Views: 0<\/p>
[Note: <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Longer Articles<\/strong> page.]<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n A childish trait that many seem never to outgrow is the desire to have certain things \u201cboth ways\u201d when it is not possible to do so. In all such cases, the choice of one item, course of action, or result immediately and automatically excludes the other\u2014one cannot have it both ways in such matters. A student might like to get all \u201cAs\u201d on his report card without ever fulfilling an assignment, but he cannot have it both ways. One cannot become a concert violinist while refusing to seriously study and practice the violin\u2014she cannot have it both ways. No mature person would be so foolish as to expect to receive a heart transplant without his surgeon\u2019s making an incision and opening his rib cage\u2014he cannot have it both ways. Only an irrational person or a postmodern philosopher (but I repeat myself) would contend that the sum of two plus two is both four and <\/strong>five. One must make a choice between believing that the earth is round or flat, because it cannot be both.<\/span><\/p>\n Worldlings<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n While rational folk have figured out this principle in most applications of life, there is one realm in which men generally seem to ignore completely and\/or deny its application\u2014the realm of religion. Some examples readily come to mind:<\/span><\/p>\n Apostates<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n We expect such loose thinking from those in the world who have had little or no exposure to Biblical Truth and sound hermeneutical principles. However, many who were well taught by faithful parents, preachers, and teachers have grossly departed from that teaching and have enthusiastically embraced the both ways <\/em>philosophy concerning some of the most fundamental matters of the faith. Such irrationality is a trademark of the change agents who are wreaking such havoc in the church, as the following examples demonstrate:<\/span><\/p>\n Inspiration <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Either the Bible is the verbally and plenarily inspired (and thereby inerrant) Word of God, or it is not. Knowledgeable readers are aware that the Scriptures claim the former for themselves (1 Cor. 2:10, 13; 14:37; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20\u201321; 3:16\u201317; et al.). However, some of the learned pulpiteers in \u201cour\u201d congregations and professors and \u201cscholars\u201d on the faculties religion in schools founded and supported by brethren want it both ways. Ask them if they believe the Bible is inspired and they will answer affirmatively. Further inquiries reveal, however, that they neuter the beautiful word inspiration <\/em>by the various qualifications they place upon it.<\/span><\/p>\n For example, Carroll D. Osburn, Abilene Christian University\u2019s highly touted New Testament scholar, wants to leave the impression with gullible brethren that he believes in inspiration. However, the way he describes his view of the term is revealing:<\/span><\/p>\n While retaining belief in the existence of the supernatural and emphasis upon the historicity of the Christian faith, other matters are viewed differently. The authority of the biblical text is maintained, for instance, but \u201cverbal\u201d inspiration has given way to \u201cfull\u201d inspiration, the use of the Greek text has supplanted the KJV, and texts are studied in their literary and historical contexts (The Peaceable Kingdom<\/em>, pp. 63\u201364).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Osburn ridicules the \u201cfundamentalist\u201d concept that the Bible \u201c…contains God\u2019s own words and is inerrant,\u201d while attempting to \u201cwordnap\u201d the word conservative <\/em>to describe his own modernistic opinion (PK, <\/em>pp. 62\u201363).<\/span><\/p>\n According to several of his former students, the late Dowell Flatt of the religion faculty at Freed-Hardeman University subscribed to the modernistic \u201cQ Theory,\u201d which asserts that some of the Gospel writers got their information from a mythical document called \u201cQ<\/em>\u201d (abbr. for the German word, quelle<\/em>, meaning \u201csource\u201d). At least some of the teachers at Harding Graduate School of Religion also subscribe to this theory, and Rubel Shelly announced his support of it several years ago.