Truth Magazine

By E. C. Koltenbah

(We are glad to give editorial space to the following review by brother E. C. Koltenbah. We are fully aware when we printed brother Holland’s article that it set forth ideas which would–and we believed should be challenged. We suggest that you turn back to the issue of November1961, and re-read brother Holland’s article, and then this review. G. J. P.)

In the Nov. 1961 issue of Truth Magazine is an article, “The Life That Now Is,” by C. R. Holland, Bremerton, Wash. This writer is well acquainted with Brother Holland and his peculiar views of eternal life and appreciates his sincere and benevolent spirit in his practiced religion, but cannot go along with him in this matter. He holds to the idea that eternal life is a present positive absolute possession of the believer and thus he takes issue with gospel preachers in their opposition to sectarians on this matter. As far as we know he is the only man among churches of Christ who has adopted this purely sectarian view. We know of numbers of brethren who gave it up when they renounced sectarian errors. Brother Holland, who is not a preacher, has sought continually to engage faithful evangelists in discussion and believes he should persuade brethren to his view. However, he has not been very successful in it and his view does not reflect the view of the Bremerton Church of Christ. Not all of the tenets of his doctrine appear in his brief article so in this review we confine ourselves simply to what he has written. He promises to write further and if he does there will be time enough to reply. The fact that he has written makes imperative this response in behalf of revealed truth, of the Bremerton Church, and of the views shared by its regular preacher and his many yoke-fellows of the cross.

The Error of the Use of “Redemption”

Brother Holland labors under the mistaken notion that the term, “redemption,” in the scriptures always refers to salvation from sin, thus in his opening argument attempts to prove that the literal body of the believer is not saved at all until the resurrection, and he misapplies both Rom. 8: 11 and 8:23 in the attempt. Actually, Paul used the term to describe the resurrection of the body from literal death, not from sin. The only way to prove the contention of the article in question is to show that “redemption” (Gr. apolutrosis) always means salvation from sin, but this is impossible. Example: “Women received their dead by a resurrection: and others were tortured, not accepting their deliverance (apolutrosis); that they might obtain a better resurrection. ” ( Heb. 11:35) Here the torture was unto death in behalf of faith in revealed truth and thus redemption (deliverance) was refused in order that the resurrection into life be obtained. If “redemption” always means from sin, then we have the ludicrous view that these faithful women suffered torture that they might not be saved from sin! Rom. 8:23 simply asserts that even the apostles themselves awaited their resurrection from the dead, not from sin. It was a strong encouragement to the saints in Rome who faced literal death. Brother Holland’s view is untenable here. It violates the hermeneutical rule that a word may have a given meaning in a particular instance, but may have a very different application in another use; and again, another rule is that the author has the right to define his own terms within the latitude of linguistic usages. A common sectarian error is to ignore these rules, thus remain in error.

Inconsistency as to “Spiritual life and Spiritual Death”

Our brother seems to labor under the delusion that “spiritual death” and death in sin are two different concepts. As far as we can observe the New Testament speaks frequently enough of death in sin, but does not use the expression, “spiritual death.” How, then, establish either identity or difference? There is no safer ground than to use Bible language to describe Bible doctrine. He says, “As spiritual life is conscious existence in relationship with God, so spiritual death is conscious existence (emphasis mine, E. C. K.) in separation from God. Thus, when the spirit (or inner man) comes into relationship with God, that is life from the dead, the spirit is redeemed, resurrected to life. It then passes from death into life. (Jn. 5:24) The body also is redeemed and resurrected to life. (Jn. 5:29, Rom. 8:23) “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.” (1 Cor. 15:44) As seen here Brother Holland holds to the view that at baptism only the spirit of man receives “spiritual life,” the body does not; it receives “spiritual life” only at the resurrection so remains “spiritually dead.” But he says, “Spiritual death is conscious existence in separation from God.” Then immediately he does an about face setting forth the astounding view that the body remains “spiritually dead” until the resurrection! Hence, it follows that the body has conscious existence in separation from God until the resurrection! Verily, the legs of the lame are not equal. If our brother would use Bible language, to wit, “death in sin,” instead of language borrowed from sectarian commentaries, then uses that Bible language as the inspired writers use it, he would not involve himself in such an egregious blunder. Either the body of the believer is not dead in sin or “spiritual death” cannot mean “conscious existence of separation from God.” Both views can’t be right; they are in juxtaposition with each other. The fact is no man can prove by the Bible that the bodies of the faithful in Christ Jesus are dead in sins. We challenge the brother to try his hand at it. We promise a response, God willing. The texts quoted by Brother Holland do not hint of his peculiar view; his distinction is wholly synthetic, artificial and unknown to the inspired writers. The passages do set forth what is proclaimed by faithful gospel preachers whom he censures.

