Truth Magazine

By Johnny Stringer

The Old Testament forbade plowing with an ox and an ass yoked together. It also prohibited other mixtures, such as wool and linen in a garment (Deut. 22:9-11). The reasons for these regulations are not known.

Similarly, the New Testament forbids a type of mixing. For a believer to be yoked with an unbeliever is comparable to an ox being yoked with an ass; it is forbidden (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1). Unbelievers include not only those who openly deny belief in Christ, but also those whose faith is dead, not made perfect by obedience (Jas. 2:14-26). The term believer is used in the New Testament to denote those whose faith leads to obedience (Gal. 5:6; Acts 2:44; 4:32; 5:14). Believers are not to be yoked with unbelievers, but to come out and be separate (v. 17).

What This Does Not Mean

This passage does not mean that believers must not have any association or contact with unbelievers. Paul refutes such a notion in 1 Corinthians 5:9-10. Such a course would make it impossible to function as salt in the world (Matt. 5:13). We cannot properly influence those with whom we have no contact.

Some think this passage is forbidding the marriage of a believer with an unbeliever, but the marriage relationship is not under consideration. The kind of relationship spoken of in this passage is one that is to be severed (v. 17), but the marriage between a believer and an unbeliever is not to be severed (1 Cor. 7:12-13).

Some (though not all) of those who think the passage forbids marriage between believers and unbelievers have singled out marriage as the one relationship this passage forbids. But there is no reason to single out marriage. One might just as well say that the passage forbids all other relationships with unbelievers. This would mean the Christian could not be in the grocery business with an unbeliever, on a ball team with unbelievers, or in the Lion’s Club or P.T.A. with unbelievers. There is no reason to apply the passage to marriage and not to these other relationships.

The fact is, this passage does not mean that we cannot join with unbelievers in any kind of relationship. If it did, the passage would forbid marriage with unbelievers, but we have already seen that it does not. This passage is talking about the kind of relationship that is to be severed (v. 17); hence, it is not talking about marriage between a believer and an unbeliever (1 Cor. 7:12-13).

What It Does Mean

The passage means that we are not to be associated with unbelievers in their ungodly activities; we are not to join them in the evil they do. This becomes clear as we consider the five rhetorical questions Paul asks. Through these questions he demonstrates the incompatibility of the righteous ways of the believer and the unrighteous ways of the unbeliever. The two ways of life cannot be mixed.

First, he asks what fellowship exists between righteousness and unrighteousness. Obviously, none. The righteous ways of the believer are not compatible with the unrighteous ways of the unbeliever. Hence, believers cannot join unbelievers in unrighteousness. This principle does not preclude joining unbelievers in such relationships as a ball team, the P.T.A., or marriage, so long as there is no unrighteousness involved.

Second, Paul asks what communion exists between light and darkness. Light and darkness are opposites. Walking in fight, therefore, precludes joining unbelievers in their acts of darkness.

Third, the apostle asks what concord Christ has with Belial (a word denoting worthlessness, which came to be used to designate the devil). Christ and the devil have nothing in common, so we cannot follow both. Hence, believers cannot follow Christ and also join with unbelievers in following the devil.

Fourth, Paul asks what the believer has in common with the unbeliever. Obviously, in secular things unbelievers and believers may have a number of things in common. They may work at the same plant, be loyal citizens of the same country, or belong to some of the same civic organizations because of certain common goals. But in views regarding God and spiritual matters, they have nothing in common. In these matters there can be no joint participation and sharing.

Fifth, Paul asks what agreement exists between the temple of God and idols. Since believers constitute God’s spiritual temple, we can have nothing to do with the idols worshipped by unbelievers. This includes such idols as money, popularity, and pleasure. We cannot join unbelievers in serving their gods.

Caution Is Required

Clearly, Paul is discussing the principle of joining with unbelievers in their evil ways. As we associate with unbelievers, and especially as we participate with them in certain relationships, we must be extremely cautious lest we permit them to lead us into evil.

It has happened to many in the marriage relationship. A believer married to an unbeliever can be faithful, but it is more difficult. I wish every believer who marries would marry a faithful Christian. Experience has proved it to be far more likely that the unbeliever will influence the believer away from the Lord than that the believer will influence the unbeliever to serve the Lord. There are difficulties for all of us in our efforts to remain faithful, and it seems most unwise to deliberately put oneself in a relationship which will make it even harder.

