Simply Christian
Larry Ray Hafley

        The name Christian appears but three times in the Bible. "And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" (Acts 11:26). "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian (Acts 26:28). "Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf" (1 Pet. 4:16).
        The disciples were not called Protestants or Catholics in Antioch, but "Christians." Neither were they called "Baptists" or "Methodists" because these and other denominational designations, so common in our day, were unknown prior to 1600 A.D.
        Paul was not persuading King Agrippa "to be a Baptist," but "to be a Christian." He was not persuading him "to be a Methodist, or a Presbyterian, or a Pentecostal, or a Lutheran, or a Catholic, for such terms and titles were unknown until many years later. The descriptive names of men were never approved by the Holy Spirit. Paul forbad the Corinthians to call themselves after himself, Apollos, or even the apostle Peter (1 Cor. 1:10-15).
        Peter did not tell suffering ones what to do if they suffered "as a Catholic," or "as a Methodist," or "as a Mormon." No, he said nothing about such institutional names. They are wholly foreign to the faith once delivered (Jude 3).
        Those who wear denominational names today consider themselves to be Christians." However, they ought to ask themselves why they accept those names and why those titles are not found in the New Testament. Was Paul a Presbyterian preacher? Was Peter a Pentecostal pastor? Was Matthew a Methodist minister? Was Luke a Lutheran layman? No, they were all Christians and ministers of the gospel of Christ. If we are following the pattern of the word of God, why should it be any different today?
        Finally, we ask those who are called by their church's denominational name to take the Bible and show us how to become a Baptist while not at the same time becoming a Pentecostal. Can Baptists do it? Can a Methodist take the Bible and
tell us how to become a Methodist without becoming a Catholic? Can a Lutheran take the Bible and show us how to become a Lutheran without becoming a Presbyterian? No one in the New Testament was ever baptized into a Baptist Church as men are today. No one was ever made a member of a Pentecostal Church in the New Testament. Rather, penitent believers were baptized into Christ, into "one body," the church (Acts 2:38-47; 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3;26, 27). Individually, they were Christians, disciples of Christ (Acts 11:26). Again, why should it be any different today?

No Social Stigma Attached
Larry Ray Hafley

          Scripture says that righteousness exalts a nation (Prov. 14:34). A nation's power is not in its military might, its munitions and missiles, but in its righteous character (Prov. 16:12). No country should fear when principles of truth and righteousness light its way in the world. No matter how great the threat, no nation will be overturned if it rests upon the rule of merciful justice and moral judgment (Cf. Gen. 19; Jonah 3:5-10; Isa. 5:7, 24, 25; Jer. 6:16, 17).
         Wickedness is a moth to the fabric of a nation's principles. Injustice and iniquity are termites to the inner structure of a country's character. Neither nuclear bombs flown and flung from afar nor horrific mass murder from within will destroy a nation. While those items may be the final, external cause, they alone do not destroy a nation.
          I fear for our country. Why? Because, like Israel in Jeremiah's day, our nation has very little "social stigma" left. It used to be that many were restrained from gross immorality and from heinous sin by the taint and stain of society's indignant reaction against such actions. Now, though, many dark deeds, which once brought certain community condemnation, are now approved and applauded.
          The approval and glorification of sexual sins–homosexuality, fornication (unwed couples living together), adultery, leaving one's mate for another and expecting and receiving the acceptance of one's community of friends–these were once unthinkable choices. Yes, they occurred, but those who committed such sins suffered the social stigma that went with such decisions. No longer.
          "Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? Nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith the Lord (Jer. 6:15).
          Today, our society will not punish brash and brazen whoredom. Rather, it rewards and praises those "Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things" (Phil. 3:19). From Rock Hudson to Elizabeth Taylor; from Elton John to Michael Jackson, from Ellen DeGeneres to Rosie O'Donnell, the filth and offscouring of the world are honored as they delight in their debauchery.
          A "virgin" is a taunting word of shame, hurled at junior high girls and boys with contempt. Immodest, indecent, alluring dress, designed to be sexually attractive, is regarded as "fashion," not as a contributing factor to sins of passion. Toleration and "respect" for the "rights" of others to indulge their sins is to be granted without protest.
        We must allow "gay rights" advocates to state their case in school auditoriums and education classes, but we must not permit anyone to say that such behavior is perverse, nor permit a posting of the ten commandments.
          We may pass out condoms to students and show them how to use them in sex education courses, but we must not tell them that sexual relations before marriage is wrong and sinful.
          Smoking today is suffering "social stigma." It is no longer "cool" or "mature and adult" to be posed as a smoker. The same used to be true of many actions. Fewer and fewer sinful things cause one to suffer the shame of societal rejection.
         One hundred years ago, Oscar Wilde, an English writer, was stigmatized when it was discovered that he was homosexual. For the next fifty years, very few English boys were named, "Oscar." Such was the effect, the social stigma attached to such sin. Sadly, this is not the case today.
          We cannot rely on the power of social disapproval. At times, we are socially marked and stigmatized for standing for righteous principles. This is not a new thing. The apostles suffered it (1 Cor. 4:9-13). They warned that by living godly lives and rebuking ungodliness that we would be seen as "strange" (1 Pet. 4:4).
          Ultimately, however, the stigma of heaven will be pronounced upon all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men in eternal judgment and destruction. At that same time, those who were seen as "weird" in their righteousness will "be found unto praise and honor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 1:7).