<\/span><\/p>\n J.E. Choate wrote an article exposing professors at Harding Graduate School of Religion who advocate the modernistic Documentary\/Development Hypothesis for the Old Testament and the \u201cQ Theory\u201d and the \u201cDeutero-Pauline Theory\u201d for the New Testament. All such theories deny the Biblically claimed authorship of the various Old and New Testament books and thereby, in practicality, they deny the inspiration and authenticity of Bible.<\/span><\/p>\n All who thus compromise the Bible\u2019s claim of inspiration for itself\u2014and who adopt the theories of skeptics and infidels about the Bible\u2019s origin\u2014want to have it both ways. They want to present themselves to a concerned brotherhood as scholars who believe in inspiration, all the while courting the respect of their unbelieving academic peers by acquiescing to their vain theories that reject inspiration. They simply cannot have it both ways; they must make a choice. The choice they have made is evident. Sadly, thousands of gullible Christian parents have paid and are paying dearly (in high tuition costs, but even greater spiritual costs) for allowing their precious children to be sacrificial lambs to such fatal, faith-destroying errors.<\/span><\/p>\n Baptism <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Either baptism is \u201cfor\u201d (unto, ASV) or it is \u201cbecause of\u201d forgiveness of sins. Some who were once among us now want to have it both ways. Informed readers are aware that the inspired Peter declared on Pentecost that baptism (along with its prerequisite repentance) precedes\u2014and is a condition for\u2014the sinner\u2019s receiving remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Such is the consistent teaching of the New Testament regarding baptism and salvation (e.g., Mark 16:16; John 3:5; Acts 22:16; Rom. 6:3\u20134; Gal. 3:27; Tit. 3:5; 1 Pet 3:20\u201321; et al).<\/span><\/p>\n Denominationalists (Baptists in particular) have for generations advocated that the preposition for <\/em>in Acts 2:38 means \u201cbecause of\u201d instead of \u201cin order to receive\u201d in their denial of the place of baptism in the Lord\u2019s plan of salvation. Faithful brethren have successfully defended the Truth and exposed this heresy in hundreds of debates over the past two centuries. However, some who have departed from us dismiss all of the efforts of these soldiers of the cross and reject (with little more than a wave of the hand) one of the most plainly taught and fundamental doctrines of the New Testament.<\/span><\/p>\n Carroll D. Osburn blatantly expressed his \u201chave-it-both-ways\u201d desire as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n There should be room in the Christian fellowship for those who believe that Christ is the Son of God, but who differ on…soteriological matters such as whether baptism is \u201cfor\u201d or \u201cbecause of\u201d remission of sins (PK<\/em>, pp. 90\u201391).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Therefore, according to professor Osburn\u2019s \u201cboth-ways\u201d dictum, we should ignore the soul-damning dictum of the Baptists that rejects baptism as a condition of pardon and extend fellowship to all of them merely on account of their belief that \u201cChrist is the Son of God.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n For several years some of \u201cour\u201d large metropolitan congregations (e.g., Highland Oaks\u2014Dallas, Richland Hills\u2014Fort Worth, Oak Hills\u2014San Antonio) have accepted members from denominations that reject baptism as a condition of pardon. Perhaps some of these congregations continue to teach and preach the necessity of baptism, all the while admitting people into their fellowship who have not been Scripturally baptized. However, to require baptism of some, but not of others, is as unfair and inconsistent as it is unscriptural. This practice clearly evinces the idiocy of the have-it-both-ways <\/em>philosophy. Having gone this far, can they be very far away from accepting sprinkling and pouring as \u201cviable options\u201d to immersion?<\/span><\/p>\n The Church and Salvation <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Is salvation found in both the New Testament church and <\/strong>the religious organizations that mere men have originated? Can one have it both ways? Bible students know the answer to this question. Jesus promised to build only one church (Mat. 16:18), which He purchased with His blood (Acts 20:28; cf. Eph. 5:25). It became a reality on the day of Pentecost, and those who obeyed the Gospel plan of salvation were saved and added to it (2:38\u201341, 47). If the Lord ever added any saved sinner to any religious body besides His own, the New Testament is tomb- silent about it. The church of Christ is therefore not only one <\/strong>depository of those who have been saved from sin, it is the only <\/strong>one to which the Lord adds them (Acts 2:47). Furthermore, the church (i.e., members thereof) of the Bible is the only one that Christ will save eternally (1 Cor. 15:24; Eph. 5:23). All other religious organizations will sooner or later (if not in time, then at the Judgment) be destroyed (Mat. 15:13).