There are dangers in other relationships we enter into with unbelievers. One can let an unbelieving business partner lead him into dishonesty. One can permit unbelievers on a ball team to lead him into a scheme to cheat. One can permit unbelievers in a civic club to lead him to participate in club activities that are wrong. Through social contact with unbelievers one can be led to drinking, drug abuse, lustful dancing, etc. But the greatest difficulties in remaining faithful result from marriage to an unbeliever. Beware!

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 19, pp. 579-580
October 1, 1987

By Kenneth E. Thomas

There’s something very strange to me about the preachers for the Protestant denominations around us. These men are usually college trained and/or have been seminary instructed in the Greek and English languages, and yet there are some very simple English words that seemingly very few of them understand! This problem isn’t limited to the Protestants. It is true also of the Catholic, Jewish and Eastern religions as well.

I am just a high school graduate. In fact it was by a combination of the grace of God, a girlfriend or two and a teacher who was a relative by marriage that I accomplished that. I’m sure also the fact that it was a small school and they needed me on the football, as well as basketball, team didn’t hurt any.

I have been reading quite well in the English language since grade school, and I have some aids to Bible study in the form of some books written by scholars who know the Greek and Hebrew language in which the Old and New Testaments were originally written. I also have Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary of the English Language which helps me in know how a word is used in English today. Now I must admit that at times the way a word is defined in the English dictionary, and its meaning in Scripture differ, so I must be as careful as can be to see that I stick to the biblical meaning in such cases. My point is this, why do so many denominational preachers who are so well educated misunderstand a number of simple English words that are used in the Bible? Following is a partial list of words they seem to have a great bit of difficulty with- “I, My, One, Into, For, Few, It, If, Obey, Sing, Burial, Saves You. ” I may not get around to illustrating how each of these words is misused, but I’ll try.

There are some others, but you are probably saying already that there isn’t one preacher around who isn’t able to tell a person what these words mean when asked. I suppose you are correct when it comes to the daily routine and how these words are used. But, when the above words are used in the Scriptures for some reason these preachers can’t seem to understand them. Why do you suppose that is?

I, My

First of all let’s look at the words, “I” and “My.” Jesus, God’s only begotten Son, said in Matthew 16:18, “I will build my church. ” When it comes to purely worldly matters folks know that if I, Ken Thomas should say, “I will build my house, ” that the finished product would have been built by me and no one else, and that it would be known as mine, or Ken Thomas’ house. Why the problem in understanding about the spiritual house of the Lord, who built it and the names it is to wear? Is it really a problem of understanding so much or is it a problem of accepting? You know the answer I am confident. You see religious bodies have been begun by uninspired men at different times and places than the church of our Lord Jesus Christ all without divine authority. The only one ever authorized to begin a religious entity, body, or relationship between man and himself to reconcile fallen man to God, was God’s sinless Son (Psa. 127: 1; Matt. 15:13). The price he would pay to reconcile man to God the Father in this one body was and is his own blood which is the purchase price he paid for each of us who become one of his through obeying him (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25; 1 Pet. 1: 18-19; 1 Cor. 6:19-20; Eph. 2:13-16; Acts 2:22-38,41,47).

There Is One Body, The Church

Does one only mean one when we are speaking of secular matters? Does it not mean exactly the same when written in the Scriptures? One always means one! The apostle is writing by divine inspiration when he says to the Ephesians, “. . . that He might reconcile them both (Jew and Gentile, ket) to God in one body through the cross (His blood, ket), thereby putting to death the enmity” (Eph. 2:16). The emnity in the context would be that which had existed between Jew and Gentile as well as between God and man due to man’s sin. What is the one body? The Scriptures are as plain on this as they are on the fact that man is reconciled in one body! In Colossians we read, “And He is the head of the body, the church” (Col. 1:18). Then Paul says in the same book, “. . for the sake of His body which is the church ” (Col. 1:24b). Now go with me back again to the Ephesian letter where the apostle says, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all” (Eph. 4:4-6).

