| Vol. 55 | 30 June 2002 | No. 34 |
God’s Holy Fire X
In the last nine issues of this avenue, I have examined some of the errors in the first four chapters of God’s Holy Fire, the second volume in the “Heart of the Restoration Series.” Rather than continue to bore the readers of this review with the detailed analyses, in the remaining six chapters of the book I would like to note briefly some errors, categorizing them.
The arrogance of professors Cukrowski, Hamilton, and Thompson comes out in various places in the book. We are told that “stories have been a neglected part of the educational curriculum in Churches of Christ.” (p. 70.) I wonder if this assessment is made on the basis of their universal circulation among the churches of Christ or their having heard from all the churches in the Southwest or Texas? Or is this opinion based on reports from their students who, in the main, may be of the liberal persuasion? They also tell us, “In our congregations, although Acts has received an enormous amount of attention, we still may have missed key aspects of its theology.” (P. 111.) We should certainly be glad that these professors came along when they did to help us see “key aspects” of the theology in the book of Acts!
They also suggested that, instead of using the word “law,” we should adopt the Hebrew term, “Torah,” because the former “conjures up the deadening notion of rules to which one must adhere simply out of fear of divine wrath.” (P. 113.) But “Torah” is not found in the English Bible; and we do not speak Hebrew; so, why use it? The New Testament teaches that we are under the law of Christ (Roms. 8:2; 1Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2; James 1:25). If we do not obey the law of Christ, we will incur God’s wrath (Roms. 11:22; II Cor. 5:11; Heb. 10:31). God’s wrath is not the only motive for doing his will, but it is one incentive.
This book is chocked full of modernism. The authors suggest that the plagues could have been due to natural phenomena (p. 95). They question whether the settlement in the land of promise by Israel was gradual or sudden, leaving the possibility in the minds of some that this is a contradiction (p. 95). They do not believe the writers of the gospel accounts were eyewitnesses to the events (p. 108). They emphasize the “core gospel story.” (p. 109). They claim that Matthew and Luke copied material from Mark (p. 109). They tell us that Matthew and Luke shared material. This shared material is called Q from the German language for source (p. 109). They deny that Mark 16:9-20 is part of the Bible (p. 109). They assert that the Proverbs do not reflect absolute truth (p. 139). They also tell us that Acts 8:37 is not a part of the Bible (p.163). According to the professors, if we want to know what belongs in the Bible, we should check with Bruce Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. He was, however, the editor of the Reader’s Digest Bible that pared 40 percent of the Bible. How can one have confidence in a man who takes such liberties with the word of God?
Worldliness and irreverence also come out in God’s Holy Fire. The authors say, “Perhaps we could do with more singing and dancing, Bibles in hand!” (p. 122). They argue for the use of drama in worship as a teaching method, claiming it to be no different than the parables of Jesus or the symbolic acts of the prophets and Jesus. But parables told by Jesus do not justify show time in worship. God who told them to do those specific things authorized the symbolic acts of the prophets. There is no generic or specific authority that would allow a drama show in worship. Such is an appeal to the fleshly senses. Thus, Christians should not engage in drama productions in worship to God (Col. 3:17). When Jesus washed the disciples feet, it was a symbolic act; but it was not done in worship to God. He was teaching them to serve each other (John 13).
The professors write of “other Christian traditions” and refer to the Catholics in that context (pp. 161-162). From their words it can be inferred that they believe that there are Christians in various religious groups.
They tell us Abraham and Sarah struggled with faith (p. 96). That is not what the Bible says. Paul wrote of Abraham’s faith:
“Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations; according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.” (Roms. 4:18-22.) Abraham and Sarah’s faith is commended in Hebrews 11.
It is interesting to note that the professors considered the expression “sinful nature,” as is used in the New International Version, as “too interpretative.” (p. 166.) Indeed, it is, and a wrong interpretation at that! So, it is good to see this admission from at least three professors. Others have tried to defend the error or commemorate the Passover regarding it.
God’s Holy Fire makes allowance for the possibility of God’s speaking through means other than the Bible. Its authors say:
It is clear that God speaks through Scripture and the life of Jesus (John 1:18). In addition, since God communicated in ‘various ways’ (Heb. 1:1) in the past, it seems likely that God might also use various means today, such as fellow believers, times of prayer, and the events of our lives to provide insight. Although it may be difficult to discern God’s word today, Christians must still listen patiently.
The writer of Hebrews, however, said, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son….” (Heb. 1:1-2.) This was a contrast between how God revealed his will in the past with how he addresses man today. He speaks through his Son who revealed his word to the apostles, which we now have in written form. Paul upholds the all-sufficiency of the word of god (II Tim. 3:16-17). Thus, God does not directly communicate his will through fellow believers, or prayer, or events in our lives.
This concludes my review of God’s Holy Fire. This Abilene Christian University production does not uphold the restoration principles that are Biblical. If this book by these professors is followed, it will take the church back into the darkness of Catholicism and the quagmire of denominationalism. Let us stick to the Bible and follow the old paths.