The Fallacy of Positive Absolute Possession of Eternal Life

In paragraph five of his article our brother cites Gen. 3:22 to assert that Adam lost eternal life when he sinned. The passage does not say that. Note it; “And Jehovah God said, behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever: therefore Jehovah God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.” (Gen 3:22-23) The text teaches plainly that Adam was driven from the garden lest he eat of the tree of life and live on earth forever in sin. This was imperative for in such an event the devil would have been proven true when he said, “Thou shalt not surely die” (Gen. 3:4), and thus God’s decree (Gen. 2: 17), proven false! Even if Adam had lived forever that is a far cry from the eternal life promised to them who obey the gospel! Brother Holland writes, “We come into possession of eternal life of the spirit when we are raised to walk a new life (note that he excludes the literal body, ECK), if we live as God would have us to; this life will never end, hence eternal. Therefore, to contend that we are still to hope for eternal life that applies to the inward man, saying we do not have (possess) it, is a serious charge against God’s word.”

First, when he introduces the conditional clause, “if we live as God would have us to,” he involves himself in an irreconcilable inconsistency with his contention that “we have eternal life now.” How can it be eternal (impossible of ending) if it is a conditional possession? This makes a farce of the Greek term “eternal” as used in the New Testament. Our brother does not know his grammar.

Second, the apostle Paul is among those guilty of this “serious charge.” “But when the kindness of God our Saviour, and his love toward man, appeared, not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that, being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” (Ti. 3:4-7) We submit the following argument.

1. The hope of eternal life is the motive of our justification. (v. 7)

2. Our justification must be maintained for life’s duration. (Rom. 6:16, 23; Rev. 2: l0b).

3. Therefore the motive of the hope of eternal life must be maintained for life’s duration.Our brother is obligated to disprove the argument by showing the fallacy of either major or minor premise to maintain his indictment and also his position.

Third, let us examine the definition of the term, “eternal” (Gr. aionios) as used in the

New Testament. Thayer notes three; 1. “Without beginning or end, that which always has been and always will be.” God, Rom. 16:23; Spirit, Heb. 9:14. 2. “Without beginning.” Times eternal (in reference to the gospel in purpose), Rom. 16:25, 2 Tim. 1:9, Ti. 1:2, Rev. 14:6. 3. “Without end, never to cease, everlasting.” 2 Cor. 4: 17, 18 and all references to damnation in hell and life in the heaven that shall be and the like. Obviously, the first two uses are not applicable to eternal life but the third is. There is no other use in the entire New Testament so we are compelled to stay within the scope of the third usage in the matter under discussion. Hence, we submit the following arguments.

1. Eternal life as taught in the scriptures has absolutely no end.

2. We absolutely have eternal life now. (Holland)

3. Therefore the eternal life we have now can absolutely never end.To meet the argument the brother has open to him one of four alternatives, viz; 1. he must refute the major premise and thus set himself squarely against the New Testament, 2. he must refute the minor premise and thus repudiate his position; 3. he must ignore it completely and thus tacitly admit he can’t meet it; or 4. he must dodge it by drawing a distinction between the life of the believer and eternal life as he teaches it and thus meet himself coming back. We are not concerned as to which course he pursues. Baptists see the force of this argument so have invented unto themselves the doctrine of the impossibility of apostasy as a way of escape, but Brother Holland rejects this logical deduction which Baptists place upon their fallacious premise.

Again we submit this argument.

1. The life of believers on earth can end in apostasy. (Heb. 2:3, 6:4-6, 10:26-27)

2. The life that is eternal can never end. New Testament.

3. Therefore the life of believers on earth can never be eternal life.The same alternatives are open to the brother here also. His view as expressed in his article betrays the fact that he does not know the scriptures as he thinks he knows. He flagrantly ignores the common rules of hermeneutics in his verbal meanderings.

