Truth Magazine

By R.L. Whiteside

By an “alien” I mean one who has not obeyed the gospel, and is therefore not in the kingdom of Christ. Is such a one a sinner in the sight of God? Do not dismiss this as an idle or foolish question; for it has to do with the very basis, or reason, for the scheme of human redemption. When Jesus came into the world, Gentiles were “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise” (Eph. 2:12). Were the Gentiles sinners at that time? If not, neither are they sinners now. Jesus came to call sinners to repentance; does that call now come to Gentiles and Jews? Are you wondering why I am saying these things? It is because of a theory held by some brethren, and also by the followers of Russell and Scofield.

Years ago a good brother, in answering a question in a gospel paper, said that it did not make any difference how many times aliens married and divorced; for they are not in covenant relationship with the Lord and therefore disobeyed no law of God. If that be so, how can they be regarded as sinners? And more, in God’s sight are aliens married? If I mistake not, Mormons say Gentiles, or aliens, are not married. The theory is that aliens are under no law of God. How then do they become sinners? One brother said they become sinners when they hear the gospel and disobey it. If that be so, then the gospel makes more sinners than it prevents, for the greater number who hear the gospel disobey it. Besides, if people become sinners only when they hear and disobey the gospel, then the one who obeys the gospel as soon as he hears it is never an alien sinner, for he does not become a sinner by disobeying it. Cornelius and those with him, and also the jailer, obeyed as soon as they learned what to do. They did not have the least inclination to disobey. If the theory is correct, they were not sinners at all. From what, then, were Cornelius and the jailer saved?

One preacher in a sermon which I heard, said, “When a man becomes a Christian, he obligates himself to do right.” Look at that statement closely and see what is implied in it. If the statement is true, then a man who is not a Christian is under no obligation to do right – no obligation even to believe! A man does no wrong when he is under no obligation. Hence, if the statement is true, an alien is not a sinner. Well, the Lord will not damn a man who is not a sinner. Why then should any one obligate himself to do right by becoming a Christian?

Several years ago I had a debate with a follower of Pastor Russell. One proposition I affirmed was that baptism is for the remission of sins to Jew and Gentile alike. My opponent believed that baptism was for the remission of sins to the Jews, but not to Gentiles. If you do not yet see the grounds for his contention, you will see later. But in his contention he was more consistent than the brethren I have mentioned: for according to their theory, how can an alien, a Gentile, have any sins to be remitted?

In Scofield’s foreword to the book of Acts we have this:

“Acts is in two chief parts: In the first section (1:1-9:43) Peter is the prominent personage, Jerusalem is the center, and the ministry is to Jews. Already in covenant relationship with Jehovah, they had sinned in rejecting Jesus as the Christ. The preaching, therefore was directed to that point, and repentance (i. e. a change of mind) was demanded. . . .

“In the second division (10:1-23:3 1) Paul is prominent, a new center is established at Antioch and the ministry is chiefly to Gentiles who, as strangers from the covenants of promise (Eph. 2:12) had but to ‘believe on the Lord Jesus Christ’ to be saved.”

Here you have the theory stated plainly. The Jews had sinned in rejecting Christ, for they were in covenant relations with the Lord, and therefore needed to repent: but the Gentiles had not been in covenant relations with the Lord, but were “strangers from the covenants of promise” and therefore they did not need to repent, but only to believe to be saved. But if the Gentiles were not sinners, from what were they saved by believing? But no matter who advocates this foolish theory, it is so crooked that it is bound to twist itself around over itself at some point. No non-Christian today, whether Jew or Gentile, has ever been in covenant relations with the Lord. If the theory is true, no man now needs to repent, neither can he be baptized for the remission of sins.

It is true that the Gentiles were not under the covenant given at Sinai, but they were sinners. Jesus said to Pilate, “He that delivered me unto thee hath greater sin.” Pilate, though not so sinful as the Jewish council, was himself a sinner, and yet he was not a Jew; he was an alien, an alien sinner. Paul was sent to the Gentiles “to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me” (Acts 26:16-18). The Gentiles were in the power of Satan and needed remission of sins. Could they receive remission of sins without repentance?