www.biblework.com

Are Atheists Going To Hell?
Larry Ray Hafley

        In her column (4/16/02), Ann Landers had a letter from a "Real Christian." Earlier, an atheist had written and expressed what a "hard time" he was having "with religious people telling him he is going to hell because he is an atheist." To the atheist, "Real Christian" said, "On behalf of all Christians...I apologize to this man. The Bible is quite clear that only God can decide who goes to hell. Any person who passes judgment on another in this way is committing a sin." In reply, Ann said, "I appreciate your words of tolerance. I hope others will read them and come around."
       Yes, it is true "that only God can decide who goes to hell" (Matt. 10:28). However, "the Bible is quite clear" that atheists are not going to heaven! "And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6). "But the...unbelieving...shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Rev. 21:8). "He that believeth not shall be damned" (Mk. 16:16). "He that believeth not is condemned already" (Jn. 3:18; Cf. 3:36; 8:24). ("Only God can decide who goes to heaven, too." Does that mean we cannot speak of someone being saved, that we cannot speak of those who "die in the Lord," having the hope of heaven? "Real Christian" would likely say he is "saved." Why, then, hesitate to say that an atheist is lost and bound for hell?)
         Note the irony of the statement, "Any person who passes judgment on another in this way is committing a sin." Was he "committing a sin" when he passed his judgment against those who pass judgment?
         Who gave "Real Christian" the right to "apologize" on "behalf of all Christians"? "The Bible is quite clear" that God gives each man the right to decide if he has sinned and to repent and confess for himself (1 Jn. 1:9).
         Finally, note Ann Landers' appeal to "tolerance." She and "Real Christian" want acceptance and tolerance of the atheist, but God forbid that they should ever grant those of us who disagree with them the same privilege and permit us to say that atheists have no hope of eternal salvation!
         According to the liberal mantra, the way to remedy any ill, the way to right any wrong, the way to heal any division is to grant "tolerance," to absolve the abnormal, to praise the perverse. It has worked for everything from abortion to alcohol, from gays to gambling. Giving it "tolerance" gives it sanction. What was once abhorred is now adored. What was once debased is now embraced. What did the Holy Spirit say about all such people? "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter" (Isa. 5:20).
         Calling a skunk a rose will not make it smell any better, and, no matter what you call it, sin still stinks.

 www.biblework.com

"THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST"
Larry Ray Hafley

        Some believe we may have fellowship those who do not abide in "the doctrine of Christ." If a church has a piano or organ in its worship, they will not object. If a church observes traditions of men, such as Easter and Christmas, that is alright, too. 2 John 9, though, is a problem for them. "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son."

        How do they solve this problem? They say that "the doctrine of Christ" is not the teaching of Christ; it is not the teaching or doctrine he taught, but it is the doctrine, or teaching, about Christ himself; that is, it is the teaching about the nature of Christ's person. If one teaches contrary to the true nature and character of Christ's person, (Christ was completely man, completely divine), then he "hath not God." So, they say 2 John 9 is talking about those things and not about various points of doctrine (baptism, music in worship, proper observance of the Lord's supper, etc.).

        Which view is correct? (Would not those who say the passage is speaking about the nature of Christ have to go to "the doctrine of Christ," the things Christ taught, in order to learn about his correct nature?!) Perhaps the following passages will help answer the question:

1) Jesus referred to "the doctrine of the Pharisees" (Matt. 16:6, 12). Was he referring to the doctrine about that sect, or did he have reference to the doctrine which they taught?

2) The disciples continued steadfastly "in the apostles doctrine" (Acts 2:42). Did they follow the doctrine about the apostles themselves, or did they continue in the teaching which the apostles made known (Cf. Matt. 28:20)?

