Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Forrest L. Keener is a well known Baptist preacher and author. In his paper, The Baptist Watchman, he wrote an article entitled, “God’s Man Of Salvation” (March 1995, p. 1-3). While this is not intended to be a review of that article, sample statements of his principle point will help us in our study. In the prologue to his essay, Keener reveals that the design of his article is that it be a:

SETTING FORTH THE TRUTH THAT SALVATION IS BROUGHT ABOUT BY A GOD MADE UNION BETWEEN CHRIST AND THE BELIEVER, AND NOT THE HUMAN EXECUTION OF A “BIBLE PLAN.”

Mr. Keener ridicules “hundreds of tracts and written discourses. . .(which have) the title or at least the general theme, `God’s Plan of Salvation.’ He says that such “plans” are flawed because they “require human acts.” Further, he says, “Salvation does not lie in a plan that is to be activated or executed by man.” The reason that Keener gives for there not being a “plan of salvation” is rooted in his theology. He is a Calvinist. He does not believe that a sinner has the ability to respond to a “plan of salvation.” Says he, “It has been rightly stated . . . that man, due to his depravity cannot of his natural accord repent and believe …. This is completely accurate.”

Because of this alleged, inherent depravity, Keener argues that the Lord “never gave a `plan of salvation, . . . nor did Paul, nor did Peter, nor did any other Bible writer.” Thus, he concludes that one must be born again before he is enabled to respond to the overtures, incentives and inducements of God. Said he, “It is only in the New Birth that man’s depraved inability is overcome.” He contends that if a sinner can understand a “plan of salvation,” then it must be “human, not divine.” As proof thereof, note his words, “A `Plan of Salvation’ that can be understood by the natural man, (no matter how many scriptures may be contained within it) is human, not divine.”

The problem, though Keener does not recognize it, is not the degree of man’s depravity. The problem is that the gospel, “(no matter how many scriptures may be contained within it)” is not sufficient, not powerful enough to penetrate the depth of man’s natural state of depravity. This problem is the creation of Keener’s philosophy and theology. Man is so depraved that he is unable to react to the gospel, says Keener. Could God have constructed a gospel to which the sinner could respond? Yes, certainly. He could have done so, but, according to Baptist doctrine, he did not do so. Hence, the fault lies in the weakness of the gospel and not in the depravity of man. (Oh, how one should fear to face God having so impugned the gospel!)

The gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Lk. 8:11, 12; Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 4:15; Eph. 1:13; 6:17; Jas. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23-25). Baptist doctrine forever undermines that concept. It says that man is depraved and that God did not provide a gospel with sufficient power to save him. Hence, Keener decries the need for “a plan of salvation.”

God’s Drunk Driving Laws

Essentially, the central issues of this discussion are: (1) the nature of man, (2) the nature of God, and (3) the nature of the gospel (See The Gospel Preacher, Benjamin Franklin, Vols. I, II). That Keener recognizes this is shown in the following convoluted statement:

“The great mistake of many has been to conclude that these truths were paradoxical and to make one of two errors. (What are “these truths” to which Keener refers? They are `that man, due to his depravity, cannot of his natural accord repent and believe though he is eternally responsible to do so . . . man is responsible to repent and believe. … On the other hand, that he cannot do so is equally obvious”  quoting Keener, defining `these truths’  LRH). One school uses man’s depravity and subsequent inability to his responsibility, to proclaim him to be like an animal, without free moral agency, or volition…. The other error is to use his Bible stated responsibility and free moral agency to deny man’s depravity and to acclaim him a creature of free will who may, at his will, will to repent, believe, re-form…. This is equally wrong.

“Free moral agency does not equal free will or deny human depravity. Human depravity does not equal innocence nor cancel responsibility. Responsibility does not equal ability nor is man rendered `not responsible’ in the eyes of God because he is unable. If you would accuse the consistency of this, consider man’s own law. Is a drunk responsible to drive safely, behave decently, etc.? Certainly! Is he able to do so? Certainly not! What then makes his ability less than his rightful responsibility? His drunkenness. What makes man’s natural ability less than his responsibility? His sinful depravity. Whatever else you do not understand about this, you should soon realize that no human plan or series of religious acts (such as “repent, believe, reform, etc.,” i.e., a plan of salvation  LRH) can change it.”

