Some more things

Dear brethren,

To my astonishment, and to my critics’ dislike, this month’s letter marks the beginning of its 29th year of publication. I thank God for seeing me through the years and for all of you who have read these communications, whether friend or foe. It has never been my intention to be belligerently contentious, but challenging and thought-provoking in love. As to whether or not I realized my intended demeanor in my writings, that is your determination. How long I will continue this letter depends upon a number of factors, some of which I am aware, and some of which I may not be aware. The bottom line though is, “If the Lord wills.”

Anyway, this month’s letter is, again several things that have crossed and concerned or occupied my mind in recent times. Hopefully they are of interest and concern  to you as well.

1.) The Nature Of Man

Despite the assertions of some of my friends and relatives I do not think that man is basically good. I think that was God’s intention when he created man, but man used his free moral agency to corrupt his nature. Further, even though the Bible states that love “thinks no evil”, the idea that man is basically good is the basic tenet of humanism and that philosophy and tenet are destructive to belief in God and His Son, with serious consequences for society.

If man is basically good, then evil must be attributed to external forces, not man’s heart. Thus we see people often not being held responsible for evil and sinful acts in our society. It is the environment, economic situation, guns, parents, schools, television, etc. that are at fault. The humanists include the Christian religion in the list. All of this is why the emphasis is on changing external forces rather than persons’ character and values.

In Romans 3:10-12 the apostle Paul wrote: “There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. They have all gone out of the way; they have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one.” Then he summarizes in Romans 3:23, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

Man’s only hope for true change is by spiritual renewal through faith in Jesus Christ. The battle is within, between faith and our fallen nature.  Then when this change occurs in significant numbers through belief in Jesus Christ and the help of God’s Spirit, noticeable changes will occur in society. Doing things like providing teenagers easier access to condoms won’t make them responsible and less hedonistic.

We also need to be aware that a corollary of humanism is legalism. Legalism teaches in one way or another that man is capable of saving himself, partially or wholly, through good works. Our righteous deeds can never atone for our sins. Only the blood of sinless Jesus can do that.

2.) Freedom Of Speech

A while back the front-page article for the “Old Paths Advocate” dealt with problems of the internet. While the author stated much with which I agree, he made a couple of statements to which I take exception. One is he said, “Good information is a vital thing but too much information can be harmful.” There are probably situations where this is true, but as is often the case in sectarianism, the leaders seek to censor the information of the rank and file. They don’t consider them astute enough or able to discern what is right and true from that which is wrong and false. They fear for their positions and power. This mentality prevailed for centuries until the printing press got the Bible into the hands of the common people, and it smacks of a clergy-laity system which is foreign to scripture. Recent examples of this attempt at censorship can be seen in the actions of some sectarian leaders relative to the writings of brothers Dallas Burdette and Al Maxey. In earlier days it was brothers Leroy Garrett and Carl Ketcherside.

Then the writer goes on to say that the “greatest danger of all” is freedom of speech which “is NOT a right afforded the Kingdom of God.” This is certainly true relative to the sect dominated by the “OPA” agenda that considers itself the “Kingdom of God.” You cannot exercise your freedom to study, draw your own conclusions, and share them openly with others if your opinions do not coincide with the unwritten creed of the party.

The writer goes on to say: “Some people do not deserve a platform because they are ignorant of the Bible’s teaching and reason from emotion or false precept and others have an agenda they are trying to foist upon the church, just as in Titus’ day.” This sounds to me like some of the leaders in the one cup party.

No one will deny that what we say should be said lovingly and responsibly, buy every Christian has the right to say what he believes and why he believes it. We won’t all come to the same conclusions, but this is how we learn and grow and enrich our journey of faith. In turn, this is not a cause per se for renunciation and division, but a powerful reason to be forbearing in love and doggedly stay together to continue to grow in Christ.

3.) Religion

I truly believe that the denominational and sectarian institutions and organizations known as churches which promulgate a religion based upon a doctrinal system to bind one’s self back to God is not the will of God and is detrimental to His cause and purpose for man. In the first place, religion defined as man trying to bind himself back to God through either a written or unwritten creed based upon man’s interpretation of the scriptures, and accompanying good works, is not Christianity. Man cannot bind himself back to God no matter how sophisticated his mental ability and how numerous his good works. The emphasis of religion is to find God and reach up to Him. The emphasis of Christianity is that God is seeking man and reaching down to him. Through faith in Jesus Christ we are bound back to God at His initiative and calling. Practicing Christianity is responding to what God has done for us. Legalistic sectarian religious, systems, in particular, are efforts by man to be in control and deal with God on their own terms. As a result man feels good about “being religious”, puffed up with pride and self-righteousness. Religion tends to be egocentric and the nature of Christianity is theocentric.

Well I’ve probably provoked you enough for this month. Thanks though, for reading.

In Him,

J. James Albert

J. James Albert


2 responses to “Some more things

  1. When Paul teaches in Romans 3 that “there is none righteous no not one” and such, he is misusing a collection of passages taken out of their original contexts in Psalms and Proverbs where their point is that no atheist is good or righteous. These verses are not about all humanity nor were they intended to be used this way. Paul is misusing them.

    This fact is all the more apparent when one reads Jesus’ comments in Matthew 12:35 “A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.”

    Rather than Paul’s black-and-white “nobody is good” attitude which is based on twisting Old Testament passages about atheists by ripping them out of their contexts, Jesus’ comments on the state of man are quite erudite and perfectly accurate: some men are good and some are evil.

    Everyone is not essentially good and everyone is not essentially evil. Everyone is not the same. Humanity is a grab bag. Much like in the parable of the drag net. The net drug in all manner of fish, some good and some bad. (Matthew 13:47-50) It is like the wedding feast where they brought in everyone they could find, some good and some bad. (Matthew 22:2-14)

    Paul’s theology is one size fits all, and leans heavily to trying to fit the most sinful (like himself). It is not good theology. It is certainly sub-par in comparison to Jesus’ theology.

  2. By the way, that article against the Internet was particularly ironic to me. He said something to the effect that it is wrong to seek to create an organization that is larger than the local church or to reach out and teach beyond the pulpit of the local church and that therefore using Facebook and blogs to teach is wrong (something to this effect). If he really believes that, how does he condone the Old Paths Advocate that he is writing in? It seeks to create an organization beyond the local church or to reach beyond the local church and teach beyond its borders as well. How hypocritical. And yes, this tirade against freedom of speech is what fundamentalism that takes each and every word of Paul’s epistles to be inerrant leads to, in the church of Christ, among the Calvinists, anywhere where Paul is turned into the Son of God rather than Jesus.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s