The Independent Baptist:

"Plains Baptist Challenger"

June 2003

News & Views, June 2003 - Edited By E. L. Bynum

Baptist Church Allows Woman to Baptize - By E. L. Bynum

IBFI Rejects The Merger - By E. L. Bynum

Peaceful Muslim Religion - By E. L. Bynum

Shady Language in the Pulpit - By E. L. Bynum

Communion: Open? - Close? - Closed? - By Don E. McFarland

Modernism Takes a New Form - By Victor E. Sears

Why Do Men Compromise? - By Dr. Allen P. Dickerson

The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal 3-8-03 contains a large writeup featuring a mission work in Thailand. The woman that is in charge of that mission work is a member of Calvary Baptist Church of Lubbock. Her name is Bunyat "Cindy" Bush, and she is a native of Thailand. She formerly lived and worked in Lubbock, Texas. She worked as a nurses aid for 23 years while she saved up a nest egg of $20,000, and when she quit her job she moved back to her native country and built a western style house. Then she began to teach the Bible to those around her. This is all commendable that a woman would sacrifice her life savings in order to help others in her country.

The newspaper gave a nice write up, plus a number of photos. One of the photos shows her baptizing converts, and this is what the caption said: "Bush baptizes new Christians from her village. She is a member of Calvary Baptist Church" (Lubbock).

I am all for people being saved everywhere in the world, and I am highly in favor of them being scripturally baptized after they are saved. It is a fact that these people that Mrs. Bush is immersing are not being scripturally baptized. This woman is doing this while she is a member of Calvary Baptist Church, which is a large church, affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. I cannot say whether this church actually authorized her to baptize, but it is certain that they know that she is doing this.

We keep hearing from Southern Baptist folk who declare that the SBC has been cleaned up and purged of apostasy and false doctrine. Even though they say it, I don't believe it for one minute. The Texas Baptist Convention is the largest state convention in the SBC. They have more churches and give more money than any other state. In my humble opinion, the Southern Baptists in Texas are further from the truth than they were ten years ago, and they are still on the skids. I know that this is most likely true in a number of states as well.

It is evident that there are sincere efforts on the part of some in the SBC to bring the Convention out of error. While they have had some success in the seminaries, this is not true of the colleges, and the individual churches and preachers are further down the road of compromise than ever before.

Even the most conservative of their seminaries are deeply ensnared in ecumenical evangelism as personified by Billy and Franklin Graham. They are turning out preachers who work with apostate churches and pastors. Tremendous numbers of them are into contemporary Christian music and the church building techniques of Rick Warren and his kind. I could go on and on about various issues where Southern Baptists have departed from the doctrine and standards they once taught. I have a considerable number of good books in my library that were written by Southern Baptists. These are all books that were written many years ago, and I can find no books that Southern Baptists are writing today as even being worthy of comparison.

Many years ago there were no women preachers or deacons among Southern Baptists. Today there are more women pastors and deacons in the SBC than ever before. Is this because the SBC has improved? No, this is because they have continued to go further down the road of error. The whole idea of women pastors, preachers, evangelists, missionaries, and deacons is a clear indication of the depth of apostasy today. Second Baptist Church, Lubbock, Texas has women pastors and women deacons. This is a church that was produced by Southern Baptists.

The very idea that a woman could fill either one of those offices is ridiculous and unscriptural.

We learn this from New Testament example. Not one of the apostles of Christ was a woman. If the Jesus Christ had wanted women as preachers, surely He would have chosen at least one to set a good example for us. Not one of the New Testament churches of the Bible had a woman pastor or deacon. Please do not advance the old argument that Phebe held the office of deaconess, because it will not hold water. "I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea" (Rom. 16:1). Of course we should know that the word "servant" in this verse comes from "diakonos," which is the same word that is translated deacon. That does not prove that she was a deacon and let me tell you why.

The kings servants in Matt. 22:13 were "diakonos," and yet no one would claim that they were deacons. They were only servants to a king and had nothing to do with the office of a deacon. All servants were "diakonos," because that is the meaning of the word. In that sense all the apostles were supposed to be "diakonos," and so was the Lord Jesus Christ. Every Christian should be a "diakonos" meaning a servant.