Read the list of sins charged against Gentiles (see Rom. 1:18-32). Both Jews and Gentiles were all under sin (Rom. 3:9). Paul charges that the Gentiles in time past were disobedient to God (Rom. 11:30). He also says, “We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles” (Gal. 2:15). There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile – “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:22). Jews are not now in covenant with God any more than Gentiles are. If people cannot sin unless they are in covenant with the Lord, then there are no sinners outside the church! A man would have to become a Christian before he could sin. Get such an idea in the mind of an alien, and what have you? When he hears the command to believe, he can consistently say, “Why should I do what God says? I am not under his jurisdiction.” Or, if a man obligates himself to do right when he becomes a Christian, he is under no obligation to do anything that is right so long as he is not a Christian. Get an alien imbued with such ideas, what then? On what grounds can you who hold such theories appeal to any one to become a Christian? So far as I see you have no grounds for such appeal. I know of no theory more absurd and vicious.

But one may ask, “What about 1 John 3:4?” The Common Version reads: “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” More accurately the American Standard version reads: “Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.” To be lawless is to live without law without being governed by law. Can a man without revealed law sin? Paul says, “For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law” (Rom. 2:12). Paul was here referring to Gentiles. They did not have a revealed law nor were they in covenant with the Lord, yet they sinned John further defines sin: “All unrighteousness is sin” (1 John 5:17). In the long list of sins Paul charges against the Gentiles is the sin of “being filled with all unrighteousness” (Rom. 2:29). It is plain therefore that any rational being who fails to do right sins, whether he is in covenant relation with the Lord or not. Some things are right, and some things are wrong within themselves. The moral law applies to a intelligent human beings, and cannot be disregarded without guilt, nor can a foolish theory make it of no effect.

But why go on? More than enough has been said to convince any thinking person; and if a man will shut his eyes to truth no amount of reasoning will make him think (reprint from Bible Banner, March 1946, pp. 8-9).

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 23, pp. 707-708
December 1, 1988

By Mark Mayberry

If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, were Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory (Col. 3:14).

The gospel is a spiritual message, which is founded on the resurrection of the Lord. It deals with man’s problem of sin, and provides forgiveness through the sacrifice of Christ. The ultimate design of the gospel is to save men from everlasting destruction, and provide for eternal life with God in heaven. The emphasis in the gospel is on things spiritual and eternal (Col. 3:1-4).

In the last several generations, however, many leading theologians began to outgrow their belief in such spiritual concepts. They came to question the reality of sin, and denied the vicarious atonement. They rejected the Bible’s teaching on miracles, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection, and ridiculed the whole idea of heaven and hell. Like the ancient Greeks, they considered the preaching of the cross foolishness.

Following this loss of faith, a shift of emphasis occurred. Since the spiritual aspect of Christianity was rejected, they began to redirect the church in What they considered more relevant pursuits. They taught. that the church should be a brave and fearless champion of social and economic ideals. They sought to create a better social order in the “here and now.” The emphasis in, religion turned to education, kindergartens and day care, family counseling, fellowship centers, athletics, etc. Today on the modern religious scene, the average church is little more than a social club or a community recreational center. The fact. that the New Testament church was totally different from this does not concern most religious people in the least.

It is even more unfortunate that we have even witnessed a similar change of emphasis in the Lord’s church. Many congregations which had long adhered to the New Testament order have now adopted the methods and concepts of denominationalism. Consider the following examples:

1. Brethren have dreamed up a variety of ministries such as “Gymnastics to the Glory of God,” “The Martial Arts Gospel Ministry,” “Clown Ministries,” “Goliath’s for God,” etc. Isn’t it amazing how people seek to reduce the, church to the level of a carnival?

