included Scripture readings. “Until I come give attention to the public reading of Scripture” (I Timothy 4:13, NASB). Paul, in writing this, was referring to the Old Testament. We have no record that the apostles realized their writings would be recognized as Scripture. B. B. Warfield, though, a much respected Christian scholar of the nineteenth century, believed there is ample evidence that the New Testament writers did, indeed, know that what they were writing was Scripture. In any case, they knew they had authority that God had given them.

It is not surprising that Paul expected that his letters would be circulated within the churches. In I Thessalonians 5:27 he says: “I adjure you by the Lord to have this letter read to all the brethren.” Of the Colossian letter Paul wrote (Cl 4:16) “When this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans, and you, for your part, read my letter that is coming from Laodicea.”

It is clear that as the writings of the apostles made their way through the churches that their divine authority was coming to be recognized. Peter, in reference to Paul, concedes that Paul’s writings were, in some cases “hard to understand.” Then he says: “the untaught and the unstable distort [them] as they do also the rest of the Scriptures…” (II Pe 3:16).

As with Peter’s citation of Paul’s writings above, it seems Paul quoted Luke 10:7 in I Timothy 5:18 along with Deuteronomy 25:4, making no distinction between them but citing them both as “Scripture.”

The relative sparsity of support within the New Testament, arguing for its position as Scripture is actually a point in its favor. In other words, the New Testament writings do not defend themselves. They present themselves.

This is precisely what one would expect in light of the fact that the New Testament writers addressed their writings to various places within the biblical world. Peter wrote to “the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia,” etc. Paul wrote to “the church of the Thessalonians, the church in Corinth,” etc. John wrote to the “seven churches in the province of Asia.” That these writings would be collected, circulated other places, and copied would be the most natural thing we would expect and all the more as the Christians began to face persecution first as a cultic movement within Judaism and then as an upstart religious movement in its own right.

As these apostles died off or were killed the import of the writings they left behind would have been become readily apparent to the young church. It is believed that hundreds, even thousands of copies of the various letters were made. As evangelistic pursuits and persecution served to scatter the early disciples, precious hand-written copies of these manuscripts would go with them. It is also believed that the codex, what we would call “a hand-written book” may have been widely used among early Christians as a much simpler and less expensive means of conveying the New Testament writings.

By way of a time frame for the establishment of finality to the New Testament we should summarize here. Many heretical writings began to circulate along with what we now know to be the canonical writings. False views of Christ, His person and work, writings falsely attributed to the various Apostles and other spurious writings all threatened the orthodoxy of the young church. The need for permanent authoritative writings of the faith was becoming abundantly clear.

By the end of the first century all the books of the New Testament had been written and their authors were deceased. The writings of the earliest church fathers during this time contain many quotations that make it clear that they knew the truths we now know are in the New Testament books.

By 170 A.D. the church father Tatian had formed the Diatessaron, a harmony of the gospels with precisely the four gospels we now have. During the years 170-220 A.D. huge amounts of writing took place based upon the New Testament writings. About this period the International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (ISBE) says: “In passing into it [this period of the church's history] we come into the clear light of Christian history. There is no longer any question as to a NT canon; the only difference of judgment is as to its extent.”

The third and fourth centuries saw slow movement toward the adoption of a “canon ”
of Scripture as such, though the term was not then used. During this period the church was under heavy persecution and copies of the various books, when discovered, were consigned to the flames. Christians and their leaders were often hunted down, tortured and killed.

Five of the 27 canonical books found slow reception: James, Jude, II Peter, II John and the Revelation. It is thought that the smaller books had not seen especially wide circulation and were relatively unknown. The Revelation was scrutinized very carefully and parts of the church did not accept it until much later. However, by the last half of the fourth century the finality of the New Testament canon was firmly established.

It is greatly significant that no synod or church council ever passed upon the canon itself. The primary moving factor in it all came down to a few tests that Christian people applied for themselves in deciding what was Scripture and what was not: 1) Apostolicity- was the book written by an apostle or did it have such a relationship to an apostle? 2) Content- were the contents of such a spiritual character as to entitle them to the rank of canonicity? 3) Universality- was the book universally received in the church? 4) Inspiration- did the book give evidence of being divinely inspired. (These tests are enlarged upon in Theissen’s Introduction to the New Testament.)

Conclusion

The subject of the canon of the New Testament is vitally important in our day. It is imperative that Christians realize the import of the books of our Bible called, together, the New Testament. They have been given that title because believers for many centuries have realized with an unique spiritual perception that these are the words God gave to His church for belief and practice until Christ comes for His bride.

These 27 books and only these have survived for more than twenty centuries not because some council or group of power brokers deemed it so. They survive today and assert themselves because they are the Word of God. “Heaven and earth will pass away,” our Savior said, “but my words will never pass away” (Matthew 24:35, NIV).

Stand upon it, Christian brother. Apologize not for it, believing sister. The canon of Scripture was God’s idea. Let not man put it asunder. Amen!

BIB-28, Kenneth F. Pierpont, D.Min. May 2006