Truth Magazine

By Dick Blackford

Due to its significance the editor of Guardian of Truth asked me to review this debate which occurred in Neosho, Missouri, near Joplin where the first Restoration Summit meeting took place in 1984. The summit was a unity meeting between fifty preachers of the Independent Christian Church (ICC) and fifty preachers from churches of Christ (institutional brethren who oppose instrumental music). Joplin is a stronghold for the Christian Church, being the home of

Ozark Christian College and College Press, a publishing house operated by members of the ICC. The debate took place April 12-15, 1988, between Alan E. Highers of the church of Christ and Given O. Blakely of the ICC. By this writer’s estimate, attendance ranged between 700-900 nightly.

The Propositions

The first two nights brother Highers affirmed, “The use of mechanical instruments of music as an element of Christian worship is without scriptural authority and therefore sinful.” Brother Blakely denied. The last two nights brother Blakely affirmed, “The employment of instruments of music in the singing of praise does not transgress the law of God, is harmonious with the faith of Christ and is inoffensive to God; hence, it is scriptural and in harmony with the word of God.”

Brother Highers denied.

The Basic Argument

Brother Highers emphasized that the issue is whether we abide within the authority of Christ. Colossians 3:17, 1 Corinthians 4:6, and Matthew 4:4f were introduced to show that one must have authority for his practices and must not exceed what is written. Thus instrumental music was not authorized in the New Testament and could not be done by faith (Rom. 10:17). Blakely responded that “in the name of Christ” stands for his person or character, into which we are baptized, and that everything we do is to be done out of that relation ship and union with Christ. He said that life, not legality, is the point of Colossians 3. Highers showed from biblical usage (Acts 4:7f) and from Thayer’s definition that to do something “in the name” of another is to do it by that person’s power or authority.

Throughout the debate Blakely argued that the new covenant did not involve authority and that our problem was that we didn’t see God alike. He said Highers’ proposition did not employ proper nomenclature, was not apostolic or godly, and neither his propositions nor questions addressed reality. He repeatedly said there is no liturgy, no such thing as “acts” of worship pre-approved by God, no such thing as corporate worship, and that Highers’ proposition was devised by man’s wisdom, not God’s. He introduced the woman of Mark 14 who anointed the Lord in honor and devotion. His point was that she did this without scriptural authority, yet she was commended. Other Scriptures were used to make the same argument.

Blakely said there was no such thing as authorized worship and charged that such was creed making for no authority was needed. He charged that the “have I done it right?” syndrome is out of harmony with the new covenant and that such a concept comes from the law of Moses, not grace; that it is the person (Christ) not the deed that makes worship acceptable. He said worship is a right thing to do and there is no wrong way to it; there are no regulations, no meticulous routine.

Highers produced several quotes from leading writers of the ICC, including Blakely’s father (Fred), Duane Dunning, Don DeWelt (all of whom were present and supporting Blakely in the debate), as well as Blakely himself, which showed unmistakably that they had taught that worship was prescribed, must be authorized, was corporate, and that there were “acts of worship,” thus regulated. He further showed that what these men taught was the very thing Blakely called “unscriptural and ungodly.” The footnote on Matthew 2:2 (ASV) was cited which indicated that the meaning of the word worship denotes “an act of reverence.” The case of the Pharisees (Matt. 15:9) was used to show that acceptable worship is inseparable from teaching and obeying the truth. Worship “in spirit and truth” (Jn. 4:24) showed that worship is regulated and that if Blakely’s position was correct then we may burn incense in worship, observe the Lord’s Supper on Monday, use tea and meat in communion, employ rosary beads in prayer, do a holy dance before the Lord, and handle snakes as a token of worship. Highers asked, “Does doctrine affect worship?” Blakely appeared to argue from a subjective viewpoint by saying that we don’t burn incense and offer animals because they “don’t blend with the reality that has been proclaimed by the gospel; they don’t comport with where we are in Christ Jesus.” But he did not say such practices were unauthorized or that it would be wrong to do so.