2. Brethren use incentive programs, such as the Bus ministry, to get people to attend. There is nothing wrong with offering someone a ride to church, but consider all that goes, on: In order to increase the number of riders, brethren offer free hamburgers, lollipops and ice cream, $5 hidden under a seat, trips to the skating rink after the services, etc. The appeal is carnal.

3. Special facilities have been built to provide kindergartens and day care centers, kitchens, student, centers, fellowship halls, etc. The Family Life and Education Center built by the Church of Christ in Madison,. Tennessee is typical of the direction many of our liberal brethren have taken in recent years. When the center first opened, a half-page ad in the Nashville Banner (11/18/78) announced “Madison Takes a Giant Step Forward!” Special speakers from Abilene, Pepperdine, Freed Hardeman, and David Lipscomb were on hand to help Ira North commemorate the occasion. The facility was complete with a. Gymnasium, Exercise Room, Sunset Room, Reception Room, Fellowship Room, etc. planned activities included Walking/Jogging, Bowling, Volleyball, Ping Pong, Tennis, Golf, Fuss Ball, Ladies Slimnastics, Basketball, Officiating Clinics for Referees of Church Sporting Events, Classes on First Aid, CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation), and Arts and Crafts, such as macrame and ceramics, etc. we should stop and ask, “Was this really a giant step forward?”

4. The following bulletin represents the view which liberal brethren have of the church. The Church of Christ which meets at 402 W. Danieldale in Duncanville, TX publishes a bulletin called “The Exhorter. ” The November, 1987 edition has a decided social emphasis. It lists I the menu for the next several Wednesday Night Church suppers. Servings included Apricot Baked Chicken, Italian Spaghetti, Beef Tips & Homemade noodles, etc. Congratulations were extended to the local football team for clinching a spot in the play-offs. Announcements were made concerning an upcoming Church Golf Tournament, a Craft Sale, a Winter Ski trip, a High School Retreat, etc. The only Scripture quoted in the bulletin was Romans 8:31, which says, “if God be for us, who can be against us?” This strikes me as ironic. Is this the kind of religion that God really desires? Is he “for us” when we engage in such practices?

The Scriptural Appeal

Is this the direction that religion should be headed? Is all this a step forward? Going forward is good if it is along the path of faith, but those churches that preach a “social gospel” have actually taken a giant step away from the Scriptures (Jer. 6:16). It’s sad to realize just how far down the road to denominationalism many “Churches of Christ” have already gone.

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. But they said, we will not walk therein (Jer. 6.-16).

The Church today is no longer “Christ-centered.” It has allowed itself to be seduced into meeting the world’s needs of recreation and entertainment. Instead of focusing on the ultimate need, that is, the salvation of man’s soul, the church is rushing headlong to become just another denomination. From such a secular standpoint, we no longer view God as one who possesses awesome majesty and power. Instead he becomes merely an “assistant” who helps us with what we want.

Men are drawn to God by being taught the truth (Jn. 6:44-45). Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free” (Jn.8:32). Salvation can only be found when the gospel is preached in its purity and simplicity (Rom. 1:16-17). It is a fact that if you draw men with something else, you will draw them to something else. Offering any kind of appeal or incentive other than the gospel itself is wrong. One who does this is guilty of teaching another gospel.

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me (Jn. 6:44).

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith tofaith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith (Rom. 1:16-17).

Let’s realize that food and fun will not genuinely draw souls (Jn 6:26). It fills the church with untaught and uncoverted people whose main interest is not on spiritual things (Jn. 6:63). The early church offered the world nothing but the gospel, and their message called for a life of sacrifice and obedience. When that message fell into good and honest hearts, it bore fruit. The same seed will bear fruit today. However, a perverted gospel, offering materialistic incentives, cannot save the world. Someone once said that “If you try to draw people with tea, ice cream, and chicken . . . they will be as weak as the tea, as cold as the ice cream and as dead as the chicken.” Are we going to trust in the Gospel or in Gimmicks?

Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled (Jn. 6:26).

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life (Jn. 6:63).