Inconsistency of Censure

Brother Holland further says, “‘I cannot understand how a good gospel preacher can, in a debate, be pressured into a position as to plainly deny Jn. 5:24 and I Jn. 5:10-13, and the only way he tries to explain these passages is by trying to array other passages against them.” I doubt seriously if he realizes the enormity of his baseless charge. He sets himself squarely against all the faithful defenders of the faith of many decades and champions the erroneous position of sectarianism in utter disregard of either the rules of grammar or of interpretation, yet inconsistently rejects the very premises upon which these same sectarians make their own contentions. Thus without the very means of scriptural censure he sets himself as counselor for the entire brotherhood of believers. Had it not been for the good name of the sound believers in Bremerton who do not go along with him this crass statement would have been left to fall on its own glaring absurdity. For the very sectarians to whom he appeals and who make such arguments upon these passages (Jn. 5:24, 1 Jn. 5:10-13), also insist that the faith mentioned in them alone saves. The brother cannot see that by swallowing the sectarian bait he is caught in the sectarian trap. He neither holds to the Bible view here nor does he know how to reconcile himself with the sectarians whose position he has espoused in regard to the possession of eternal life.

First, Jesus himself explains what is meant in Jn. 5:24 in the very same context (Jn. 5:28-29), for he says that all that are in the tombs will come forth ( to render literally) “the ones having done good things into (Gr. eis) a resurrection of life, the ones having done evil things into (Gr. eis) a resurrection of judgment ( damnation ) . ” Note the tense of the participles, Brother! Note the Greek, “eis” (into) ! Thayer says it always points forward. By whose authority do you make it to point backward? If you ignore it here why censure the sectarian when they make it point backward in Acts 2:38? You charge faithful men of arraying text against text! Why, you make Jesus to contradict himself! The gospel preachers whom you censure accept what Jesus says; the sectarians whom you follow do not, but they, consistent in their error, make “eis” have the same sense both in your attempted proof texts and in Acts 2:38. Your position puts you out on a limb by yourself. Furthermore, to attempt a dodge by assuming that “having eternal life” is one thing, and “into eternal life” is another, is to make a distinction without a difference; a mistake to hold and a mistake to assert; fair warning should be sufficient.

As to 1 Jn. 5:1 13 the apostle himself clears the matter in 1 Jn. 2:25 by identifying the “eternal life” with the promise. To say that the term, “promise,” is used by metonymy affords no comfort for the error. On the contrary it condemns it, for it must be so used to be acceptable at all; it thus establishes the futurity of the possession of eternal life! Furthermore the grammar of 1 Jn. 5:11 forbids “present positive absolute possession” of eternal life, sectarian scholars to the contrary notwithstanding. John says, “And the witness (testimony) is this (the testimony in his word), that God gave (Gr. aorist tense, past specific act; one act, completed in the past; not continuing) unto us eternal life, and this life is (Gr. present tense, continued state) in his Son. He that hath the Son hath the life (Where’ in the Son); he that hath not the Son hath not the life (Why? for it is in the Son).” (1 Jn. 5:11- 12). Paul says that it is one act that was made in God’s Son (Rom. 5:18), not countless numbers in the lives of believers. The gospel preachers also know the office of present tense, but they also know that of the aorist, nor are they deceived into sectarianism by sectarians in their misapplications of tenses. Will Brother Holland accept the same sectarian misapplication of the present tense in Matt. 12:28? If “he believes what it says” when the sectarians have done with wresting it out of context then in all consistency he is compelled to accept their view of the establishment of the kingdom before Pentecost of Acts 2! O consistency, thou art a jewel! The misuse of any number of translations cannot establish the truth of any false doctrine or practice. Moreover, the citation of a list a page long argues nothing as to whether a position be formidable; it may be the contrary.

By Leslie Diestelkamp

Visiting the sick has certainly been described as a proper quality for a follower of Christ. It is proper and right that every Christian, including the preacher, should do this good work. However, Jesus did not mean that every time some sister has a headache the preacher must go to console her. Neither did he mean that every time some brother has the ‘flu the preacher should expose himself to the disease by keeping the sick man from being lonesome all day. In fact, the modern requirement that the preacher must go by to see every person who is ill is completely out of harmony with the things taught in the New Testament. In the days of the Apostles, ministering to the sick meant rendering assistance to them. This we ought to do even today. Preachers ought to help when they are needed, not because they are preachers, but because they are Christians. But churches ought to quit expecting preachers to spend hours and hours of their time driving from house to house, going where they are usually not needed and often not wanted.