Highers pointed out that Blakely’s use of the woman’s unauthorized anointing of Jesus (Matt. 14) was an admission that instrumental music was an unauthorized act and conceded the arugments of all Christian Church preachers in the past who affirmed that the instrument was authorized. He showed it was contradictory to cite authority from the Scripture to show that no authority was necessary. Highers said the real significance of Blakely’s argument was that it implied that the woman could have acceptably observed the Sabbath on Monday or monthly, served as a priest, or offered a pig as a sacrifice. He asked, “Does her spontaneous act imply that she could violate the expressed will of God?

On the last two nights Blakely argued that instruments were used in the past (O.T.) with God’s approval and will be used in the future (heaven, Rev. 14) with God’s approval. Highers showed that this proved too much for it would allow incense and other parts of the law to be brought in, plus, if what is done in heaven is authority for what we are to do on earth then it would outlaw marriage (Matt. 22:30). He stressed that Blakely’s proposition used the present tense (“is . . . does. . . “) not the past or the future and that Blakely needed to prove it was acceptable now. Highers pinpointed the basic difference between them by showing that his position was that all actions that were without scriptural authority were sinful, whereas, Blakely’s position was that all actions without scriptural authority were acceptable. He noted that churches of Christ and Christian churches were united in the past but that the introduction of the instrument caused division. Further, that churches of Christ still occupy the same position of the pioneers who rejected the instrument when they said, “Let us speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent.”

A chart was introduced by Highers which showed that Christian Church debaters in the past had argued that instrumental music was authorized. He charged that Blakely had broken new ground and had established a new hermeneutic which in effect admits that, (1) we do not have authority, (2) we do not need authority, (3) we will not give authority.

Observations and Implications

1. Borther Highers pointed out that brother Blakely has helped some of our brethren who thought the only difference between churches of Christ and the ICC was the instrument of music.

2. I could not help but recall that some denominations arue that there is no prescribed plan of salvation (no pattern), just a nebulous “acceptance” of Jesus as Savior. The ICC was arguing that there is not pattern for the worship of the church. And some of our institutional brethren argue that there is no pattern for the work of the church. Denominations add sprinkling and pouring to the plan of salvation; Christian churches add an instrument to the worship; institutional brethren add an institution to the work. Of course, God’s pattern for all of these is not found in one verse alone, but is found by taking all the New Testament says about each subject.

The Blakely-Highers Debate is a significant one. It will be available on audio and video tape after May 15, and in book form after August 15. This writer recommends that readers obtain a copy for a more detailed study than can be given in this review.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 12, pp. 353, 375
June 16, 1988

By Johnny Stringer

No one lives a perfectly righteous life; all have been guilty of unrighteousness. How, then, may one be righteous in God’s sight? One theory is that we can be regarded as righteous by being credited with the perfect life of Christ. This theory says that Christ’s personal righteousness is imputed to the Christian. This was Calvin’s way of sustaining the doctrine of “once saved, always saved.” One may commit some sins after being saved, but those sins will not cause him to be lost, for when God looks at his child, he does not see that person’s sinful life; rather, he sees the perfectly righteous life of Christ.

Some advocates of the “Grace-Unity” movement among our brethren espouse this theory. They believe it applies not to those in high-handed rebellion against God, but to those in error who are sincere in their efforts to do God’s will and to those who commit sins of weakness. Hence, according to these brethren, people can persist in sins regarding the work, worship, and organization of the church, yet be righteous in God’s sight. God imputes the Lord’s righteousness to them; that is, God pretends that his children lived the life Christ lived.

This theory is contrary to biblical teaching about how we are made righteous. God has provided that we can be righteous not by getting credit for the life Christ lived, but by being forgiven of our unrighteousness on the basis of our Lord’s blood (Matt. 26:28). When we are forgiven of our unrighteousness, it is as though we were never guilty of unrighteousness; God regards us as righteous.

In order to be forgiven, we must have the faith to obey certain conditions (Gal. 5:6; Heb. 5:9). Whether one has never become a Christian or is guilty of sins after becoming a Christian, the conditions for forgiveness include repentance (Acts 2:38; 8:22). Hence, one cannot persist impenitently in sin and receive God’s forgiveness.