3) The Bible mentions "the doctrines of men" (Col. 2:22; Cf. Matt. 15:9; Mk. 7:7). Are "the doctrines of men" doctrines about the nature of man, or are they the doctrines taught by men?

4) The Spirit says some will follow after "doctrines of devils" (1 Tim. 4:1). Does that mean they will heed teachings about the character of demons, or does it mean they will go after the doctrines taught by demons (Cf. 2 Cor. 11:13-15; 1 Jn. 4:1)?

5) Jesus spoke of "the doctrine of the Nicolaitans" (Rev. 2:15). Was that a reference to teaching about the nature of the Nicolaitan people, or to the doctrine or teaching which they did?

6) When Paul said that Jesus "was raised from the dead according to my gospel," was he talking about a gospel about himself, or was he speaking of the gospel of Christ (Rom. 1:16)?

7) If one were to mention "the doctrine of Billy Graham," would you think he was referring to teaching about Mr. Graham himself, or to the doctrine which Billy Graham taught?

Now, to what does "the doctrine of Christ" refer in 2 John 9?

Vine On II John 9
Larry Ray Hafley

        "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son" (2 Jn. 9).
        There are those who say that 2 John 9 is speaking of the doctrine about Christ, not of the doctrine he taught. Of course, the doctrine of Christ would include the teachings about his person, but the doctrine of Christ includes more (See our earlier article, Doctrine Of Christ, www.biblework.com 1997, 1998).
        On this point, W.E. Vine, noted author of Vine's Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words, has said:
        "The significance of the word, rightly rendered ‘goeth onward,' is not that of progress itself, but an advance in teaching that goes beyond the teaching of Christ; that is to say, not only the teaching concerning the Person of Christ, but that which He gave and commanded his followers to teach. Anyone who goes beyond this, the Apostle declares, ‘hath not God'" (Vine, Epistles Of John, p. 118).
        This view complements other passages. We are not to think of men above or "beyond that which is written" (1 Cor. 4:6). We are neither to add nor to detract from God's word (Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:18, 19). We are to "teach no other doctrine" (1 Tim. 1:3). Since we cannot teach anything other than what is revealed in the Bible, even if it were to come from "an angel in heaven," why should it be thought strange that 2 John 9 says the same thing (Gal. 1:8, 9)?
         Note this: Only when men have doctrines, rituals, traditions, and forms of worship which they cannot find authorized in the New Testament do they begin to pervert the plain teaching of passages like 2 John 9. Only when men have something to hide, something for which they have no authority, do they begin to deny the clear import of Scripture. Beware of such men. Said Paul, "Mark them," "expose them," "and avoid them" (Rom. 16:17; Eph. 5:11). Why? Because such men, "have not God" (2 Jn. 9).