Now if the body is the church, and there is one body, how many churches are there in God’s system of redemption? Does one mean one? If you answer yes, then look at the other ones in this passage! There is also one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God. Why do you suppose so many preachers can see and understand that there is one Lord and one God, but have a problem understanding that there is one faith and one baptism? Is it a problem of understanding or is it a problem of accepting? Again, I think you are smart enough to know what the problem is.

Into

Is this word difficult to understand? Not usually, but when we speak of matters of the souls of men somehow it seems just too difficult to understand! Philip taught a man concerning Jesus on the Gaza Strip and when they came to some water the man said to Philip, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” Philip said, “If you believe. . . you may . . . And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. Now when they came up out of the water. . . ” (Acts 8:34-39). Is the language too difficult to comprehend?

They didn’t go down beside the water or to the water’s edge, they went “down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch” (Acts 8:38). Do preachers for the various denominations about us know what into means? Usually they do, but when it comes to the “mode” of baptism they seemingly can’t understand the words into the water! We should also look at the word one again in connection with this action of baptism. Paul said “one baptism ” in Ephesians 4:5. So this one baptism requires a going down into as well as a coming up out of the water. Is the language too difficult for many of the preachers who teach and practice sprinkling, pouring, dabbing, etc. ? Only in religious usage is this true. What must we conclude from this? Simply that it isn’t really their inability to know the meaning of the words the Holy Spirit has used, but because their church creeds and man-made laws say such things as, “Let every adult person, and the parents of every child to be baptized, have the choice of sprinkling, pouring, or immersion” (Discipline of the Methodist Church, 1960 Edition). God says one, men say choice of three.

“For”

Reams of paper and gallons of ink have no doubt been used in writing about this word as used in Scripture. Debates have been and occasionally continue to be held where men of opposing views discuss the meaning of the word “for.” While it is true that our English word “for” has various usages sometimes meaning, “because of,” this is because there is more than one Greek word that is translated into our English word “for.” It becomes necessary therefore for the Bible student to see how a word is being used in context. Not that it is necessary to have a Greek-English lexicon to know how a word is being used you understand, but such can be of help if you have one. Look at this example of how language is employed to express an idea. Jesus said as he instituted the Lord’s Supper of the fruit of the vine, “. . . this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Who would conclude from this language Jesus used that he was to die or shed his blood because we were saved already? Probably not a one. Why then do yo suppose this simple word is so misunderstood when used in Acts 2:38? In this verse Peter answered believers’ question of what they must do to be forgiven of killing their own Savior? Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the same of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. ” Do you suppose that these 3000 Jews who “gladly received his word and were baptized that day” (Acts 2:41) thought they were being baptized because they were already saved? Certainly not! Now if you want to look it up in the lexicon you will also learn that the same Greek word is found in both passages translated into our English for which always looks forward and never backwards and means “in order to.”

“Save Us”

Do any of our denominational preacher friends have any problem with passages in the Bible which say faith “saves you”? Not to my knowledge. But for some reason they have the same problem with the two words in some context as they do withfor in Acts 2:38! Again I ask, why? Read it with me please, “. . . baptism doth also now save us” (1 Pet. 3:21). Curtis Porter was debating a Baptist preacher once and he asked him, “does the Bible say that baptism saves us?” He finally got the preacher to say, “Yes, it says that, but. . . . ” Curtis said something like this, “Now my friends you have just heard this man say he knows the Bible says baptism saves and yet he has signed his name to deny for two sessions that baptism has a thing to do with one being saved. I would not be in his shoes for all of the tea in China.” I wouldn’t either!

“Sing”

Oh boy, here’s a hard word! Sing means to play didn’t you know that? No, I didn’t know that! Neither did the scholars who translated the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament into English. Every last one of them faithfully translated the Greek words having to do with music to be used by Christians in worship as sing or its equivalent! If the original Greek word meant to play or to make music, they would have translated it so, for perhaps all of them were associated with a church using mechanical instruments of music.