In other words, man is so disabled by his depravity that he is incapable of doing that which he is responsible and accountable to do; namely, repent and believe. Note Keener’s illustration of the drunk who is “responsible to drive safely,” but who is unable to do so. This illustrates the dilemma of man according to Baptist Keener. Man is responsible to repent and believe, but he is unable to do so because of his depraved nature. As we shall shortly see, this Baptist drunk driver turns and runs over Mr. Keener.

The drunk man is the depraved man. The traffic laws to which the drunk is held accountable represent the laws of God. Now, how did this drunk (depraved) man get in his condition of drunkenness (depravity)? A physical drunk gets that way by deliberate choice, but the illustration fails at this point and swerves into Mr. Keener, wrecking his argument’s vehicle completely. The depraved man, who rep-resents the drunk in the illustration, does not choose to deprave or intoxicate himself. Through no fault of his own, he is born that way (drunk, or, as in the illustration, depraved). Still, God holds him responsible. Keener would have a more correct parallel if he attempted to apply the traffic laws to those who are born drunk. If all men were born drunk, would there be such traffic laws as now exist regarding the responsibility of the drunk driver? No, and yet this is how he portrays and displays the rule of God. God gave the traffic laws. He holds all men responsible to obey them. Then, God fixed it so that all men would be born totally, hereditarily drunk, unable to obey those laws. Born totally drunk, they disobey God’s traffic laws. God’s traffic ticket is eternity in hell for all those who were born totally unable to obey the laws they were still required to obey! Who can believe it?!

Further, and worse yet, one cannot choose to become sober on his own. It takes a direct “drying-out” operation of the Spirit (called the “New Birth”) to bring the drunk to sobriety. Without this miraculous working of God, the one born drunk must remain drunk all of his life. He cannot choose a clinic in which to be treated, for it is a natural state into which he has been born. He cannot be appealed to and summoned to a treatment center, “(no matter how many scriptures may be contained within it).” If God does not see fit to choose this totally, hereditarily drunk man and per-form a miraculous, immediate work upon his heart, he will live and die a drunk. At death, God will cast him into the eternal “drunk tank” of hell because he was born drunk andunable to obey God’s traffic laws. Again, who can believe it?!

How sober was Mr. Keener when he made such an illustration that so evilly and despicably reflects on the nature and character of God?

Is man a passive, inactive recipient of salvation? Keener says he is. If so, why did Jesus say, “Come unto me, . . . and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28)? Jesus did not say, “Ye cannot come to me.” He said, “Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life” (Jn. 5:40). Jesus did not say, “What I say to you cannot save you, for you are impervious to my words.” He said, “These things I say that ye might be saved” (Jn. 5:34). “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (Jn. 6:63). That one should “continue in my (Jesus’) word,” and that he should “know the truth” in order to be made free from sin, does not sound like Keener’s premise that man is a passive recipient of redemption (Jn. 8:31, 32).

“Preach Jesus Christ”

Under the heading above, Keener concludes: “Preachers, do not preach a plan, preach Christ! Witnesses, do not talk plan, witness of Christ! Teachers, do not teach plans, speak of Christ! … Salvation is not in a Plan, it is in a man, `The Man, Christ Jesus.”‘

Apparently devoid of the total taint of Calvinism, brethren (C. Leonard Allen, Bill Love, and others) have made similar appeals. They have condemned the preaching of Benjamin Franklin, T.W. Brents, J.W. McGarvey, N.B. Hardeman, and Foy E. Wallace, Jr. as giving a disproportion-ate emphasis to the “plan of salvation” while neglecting the preaching of “Jesus Christ and him crucified.” Though their conclusions may not completely echo those of Calvin and Keener, and though they may be a little off key, they are nonetheless humming their tune; they are singing their song. It is a dangerous business, for our actions soon imitate our music (cf. Prov. 4:23).