It sometimes sounds like we have hired a man to visit the sick. I have heard people say, “He was such a good preacher. He always visited all the sick.” But what did he do when he “visited” them? Was he needed there? Was he able to really serve them in their need? And what did he do when he stood up to teach God’s word? Could you tell then that he should have spent more time with his Bible and perhaps less time wandering from house to house with little more than a “cheer-up” message?

Perhaps now, after writing this, I’ll be given a new description. Some may say, “He is even against visiting the sick.” So, for emphasis and to clarify, I shall say:

1. Followers of Christ must “visit” — that is assist–the sick.

2. But churches should not hire a gospel preacher to do that work, and preachers should not allow themselves to be diverted from that more significant work of ministering to souls that are sick in sin.

3. All of us need to realize that the average “sick call” does not accomplish at all what Jesus referred to.

Truth Magazine VI: 5, p. 1
February 1962

By James A. Allen

Sometimes when a well known and prominent man dies, especially if he was wealthy, the newspapers carry the announcement: “A Christian Has Gone to His Reward.” Where as, as a matter of fact, the man was not a member of the church of the Lord, spoken of in the Bible, but was a member of a human denomination, unknown to the Bible, and had never obeyed the gospel of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, which the Scriptures declare to be God’s power to save. In many instances he was a member of no church and made no efforts whatever to live a religious life.

Then the question is, Can a man who is a good citizen, who is morally clean and charitable, and who is straight and honorable in his dealings, be saved without baptism? Which is to say, Can a good man be saved without baptism, as baptism is the climax, or concluding step, in obeying the gospel?

If receiving the remission of sins, or being saved, is predicated upon obeying the commandment of Jesus to be baptized, every one ought to want to know the truth about it, as only truth can save. “Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31, 32). No matter what the preference or prejudice of any one is, it is a fact, that, under the preaching of inspired men, in apostolic times, every case of conversion, without exception, ended with baptism and was not regarded as complete until the penitent believer had been baptized. “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized” (Acts 2:41). “They were baptized, both men and women” (Acts 8:12). “And arose, and was baptized” (Acts 9:18). “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord” (Acts 10:48). “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes and was baptized, he and all his straightway” (Acts 16:33). “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3: 27).

All were baptized. There were no exceptions. There were no unbaptized Christians in the primitive church. Whether we like it or not, no one was recognized as a Christian, or as being a disciple, until he obeyed the commandment of Jesus to be baptized.

One of the innumerable evidences that the Bible is the work of God is that it is perfectly adapted to all men, in whatever condition of life they may find themselves. Whether rich or poor, in sickness or health, married or single, in prosperity or misfortune, saint or sinner, there are passages in the word of God that fully and perfectly comprehend the situation.

Under the preaching of the apostles is recorded the conversion of men and women from every station of life. The reputable moralist, as well as the sensual debauchee, is shown how to turn to the Lord. The zealous member of some human denomination, as well as men and women identified with no church, are seen accepting the gospel call.

Some entertain the idea that “model” men and “model” women, whose lives are morally exemplary, especially if they are big-hearted and charitable, although having never obeyed the gospel of Christ, have as much hope of heaven as those in the church. We recognize that there are men and women out of the church who are perfect ladies and gentlemen, who refrain from profanity, meet all of their obligations, respond to every call from the poor, and conduct their lives in general with admirable propriety.

But while we rejoice that there are such people, we also recognize that they, too, need the Saviour. They cannot be saved on their own goodness. There is no power in an arm of flesh to save. Jesus died for them and triumphed over death, hell and the grave, to make it possible for them to attain unto life and immortality. The loving Saviour, who gave up heaven, came to this earth and died for them, extends to them the gospel invitation. The question is, Must they accept it? If they spurn the proffered invitation of Him who died for them, and claim that they are so good they do not need the Saviour, are they really as good as we may have formally thought them to be? Submission to God is the basic principle of goodness.