The servants at the wedding feast in Cana (John 2:5) were called "diakonos," but any one would know that they were not deacons. In Rom. 13:3-4, Paul calls rulers "diakonos," and it is translated "minister." In Rom. 15:8, Paul calls Jesus Christ "a minister," which comes from "diakonos." Surely no one believes that Jesus Christ filled the office of a deacon.

Paul speaks of the ministers of Satan being "ministers" or "diakonos." "Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works" (II Cor. 11:15). No one would ever say that these ministers of Satan held the office of a deacon. Come to think of it, there are some deacons in churches that may well be the deacons "diakonos" of the devil. While we are on the subject, I have met some preachers who were "diakonos" of the devil.

As stated in the title, these are the three basic views of communion which are generally embraced among Baptists and Protestants alike. But which is correct? Since all differ from one another, they cannot all be right.

But, before we go any further, we must agree upon "Who" or "What" will determine a correct or an incorrect position on this subject. And, also, "Who" or "What" will be the final authority governing what we believe about this ordinance.

The Bible must be our Final Authority on this subject, (II Tim. 3:16 17).

Now, let us briefly examine these three positions to see which of them most closely adheres to the Bible pattern.

The basic position of those who hold to open communion is two fold:

· The Supper is open to all who love the Lord Jesus in sincerity and truth.

Question: Who should determine who loves the Lord Jesus in sincerity and truth, the prospective participant, or the church to whom the Lord Jesus has entrusted this ordinance?

· Since it is the Lord's Supper, no church has the right to prohibit anyone from partaking.

Question: Is the Lord's Supper a Christian ordinance or a church ordinance?

If it is a Christian ordinance then every Christian has a right to partake of it when and where he may choose.

If It is a Christian ordinance, then is baptism also a Christian ordinance, or are they both church ordinances?

If these are both church ordinances then the observing church has Christ's authority to govern them.

Those who hold to close communion are opposed to both open and closed communion. These are "Middle Ground" Christians.

Their position is also two fold:

· All of the same "faith" (of the same denomination) are free to observe the Supper with any church in their denomination.

· Membership in their denomination is the determining factor as to who can and who cannot observe the Supper with them.

Question: Where is denominationalism found in the Bible? If it can be found in the Bible then close communion is the correct way, and both open and closed communions are wrong.

Question: Which term is used most often in the New Testament; "denomination" or "church"?

The word "church" is used 76 times and "churches" (plural) 37 times in the New Testament with not one hint of denominational association among them.

The teaching or principle of denominationalism cannot be found in the New Testament.

Denominationalism is a man conceived and man promoted idea.

There is no such thing as "The Baptist Church" or "The Baptist Denomination" taught in the New Testament both are unscriptural terms.

That closed communion is Scriptural may be proven using the following arguments:

· Its Institution Acclaims it

It is my firm conviction Jesus instituted the Supper as a closed ordinance since all the church was not allowed to observe it that first time. Acts 1:15 reveals the membership of the Jerusalem church at that time, "And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty)" But, how many were in attendance when the Lord instituted His Supper? There were only eleven. Where were the rest of those 120 members? They were observing the Passover with their families in obedience to the Word of God. Jesus had not invited them to be with Him and the apostles when He instituted the Supper. Therefore it began as a closed ordinance.

Mark 14:18 20 says, "And as they sat and did eat,(the Passover) Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with Me shall betray Me. And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto Him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I? And He answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with Me in the dish." When we compare this passage with John 13:27 30 we can see exactly when Judas left this group to betray the Lord. "And after the sop (the Passover sop, `he that dippeth with Me in the dish') Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly. Now no man at the table knew for what intent He spake this unto him. For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor. He then having received the sop (Passover sop) went immediately out: and it was night." Judas left the group as they were observing the Passover and the Lord waited for him to leave before He instituted His Supper.

Thus, in its institution the Supper was closed to unbelievers.

Question: If the Supper is open to all, how would the observing church know whether the visitors in their midst were genuine believers?

Without doubt, Judas had also claimed to love the Lord Jesus in sincerity and truth.

One thing is for sure. The Supper was instituted with only saved, faithful church members present.

· Church Discipline Demands it

In his letter to the church at Corinth, the apostle Paul first introduced his teaching on the Lord's Supper in chapter five and then concluded it in chapter eleven. "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat" (I Cor. 5:11).