Keener assumes what some of our brethren have presumed; namely, that one may preach the gospel plan of salvation without preaching Christ. Before proceeding, if one endeavors to “preach Christ,” but preaches error concerning him, how would we correct the preacher? Would we have to resort to “the plan,” the word of God, to correct the preacher’s errors regarding “the man, Christ Jesus”? If we correct a preacher by using “the plan” to guide him in his efforts to preach “the man,” would we be “preaching Christ” when we did so? Those who believe that we are preaching “baptism” or the “church,” rather than “preaching Christ,” might find it easier to smile and dismiss that question than to answer it. But, then, there is this. How does a man go about “preaching Christ”? Does he use the word of God, the plan, to do it? If so, is he preaching the plan and not the man? Tell us, all ye that “preach Christ” and do not “preach a plan,” do you use the word of God, the plan, when you “preach Christ”? If so, are you preaching the man when you use his plan to preach his person? Again, it is easier to shrug and wave a hand in dismay than it is to answer those questions.

2 Chronicles 13, The Man and the Plan

In 2 Chronicles 13, we shall see, first, that surrender to God and his person includes surrender to his word and his plan or pattern. Second, we shall see that failure to submit to one or more “right things” or “right doctrines” is equivalent to forsaking God and his person. They cannot be separated.

(1) When Jereboam rebelled against God’s anointed, appointed king, he rebelled against God himself  “Jereboam . . . rebelled against his lord . . . (hence, he, and the children of Israel were fighting) against the Lord God” (vv. 6, 12). To fight against the “plan” of earthly kingship was to fight “against the Lord God,” against his person. When Abijah accused Jereboam of rebellion against the Davidic kingship, was he speaking of “commitment to a human line of kings” and forgetting the “commitment to a person,” the Divine, eternal King, God? No, and because of v. 12, it would be unfair to so charge him in verse 6.

Further, Abijah charged that Jereboam and his apostate allies were “withstand(ing) the kingdom of the Lord” (v. 8). Had Abijah forgotten the fact that their rebellion was also against the person of the Lord himself? Was he refer-ring to “commitment to the body or plan of a human kingdom” and forgetting “commitment to a person”? No, for he said, you are fighting “against the Lord God” (v. 12). To fight against one is to fight against the other.

The case of Paul is parallel to the point above. Paul “persecuted the church of God” (Acts 8:3; 1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13). When he did so, he persecuted Jesus, the person (Acts 9:4, 5). However, when Paul said that he had persecuted the church, had he forgotten that he was guilty of persecuting the person of Christ? Was Paul guilty of making the church “a substitute for Christ”?

Likewise, when the children of Israel “murmured against Moses,” they “murmured against the Lord” (Exod. 16:2, 7, 8; Num. 14:2, 27, 35). Moses was chosen and appointed by the Lord. When one rebelled against God’s plan for Moses, he was also rebelling against the very person of God. A griping, grumbling Israelite could not have pleaded innocence and said, “You misunderstood me; I am not murmuring against the Lord. I just do not like Moses,” for to resist God’s plan of work through Moses was to resist God him-self. To reject the ordinances of God, the plan of God in the word of God, is to reject God himself. To be “removed” from the person of God is to be disobedient to the plan orpattern of God (Cf. Gal. 1:6; 3:1; 5:7; 1 Cor. 11:1, 2).

(2) So, today, when we fight against premillennialism and charge that its advocates are fighting against the church, the kingdom of God, we are not making the church “a substitute for Christ” as some have charged that we do. Neither are we making premillennialism the sole symbol for soundness. As Paul did with the specific doctrine of “circumcision” and showed that its rebuke would lead some to be “sound in the faith,” so we may sharply rebuke some, “specially they of premillennialism,” “that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:9-13).

But back to 2 Chronicles in this regard. Abijah listed a number of Jereboam’s corruptions of the work, worship, and organization of the Lord’s people (vv. 9-11). He contrasted what they did with what he and his people did. He spoke of certain right things which he did and contrasted them with what Jereboam was doing. He contrasted human religion with divine religion. Was Abijah guilty of basing his primary confidence before God upon the doctrines which his kingdom did not teach; the way in which his kingdom was not organized? Was he not trusting in the person of God? Was he guilty of neglecting God’s person, and putting too much emphasis upon God’s plan or pattern? No, he was not, and neither are we making the church “a substitute for Christ” when we compare his church with the Baptist Church.