In Acts 10 is the inspired record of the conversion of a really good man. God, who knows, says that Cornelius was “a devout man, and one that feared God with al1 his house, who gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always” (verse 2). When we pronounce a man to be good we may be mistaken. Time proves we frequently are. But when God, who looks upon the heart, says that a man was a good man we may rely upon it.

There is no human denomination today but what would say that Cornelius was a saved man just as he was. They tell people today, who are nothing like as good as Cornelius was, that all they have to do is to hold up their hand, sign a card, or shake hands with the preacher. Many would ridicule the idea that “a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, who gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always,” was not already saved. But was he? Surely no one will reject what the Bible says about it. Verses 3-6 say: “He saw in a vision openly as it were about the ninth hour of the day, an angel of God coming in unto him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. And he, fastening his eyes upon him, and being affrighted, said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are gone up for a memorial before God. And now send men to Joppa, and fetch one Simon, who is surnamed Peter: who shall speak unto thee words, whereby thou shalt be saved, thou and all thy house (Acts 11:13,14).

So Cornelius, who was really a good man, was unsaved and had to send for Peter to hear what the Saviour commands men and women to do to be saved. When Peter had preached the gospel to them, “while Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the word,” thus miraculously demonstrating that the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, were subjects of the gospel call. “Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (verses 46-48). The promise of salvation is to those who believe and are baptized. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16).

May we ask, Why did not the angel tell Cornelius and his house what to do to be saved? If a man could testify today that an angel appeared to him many would consider it an evidence that he was saved. But such is a great mistake. If it were possible for anyone to ask an angel what to do to be saved the angel would not tell him. Why? Because Jesus, in his wisdom, committed the evangelization of the world into the hands of his apostles, not into the hands of angels. God speaks to men by men. “Men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). Jesus said to the apostles: “All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28: la-20). The heavenly treasure was committed into earthen vessels. Hence the angel, instead of telling Cornelius what to do to be saved, told him to send for Peter. The trouble today is, those who try to see angels do not want to send for Peter.

When Jesus appeared to Saul of Tarsus, in order to qualify him to become an apostle, Saul asked: “What shall I do, Lord?” Jesus did not tell him, as he would not contradict himself by doing what he commanded the apostles to do. Jesus said: “But rise, and enter into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.” When Saul had fasted and prayed, in his deep penitence, for three days, Jesus sent Ananias to tell him. Ananias said: “And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name” (See Acts 9:1-19 and Acts 22:6-16). When Jesus speaks peace to any one’s soul he speaks it through inspired men. When any one has true evidence of pardon they can put their finger upon chapter and verse in the word of God.

The basic principle of all acceptable worship and service is, man must recognize that God is God, that he is the Lawgiver and Ruler. Man cannot do what is pleasing to himself or what his own wisdom dictates. He must forget self and seek wholly and entirely to do only what is pleasing to God and what God’s wisdom requires. God reveals his will to us in his word and only those who do his will, as his will is revealed in his word, are acceptable to him. Jesus “became unto all them that obey him the author of eternal salvation” (Heb. 5:9).

Obedience is the test that shows whether or not a man has faith in God and whether or not he will take God at his word. God has never blessed or saved men, in any age or under any dispensation, before testing their faith. There is no virtue in water, just as there was no virtue in the brazen serpent to heal the bite of the fiery serpents, and as there was no power in the waters of the Jordan to heal Naaman’s leprosy when Elisha commanded him to “go and wash in the Jordan seven times” (2 Kings 5:8-14). The power to save, to grant remission of sins, is in God. There is not a promise in the Word of God that any one will be saved who fails to obey.

Many make loud protestations of love for God; they cry, “Lord, Lord;” they are extremely active and zealous in religious circles, and “compass sea and land to make one proselyte;” but the test shows that they do not have the faith to forget their own will and preferences and to seek only and wholly to do the will of God. They are aware that God commands all penitent believers in Jesus to “be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins;” but as such does not meet their pleasure, and as they have not the faith to do a thing simply because God commands it and to please God, they refuse to do so, repudiate the authority of God, as the only rightful Lawgiver and Ruler, and claim that the commandment of God is non-essential and unnecessary. Will God admit through the gates into the city those who do not respect his authority and who repudiate his government? Those who may be trusting in their own goodness to save them had better think about this before it is too late for them.