Paul quoted David’s joyful words expressing the bless dness of being righteous although our works are not perfectly righteous (Rom. 4:6-8). The quotation plainly attributes our righteousness to the fact that our “iniquities are forgiven” (v. 7). The statement of verse 8, “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin,” must be understood in the light of verse 7. Hence, the one to whom the Lord does not impute sin is the one whose sins are forgiven.

Because forgiveness is conditioned on obedient faith, Paul stresses that faith is counted to men for righteousness (Rom. 4:3,5). The word rendered “counted” could be translated “imputed.” It was a term used in business to mean “to put to one’s account.” Hence, verse 3 is saying that God put faith on Abraham’s account. Abraham had faith, and God credited his faith to him.

He credited it to him “for righteousness.” The word rendered “for” is eis, the same word used in Matthew 26:28 and Acts 2:38. It points to a result. Hence, the point is that God’s crediting Abraham with faith resulted in Abraham being righteous. Verse 5 says that if a believer has not performed the work of perfectly keeping God’s law, his faith is credited to him, and as a result, he is righteous. We must understand these statements in light of the fact that forgiveness is conditioned on obedient faith. God took account of Abraham’s faith, and Abraham was forgiven; as a result, he was righteous. When we have the faith to meet God’s conditions for forgiveness, God takes account of our faith and forgives us our sins; as a result, we are righteous, having been forgiven of our unrighteousness.

According to the quotation from David, when this happens, righteousness is imputed to us although our works are not perfectly righteous (v. 6). God puts righteousness on our account, or credits us with righteousness, because, having been forgiven of all unrighteousness, we really are righteous. The word impute does not mean to give one credit for something he does not really have. God imputed faith to Abraham (v. 3) because Abraham really had faith. God imputes sin to those who are unforgiven (v. 8) because they really have sin. The same is true of righteousness. He imputes it to us because we are really righteous through forgiveness. The statement that God imputes righteousness to us, therefore, does not mean that he transfers righteousness from the Lord’s account to ours; it means that he puts on our accounts what which we actually possess: righteousness.

It may be difficult to think of us as actually being righteous even though we have been guilty of unrighteous conduct. Just think of dirty clothes which someone washes until they are clean. Though they were filthy, they are now clean. Similarly, though we were spiritually filthy, if we are washed in the blood of Christ, we are clean; the dirt (sin, unrighteousness) is gone; hence, the Lord credits us with being righteous because we really are righteous.

Inasmuch as we are forgiven of our sins through the blood of Christ, God does not have to pretend that we lived the life Christ lived in order to regard us as righteous. Suppose I get my clothes filthy while Mr. Spotless keeps his clothes perfectly clean. Then suppose someone uses some good detergent, spot remover, and water to cleanse my clothes so that every spot and stain is gone. In order for you to consider my clothes to be clean, do you have to pretend I am wearing Mr. Spotless’ clothes and give me credit for his clean clothes? No! And when I have been cleansed spiritually by the blood of Christ, God does not have to give me credit for Jesus’ clean life in order to consider me clean.

The theory that the only way God can regard us as clean is to give us credit for Jesus’ clean life depreciates the precious blood of Christ, for it denies that the Lord’s blood has the power to make us clean and pure.

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 12, p. 357
June 16, 1988

By R.J. Evans

One of the most common vices practiced by just about every class and rank of people in our society today is the use of profanity. It is tremendously difficult for a Christian to feel comfortable in a situation where God’s name is used profanely. The Word of God teaches that God’s name is holy. “Holy and reverend is His name” (Psa. 111:9). I fear that even many today who are God’s people are guilty of profaning the name of the God of Heaven. They may be doing so without ever realizing it, as we shall observe later on in this article. To profane the name of God is a serious matter. The term “profane” is defined by Webster as follows: “to treat (something sacred) with abuse, irreverence, or contempt: desecrate, violate; 2: to debase by a wrong, unworthy, or vulgar use.” Throughout the ages God has always demanded that his name be respected and honored. During the Mosaical period the Israelites were told: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,- for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain ” (Ex. 20.-7). “And ye shall not swear by my name falsely, neither shall thou profane the name of thy God, I am the Lord” (Lev. 19:12). A few examples taken from the New Testament concerning this matter are as follows: “But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shaft be condemned” (Matt. 12.36-37). “Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be” (Jas. 3:10).