When Abijah documented Jereboam’s doctrinal errors and his apostasy from the Lord’s “plan” or pattern, and declared, in effect, that Jereboam was “unsound,” was Abijah basing soundness upon these items and forgetting about morality, benevolence, the attitude of one’s inner man, and the Sabbath? Had Abijah forgotten about love and loyalty to the person of God when he condemned Jereboam’s corruptions of the plan of God? No, Abijah was simply citing the most visible aspects of Jereboam’s apostasy. When Abijah sighted in on them and turned his guns of truth against them, he was not saying that these specific items constituted the sole criteria for soundness. Likewise, when we study with a member of a conservative Christian Church and focus our study on the music question, we are not neglecting the person of Christ, nor are we saying that “to play or not to play” is the single most important factor in faithfulness and soundness before God.

Salvation is in the person of Christ “unto all them that obey him” (Heb. 5:8, 9). One is not saved by “the man” until he obeys “the plan” (Matt. 7:21; Lk. 6:46; Rom. 6:17, 18). Consequently, those who parrot Keener’s cry for “the man and not the plan,” for “the person and not the pattern,” should not be surprised if we occasionally pluck their feathers, too. While “birds of a feather” do not always “flock together,” gobbling like a turkey at Thanksgiving is not a safe thing for any bird to do.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 24, p. 16-18
December 21, 1995

By Kenneth D. Sits

I don’t believe there has ever been a time in America when so many people have been turned off by the thought of being a member of a church. Although many “preachers” have been clearly proven false and even prosecuted for fraud, televangelism continues to be one of the most popular forms of building some kind of religious following. Millions have rejected “the church on their hometown corner” by enjoying their favorite speakers in their homes at their own convenience. America has become the land of “drive thru, fast food” religion. Through modern technology, one can now stay in his own little space and avoid all those crowds. There is no more need to dress up to hear a sermon or enjoy someone singing a hymn. One doesn’t even have to stop working or playing at home to listen in. And, let us not forget, there is no collection plate passed around one’s kitchen table. Americans now have all the benefits of “fast food religion” without any of the sacrifice. In many people’s mind, heaven can now be obtained by a flick of the switch when the mood for inspiration hits them.

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, who spoke by the inspiration of God, told Timothy to, “Preach the Word. Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry” (2 Tim. 4:2-5). Friend, the preaching of sound doctrine is hard to find today and nearly impossible to find on TV. Sound doctrine causes evangelists to suffer affliction in this present age. Sound doctrine denies the modern concept of “drive thru, fast food” religion. Sound doctrine requires sacrifice. Sound doctrine requires preaching about the church of Christ and congregational worship.

Where is the cry from the preachers in our land for people to assemble together as Christians did in the first century? The writer of the book of Hebrews told Christians to “consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the day approaching” (10:24-25). Members of the church of Christ assembled together on the first day of the week in the first century (Acts 20:7, 1 Cor. 16:1-2). Today, if man is to be in the same church, the same spiritual body purchased by the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28), he needs to follow this example and assemble together on the first day of the week as an active member of a church of Christ. Hebrews 2:12 tells us, “I will declare your name to my brethren; in the midst of the congregation I will sing praise to you.” Congregational worship, as prescribed by God in the New Testament, is essential if we desire to be in fellowship with God.

The apostle Paul wrote to Christians in the city of Corinth concerning the spiritual value they derived from their association as a church. In 1 Corinthians 12:12 Paul said, “For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ.” Just as Jesus and the Father are one we should be one in Christ. The church of Christ at Corinth knew they were to meet together, be together, share together and worship together for they were one body. Paul also reminded them in verse 24 that, “God composed the body” (the church). They were not at liberty to change the composition of the body, nor were they allowed to separate themselves from the body of Christ. To do either of these would break fellowship with God. God is in control of the body, the church. To have fellowship with God, one must do his or her part in a faithful congregation of Christians (Eph. 4:11-16). John tells us “that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3).