“If”

Now that’s really a hard one to understand for some, yet Jesus said, “if you continue in My word, you are My disciples indeed” (John 8:3 1). But some of our “educated” religious leaders tell us doctrine is not important (see Jn. 12:48; 2 Jn. 9-11). Few is to most, relatively easy to understand but we are treated to such logic as, “you mean to tell me you think only your little bunch are possibly right on these matters and all the others numbering much greater are wrong?” Yes, that is possible since only those who honor the will of God are right (Matt. 7:13-14; 1 Pet. 2:1-2). Obey the gospel is language too difficult for most preachers nowadays. Yet it is the language of Scripture (Rom. 16:26; 2 Thess. 1:7-9; Mark 16:15-16). Obey is another word that preachers shy away from since man is supposed to be saved in their creed bound theology by faith alone. How can they possibly understand that Christ is, “the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him” (Heb. 5:9). So you see, that word is too hard for them; they are not able to understand it! Work. This word is really difficult for denominational preachers to understand. They have been misinformed to believe that if one must “do something” to be saved, it negates grace. But read Acts 2:40 and Philippians 2:12. Then turn to James 1:21-25; 2:14-26. Now honestly my friends what do you think is the problem among the rank and file of the college and seminary educated denominational preachers after a study of these things? Yes, it’s rejection, not inability to understand. (Read Eph. 5:17; 2 Tim. 2:15.)

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 18, pp. 560-561
September 17, 1987

By W. Frank Walton

Listen to the moral resolve of a spiritually-minded person: “I will set no worthless thing before my eyes ” (Psa. 101:3, NASB). To be pure, strong and godly, he will not fix his attention on base, ungodly things. Hear his prayer: “Turn away my eyes from looking at vanity” (119:37). Vanity is “all that is hallow, worthless, and trivial” (H.C. Leupold). We must closely guard our innermost thoughts and desires, for they’re the source of our character (Prov. 4:23). Evil seeks to subtly worm its way into the heart’s fortress, subverting our devotion. We become like what we choose to think about most (23:7).

What do we enjoy thinking about or watching when free to do so? To what is our heart attracted, the spiritual or the carnal (Rom. 8:6)? If our heart is corrupt, we will be corrupt, even if we go through the motions of regular church attendance or the pretense of following Jesus. What do we allow into our minds, which influences our thinking and has eternal consequences?

The Christian’s renewed, transformed mind delights in filling the mind with the pure, positive things of God. “Whatever is true . . . honorable . . . right . . . pure . . . lovely . . . of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things” (Phil. 4:8). Honestly now, where do today’s soap operas fit in here? Would you like it if I daily dumped a pile of filthy, stinking garbage in your den? Pew! But will you allow the Devil to walk into your mind with his muddy feet and dump moral garbage into your mind? I think the filthy “soaps” should be called General Horseplay, All My Illegitimate Children, The Young and the Worthless, Sins of Our Lives (or Days of Our Lies), As the Stomach Turns, Guiding Light, and One Life to Lust. When a billboard says, “Get Your Daffy Dose of Dallas,” we ought to be alerted to their addictive power. Why do Christians eat up the juicy tidbits of the darker, sinful side of human behavior, delighting in the hedonistic value system of tangled lives and ungodly enterprises? Dee Bowman observed, “We all pretty well show where our interests are by what we talk about. I am disappointed to be in the homes of Christians who know more about . . . soap operas than the work of the Lord” (Christianity Magazine, April 1985, p. 23).

The Originators And Thrust of Soaps

Who writes and produces the shows? Christians who’ll help you grow spiritually? Nope! Public Opinion (January 1983) surveyed 104 of the media’s elite, including many TV script writers and producers. It showed: 93 percent seldom or never attend religious services; 80 percent condone homosexuality; 54 percent condone adultery; 97 percent support women’s unrestricted right to abortion; 45 percent renounce any religious affiliation. “Two out of three (66 percent) believe that TV entertainment should be a major force for social reform,” the report said. “According to television’s creators, they are not in it just for the money. They also seek to move their audience toward their own vision of a good society.” Over 20 million people regularly watched soaps in 1977, which today would be even higher. The report adds, “This group has had a major role in shaping the shows whose themes and stars have become staples of our popular culture.”

In a recent UPI interview, John Conboy, producer of Capitol, proudly proclaimed, “The male viewer has come out of the closet. . . . Kids also are avid soap opera buffs.” The reporter noted Conboy “doesn’t mind using sex in his stories” and that “it’s love that makes the world go ’round and the ratings 90 up.'” One survey found soaps average two sex acts per hour and over 90 percent of them are between unmarried people. The Bible calls it fornication and condemns it to hell because God hates it. Should a Christian enjoy feasting his eyes on what God hates (Prov. 8:13)? A local TV show, PM Magazine, interviewed some soap stars who said, “hopping in and out of bed all the time – it’s downright racy! While not X-rated, its definitely not kiddy hour.”

