Revised Version of Christianity

Most Americans are probably familiar with various revised versions of the Bible. I shall not provide a complete list of those translations that use the word "revised" in their titles, but I shall mention a few. When I was a student at Freed-Hardeman College (now Freed-Hardeman University), my favorite teacher of all time, W. Claude Hall, required every student to use the American Revised Version. I have on my shelves the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version. I use the King James Version, always have and always will. At my age, it would be impossible for to re-memorize the great passages of scripture that have become a part of my life. But the King James Version is also a revision of earlier translations.

We are aware of the need for updating the language of the Bible. For example, the New King James Version modernizes the language of scripture without doing violence to the sacred text. It substitutes "your" for "thine" and "you" for "thou." Since we do not use the language of Shakespeare, most people seem to agree that the language of the King James Version should be modernized. In addition, archaeology and other sciences have enabled scholars to refine some of the language of the Bible. I strongly oppose translating one's theology into the Bible, as the translator of The Living Bible has done. In my judgment, that is dishonest.

But my concern today is not producing revised versions of the Bible, but a revised version of Christianity. Would anyone who calls himself a Christian want to revise Christianity? In case you are not keeping up with what is occurring in the religious world, you may be surprised to learn that hundreds and hundreds of theologians and others want to revise Christianity and make it a little more to their liking. I honestly wish I could say that only ultra liberal theologians, like John Shelby Spong and members of the Jesus Seminar, would dare alter the teaching of the Bible, but I know that is not the case. There are preachers in all religious groups, including churches of Christ, who are not satisfied with the Christianity of the Bible and are striving to change it to fit their standards.

If you think I might be off on a tangent about some of the preachers and theologians in our nation, let me prove to you beyond any question that I am telling it like it is. In his book, Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers in Exile (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998), John Shelby Spong, the former Episcopal bishop claims to write out of a faith commitment as a Christian (p. xix, of the Preface). Spong objects to referring to God as "Father Almighty." He says both words offend him. He foolishly claims that religious institutions have used the expression to oppress women (p. 5). Spong thinks it is offensive to modern men to attribute the creation of the universe to God almighty (p. 10). Does Spong not know—or does he not care—that hundreds of thousands of scientists believe God created the universe, just as Genesis teaches? I am sure Spong would resent what I am about to say. But Spong has not done his homework. The bibliographies in his books show that he has not read the hundreds and hundreds of books that refute virtually every point he makes. In my judgment, that is not being honest.

There are many unfounded and ridiculous statements in Spong's book, but I shall read just one. Spong denies there is an external God to life. "God, rather, is the inescapable depth of all that is" (p. 70). In other words, God is not a person outside the physical world and outside our lives. Does it strike you as being odd that John Shelby Spong thinks he knows more about God than Jesus Christ the Son of God knew? Was Jesus deceiving his followers when he instructed them to pray: "Our Father who art in heaven" (Mt. 6:9)? If God is not external to life, Jesus was telling his disciples to pray to themselves. Did Jesus know that God is in heaven? If there has ever been book filled with arrogance, the book by John Shelby Spong is it. How can an ordinary man—and John Shelby Spong is certainly an ordinary man—pretend he knows how to revise Christianity?

Like many radical revisionists, Spong rejects the Bible's teaching on the Trinity. In his book, Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992), Spong insists: "Paul was certainly not a Trinitarian....The idea of incarnation...would have been equally incomprehensible to him" (p. 25). There is a serious problem with these assertions—they are wrong, inexcusably wrong. Was Paul a Trinitarian, that is, did Paul believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as being co-equal members of the Godhead? Paul concluded his second letter to the Corinthians with these words: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all" (2 Cor. 13:14). Was not Paul saying exactly what Jesus taught in the Great Commission? Christ commanded his apostles: "Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt. 28:19).

How could any intelligent man argue that Paul would have found the incarnation incomprehensible? The word "incarnation" refers to the fact that Jesus became one of us. What did the apostle Paul have in mind when he affirmed that the gospel of God concerned God's Son, "who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh?" (Rom. 1:2-3)? Paul told a young preacher: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16). O I know how liberal theologians like Spong get around this teaching in First Timothy. They argue that Paul did not write that epistle. There is no solid reason for denying that Paul wrote the letters to Timothy. From a scriptural viewpoint, no one can deny Paul's belief in the Trinity and in the incarnation.