Truth Magazine VI: 4, pp. 20-22
January 1962

By Morris W. R. Bailey

As the problems of church cooperation that confront a troubled brotherhood are being discussed today, it is regrettable that we often see and hear those who favor certain enterprises resort to name calling and the hurling of imputations which, in effect, amount to a misrepresentation of the views and beliefs of brethren who oppose the above movements. How often we have known some brother to be charged with not believing in preaching the gospel to the lost, and with having so little compassion for the poor that he would allow widows and orphans to starve before he would lift a finger to help them, when the fact of the matter is that what he really opposed was centralized arrangements for preaching the gospel such as is seen in the Herald of Truth setup, and benevolent societies that have been built by churches to do the work of the church in benevolence.

One of the names that has found its way into the discussion of present issues is that of “anti.” By some brethren, it is used with the same connotations and with about the same attitude as the name “Campbellite” has been used by sectarians. In years past when religious debates were more common than they are today sectarian preachers seemed to think that if they could shout “Campbellite” loud enough and often enough it would establish the fact that one is saved by faith alone, or that the Christian, once saved, cannot be lost. Today it seems that there are some brethren who think that if they shout “anti” loud enough and often enough they can establish without any scriptural proof that churches have the right to pool their funds in a sponsoring church for the work of evangelism, and that they can build human institutions that are separate and apart from the church to do the church’s benevolent work.

Some months ago the Gospel Advocate carried the life story of a prominent preacher, and one who shares the views of the Advocate with regard to current issues. He also writes quite regularly for that journal. In the course of an interview this preacher was asked

what he considered were the four greatest dangers facing the church today. His reply, in substance, was 1. Modernism and liberalism. 2. Anti-ism. 3. Materialistic and surface religion. 4. The tendency toward factions and divisions in the church, contrary to our Lord’s prayer for unity.

It will be noticed that this preacher stated that one of the great dangers that face the church is modernism. I do not suppose that anyone would be disposed to deny this. But we note that another danger that he said faces the church is something that he calls “anti-ism.” It appears too, that in his estimation of things, this thing called “anti-ism,” whatever it is, is just as evil as modernism, and that to be “anti” is just as bad as being a modernist who rejects the virgin birth of Christ, and the doctrine of the atonement. According to our brother, anti-ism” then is some terrible heresy that threatens the church and which must be destroyed like all false doctrine, and “antis” are terrible people who must be dealt with like false prophets. We suppose that is why when some churches that advertise for a preacher in some of the papers published by brethren state in the advertisement that no “anti” need apply. No doubt, too, this is the reason why, when some preachers advertise in those papers for a position in some church they make it clear that they are not “anti.” And who would want to be an “anti” if “anti-ism” is one of the four greatest dangers facing the church today?

But what is an “Anti?” In its broad sense the word anti means “against” or “opposed to.” So far as the dictionary is concerned it is not used as a complete word, but is used as a prefix, the application of which is limited and qualified by the use of a suffix. To illustrate, we have the word antifreeze. This is a liquid that we add to the water in the radiator of our car that makes it opposed to, or against freezing. We have the word antidote, which means something that is opposed to poisoning and which is given to someone who has swallowed poison to counteract its effects. It will be seen that even here, that which is anti or against one thing can also have a positive function and be for something else. The antifreeze that we use in our car, while opposed to freezing keeps the motor of the car cool and thus acts positively.

In view of the above, it is obvious that when brethren speak of “antis” and “anti-ism” they use the terms loosely, to say the least. Of course we understand that when they speak of some one as being an “anti” they mean that he is against, or opposed to something. But such a loose use of the word does not tell us what he is against or what he opposes. Does he oppose some specific doctrine or practice? If that is the case, then the precise thing that he opposes should be stated so that his position will not be misunderstood or misrepresented. No one has any right to misrepresent even those whom they consider to be in error. We have brethren who are anti-located-preacher. But it would be a misrepresentation to say that they are anti-preacher.

When brethren speak of and write of those whom they call “antis” do they mean that those whom they thus label were born in the objective case and the “kickative” mood and opposed to everything? That is what the term “anti,” without any qualifying suffix would imply. Then by the same token, when a preacher states in his application for a position with some church that he is not “anti,” does he mean that he is not against anything, – that there is nothing that he opposes? And when a church states in its advertisement for a preacher that no anti need apply do they mean that they are looking for a man who is not against anything, – who is not even opposed to sin and false teaching? Certainly it must be obvious that it works both ways and that whatever is comprehended in the term “anti” would have its opposite in the man who says he is not “anti.”