Have you ever wondered why people curse, swear and talk in a filthy manner? Several years ago in an article entitled, “Why Do You Talk Like That?”, brother William E. Wallace offered five reasons why. They were listed as follows:

1. Those who find it difficult to express themselves will seek to flavor their language with profane and ugly expressions.

2. Some seek to gain attention, at least temporarily, so they curse, swear and utter obscenities.

3. Cursing, swearing and vulgarity are merely bad habits to some, well set in their lives by years of usage. Often they hardly realize what they are saying.

4. Many are depraved in nature, filthy in mind, evil in attitude and express it all in wicked language.

5. Some feel they must use bad language to be accepted and to “fit in” with their companions and friends.

It should cause deep concern when we hear Christians using the Lord’s name in a vain manner in their normal conversations. I have in mind such expressions as “My Lord!,” “Lordy!” “Oh Lord!,” “My God!,” “Jesus Christ!,” etc. And while some would not dare use those expressions, they will substitute euphemisms (mild forms of profanity – substitution of expressions for ones that may offend or suggest something unpleasant) such as Gee, Gosh, Golly, Good Gracious, Goodness Sake, Darn, Dickens, etc. It is interesting to note the words from which the aforementioned terms are derived (according to Funk & Wagnalls and Webster):

Gee – euphemism for Jesus; a minced oath.

Gosh – a minced oath; alternate of God.

Golly – euphemistic substitute for God.

Confound – to damn; used as a mild oath.

Heck – euphemistic of hell.

Darn – euphemism for damn.

Dickens – the devil; a euphemistic expletive.

Goodness – God; goodness knows.

Doggone – a mild oath; to damn; a euphemism; alternate of God damn, or dog on it.

Good Gracious and Goodness Sake – such expressions originally referred to the goodness of God.

It may appear that I am trying to get too technical or “picky” by mentioning the above expressions. However, as Christians we have the responsibility of keeping our speech pure and above reproach. We must guard against using the Lord’s name in a derogatory manner, or possibly shading it with expressions or connotations which tend to lower it from the level of reverence it so rightfully deserves. We are reminded once again, “Holy and reverend is His name.”

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 12, p. 359
June 16, 1988

By Lanny Smith

Many people are misinformed about the subject of demons. Their views range from outright denial of their existence to affirming that they continue to possess men today. This brief study will consider this subject from a biblical perspective, without the fanciful twists of Hollywood, the imaginations of men, or the perversions of false teachers. The Bible is our only reliable source on the matter (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Let it be noted first of all, that demons are real. They do indeed exist. Any effort to deny the eyewitness testimony of Jesus, his apostles, and the multitudes which witnessed demonic activity is sheer foolishness. Yet there are those who reason that “those people were poorly educated, and that was their way of explaining things like epilepsy.” Others have said that Jesus was “simply going along with the superstitions of the day.” We should realize that all such reasonings cast a bad reflection upon the credibility of our Savior and his word (cf. 1 Jn. 4:6). Consider these verses on the reality of demons and demonic activity: Matthew 12:22-29; Mark 1:23-28; 5:1-15; Acts 19:13-17. Apparently, demons were allowed great freedom of activity so that God might manifest himself through his power over them (Matt. 12:28; Mk. 16:17-20).

Since there is no explicit statement regarding the origin of demons, we must realize that it is simply a matter of conjecture. Among some of the ideas that have been suggested are:

(1) They are the offspring of the intermarriage of angels and women of the pre-flood era (cf. Gen. 6:1-2). This view is highly unlikely in that angels evidently do not marry (cf. Matt. 22:30).

(2) They are the spirits of wicked dead people. This, too, is unlikely because the spirits of all the dead are held in the hadean realm until the judgment day. Those spirits are not free to leave hades (Eccl. 12:7; Lk. 16:19-31).