Soap Opera Digest chronicles the lurid stories of wretched lives, divorce, deceit, ad nauseam. The cover of the June 2, 1987 issue has this titillating come-on: “Murder, Lust, and Love on the Run. . . Preview of the Summer’s Hottest Stories! In the March 11, 1986 issue, the inside back cover has this typical quote: “Adultery is commonplace on soap operas, but our special section, ‘TV’s Most Surprising Adulterers,’ features the most shocking cheaters!” How about this alluring tease about The Colby’s.- “Tracy [Scoggins] and co-star Phillip Brown (Neil Kittridge) steam up the COLBY’S set with their too hot love scenes” (p. 129). A synopsis of General Hospital informs us, “Alan wants to make a weekly appointment for sex…. After two sips of brandy, she heads to his bedroom. The aroused Donely follows. The phrase ‘Smoking in Bed’ acquires new meaning as they drive the mercury through the thermometer” (p. 60).

Do we make heroes and idols out of soap stars? They’re good-looking, well-dressed, suave, lead exciting lives, have plenty of money and the “good life.” Yet these “beautiful people” never need God and seem to lead a fulfilling life without priority placed on the Spirit. Those models of “success” are the opposite of what. a Christian should admire. The above issue of Soap Opera igest had an interview with Shannon Tweed who plays Savannah Wilder on Days of Our Lives. What kind of role model is she? She was a Playboy centerfold and Hugh Hefner’s “lover.” She said if she wanted a baby, she didn’t care if she had it out of wedlock. She wasn’t at all embarrassed posing nude or autographing her centerfold because she only did it for the money (pp. 9-11). Ruth Warrick (Phobebe Wallingford, All My Children) said, “I think sex is glorious…. I probably might have been a quote-unquote bad girl” (p. 127). “I’m so grateful to God, the spirit, whatever you call it that created this incredible playpen for us” (p. 138). How can Christians idolize such godless, irreverent actors?

Critics Other Than “Rabid” Preachers

If soaps are your “sacred cow,” you might think I’ve an ax to grind or this is mere “preacher talk.” But in The National Review (July 26, 1985), Aram Bakshian Jr. wrote “Soap and Sympathy.” He said soaps are a “reliable guide to popular contemporary morals” featuring weekly outbreaks of love, lust, larceny, adultery, deceit, passion, voyeurism and greed such as on ” The Young and the Restless … given the amount of partial nudity it indulges in, might better be called The Young and the7Dressless” (p. 51). He observes “soaps have replaced clan and community gossip. What Cluppies once saw through the keyhole they now see on the TV screen.” He thinks the stories are “trite, tasteless and predictable. . . . Most inmates of contemporary Soapland still make love the old-fashioned way, result being frequent pregnancies, and tangled ones at that. . . . In such a topsy-turvy world, it is a truly wise child that knows its own father.”

He quotes William Raspberry’s observations from the Washington Post. “Since housewives, children, and nitwits are bound to watch rubbishy television of one sort or another anyway, . . . the soaps may be the rubbish of preferences.” Mr. Raspberry believes soaps are filled with “pervasive immorality and too-explicit sex.” In an editorial, Jonathan Yardley of the Washington Post chides parental neglect when their “kiddies came home from school and, with milk and cookies in hand, gazed their way through soap operas not much less explicit than what was once shown in movies thought to be scandalously ‘blue.”‘ Will a Christian be addicted to what is a reflection of modem, ungodly morals, described as “rubbish” featuring “pervasive immorality”?