Over the past several months, there have been some very intense discussions about the Trinity. The discussions have arisen among the liberal Presbyterians and perhaps other liberal groups. The Tennessean printed three articles on the Trinity—one by K. Connie Kang of the Los Angeles Times, one by Ray Waddle, former Religion Editor of The Tennessean and one by Anita Wadhwani, staff writer for The Tennessean. All three writers discuss the confusion over the Trinity that exists in the liberal Presbyterian Church. The Presbyterians are trying to figure out what to call the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. "Father" and "Son" are patriarchal terms and everybody knows how absolutely evil patriarchy is.

K. Connie Kang's article in The Tennessean (Sunday, July 2, 2006) has the title, "Update of Trinity draws a lot of groans." According to Kang, the Presbyterians have suggested some new designations for the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They suggested "Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child and Life-giving Womb." The Presbyterians also suggested "Lover, Beloved and Love that Binds Lover and Beloved Together.... Then there's 'Rock, Cornerstone and Temple' and "Rainbow of Promise, Ark of Salvation and Dove of Peace" (p. 17-A).

Any Presbyterian who has the slightest respect for scripture would be disgusted and perhaps even angered at such radical changes in the teaching of scripture. Kang quotes Mark Brewer of the Bel Air Presbyterian Church as saying, "You might as well put in Huey, Dewey and Louie." Brewer warned the Presbyterians against using over-familiar language. He said: "A child calling parents 'Father" and 'Mother' is far different from calling them 'Billy and Betty'" (p. 17-A). Ray Waddle's article in The Tennessean (Saturday, August 5, 2006) has the title, "By discussing Trinity, Presbyterians impel us to consider key theological issue." Waddle reports that the Presbyterians were considering calling the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, "Fire That Consumes, Sword That Divides, and Storm That Melts Mountains" (p. 3-B). Incidentally, the liberal Presbyterians' discussion of the Trinity or of any other topic does not impel true Bible believers to rethink their views. You can rest assured of this: Faithful churches of Christ will not revise Christianity to appease radical feminists or liberal theologians.

Anita Wadhwani's article in The Tennessean (Sunday, August 20, 2006) has the title, "New Trinity language evokes anger, ridicule." Wadhwani mentions one lifelong Presbyterian, Larry Gates, who thinks the suggestions Presbyterians have made will subject their denomination to ridicule. He says he will not use those kinds of descriptions of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If he hears that kind of language, he will leave the Presbyterian Church. Wadhwani lists some other titles some of the Presbyterians suggested: "Giver, gift and giving; One Who Was, One Who Is, and One Who Is to Come, Overflowing Font, Living Water, and Flowing River; King of Glory, Prince of Peace, and Spirit of love" (p. 2-B). There is more in these three disturbing articles, but I do not have time today to discuss it.

But I have a really radical suggestion for the Presbyterians and for all others who call themselves Christians. Why not refer to the Godhead as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, just as the inspired word of God does? Think about how outlandish is the suggestion: "One Who Was, One Who Is, and One Who Is to Come." Does not the expression, "One Who Was," apply to God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit? Has not Christ always been the "One Who Was?" Does not the same apply to the Holy Spirit? Furthermore, God is the "One Who Is," Christ is the "One Who Is" and the Holy Spirit is also the "One Who Is." The idea of trying to change the Bible's teaching on the Trinity or on any other topic comes very close to blasphemy. It is an inexcusable perversion of God's eternal word. God has specifically forbidden us to alter his word.

Yet many of us are aware that theologians and others have worked at changing the Bible to suit their own biases. I need only remind you of Thomas Jefferson's Bible. Thomas Jefferson was a deist. He believed in the existence of God, but denied that God exercised any control over his creation. Jefferson revised the New Testament and removed all the miracles of Jesus. His perversion of the New Testament is called The Jefferson Bible (Boston: Beacon Press, 1989). My copy of Jefferson's Bible has an Introduction by F. Forrester Church, the son of former senator Frank Church and a minister of the Unitarian Church and an Afterword by Jeroslav Pelikan, a professor of history at Yale and a Greek Orthodox scholar. Forrester Church says Jefferson's Bible makes no mention of the virgin birth of Christ or of the resurrection. Jefferson put in his Bible only those ideas that made sense to him (p. 7 of the Preface). Pelikan writes: "Jefferson was convinced that the real villain in the Christian story was the apostle Paul, who had corrupted the religion of Jesus into a religion about Jesus" (p. 153). Pelikan says Jefferson believed he was separating the "diamonds" from the "dung" (p. 157). Jefferson actually was guilty of revising the Bible until it had no significance—no meaning. Thomas Jefferson was a brilliant scholar, but he was not God. He did untold harm to the cause of Christ.