Fellowship with God relies upon our obedience to the pattern given by the apostles of our Lord in the New Testament. In Acts 2, the apostles preached the gospel of Jesus Christ for the first time. In verse 36, Peter told the Jews that the one they crucified is the Christ who is now reigning at the right hand of God. They then pleaded with Peter saying, “What shall we do?” Peter told them, “Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). Their reaction to this command was, “then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and prayers” (Acts 2:41-42). These people did not receive Jesus into their hearts by man’s modern method called a “sinner’s prayer” and they were not spoon-fed religion into the privacy of their home. They obeyed the commands of Jesus and clung to each other, heeding every word given to them from the apostles teaching.

New Testament Christians respected the will of God and met together as a church (1 Cor. 14:23). These Christians would have clearly rejected the popular notion of today’s “fast food religion of isolation” through some television ministry. Their strength came through their association together. Almost every letter in the New Testament was written to congregations around the civilized world. These letters were instructive for doctrine and edification of that congregation. In 1 Corinthians 14:26, Paul told the church of Christ in Corinth to “let all things be done for edification.” In verse 40 he said, “Let all things be done decently and in order.” In this text, Paul was teaching them about their individual responsibilities while gathered as a church. Being a member of a church of Christ in a community has been clearly exemplified through the apostle Paul. In Acts 9:26, Paul did his best to join the church in Jerusalem. Upon the basis of his reputation, verse 28 says he was “one of them going in and going out.” Are you one with a congregation of saints meeting in your community?

There are many spiritual blessings one misses by notbeing in fellowship with a congregation of the Lord’s people. In Acts 2:42-47, those Christians enjoyed worshiping God together. In verse 42, they proclaimed Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection together in the Lord’s supper, they sang and prayed to God, they gave of their means and heard preaching from God’s word. As a result, they had all things in common and helped each other with their daily needs. They enjoyed eating meals together and found strength from each other as they worshiped Jesus. Upon growing in the faith of Christ together, they “had favor with God and men.” In Acts 9:31, Paul reported, “then the churches throughout all Judea, Galilee and Samaria had peace and were edified. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, they were multiplied.”

How fortunate we are to know God’s wisdom which tells us to be members of a church of Christ. In 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15, God instructs us not to be lazy, but to work and to sacrifice for the glory of God. In verse 14, Paul said, “. . . and if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed.” God has designed his church to exercise church discipline so that all of its members will live pure and Godly lives. Maybe this is the real reason why most religious people today will not congregate and why most televangelists will not demand its necessity. Too many have the attitude of, “give me my religion the way I want it or I’ll find it somewhere else.” See, it really is a “drive thru, fast food religion” mentality. The church of Christ is not “fast food” religion. The real, true church of Christ can still be found today with members who love and respect the words of Jesus found in the Holy Scriptures. Christ’s church will do its own work, while always responding to Christ’s commands with reverence, saying and doing all things with a “thus saith the Lord.” Investigate the church Of Christ.

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 24, p. 6-7
December 21, 1995

By Ferrell Jenkins

“Christmas time” is almost here. Lights are already up in town and signs indicating that December 25 is not far off are to be found almost everywhere. No doubt you have already bought a new doll for Sue and a bike for Johnny. It’s the time of the year when people are singing, “Santa Claus Is Coming to Town.” Many denominations are making announcements of their “Christmas program.” Since Christmas is practiced as a “religious” holiday it is necessary that we make an investigation concerning this festive occasion.

In particular, two questions are in order: (1) Where did Christmas originate? and (2) Who authorized it? Since the term “Christmas” clearly indicates that there is some connection with Christ we ought to be able to turn to the historical books writ-ten by inspiration that tell the life of Christ and learn of this holiday. When we study Matthew and Luke, the only two gospels that record the birth of Jesus, we learn that no date (year, month or day) has been given for his birth. In order to determine the origin of Christmas we must turn to the appropriate place in the available encyclopedias and histories.