This command to not eat the Lord's Supper with ungodly people was given to a local church. And, the Supper is to be observed only in a local church.

This command also requires the local church to judge and to exercise authority over all with whom they observe the Supper.

It is unlikely and improbable that those who observe open or close communion will obey this command.

Question: If a stranger came into their midst who claimed to love the Lord Jesus or who was a member of a Baptist Church in a distant city, how could they know whether this person was a godly Christian? And, if they let this person eat with them, could they be sure they were obeying this command governing the Table?

To disobey the Scriptures is a sin. The only way a church can be reasonably sure it is obeying the Word of God in regards to communion is to practice closed communion.

· New Testament Practice Confirms it

One of the questions often asked by those who practice open and close communion is, "What about the apostle Paul, didn't he observe the Supper with the churches he ministered to?" The answer is a simple and straightforward, "NO."

"But what about Acts 20:7 when he came to Troas? Wasn't he observing the Supper with the church in that city?" The answer is the same, "NO."

Question: What does this verse actually say? "And upon the first day of the week, (Sunday) when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow, and continued his speech until midnight." After midnight a man sitting in the balcony went to sleep and fell out a window and appeared to be dead. Paul ministered to him and revived him, and then in verse eleven we are told, "When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked along while, even till break of day, so he departed."

If breaking bread in verse seven means to observe the Lord's Supper then so does it also in verse eleven. If this is so, then Paul and the church observed the Supper on Sunday and then again on Monday.

They were not observing the Supper because there was no cup mentioned in either instance. The Lord's Supper requires both the bread and the cup.

"Breaking bread" was a term used when sitting down to a common meal. This term is still in use today.

There is no proof in the New Testament that Paul ever observed communion with any church.

If this cannot be proven then open or close communion cannot be proven as a New Testament practice.

Question: Which of these three practices, open close closed, most closely follows Biblical teaching and pattern?

From a careful examination of the Scriptures, it is evident that closed communion most closely adheres to the Biblical pattern.

This article on Communion is also available in tract form. It is: Tract # B-355

The proposed merger of four different Fellowships has hit some bumps in the road. The merger at best will be between three Fellowships if it comes off at all. John Rawlings had a bold plan backed by the president of the BBFI, Bill Monroe.

The plan was to bring together into one organization Southwide Baptist Fellowship, World Baptist Fellowship, Independent Baptist Fellowship International, and Baptist Bible Fellowship International. Now we have a firm resolution which indicates that Independent Baptist Fellowship International will not participate in any merger of the Fellowships.

We cannot help wondering why representatives from IBFI attended the meeting hosted by John Rawlings, if there was not some sentiment for the merger. I was told by a friend who is in the IBFI, that these men did not realize why they had been invited to the meeting. They certainly should have known that something important was going to take place, when they received free airfare and free motel rooms. People do not give out free airline tickets and free motel rooms unless they expect something in return. Apparently they must have shown some interest in going further if they really agreed to a meeting in Chattanooga, TN for September 2004.

While I could not be a part of any organized Fellowship, nevertheless I applaud the recent decision of the IBFI not to enter into such a merger. They are certainly wise in making that decision.

A few days ago I received a brief, kind letter from Dr. Raymond Barber, the IBFI President Emeritus. He felt that I should write another article which reflects the current view of IBFI. I would be happy to print any resolution from any other Fellowship in which they repudiate this merger compromise. Barber sent me a copy of the resolution adopted by the IBFI on May 21, 2003. The relevant parts of this resolution are published below.

WHEREAS,

We have taken a firm and unflinching stand on the King James Version (1611) of the Holy Bible; AND

WHEREAS,

We believe in and practice personal separation based on Biblical principles; AND

WHEREAS,

We believe in and practice ecclesiastical separation as it is set forth in the scriptures; AND

WHEREAS,

We are committed to the use of traditional gospel music in our churches and do not condone the use of contemporary music and methods in our services of worship; AND

WHEREAS,

We feel that some independent Baptist groups have gone in a direction we cannot go and embraced methods we cannot adopt; AND

WHEREAS,

We wish to make our position on the Bible, on standards, and on separation unmistakably clear: AND

WHEREAS,

We do not feel that the amalgamation of various independent Baptist fellowships is in the best interest of the Independent Baptist Fellowship International;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED

That, we, the General Assembly of the Independent Baptist Fellowship International meeting on this 21 day of May 2003, declare our resolve to preserve our individuality, independence, and separatism as it has been since our beginning in May 1984 by not aligning our fellowship with any group that does not agree with the positions stated above.