The Need For Authority

For years, members of the church have argued for the need to give “Book, Chapter, and Verse” for everything we teach or practice. The watchword of the Restoration Movement was, “We speak where the Bible speaks, and we are silent where the Bible is silent.” For many this principle no longer exists. Where is the authority to take church resources (time, money, facilities, personnel, etc.) to provide for these kinds of recreational and secular activities?

We must have authority for all that we do in religion (Matt. 28:18; Col. 3:17). The authorized work of the church is evangelism, edification and benevolence. There is absolutely no scriptural authority for the church to engage in social, secular, and recreational activities. God gave the church to provide for our spiritual fellowship with him. God instituted’the home, and ordained it for social, secular, and recreational purposes. To add these functions to the work of the church is to follow the commandments of men, and such is condemned by our Lord (Matt. 7:21-23; 15:9; 1 Cor. 11:22,34; 2 Jn. 9).

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth (Matt. 28:18).

And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him (Col. 3:17).

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity (Matt. 7:21-23).

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Matt. 15:9).

What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. . . And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come (1 Cor. 11:22,34).

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he that hath both the Father and the Son (2 Jn. 9).

Over 30 years ago in the Gospel Advocate, B.C. Goodpasture wrote, “It is not the mission of the church to furnish amusement for the world or even for its members. Innocent amusement in proper proportion has its place in the life of all normal persons, but it is not the business of the church to furnish it . . . The church was not established to feature athletics. Rather it emphasizes the principle that ‘bodily exercise is profitable for little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having the promise of life which now is, and of that which is to come’ (1 Tim. 4:8). For the church to turn aside from its divine work to furnish amusement and recreation is to pervert its mission. It is to degrade its mission. Amusement and recreation should stem from the home rather than the church. The church, like Nehemiah, has a great work to do and should not come down on the plains of Ono to amuse and entertain. As the church turns its attention to amusement and recreation, it will be shorn of its power as Samson was when his hair was cut. Only when the church becomes worldly, as it pillows its head in the lap of Delilah, will it turn from its wonted course to relatively unimportant matters” (1951 Gospel Advocate Annual Lesson Commentary).

Conclusion

Consider the supreme price that was paid for the church (Eph. 5:25-27). If you and I are saved eternally it will be because we constituted a faithful part of the church, of which Christ is the Savior (Eph. 1:3-5; 5:23). Furthermore, the church has the exalted privilege and precious responsibility of being the “pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish (Eph. 5:25-27).

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will (Eph. 1:3-5).

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body (Eph. 5:23).

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3: 15).

In view of the greatness of the church and the gospel which it must uphold and support, how can we dare depreciate it by implying that it is incapable of accomplishing the purpose for which it was intended? The gospel is cheapened and the function of the church thwarted by those who preach and practice a social gospel. Such promoters specialize in gimmickry because they have evidently lost faith in the power of the gospel. In the time of Samuel, Israel grew restless because they had no king like the nations around them. This desire brought many problems for Israel, and will do likewise for the church today.

The church will grow if we follow God’s pattern! By fulfilling our responsibilities, we will grow personally and others will be brought to the Lord. Let’s not turn from our God-given mission to dissipate our energies and resources in a vain attempt to be like the denominations around us.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 23, pp. 720-722
December 1, 1988

By J. Wiley Adams

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matt. 7:15).

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 Jn. 4:1).

There is no more notorious a false prophet among churches of Christ today than Charles A. Holt, the editor of a publication known as The Examiner. Some of the writers in his paper are so cowardly they will only sign their articles with a pen name or the word anonymous. For some reason they do not want folks to know who they are or where they are from. If they have the truth what have they to fear?