1. Birth Year. The Bible does not give the year of Christ’s birth, and most people think that he was born at “zero” B.C., since B.C. means “before Christ.” Actually Christ was born somewhere between 7 and 4 B.C.

 

Henry Halley gives a good explanation of this in the following paragraph:

When Christ was born time was reckoned in the Roman Empire from the founding of the city of Rome. When Christianity be-came the universal religion over what had been the Roman world, a monk named Dionysius Exigus, at the request of the Emperor Justinian, made a calender, 526 A.D., reckoning time from the Birth of Christ, to supersede the Roman calendar. Long after the Christian calender had replaced the Roman calendar it was found that Dionysius had made a mistake in placing the birth of Christ in year 753 A.U.C. (From the founding of Rome). It should have been 749 or a year or two earlier. So the reason we say that Christ was born 4 B.C. is merely because the maker of the Christian Cal- ender made a mistake of 4 or 5 years in coordinating it with the Roman Calender which it re-placed (Pocket Bible Handbook 436).

2. Birth Month and Day. Albert Barnes, noted Presbyterian commentator, says with reference to the shepherds keeping their sheep in the field:

The climate was mild, and, to keep their flocks from straying, they spent the night with them. It is also a fact that the Jews sent out their flocks into the mountainous and desert regions during the summer months, and took them up in the latter part of October or the first part of November, when the cold weather commenced. While away in these deserts and mountainous regions, it was proper that there should be some one to attend them to keep them from straying, and from the ravages of wolves and other wild beasts. It is probable from this that our Saviour was born before the 25th of December or before what we call Christmas. At that time it is cold, and especially in the high and mountainous regions about Bethlehem. But the exact time of his birth is unknown; there is no way to ascertain it (emphasis mine, F.J.). By different learned men it has been fixed at each month in the year. Nor is it of consequence to know the time; if it were, God would have preserved the record of it. Matters of moment are clearly revealed; those which He regards as of no importance are concealed.

Collier’s Encyclopedia concurs with Mr. Barnes when it says, “It is impossible to determine the exact date of the birth of Christ, either from the evidence of the gospels, or from any sound tradition.” The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that “Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church.” Three commonly accepted dates for the birth of Jesus are January 6, March 25, and December 25. The majority of people celebrate Christmas on December 25. One might ask the question, “Why was December 25 chosen as the birthday of Christ?” Why December 25? Liberius, Bishop of Rome (it should be remembered that the Catholics consider him as one of their early popes), in 354 A.D. ordered that December 25 be adopted. The choice of this date was probably influenced by the fact that this was the day on which the Romans celebrated the Mithraic feast of the Sungod. The Romans Saturnalia also came a this time. “`The indications are that the Church in this way grasped the opportunity to turn the people away from the purely pagan observance of the winter solstice to a day of adoration of Christ the Lord. Both St. Cyprian and St. John Chrysostom allude to this thought in their writings” (Colliers Encyclopedia). The Lincoln Library of Essential Information states that, “December 25 was already a festive day for the sun god Mithraand and appealed to the Christians as an appropriate date to commemorate the birth of Jesus, the ‘Light of the World.’ From these statements from reliable sources it is easy to see that Christmas had its origin in a pre-Christian age among the pagans. It was adopted into the so-called Christian holidays by the Roman Catholic Church. Christmas did not originate by the authority of God. None of the apostles ever celebrated the birthday of Christ. Even the name “Christmas” is of Catholic origin. Encyclopedia Americana tells us, “The name is derived from the medieval Christes Masse, the Mass of Christ.” The Catholics had a special “mass” (their corruption of the Lord’s Supper) for Christ and so they called “Christ-Mass.” In time this was shortened to “Christmas.”

The Americana further states: “The celebration was not observed in the first centuries of the Christian church, since the Christian usage in general was to celebrate the death of remarkable persons rather than the birth.” The Bible teaches us that the death of Christ is the important thing and not the birth. we are taught to observe the three following memorials: (1) Baptism, a form of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 6:1-2), (2) The first day of the week, a memorial of Christ’s resurrection, and (3) The Lord’s Supper each first day of the week (Acts 20:7). This is a memorial of the death of Christ. Men have no right to set up other memorials for people to observe. It is a violation of the Law of God to do so. Sober thinking people who are striving to follow the teachings of Christ will not bow down to these Roman Catholic traditions.