Elizabeth Joneway wrote “Soaps, Cynicism, and Mind Control” in Ms. (Jan. 1985). She admits “the powerful teaching tool of television” influences our character. She deplored “the lack of any sense … that events have consequences, and that people can and do influence what happens to them and to others. What I saw . . . was a consistent, insistent demonstration of randomness, a statement that life is unpredictable and out of control . . . no one, friend, kin, or lover, is really trustworthy” (p. 118). The Bible teaches we can take full responsibility for our lives. Do you justify their sinful behavior by situation ethics? We rationalize: “Poor Susie has had such a hard life. Chad, her no-good, rotten husband, is so mean and stingy. She deserved that romantic one night stand with Hugo. I’m glad Hugo punched Chad’s lights out when he caught them in bed, after blabbermouth Blanche told him about the affair. Anyway, Chad’s running around with that low-life Dixie, so it serves him right. But I hope Susie doesn’t get too attached to Hugo, since he’s a drug addict, psychopathic killer and now thinking about a sex-change operation. Really, Kyle is just right for Susie. She nursed him back to health at Lonely Hearts Hospital, after he fell out of that 20-story building escaping the police when he smuggled heroin for the Maria. When their eyes met, it was true love! All Kyle has to do is divorce his two wives, Rachel in Slitherville and Ginger in Slimetown. Kyle and Susie will live happily ever after for at least a week, or until they find someone else better.” What a heart-rending scenario!

But Wait, There’s More!

I believe soaps can desensitize us to sin, blurring the boundary of right and wrong. It can warp our priorities and distort our value system and moral standards. Tania Modleski in Loving With A Vengence.- Mass-Produced Fantasiesfor Women terms soaps as “liberal” in portraying life. “And in soap operas what concerned us was … the way it necessarily deviated from the norm in order to appear fulfilling” (p. 112). The soaps alter perception with illusions of reality. “Soap operas invite identification with numerous personalities” (p. 88) and “encourage women to become involved in – ‘connected to’ the lives of the people on the screen” (p. 99).

Since the stories of doom, gloom, tragedy and trauma never end, “the spectator, frustrated by the sense of powerlessness induced by soap operas, will . . . try to control events directly: thousands and thousands of letters [from soap fans to actors] give advice, wam the heroine of impending doom, caution the innocent to beware of nasties (“Can’t you see that your brotherin-law is up to no good?”‘), inform one character of another’s doings, or reprimand a character for unseemly behavior” (p. 91). This “consequent blurring of the boundaries between fantasy and life” is called “psychological fusion” (p. 99). Soaps can grab you, occupy your interests and play with your emotions. The soaps present the typical family as “always in the process of breaking down … it is perpetually in a chaotic state” as “misery becomes . . . the very means of its functioning and perpetuation” (p. 90). Most characters are in trouble, heading for trouble or asking for trouble. This is what addicts folks.

Attitudes of morality, based on Scripture, can be weakened. She says the soaps appeal “to the spectator to be understanding and tolerant of the many evils which go on within that family. . . . As a rule, only those issues which can be tolerated and ultimately pardoned are introduced” such as “abortions, premarital and extra-marital sex, alcoholism, divorce, mental and even physical cruelty” (p. 93). There’s a sordid cycle of people “always getting blackmailed” or “conducting extra-marital affairs” (p. 106).

As an “escapist” form of mass art, it can “offer the image of ‘something better’ to escape into, or something we want deeply that our day-today lives don’t provide. This is the utopian function of entertainment” (p. 112). Such romantic stories can make wives unsatisfied with their present marriage. Soaps can be an outlet for suppressed desires, which are titillating but forbidden as sin. Media professor R. C. Allen observes, “The soap opera becomes the prime example of ‘giving the audience what it wants'” (Speaking of Soap Operas, p. 177). He also says, “The longer the soap opera can maintain the interest of a reader whose own value system is at some distance from that of the implicit central norms of the text, the more likely it is that the reader will tolerate aspects of the text she or he finds . . . insulting” (p. 175). Soaps arouse fleshly desires, directly contradicting God’s standard of holiness. Soaps insult the Christian’s way of life by glamorizing sin. Do you watch soaps because you find what they’re doing exciting, but don’t do it yourself because you could go to hell for it? Do you want to be like the soap opera stars or more like Jesus? Flights of fantasy can only ignite a strong desire for the forbidden fruit of sin.

Guard Your Heart (Prov. 4:23)

The Bible calls us to “say ‘No’ to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age” (Tit. 2:12, NIV). How can you say “no” to worldly desires with your eyes glued to the TV, showing the advertised “hot passion” of a “romp in the sack,” as they flop around in beds of fornication? Some might be more interested in following the soap’s tantalizing plot than studying about the wonderful, life-changing story of the Bible. Where’s the real priority if one delights in and can recite the details of illicit affairs, power plays, deception and hedonistic lifestyles, yet doesn’t hunger daily for the nourishing word of God? “Set your mind on things above, not on the things that are on the earth” (Col. 3:2). Why would one who is looking for that blessed hope want to habitually look at ungodly behavior God abhors and damns to hell? Faithfully watching soaps spoil the appetite of spiritual growth, dividing our interests. It dulls the desire for meditation upon Jesus and heavenly things. Are you pitching your tent toward Sodom?