I have no ability to foresee the future, but I am convinced that the doctrine of universalism is gaining popularity among almost all religious groups in our nation. Universalism is the belief that eventually all human beings, regardless of their beliefs or actions, will be saved. I need to clarify what universalism is not. The Bible teaches emphatically that God's love is universal. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved" (John 3:16-17). I must also emphasize that the Lord's invitation is universal in application. Is that not what Christ meant when he said: "Come unto me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Mt. 11:28)?

I have introduced the subject of universalism in order to examine two books on the topic. Two Quaker preachers, Philip Gulley and James Mulholland, have written two books that promote universalism. The first book, If Grace Is True: Why God Will Save Every Person (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003), specifically denies many scriptures and perverts many others. These men grew up in churches that preached the Bible's teaching on heaven and hell (p. 4). Their views of heaven and hell changed when they realized that God's grace was "not limited or conditional" (p. 11).

Is it true that God's grace is "not limited or conditional?" Some of the Roman Christians apparently believed the grace of God was not limited. They believed that the more one sinned the more God had an opportunity to demonstrate his grace. Paul taught the Roman Christians: "Moreover the law entered, that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: that as sin has reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 5:20-21). The apostle Paul asked: "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Absolutely not! How shall we who are dead to sin, live any longer therein" (Rom. 6:1-2)? Will God's grace extend to people who have the attitude of some of the Roman Christians? Absolutely not!

Gulley and Mulholland list a number of passages that are supposed to teach universalism. For example, they quote our Lord's words: "Whosoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother" (p. 204). Can they not see through their misuse of this verse? What if a person does not do the will of the Father in heaven, is he still the Lord's brother or sister or mother? If we can be the Lord's sister or brother or mother and refuse to do the will of God, Christ's words are absolutely meaningless. Gulley and Mulholland also record these words that the apostle Peter addressed to the house of Cornelius: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism, but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right" (p. 207). Will God also accept those who turn their backs on him and deliberately flaunt his will?

They also list Titus 2:11 as one of the passages that supposedly teach universalism. "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men" (p. 210). No genuine Bible believer would deny that "the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." Does that mean that all will be saved? These men deliberately misused this verse to try to sustain their unscriptural view of universal salvation. They could not—I repeat, could not—have missed verse twelve of this chapter. Please listen to verses 11 and 12. "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world." If these verses have any meaning whatsoever, they demand that one must deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and must live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world. Gulley and Mulholland are striving to give the world a revised version of Christianity.

Gulley and Mulholland's second book, If God Is Love: Rediscovering Grace in an Ungracious World (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004), has the enthusiastic endorsement of two of the leading enemies of Christianity—Marcus Borg of the infamous Jesus Seminar and John Shelby Spong, former Episcopal bishop. You know the book is a vicious attack on Christianity when Marcus Borg and John Shelby Spong speak highly of it. Please remember that Gulley and Mulholland espouse universalism. They accuse many religious people of defining "too narrowly what pleases or displeases God" (p. 12 of "A Note from the Authors). They may be right in their contention, but what possible difference can it make if everyone defines too narrowly what pleases or displeases God? According to their view, nobody can be lost regardless of his beliefs or behavior. So believe whatever pleases you and do what you will. You cannot miss heaven if you are the worst criminal who ever lived. Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and all other criminals have their tickets punched for that heavenly city.

Have Gulley and Mulholland ever read our Lord's Great Commission? "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who does not believe shall be condemned" (Mk. 16:16). Do they know that Jesus said: "Except you repent, you shall all likewise perish"(Lk. 13:3)? According to Christ, if we fail confess him before men, he will not confess us to the Father in heaven (Mt. 10:32-33). I have one final question: Do Gulley and Mulholland believe they know more about the will of God than our Lord and his apostles knew?

Winford Claiborne

The International Gospel Hour

P.O. Box 118

Fayetteville, TN 37334

Back to Home Page

Back to Transcripts Titles