3. What Does the Bible Say? Many are simply ignorant of the teaching of the Bible concerning the birth of Christ. It is a shame for parents to read fictitious stories to their children and call them “Bible Stories.” Parents, be sure the story is true to the Bible before you call it a “Bible Story.” Matthew and Luke tell of different events connected with Christ’s birth. The following chronology should prove helpful:

Birth of Jesus Matt. 1:25; Luke 2:1-7

Visit of Shepherds (same night) Luke 2:8-20

Jesus’ circumcision (eight days old) Luke 2:21

Jesus Presentation (at least 40 days after birth)

Read Lev. 12:2-6; Lk.2:22-38

Visit of Wise Men Matt. 2:1-12

Journey to Egypt Matt 2:13-15

Male Children Killed Matt. 2:16-18

Return to Nazreth Luke 2:39; Matt 2:19-23

Read the Bible account in that order. Remember that the wise men and the shepherds were not the same. The shepherds visited the child Jesus the night of his birth but the wise men traveled from the East (they did not travel by plane, but by plain) and did not arrive until, at least, after the presentation in the temple which was at least 40 days after the birth. The wise men found Jesus in a “house” (Matt. 2:11). The Bible does not say how many wise men there were. Three gifts do not indicate only three visitors. To conclude so, is just as silly as saying there were only three guests at a party where a person received money, perfume, and cologne. There could have been two men or many.

4. Customs Connected with Christmas. “Most of the customs now associated with Christmas were not originally Christmas customs but rather were pre-christian customs taken up by the Christian church” (Americana). The Roman Saturnalia, already mentioned, provided many of the merry-making customs of Christmas. “From the pagan ac-cent on light it is not difficult to trace the rise of lights and open fires  from the bonfires of sun worship and their variant the yule log to the many customs centering around the candle and its legends to light the Christ child” (Britannica).

Christmas Tree. It is generally believed that the Christmas tree is of German origin. Boniface, an English missionary to Germany, is said to have “replaced the sacrifices to Odin’s sacred oak by a fir tree adorned in tribute to the Christ child” (Britannica), in the 8th century.

Santa Claus. Santa Claus is a contraction of Saint Nicholas. “St. Nicholas was a real bishop, who lived in the fourth century and became the patron saint of children. The children have adopted him as the `gift-bringer”‘ (Book of Knowledge) in some countries. There is some more Catholicism! Children in America sing songs in which they use both “Santa Claus” and “Saint Nicholas.” Could a Christian teach his child to sing to a Catholic “saint”? Certainly not! (It is understood by this writer that some of these seasonal songs are good.) Space does not allow us to give a detailed discussion of these things, nor the origin of decorations, the use of mistletoe, holly, etc.

Shall We “Keep Christ in Christmas”?

It is impossible to keep Christ in Christ-Mass for He was never in it. The Catholic Church dreamed that up all by themselves without the help of Christ, and I might add, without his approval.

What about “X-mas”? At the time of this writing a sign in our town reads “X means nothing. Christ in Christmas means everything.” Many people seem to think it is irrelevant to let X stand for Christ. I suppose it might be considered that way if one doesn’t know that the “X” is not an English “X.” The name of Christ in Greek could be transliterated Christos. The English “CH” is equivalent to the Greek “Chi” (X). Actually, when a knowing person writes “X” to stand for Christ he is simply abbreviating. It is no more irreverent to abbreviate “Christ” than it is unpatriotic to abbreviate “United States of America” with the usual U.S.A.

It is not wrong for families to get together and exchange gifts. The winter season is a time when people enjoy being with their loved ones. We are not opposed to this. We are not opposed to national holidays, such as July 4 and Thanks-giving. We are not opposed to families having a good dinner and many other things which might be called “folk customs” on December 25 (or any other day), but when a person tries to make such a day a “religious holiday” by claiming that Christ was born on that day, he errs. To observe December 25 as a Civil Holiday is as innocent as observing July 4. But let’s make sure we keep it that way, without adding “religion” to it. Christ never authorized such. There will be no special services at the church of Christ in observance of this pagan and Catholic holiday. (Used by permission. Originally published in The Preceptor 8:2 [November 1958], 216, 225).