<\/span><\/p>\n Many of those who have abandoned the old paths have done so at this doctrinal juncture. They opine that it is self-righteous, narrow-minded, and Pharisaical to teach what the Bible teaches concerning the exclusive nature of the church and the related subject of salvation. They have made the judgment that it is judgmental that salvation is in and only in the one church. It matters not how loud or how long they hurl their epithets. The Bible still teaches what it teaches, and it will still teach those very same things at the Judgment. The first signal to many of us of Rubel Shelly\u2019s departure from the faith he once so ably preached and defended was on this subject. His 1983 pronouncement that \u201cthere are sincere, devout Christians in all of the denominations\u201d sent shockwaves throughout an incredulous brotherhood that had difficulty believing that he meant what he had said. He obviously had reached the point of wanting to have it both ways concerning salvation and the church.<\/span><\/p>\n Carroll Osburn has likewise expressed his thinking on this point: \u201cRejecting arrogant exclusivism, Christian fellowship is extended to a broader arena\u201d (PK<\/em>, p. 64). In the book just referenced, Osburn repeatedly refers to the church (as faithful brethren have known it for generations) as \u201csectarian,\u201d \u201cfundamentalist,\u201d and \u201ctraditionalist.\u201d It is obvious that he has far more affection for denominationalism (aptly described by the foregoing labels), than he does for those who are simply striving to make all things according to the Scriptural pattern.<\/span><\/p>\n We must not slight Max Lucado, who seems never to have met a Protestant preacher, Catholic priest, or false teacher (still claiming to be one of \u201cus\u201d) whom he does not prefer above those who preach the Truth. He admits that he got his concepts of tenderness, passion, faith, grace, prayer, and trust from denominational preachers and Catholic priests (In the Grip of Grace<\/em>, p. 166). (Many of us have long known where he did not <\/strong>get them.) His recent admission that he would \u201cmake a good Baptist,\u201d and that if he ever left Oak Hills \u201cChurch of Christ\u201d he would likely not preach in another Church of Christ, only underscores his contempt for New Testament doctrine concerning the church and salvation.<\/span><\/p>\n Realistically, these are representative of many others who regularly stand in pulpits of some of \u201cour\u201d largest congregations and\/or who lecture to youngsters on \u201cour\u201d university campuses. These folk have totally surrendered the ground, bought at such a dear price over a two-century span, concerning the exclusive nature of the church. They seem incapable of conceiving of the word church <\/em>except in denominational and sectarian terms. They want to have it both ways concerning the church and salvation\u2014that salvation is in the church of Christ and it is also in the denominations. Sooner or later they will learn that they cannot have it both ways.<\/span><\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Some want to have it both ways concerning the music God has authorized for His church, others concerning the Lord\u2019s supper, and yet others concerning women as leaders in worship. Some have adopted all of the above items plus additional unauthorized practices and\/or doctrines. They all have this common thread: denial that there is only one way that pleases God, and advocacy of the choice to have it both ways\u2014theirs and God\u2019s. If not before, all men will learn at the Last Day that when God reveals and ordains His way, there is no other way. May we all be content with only His way, and may we ever seek to help others discover it.<\/span><\/p>\n [Note: <\/strong>I wrote this MS, and it originally appeared as an \u201cEditorial Perspective\u201d in the September 2002 issue of THE GOSPEL JOURNAL, <\/em>a 36-page monthly of which I was editor at the time.]<\/span><\/p>\n Attribution: <\/strong>Printed from TheScripturecache.com<\/em>, owned and administered by Dub McClish.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Views: 0[Note: This MS is available in larger font on our Longer Articles page.] Introduction A childish trait that many seem never to outgrow is the desire to have certain things \u201cboth ways\u201d when it is not possible to do so. In all such cases,…<\/p>\n\n