Are we naive about the influence of soaps? “Foolishness” (Mk. 7:22) defiles our stupidity. ” It is lacking spiritual discernment or being unable to see the long-term consequence of present habits. We shall reap in our character as we have sown in our hearts (Gal. 6:7-9). We’ve “escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust” (2 Pet. 1:4). We shouldn’t have an avid appetite for the filthy refuse of this rotting evil age.

What are you feeding your mind? “Purify your hearts, you double-minded” (Jas. 4:8). We must be decisively single-minded. “But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lust” (Rom. 13:14). We can’t afford in the war against the flesh (I Pet. 2:11), to have a “fudge factor” to tolerate a little sinful desire. Do we think we can just go window shopping for sin? “Each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust” (Jas. 1:14). Soaps can entice and draw out carnal cravings, to attract you to sin’s baited trap. Soaps can subtly seduce you to gradually condone, in certain circumstances, lying, lust, divorce, fornication, etc. The Devil tries to inflame the craving of desire.

The Best Choice

“And the world is passing away, and also its lust; but the one who does the will of God abides forever” (1 Jn. 2:17). Soap operas reflect the glitter of this transient age. We need to focus our attention with a renewed mind to walking in newness of life. Develop a greater appetite for the life-giving, dynamic word (Matt. 4:4). Exercise yourself unto godliness, by seeing the blessings in Christ and the benefits of serving God. Every day is made for the Judgment Day. One day this world and all things therein will be burned up! God is trying to get us ready now to spend eternity with Him in heaven’s bliss. Soaps will hinder you in life’s greatest purpose. Be honest with yourself and think about the evidence presented. “Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness. But according to His promise we are looking for a new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. Therefore beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless” (2 Pet. 3:11,13-14). Will you turn away your eyes from looking at vanity so you can look unto Jesus and to realms above? You’ll be glad you did.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 18, pp. 564-566
September 17, 1987

By Mike Willis

The morning paper announced that the Indianapolis laity would meet with the Roman Catholic pope during his visit to the United States. Separated in a box for emphasis was this quotation from Valerie Dillon, director for the archdiocese’s Family Life Office: “Lay people are interested in a church that’s honest but still is adapting to a changing culture. ” The quotation pinpoints the conflict between the Papacy and American Catholics. American Catholics include many who are calling for change in the Catholic Church’s stance on birth control, ordination of women, and divorce whereas the Papacy is trying to maintain its doctrinal adherence to historic positions.

The conflict brings to the forefront the issue of how one determines what doctrines and practices shall be accepted by a church. There have been a number of answers given to this question through the years.

The Authority For Roman Catholicism

In Catholic doctrine, the authority for the church has been systematically developed through the centuries. Catholics believe that one determines right and wrong based on these evidences: (a) The Bible as translated in the Latin Vulgate; (b) The Apocryphal Books; (c) The living voice of the church as manifested through the various church councils; (d) Tradition from the fathers as depicted in the writings of the church fathers; (e) The voice of the pope when he speaks ex cathedra. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia contains this expression of the Catholic position:

We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is essential to salvation that every human creature subject himself to the Roman Pontif . . . . The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra. . . has that infallibility, with which the Divine Redeemer endowed His church, in defining a doctrine of faith and morals. . . . This authority of the pope extends over all questions of knowledge and conduct, of discipline and government in the whole church (p. 338).

Based on this concept, the church has authority to pronounce that eating of meats on Friday is sinful or not sinful and, whatever is decided becomes binding upon every Catholic.

The Protestant Concept of Authority

Expressing the concept of authority which Protestants hold is more difficult because of the greater diversity in Protestantism. Early reformation churches posited authority in the Bible rather than in the pope.