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 24, p.1
December 21, 1995

By Connie W. Adams

One in authority has the right to command, direct, and enforce obedience. He also has the right to administer punishment to the disobedient. When the one having ultimate authority empowers others to act upon his will, then in that manner he authorizes action. One who assumes authority not granted by the one who has the right to empower acts with presumption and flaunts all authority.

In divine matters, as they relate to man, authority springs from the creation. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:27). If there is no divine creator, then there is no creation, the universe is the product of chance, man himself is an accident of nature and there is no basis for moral or spiritual authority. This is the very premise from which the secular humanist works. He boldly proclaims “There is no God” and “Man is the measure of himself.”

Order in the Universe

But if God created the universe, then order flows from his power to make whatever exists. In God’s speech to Job he asked, Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail, which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war? By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth? Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder; to cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man; to satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth? Hath the rain a father or who hath begotten the drops of dew? Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it? The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen. Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? (Job 38:4, 22-31).

Start with the premise that “God is” and the existence and order in the universe makes sense. If God made it all and it functions according to his power, then we are spared all the hand wringing about global cooling, global warming, depleting the ozone, running out of water, running out of wood, running out of food, and all the anxieties concocted in the humanist mind. That is not to say that man should not be a good steward of the world God made for us. But he did make it for us! The God who made it is still in charge. The unbeliever with all his vaunted wisdom and arrogant self-assurance cannot form one drop of dew on the ground, cannot make it rain, nor stay the terrifying rumble of an earthquake, nor stop the force of a hurricane. The authority of the Almighty rules in the universe.

Order in the Moral Realm

Because God made man, man is subject to divine law. If there is no God, then there is no basis for moral order. Much of the chaos which is evidenced by all forms of crime and immorality grows out of a disrespect for divine authority. If man has evolved by chance then he has no standard for moral behavior except whatever he imposes upon him-self. This is the spring from which situation ethics flows. But if God made us, he has the right to determine what is moral conduct and to call us to account for disregarding his authority over us.

This point was forcefully driven home by Paul on Mars Hill in his speech to the Athenian philosophers. Read Acts 17:24-31. Go on, and read it. Notice verse 24: “God that made the world and all things therein.” Then look at verse 26: “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” Look at verse 28: “For in him we live, and move, and have our being.” Verse 30 informs us that “God commands all men everywhere to repent.” Why is that? Now look at verse 31: “Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.”

Do you see the progression? God made the world and all things therein. In him we live and move and have our being. Therefore, God calls upon us to repent. Why is that?

He has appointed a day of judgment. God made us, expects something of us, and will call us to account for that responsibility. The Creator has authority over the creature. Paul’s question to the Romans is pertinent. “Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonor” (Rom. 9:20-21)?

With notable exceptions, the morals of this nation are a shambles. How did we come to such a sad state of affairs? The creature has scorned his Creator. We have fallen into the same pit into which the Gentile nations plunged as described by Paul in Romans 1:18-32. When they knew God, they did not glorify him as God (v. 21). Did they have abundant evidence of his power and majesty? Oh yes! They had the whole universe as testimony to the existence and power of the Al-mighty (v. 20). But they became ungrateful, filled with vanity and arrogance. While they boasted of their great wisdom they in reality became fools. As their hearts became darker and darker they made idols to satisfy man’s innate desire to worship something. The end result of all that was moral chaos. Everything from homosexuality to murder followed. How and why did this happen? The creature lost respect for the Creator. As in the world at large, even so among those who claim to follow Christ, moral looseness grows out of waning respect for the authority of God to rule in our hearts and direct the affairs of life. Happy is the one who seeks the Lord, gropes after him and finds him, though he is not far from every one of us (Acts 17:27). (More to Come)

Guardian of Truth XXXIX: No. 24, p. 3-4
December 21, 1995