Of course, some are willing to sign their names such as Dusty Owens and now Bob West. Many others have fallen prey to the false ideas of Charles Holt. What bothers me is that some so-called faithful brethren are having some of these men for gospel meetings. Bob West edits a paper from Brevard, North Carolina called The Answer and he is the author of the popular religious cartoon known as Theophilus. Now that West has joined up with Holt we may expect his cartoon character to start spouting venom and rancor as is characteristic of Holt and his writers. I have certainly been disappointed in men like Dusty Owens and Bob West for allowing themselves to be duped by such a man as Charles Holt.

Now Holt is making inroads in my beloved home state of Virginia where the gospel cause is weak and whatever gains have been made over the years have been with much effort on the part of a good many. It arouses my indignation to know that he is invading the area around Richlands, Cedar Bluff and other sections of the mountains of Virginia. Everywhere his blasphemous teachings have gone, whether in Virginia, Georgia, Texas, or elsewhere, he has left a path of destruction among the churches that would put the recent hurricane Gilbert in the shade.

What alarms me also is the gullibility of some of my brethren. Some think we are only reactionaries when we dare to preach or to write anything on this matter. Well, Jesus said to beware of false prophets and John, the disciple especially beloved by Jesus, warned us to beware of false prophets and to put them to the test of Truth. So may I do what Jesus did and what the apostle John did? Well, I certainly intend to whether some like it or do not like it. It is high time we called Holt, Owens, West and others’ hand and all those silly pen writers who do not wish to be identified.

In some places Holt is being put on the air with his heresies by naive brethren who use his taped messages for local broadcasting. But why should we be surprised? Jesus told us it would happen and it has always happened down through the years. There are always those who are discontent with God’s word and the progress of his people. So let us fight back and let these false prophets know there are still those who will not bow their knee to Baal. Brethren, please wake up and join the fight. It is later than we think.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 23, p. 723
December 1, 1988

By Charles G. Goodall

Israel of old looked at the nations about them and said to God,, “Give us a king.” Brethren in recent years have looked at the denominations said to God, “Give us control” or “give us conversions.” Specifically, Crossroads and Boston have provided such attraction. Brethren, who should know better, have “picked and sorted” among the Crossroads strategies, and made the trek to Gainesville or Boston allegedly to find out “the good things” that they are doing.

It is categorically untrue and deceptive to say that Crossroads and Boston are doing a “lot of good things.” Jesus said of the false teachers of his day that “ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him two fold more the child of hell than yourselves” (Matt. 23:15). Crossroads and Boston are wrong, wrong, wrong! They have the wrong system of evangelism and conversion(1), the wrong baptism, the wrong approach to the Scriptures, the wrong organization, and the wrong edification system.

Those in the Boston movement teach that “disciple’s baptism” is necessary for salvation.(2) Disciple’s baptism requires that one understand before he is baptized that he must foresee that he must undergo a program which will require him to be a “discipleship partner” for a “discipler. ” Gordon Ferguson, in the May 29 issue of the Boston Bulletin, said, “To baptize a person who has not made a decision to be a disciple (Boston style, CGG) is to baptize someone who does not understand repentance. . . Anyone who does not approach baptism with that understanding has been mistaught . . . Those who are offended by this teaching are for the most part those who are threatened by the possibility that they may not be Christians. ” Nothing could be more absurd and further from the truth. Baptism of the New Testament required none of the Boston “methodology.” “Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins” (Acts 22:16) were the instructions given Saul of Tarsus.

Boston teaches that they are obtaining a progressive revelation of God’s word.(3) They cite Philippians 3:15 as proof that God continues to reveal the truth to his followers. They maintain that “one church per city, every member evangelism, discipleship partners, training of ministers through discipling relationships, women leading women, church reconstructions, disciple’s baptism, and evangelists discipling elders” have been revealed to them by God in modem times. They prefer the motto, according to Ferguson, “Where the Bible speaks we are silent, where the Bible is silent we speak.”(4) The Bible, by contrast, teaches that we have been provided with every good work (2 Tim. 3:16) and that revelation has been given once and for all (Jude 3).