www.biblework.com

        The city of Chicago closed many of its beaches for a few days in late July. What would cause them to do such a thing in the midst of a very hot and humid Summer? Apparently they became a health hazard when the presence of the Ecoli bacteria reached a dangerous level. According to Webster's Dictionary, Ecoli is a bacteria that is found in the intestines of all vertebrates, including man. Its presence in water in certain quantities indicates pollution and can cause sickness. While people enjoy cooling off in the waters of Lake Michigan, no one enjoys getting sick.
        I am glad that the city of Chicago was willing to take these unpopular measures to protect swimmers from the health hazard. But this idea of bacteria being at a "dangerous level" got me to thinking about something. Apparently, the Ecoli bacteria is always in that water. It's just that certain weather conditions (lack of rain, no wind, and hot temperatures) caused the bacteria to multiply to a level where swimmers were at risk. The beaches are now clear for swimming, not because the water is free of the bacteria, but because the level of bacteria is low again.
        I've never gone swimming in Lake Michigan, but it definitely doesn't appeal to me now. Regardless of how low the bacteria content may be, it is still in there - which means I won't be.
        Let's apply this principle to the local church. How much sin are we willing to tolerate among ourselves? Some Christians will use the above reasoning to justify the presence of sin in a church. They know it is there, but to them it is not at a dangerous level, so it is safe to proceed. Paul rebuked the Corinthians for allowing one in sin to remain in their fellowship. His reasoning was "Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?" (1 Cor. 5:6). Apparently, there is not a safe level of sin. If left uncorrected, the influence of that sinful member would have a disastrous effect upon the whole congregation. Sin can spread through a church just like bacteria through a lake.
        A church also needs to be aware of the beliefs and practices of preachers that they support and use in their gospel meetings. I have heard of churches inviting men who were not sound in the faith to participate in gospel efforts. When asked how they could use a man who knowingly teaches error on a particular subject, they respond by saying, "We asked him not to talk about that." This may sound like a noble approach, but there are at least two problems with it.
        For one thing, it simply isn't good reasoning. You can't invite a wolf into the flock and expect him not to devour some sheep, even if you try to muzzle him. This man may not preach his false views from the pulpit, but what's to stop him from doing so if he is asked a question about it in private? And how about the mixed message that the congregation is getting? All week long they hear the elders' commend his lessons. As the meeting closes, he is praised, bid God's Speed, and perhaps even invited back to hold another meeting. The claim that, "We don't agree with his teaching on ______" rings pretty hollow after an endorsement like that.
        Secondly, this practice violates Scripture. Such an eldership is failing in their duty to protect the flock. Paul told Titus that elders were "to exhort and convict those who contradict" (Titus 1:9-11). These are men "whose mouths must be stopped." This is not accomplished by giving them the pulpit for a week. The works of darkness are to be exposed, not fellowshipped (Eph. 5:11).
How much false doctrine does a person have to teach before he is a false teacher? At what point will his error become too much for the church where you attend? The apostle John said, "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds" (2 John 9-11). Apparently there is no safe level of error either. If a church brings in a man who teaches error, or who fellowships those in error, that church shares in his evil deeds.
        Some have suggested that a man's character is what makes him a false teacher, and we have been admonished to use the term correctly. "False Teacher" is a very damaging label to place upon someone. It can ruin a man's influence and effectiveness in the Lord's kingdom, and thus, it shouldn't be thrown around lightly. But if a man continues to teach error after he has been corrected, is it wrong for him to be identified as a false teacher?
        What makes a person a false teacher: his character or his doctrine? Is a preacher only a threat if his intentions are bad? Paul's enemies had bad intentions, yet they preached the truth. Paul rejoiced that Christ was preached, and he didn't say anything about them being false teachers (Phil. 1:15-18). Is it safe to bring a man of good character into the church and give him the pulpit, regardless of what he teaches in it? If people believe and practice the error he teaches, will his character keep them out of hell? No. When error is taught souls are lost - regardless of the character of the one teaching it.
        No one likes to hear their good friends called false teachers, but can you think of a better or more scriptural way to refer to one who teaches false doctrine? You know how the old saying goes: "If the shoe fits, wear it." If people don't want their friends called "false teachers" they should encourage them to preach the truth. When we honor the reputation of our friends more than we do the truth of God's word, and we care more about how they are treated than the souls they will lead astray, we will soon find our churches "swimming in the filth" of error. How much is too much?

23 S. Margaret Street
Joliet, IL 60436

        I remember a story I once heard about an old preacher in a foreign country who spent his life planting and building up small churches. He worked and worked, and sacrificed and sacrificed. And because of this, he never was able to have very much of this world’s goods.

        After many years of faithful service, age finally overcame him and for all practical purposes he had just worn himself out in his work for the Lord. And so, he began to make his journey back to this country.

        As he traveled home, he began to reflect: "Now I’ve served the Lord for all these years, and I’ve worked hard and invested my life in the gospel. My brethren have always told me that I needed to preach and I needed to sacrifice, and I’ve done all that. And after all these years of service and sacrifice, as I make my journey home, I wonder if anybody is going to meet me there to welcome me home."

        The airplane landed, and as the preacher stepped off, he saw some travelers met by various loved ones, and others met by welcoming committees, they even had a band. But no one was there to greet the preacher. He stood all alone with no one to welcome him home.

        When he saw all this, he began to think, and suddenly he heard the voice of Satan: "Ha, so that’s your reward for all those years of service. You see what’s happened. Nobody appreciates you and nobody really cares about you. That’s what your brethren think of you. Was it really worth it? Why, nobody’s even here to welcome you home. That’s what you get for all your service."

        It was truly discouraging, and just as the preacher was about to give in and start to feel sorry for himself, he heard yet another voice. This time, it was the voice of his Savior, and this is what He said: "Don’t be discouraged, my son. You’re not home yet. You’re not home yet."

The Moral of the Story

        Brothers and sisters, let us ever remember - when the way seems hard and the rewards seem few, or when we’re tired and discouraged and unappreciated by those we love, or when we find ourselves on the verge of giving up our work for the King - at those apparently hopeless moments, let us not forget: We’re not home yet; we’re not home yet. "There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God" (Heb. 4:9).