The most plausible explanation (if indeed there can be a biblical explanation – Deut. 29:29) is that demons are “fallen angels.” Perhaps a better term would be “angels that sinned.” Consider these facts:

(1) Satan is “the prince” (“ruler” – NASB) of the demon kingdom (Matt. 12:24-25).

(2) Demons, as well as angels, are spirit-beings (Mk. 5:12-13; Heb. 1:13-14).

(3) There were “angels that sinned” (2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6).

(4) “He that commiteth sin is of the Devil” (1 Jn. 3:8).

(5) Satan has angels (Matt. 25:41; Rev. 12:7-10).

Hence, it is logical to infer that these “angels that sinned” are the demons. While this may not be conclusive, this view doesn’t appear to contradict other Scriptures, and is worthy of consideration.

The most important part of this study is to stress that demons are no longer able to possess people as in the days of Christ and the apostles. We can reach this conclusion from several lines of reasoning.

First of all, the miraculous abilities have ceased (1 Cor. 13:8-12). This includes the ability to “cast out devils” (Mk. 16:17-20). Hence, if demons could still possess us, we would have no means of ridding ourselves of them (cf. Acts 19:13-17). Therefore, we would be hopelessly at the mercy of Satan. But the Bible does not picture us as helpless victims, but rather as overcomers through Jesus (1 Cor. 10: 13; 1 Pet. 5:8-9). “Greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world” (1 Jn. 4:4).

Secondly, the Bible teaches that Jesus has bound the “strong man” – Satan. Jesus said that he “cast out devils by the Spirit of God.” Then, he compared that to someone binding the strong man so he could “spoil his house” (Matt. 12:22-29). Consider also in this light 1 John 3:8, Luke 10:17-18, and Revelation 12:7-10.

Finally, the demons themselves knew that there was a time coming when they would be rendered powerless and sent to “the abyss” (Lk. 8:31, NASB). They asked Jesus, “Art thou come hither to torment us before the time?” (Matt. 8:28-29) This “time” of Matthew 8:29 coincides with “that day” of Zechariah 13:1-2. In this prophecy, we see several events that were to occur “in that day.”

“In that day there shall be a foundation opened . . . for sin.” Surely anyone can see the reference to the (then) future sacrifice of Christ and its benefits. This part of the prophecy is fulfilled (1 Cor. 15:14; Acts 2:38-41; Rom. 6:3-4).

“And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of Hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land.” Who worships those idols of old? Who serves Baal, Molech, Dagon, or even Jupiter and Diana (cf. Acts 19:2627)? This part of the prophecy is fulfilled, also.

“And also I will cause the prophets . . . to pass out of the land.” This was fulfilled in the completed Scriptures (Jn. 16:13; 1 Cor. 13:8-12; Jude 3). Interestingly enough, coinciding with these events, God caused “the unclean spirit to pass out of the land” (Zech. 13:1-2).

All of these events took place in the same time period (i.e., “in that day”). Hence, if we can see that salvation is now available, the idols of old have ceased to be worshiped, and that the prophets have ceased to arise, then we can see that demons are no longer active. Another interesting verse which bears some connection with this idea is found in Revelation 12:7-10. Notice especially the time reference in verse 10, and compare with Luke 10:17-18.

“God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment” (2 Pet. 2:4). “The angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day” (Jude 6). Notice the past tense of these verses, indicating an action already taken, again establishing the complete fulfillment of Zechariah 13-12.

Yes, demons are real beings. They are quite likely “fallen angels.” However, they cannot possess men today. But let us never forget that Satan is still very active through persuasion (Job 1:7; 1 Pet. 5:8-9; Jas. 1:13-15). He is constantly tempting us to turn our hearts away from God. This work of Satan is far worse than any demonic possession, for it can lead one into eternal ruin in the flames of Hell (Matt. 25:41-46). But the good news is that you can “resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (Jas. 4:7). You can turn to Christ in obedient faith and be saved from your sins. Then you can look forward to that home in Heaven that awaits the faithful (Gal. 3:26-27; 1 Pet. 1:3-5). Won’t you accept the invitation of Christ and be saved?

Guardian of Truth XXXII: 12, pp. 355-356
June 16, 1988