When Protestants sought an external authority, they posited the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, and the whole Christian faith was founded upon that dogma. . . . Protestants found it necessary to interpret Scripture, and to define doctrines in synods and councils, but their decisions had authority only because they were supposed to be exposition of Scripture, and in that sense, the expressions of God’s mind (ISBE, p. 339).

Nevertheless in nineteenth century thought, the creed became as authoritative as the Bible.

Gospel preachers opposed the creeds of Protestantism saying, “If a creed contains more than the Bible, it contains too much (1 Cor. 4:6). If it contains less than the Bible, it does not contain enough (Rev. 22:18-19). If the creed contains the same as the Bible it is not needed because we already have the Bible.” Surely fallible man could not expect to speak more plainly than the infallible Bible! Proof that the creeds were no more easily understood than the Bible was evident by the commentaries which were written to explain the creeds. Only the more conservative, fundamental Protestants give much allegiance to creeds today.

The Modernist Concept of Authority

Within the framework of the Protestant denominations a movement grew which denied the inspiration of the Bible. Modernism rejected the miracles of the Bible. (Such a generalization does not take into account those modernists who pick and choose which miracles to reject.) As the modernists rejected the Bible and the papacy as their standard of authority, they were left without a chart or compass to direct their course. Subjectivism ruled. The quest for the historic Jesus resulted in making Jesus in the image of the modernist concepts in vogue at that period of time. The modernists began teaching, “It doesn’t matter what doctrine you believe so long as you believe the gospel.” Soon the “gospel” became too confining, so modernists recognized the validity of the common religious experience of all religions. In the realm of morality, an absolute standard of right and wrong was rejected. The result is a church which must adjust and adapt itself to the culture in which it exists. Such denominations meet to decide by popular vote whether or not to ordain women, homosexuals, etc. Belief and practice depend upon the vote of the latest session of the heirarchy of the denomination.

The Pentecostal Concept of Authority

Early in the twentieth century, the Pentecostal movement blossomed in America. Whereas the Pentecostals can be characterized as “Bible-believing” in contrast to the modernists who deny the inspiration of the Bible, they cannot be described as men who confine the word of God to the Bible. They believe that God speaks directly to man separate and apart from the Bible. The modern Pentecostal preacher relates his experience in which God communicated directly to him, which communication he passes down, as the prophets of the Bible, to the congregation. Oral Roberts has stated that God expressly told him to build the City of Faith hospital. Jim Bakker related that God wanted him to build Heritage, U.S.A. Jimmy Swaggart reveals God’s special word to his audience. None of these men confine God’s word to the Bible. Consequently, Pentecostalism is full of latterday revelations, women preachers, and unique beliefs contrary to the Bible.

A Biblical View of Authority?

Does the Bible direct us in how to determine right and wrong? What is the standard by which the church is to determine morality, dogma, and practice?

The Bible begins with the statement that God is the Lord of all because he is the Creator (Jn. 10:29; 14:28). Even the incarnate Son of God submitted himself to the Father’s will (Jn. 4:34). Consequently, every man must submit himself to the authority God the Creator.

The Father committed all authority to the hands of the resurrected Christ (Matt. 28:18). To him every knee shall bow (Phil. 2:8-9). He is the head over all things to the church (Eph. 1:21-23).

The will of the Lord Jesus Christ was revealed to the apostles and prophets by the Holy Spirit (Jn. 14:26; 16:13). Because they were the instruments through whom the will of God was revealed to men, whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven and whatever they loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18; 18:18). The revelation which God gave to men through the apostles and prophets was communicated both orally and in writing. The written word was as much the voice of God speaking to man as was the oral word (1 Cor. 14:37; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:14). This revelation was completely communicated to man and confirmed by miracles (Mk. 16:20). Through reading the certified word of God, one can know what God wants him to do in order to obtain life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3-4). The Scriptures are adequate and all-sufficient to reveal God’s will to mankind (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Conclusion

Consequently, the church looks to the inspired word of God as its standard by which to determine right and wrong. What is approved by God in the Bible is right and what is disapproved by him is wrong. The church is not an organization which should be changed and shaped to fit the mold of the culture in which it lives; rather, the church is to conform itself to the revelation given by God in the Bible. The Bible – not the church Fathers, church councils, papacy, creed book, subjective judgment, or later revelation – is the authority for the church.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 19, pp. 578, 598
October 1, 1987