What about these brethren who want it to be known that they are not “anti?” What about these churches who make it so dear that they will not hire any preacher who is an “anti?” Are they not against, or opposed to anything? One thing seems very obvious from their writings and their preaching and that is that they are decidedly “anti-anti-ism.” Yes, they oppose those whom they call antis. So from that standpoint, at least, it is difficult to see how they can escape the stigma of being themselves called “anti.”

But are they not anti other things as well as being `’anti-antis?” Things have reached sad state in the church of the Lord when men cease to oppose things that they know to be wrong. From the standpoint of being opposed to some things, Jesus Christ and the apostles were antis of the deepest dye. Jesus said “Beware of false prophets” (Matt.

7:15). Thus Jesus was anti-false prophets and their false teachings. When brethren and churches today disclaim and decry anti-ism do they mean that they no longer oppose false doctrine7

The church at Corinth had a little problem with anti-ism on its hands. A flagrant case of sin of the worst kind had reared its ugly head in the church. A man was living in adulterous relationship with his father’s wife, –a sin that was not even known among the gentiles. Sadder still was the fact that the church had done nothing about the matter. Paul wrote to them and in scathing tones said, “And ye are puffed up, and did not rather mourn, that he that had done this deed might be taken away from you” ( 1 Cor. 5:2). Here was a church that was not “anti,” at least not anti-sin. In verses four and five of the same chapter Paul commanded the church to withdraw from that man. In the last verse of the chapter he said, “Put away the wicked man from among yourselves.” Yes, it seems that Paul gave that church some trouble with his being anti-sin, insomuch that we later find that he had made enemies there. So when some preacher disclaims being “anti” or when a church advertises for a preacher who is not anti do they mean that they are not anti-sin? Do they oppose sin any more? Is this the reason that we find so much worldliness in s o m e churches? Is this the reason that it is just not popular to preach against sin in some churches, – they don’t want preachers who are “anti ? “

But we are told that when men speak of anti-ism as being one of the great dangers that face the church today, and when men disclaim being anti they have in mind brethren who oppose certain practices in the brotherhood today. So then these “anti” brethren are not opposed to everything as the label would suggest, but it may turn out that they are “for” many things as well.

These brethren that are called “antis” are “for” colleges operated by Christians where young people may receive their education in a Christian environment, under Christian teachers and where the Bible is taught daily, even though they oppose such colleges being in the budget of churches.

These brethren are “for” the church caring for those who are its responsibility and the individual Christian caring for those who are his or her responsibility, notwithstanding the “anti” label that has been hung on them. Many of these brethren have adopted unfortunate children into their homes. They believe that the local church under the oversight of its elders is fully able to discharge its benevolent responsibilities. For this reason they oppose as unscriptural any benevolent society that stands between the church and its benevolent work, just as they oppose a missionary society that stands between the church and its evangelistic work.

Brethren who have been stigmatized as “antis” are “for” preaching the gospel to the lost. Gospel papers carry the reports of their activities. Each week sees scores of people added to the Lord’s church through the labors of these men. One good brother has recently returned from Nigeria having spent there two years preaching the story of the cross. Hundreds obeyed the gospel as a result of his work. These brethren are “for” the scriptural way of supporting preachers, wherein the money is sent directly by the supporting church to the preacher. For that reason they are opposed to sponsoring church arrangements in which one church assumes the responsibility for a work to which all the other churches are equally related, and in which funds are sent by the contributing churches to the sponsoring church which makes all the decisions relative to that particular work, thus in effect becoming a sort of a missionary society.

What is an “anti?” Obviously he is one who is opposed to something. Who are the “antis?” In the light of the foregoing observations it will be seen that from some standpoint every Christian must admit that he is an “anti” or else admit that he is a failure as a Christian. No Christian can be pleasing unto God if he does not oppose some things.

So in the final analysis it is obvious that “anti-ism” is not the big threat to the church that some would imagine, and churches are engaged in a hopeless quest when they are looking for a man who is not an “anti.” He may be “anti-anti-ism” if nothing else.

Truth Magazine VI: 5, pp. 10-12
February 1962