Approved this 21 day of May, 2003.

Raymond W. Barber,IBFI President Emeritus

Charles Wetherbee, IBFI President

-

Forty years ago when I first entered the ministry, the word "modernism" was on the lips of every fundamentalist. The word had a connotation as such organizations as the Federal Council of Churches (now the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches). Individual names such as Harry Emerson Fosdick, Harry Ward, E. Stanley Jones and others became synonymous with exposure of modernism or apostasy.

Many great pulpiteers and Bible expounders became well known for their battle against modernism. Included among these were T.T. Shields, J. Frank Norris, Harvey Springer, Carl McIntyre, Bob Ketchum, Bob Jones, Art Wilson, Noel Smith, Archer Weniger, Henry Grubs and a host of others too numerous to list. All these men have been very close friends.

They fought seemingly insurmountable battles against apostasy and unbelief in denominations and councils. These men were giants in their day. They fought those who would bring false doctrine into our churches and those who would attempt inclusive policies of fellowship between fundamentalists and modernists. The lines were definitely drawn so that people knew unequivocally the difference between fundamentalists, neo-evangelicals, and modernists. Today these lines are fast becoming obliterated.

Now there is a new form that modernism and apostasy has taken to creep surreptitiously into our churches and destroy their Scriptural testimony. This time it does not come in the form of preaching or teaching, but rather in the carnal production of the musical program from many church platforms. Much of the singing heard today by choirs and specials on the average church platform is what is known as contemporary or as soft rock and is often backed with the sound of canned music that could be produced by the average dance or disco band at the corner honky-tonk.

In my personal estimation, much noise or racket (certainly not music) is a polluting stench in the nostrils of a holy God. With its sensual tones, jungle beat, and night club presentation, it appeals to the flesh rather than to the spirit. It motivates the carnal interest instead of the new nature. The sad truth is that most of this new contemporary, soft rock, offbeat style of music was conceived in hell, hatched among the charismatic crowd, and printed in their publishing houses.

Good fundamental Baptists and others that refuse the teachings of the charismatic crowd concerning tongues, signs, miracles, and so forth are now singing their music in our churches and preparing our people for the world, the flesh and the devil. It is the new Trojan Horse move of modernism to deaden our churches to spiritual truth. Ichabod can be written over most of its lyrics and notes. The sad part of this is that many of our pastors are now aware of what is taking place. A lot of these musical arrangements (arranged by the charismatics) comes in the form of "canned music" with the sound of drums, amplified guitars, plus other instruments with the off beat of the jungle just like you would expect to hear in the honky-tonk saloon.

I have heard several people say that it carries the same beat and swing that they used to dance with before they were saved. There is a sort of hippy-oriented "pop" flavor that is disgusting to any consecrated Christian and must be repulsive to Almighty God.

Too many soloists and groups singing such music put on the poise and style of Hollywood entertainers. Many of these "entertainers" wear clothing (or lack of it) that is the same as worn in nightclubs. Often men have long hippy-type hair arrangements that speak of the rebellion of this age and are a contradiction of I Corinthians 11:14 where it states: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" Many of these "Entertainers" would not go across the street to win a soul to Christ or attend a Bible study or prayer meeting.

The average musical group turns up the public address system so high that it destroys all hearing of the words and receiving of a message. I heard B. R. Lakin say in Orlando, Florida, that the "average quartet, if they sang in an auditorium the size of a telephone booth, would want a public address system." This blatant, senseless roaring of a P.A. system is ridiculous beyond words. Its only ministry is NOISE, not even good- sounding noise.

The words of most of this contemporary music used in our churches are shallow, unscriptural, and even heretical. Someone recently said, "Weak preaching always goes along with worldly music." That, I believe, is the truth. Just as years ago we preachers lifted up our voices against modernism as depicted by the National Council and World Council of Churches, so today we preachers need to "rise up like a tomcat spitting tobacco juice in a bull dog's eye" and start preaching against the modernistic evil of most contemporary and all rock music in our churches.