The Boston system, with its Romish arrangement of “pillar churches,” “reconstruction,” “zone leaders,” and “house church leaders,”(5) is a long way from the autonomous New Testament church with elders conducting the oversight (Acts 14:23; Acts 20:28). Boston alleges, “The idea of a non-cooperative . . . separation from each other as congregations is absolutely non-Biblical . . . contrary to the purpose of God and sinful.”(6)

Boston methodology subjects a convert to a system that enslaves the new member in order to expedite his growth. The system was conceived in Catholicism and exploited in communism. While Jesus, as God, may well have ordered the lives of the disciples while they prepared to be apostles, one would be totally inept to produce any suggestions from him or the apostles that he wants us to do that, much less what Boston does, with men today. The methods they use violate one’s freedom in Christ as well as his free moral agency.

Someone says, “they are zealous, sincere, and courageous.” Paul said of those of a similar temperament, “For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God” (Rom. 10:2-3).

The cold reality which my brethren who look with envy on Boston will not accept is that most people will not accept the truth. The disciples in effect asked Jesus near the end of his ministry, “Lord, is this all?” (Jn. 12:36-38) The lessons of “many be called, but few chosen” and “narrow” is the way to salvation and “broad” is the path to destruction (Matt. 7:13-14; 20:16) are echoed through almost every chapter of the Bible. The stark reality is that mass conversions are not to be expected and that when they do occur the methods of those with astounding results should be viewed with great scrutiny and care.

Brethren in various congregations, who have viewed the methodology of Boston with favor, have introduced what I call “friendship evangelism” and have reflected unfavorably on what they call the “common approach. ” The “common approach” they feet emphasizes too much the commandments, the church, the kingdom and the use of proof texts especially when it comes to baptism in conversion. They espouse instead a method that would forego such exposure. In their terminology they prefer to focus on love, the king, and spiritual experiences without seeing others as the ones who are wrong with God and as sinners who displease him. This “friendship evangelism” would forego or postpone exposure to the reality that Christ has promised to save only those uniquely in his body (Eph. 4:23). What the system does is hide the uniqueness of the church from the convert until what those who use the approach consider a more favorable time. The result is that a congregation is able to work with a much larger base of “converts” and apparently with much greater success than neighboring congregations.

Brethren, always ready to be “where it is happening” suddenly flock to be a part of the excitement. The problem is that there is no guarantee that those converted by such a system will remove themselves from influence and participation when they refuse to accept the uniqueness of the Lord’s people. Instead, from their perception of a brotherhood of saved on a much larger scale, they are in a position to wreck havoc on a congregation.

Boston and Crossroads are changing almost daily. Recently Crossroads in Gainesville refused “reconstruction” from Boston and have struck out on their own.(7) They still use the same ungodly methods they always have, they are just not in the Boston hierarchy.

In conclusion, we observe that the effect of using Boston methods is parallel to the effect of the social gospel appeal. We told our digressive brethren who tried to lure people with fried chicken and ice tea that the converts would be as cold as the chicken and weak as the tea. Brethren who try to lure people with a feather touch and a pitcher of warmth will find the converts as flighty as the feathers and as empty as the pitcher. Paul said, “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16). Conversions of the New Testament involved a radical immediate exposure to the truths of the gospel. The result was, “See here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? “, “And now why tarriest thou, arise and be baptized,” and “. . the same hour of the night” he was taken to be baptized (Acts 8, 16, 22). Can we expect less in our day and time.

Endnotes

1. Charles Goodall, The Crossroads Heresy.

2. Gordon Ferguson, Boston Bulletin, May 29, 1988.

3. Gordon Ferguson, Boston Bulletin, May 1, 1988.

4. Gordon Ferguson, Boston Bulletin, May 8, 1988.

5. Maurice Barnett, The Discipling Movement, pp. 59-95.

6. Gordon Ferguson, Boston Bulletin, June 5, 1988.

7. (Note: Original document did not include corresponding number within article). The Growing Local Church, church workbook, p.14.

7. The Christian Chronicle, April, 1988.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 23, pp. 715-716
December 1, 1988