We used to say that the musical program of the church prepared the way for the pastor's sermon. I believe God holds the preacher responsible for what goes on the platform of his church. Possibly we need to tie a knot in the tail of some of our song leaders. Some of them have gone far too worldly in their musical programs. Let's get back to the old time gospel hymns and singing that stirs the heart, brings glory to God, and draws us closer to Him. The old-time hymns like "Rock of Ages," "The Old Rugged Cross," "Throw out the Lifeline" and "When the Roll is called Up Yonder" are still relevant in this dark Laodicean age. "Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls..." (Jer. 6:16)

Copied ... Faith & Freedom (Via Maranatha Baptist Watchman)

We are constantly being told about the peaceful religion of Islam. If they are so peaceful, why did we have so many attacks upon Americans by these people? If they are so peaceful, why is there very, very little religious freedom in any Moslem country? Christians are consistently persecuted in these countries, but the same people want to come to the USA and exercise their religion and impose their beliefs on us. There is not one Moslem country where that Christians can practice their religion freely.

If they are peaceful, why did not they speak out against the atrocities and violations of human rights in Moslem societies? If they are so peaceful, why is there no outcry against the terrorists that have attacked our people, planes and buildings? Some Muslims may be peaceful, but there is a vast number of non peaceful Muslims that dominate the world stage, and are the avowed enemies of the USA.

We need to remember the violent and deadly attacks that have been made upon us. Below is a partial list of events that we need to remember.

Now the United States Postal Service Remembers and honors the EID Muslim holiday season with a commemorative first class holiday postage stamp.

I strongly urge you to Remember to adamantly and vocally Boycott this stamp when purchasing your stamps at the post office. To use this stamp would be a slap in the face to all those Americans who died at the hands of those whom this stamp honors.

I also strongly urge you to pass this along to every Patriotic American you know, whether by U.S. Mail, email or word of mouth.

It is my view that no patriotic American should buy or use one of these stamps.

There is a growing tendency among some preachers to use shady language in the pulpit. Some of the synonyms for shady are "dark," "dishonest," "dishonorable," "dubious," "questionable," and "sleazy." Webster's Dictionary gives the following meanings of shady: "of darkness, secrecy, or concealment; of questionable character or honesty." Lest there be any doubts what I am talking about, let me explain in as simple terms as I can. Preachers tell stories or use illustrations that could easily have a double meaning. They skate just as close as possible between what is proper and what is not proper, and between what is clean and what is dirty. In fact, they sometimes seem to be straddling the line.

There is a phrase that perfectly expresses what I am trying to say and it is "double entendre." According to Merriam-Webster, the etymology of this phrase is "obsolete French, literally, double meaning." It means "1) ambiguity of meaning arising from language that lends itself to more than one interpretation 2) a word or expression capable of two interpretations with one usually risque." This means that it can have a dirty, indecent or lewd meaning.

Of course when someone like me objects to such language, I am accused of having a dirty mind. If I was just more holy, then I would not put an unclean interpretation on it. These people know exactly what they are doing, but they will never admit it. I am extremely reluctant to walk out of any preaching service, but on a very few occasions I have. It might impress some of these people if we all got up and walked out.

The unsaved world thinks nothing of such shady double-meaning speech. That is what they are used to in the world. Television and the movies make millions feeding people on garbage that has a double meaning. Of course they go further than these fellows do in the pulpit. There are many unsaved church members, and they enjoy this because they are of the world. Many saved people have so much of the carnality of the world still in them that they see nothing wrong with shady language.

When I hear preachers grinning with glee as they tell some shady story, it makes me wonder how they would really talk when they are out of the pulpit and in the world. What do they watch on TV, or what do they read that feeds this tendency?

Fortunately, most Unaffiliated Independent Baptist preachers do not talk this way and do not approve of it. There are some that want to bring this kind of junk in among us, and it is about time that someone spoke up against it.

There is no example of Christ, Peter, Paul, or any of the apostles using shady speech in the New Testament. All of them seemed to be able to get the message over loud and clear without such tactics. In fact, questionable speech is strictly forbidden in the Bible.

"Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls" (James 1:21). Superfluity means the "residue, remains: the wickedness remaining over in a Christian from his state prior to conversion." We have to recognize that there is a lot of "residue" that is left over from our condition before we were saved. We are supposed to get rid of it, and not feed it.

"Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice" (Eph 4:31). One of the meanings of "evil speaking" is, "impious and reproachful speech injurious to divine majesty."

"Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities." (Jude 1:8). The metaphor for "filthy dreamers" is "to be beguiled with sensual images and carried away to an impious course of conduct."

"Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers." (Eph. 4:29). Corrupt means, "rotten, putrefied, of poor quality, bad, unfit for use, worthless."

As Christians we should heed what the Scripture says. "Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks" (Eph. 5:4).

I am no prude, nor am I a little goody two shoes. I grew up in a farming community where it was normal to hear filthy talk, but it was never in the presence of ladies. More than once my mother washed out my mouth with soap, and sometimes it was the old country lye soap. I spent two years in the United States Army Air Force, and you could hear all the filthy conversation that you could imagine. In addition, I worked in an aircraft plant where more than 30,000 men worked on three shifts. Most were on the first or second shifts. During that time I often had to ask men to stop using language that was dirty. There was only one man that did not respect my wishes, and I had to work with him on some occasions. Nothing would shut him up, and he was the filthiest mouthed man that I ever met. You did not have to wonder why they called him Frenchy. I witnessed to him, tried to shame him, and plead with him, all to no avail. There is one method that might have worked, but I knew I would lose both my job and my testimony, if I engaged in a fist fight. I sure hope that old Frenchy met the Lord somewhere later, but I have no way of knowing.

I like a clean joke as much as most people. My sense of humor may be well above normal, but I do not think there is any place in the life of a Christian for off-color jokes or stories with double meaning. Here I am not talking about in the pulpit, but anywhere that we go. A little humor in the pulpit may be alright, but it is too bad that it is often carried to the extreme. It is my conviction that God calls men to preach the word, but not to be comedians or clowns in the pulpit.

I just wanted to get this off my chest.

Sad, but true, is that fact that men do compromise. Men who once demonstrated character and lived by a solid set of Biblical principles do change. This is indeed one of the great mysteries of human nature. The question is, "Why do men compromise?"

Men sometimes compromise because of misplaced loyalties. Out of loyalty to movements, denominations, institutions, or even personalities, men will move away from what they once held to be right for fear of getting out of step. We must always remember that as believers our loyalty above all is to God and His precious Word. Thank God for all men who hold that persuasion, but we must never be intimidated to move from that position by men who do not hold it.

Men sometimes compromise because of a desire for recognition. How vain we little human creatures are. We want recognition. We want to be listed in Who's Who. We want our name to be a household word. We want our accomplishments to receive men's acclaim. Men will sometimes compromise for no greater reward than to receive the plaudits of men.

Men sometimes compromise because of weak convictions. A spiritual conviction is a principle that one holds that is based upon the immutable truth of our immutable God that is revealed in His eternal Word. Biblical convictions do not change with every wind that blows. A man who claims he holds a Biblical conviction and changes it had a preference, not a conviction. A preference is a convenience. It encourages one to hold whatever persuasion is in vogue.

Men sometimes compromise because they fear controversy. We must always remind ourselves that TRUTH spends most of its time in the arena of controversy. Men often weary of controversy and develop a phobia of controversy. But we have Truth today as a cherished possession because men dare to be controversial.

Our Bible tells us to "earnestly contend for the faith."

Our Bible tells us to "endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ."

Our Bible tells us to "fight the good fight of faith," and not to "be weary in well-doing."

Men sometimes compromise because of peer pressure. Men often succumb to the pressure of being outside the mainstream. There is the pressure of bigness, the pressure of desire for recognition, the pressure of conformity, etc. Peer intimidation has ruined many a good man. Oh! To be satisfied to be in the will of God, seeking to give Him my all and being contented and satisfied with the measure of success He desires for me.

Men sometimes compromise because they develop a blind side in their spiritual life. They move away from a position they once held, and then develop a blind spot, and convince themselves that they are still standing where they always stood. A wise man will take honest inventory of his spiritual life frequently by looking into the mirror of God's Word, and adjusting his life accordingly.

Maranatha Baptist Watchman