Truth Magazine

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

By Gordon J. Pennock

Among the most forlorn words ever written are these from the pen of the beloved John: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us” (1 John 2:19). With these words he recorded the apostasy of some of his brethren. To say that he tearfully wrote these lines would require very little imagination.

Surely, the hearts of all sincere Christians are saddened when any brother makes “shipwreck of the faith.” And, although departures from “the faith” have taken place from time to time ever since the beginning of the church, such have not become any easier to accept. And so, with sadness, we feel it necessary to report that brother Roy Key identified himself with the “Christian Church” several months ago. While this news was relayed to us some time ago, it was not until recently that it was confirmed by one whom we considered to be in position to be certain of the facts. We are informed that Roy is now preaching for a “Christian Church” in the Des Moines, Iowa, area, and studying at Drake University.

Brother Key’s change will not be surprising to many brethren, especially in the Chicago area. In fact, it has been anticipated, despite his avowals that he would not do so. Those familiar with the peculiar views held by him were firmly convinced that unless he could be led to see the error in them and abandon them, he could not remain indefinitely with the church. This turn of events indicates the correctness of their judgment. It will be a matter of embarrassment to some who sought either to defend Roy, or to criticize those who criticized him. It is good that the final judgment of such matters rests in the hands of God. Who knows but what Roy’s defection could have been averted if only some had spoken who failed to speak?

Some of Roy’s views have been matters of controversy for a number of years, especially since he wrote and published a booklet in about 1954 entitled THE LAW OF CHRIST. Several brethren reviewed this book in their preaching and writing. Brother G. C. Brewer wrote a review, which was carried in a series of articles in the Gospel Advocate in 1955, the reading of which we would commend to the reader who has access to them. Likewise, two articles by brother Key, with scriptures and reviews by this scribe, may also be found in Volume I of Truth Magazine, which we believe would be enlightening.

I think that we can fairly state that brother Key’s positions were not clearly expressed by him and therefore not easily understood. His statements were ambiguous, inconsistent and sometimes contradictory. He seemed upon the one hand to want to hold fast to the teaching of the New Testament on the plan of salvation (although he objected to that term), and at the same time liberalize it so as to include the multitudes who pay lip service to Jesus, but who have failed, either ignorantly or willingly, to obey the gospel. He seemed to say that baptism was important, yet not important; that it was essential, yet not essential. He stressed it upon the one hand and minimized it upon the other. He seemed to conclude that although Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16), he that believeth and is not baptized may also be saved. In a personal discussion with the writer he once posed this question: If a man receives sprinkling, with the same faith, intent and purpose with which another is immersed, how do we know that God does not accept his sprinkling as baptism, thus granting to him the same contingent blessings and relationship? He contended that the earnestness of a man’s heart might offset any failure to comply with the expressed conditions of salvation, and that we should not preach to the contrary.

Brother Brewer, in his review, appraised Roy’s position in these words: “He particularly thinks that we should not let baptism be the one hazard which we cannot overcome in seeking fellowship with the religious world. He evidently has the virus of ‘Ecumenicity.’ … Some people, who are not good enough to submit to the will of the Lord, are just too good to be lost and, therefore, we will have to remove the will of the Lord so that they can be saved” (Gospel Advocate, Vol. 97, p. 206).

In our view, Roy has become a victim of teachers and teaching which preceded him. He expressed to us, personally, keen admiration for Ralph Wilburn who once preached in Chicago, but who long since departed and joined himself to the “Christian Church.” He defended James Warren, another Chicago preacher, who bitterly indicted faithful gospel preachers with his book, The Heresy of Legalism. Roy’s only criticism of these men was for their leaving the church of Christ. He was closely associated with, and considered a leader by, such men as J. P. Sanders, Bill Baker, Don Anderson, Don Horn, Henry Walderon, Don Osborne, Robert Box, Ferrel Walters, and perhaps others, who one by one have either gone to denominationalism or terminated activity with any religious group. (That any of these have been converted from the error of their ways, has never come to our attention.) That Roy would inevitably follow in their steps was vehemently denied by him from time to time. But error, with time, has taken its toll.

What happened to the faith of brother Key is really known by God alone. We can only surmise and speculate. Brother Brewer, in his review of Roy and others, was strongly of the opinion that their troubles stemmed from their studies in infidel schools in the process of acquiring academic degrees. It is well known that several of the men who defected, studied at Chicago University during their stay in that city. Here might be a good time to insert a quotation from the venerable Adlai S. Croom, who once studied in such schools as Harvard and Chicago Universities, and who served Harding College for many years, in various capacities, especially as President and director. Now, nearing the four-score milepost, he recently issued this warning:

“Deviations from the straight course laid out in God’s word into the byways of men’s philosophies as preparation to preach, is to ignore Paul’s warning: ‘Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit.”…

“It might be well for brethren everywhere to mark those who have sought preparation to preach in such infidel hotbeds as Harvard Divinity School as well as the one in Chicago University, as those who have been exposed to a dangerous contagion. This might dampen the enthusiasm of those who seek distinction through a degree from these high rated schools. Whoever advises a young preacher to enter such an institution is flirting with a millstone for a necktie. ‘Evil companionships corrupt good morals’ was not limited to those whom some like to call immature. It is true of old and young, educated and uneducated.” (Gospel Light, November, 1961.)

That brother Key, and others whom we have mentioned, will one day return to “the faith once for all delivered” is devoutly desired. But we have no basis for optimism. We are impressed by their experiences that many pitfalls beset the paths of Christians, even gospel preachers, of which we need to be aware. “It is so easy to be caught in the web spun by the wisdom of men,” and be “committed to the service of Satan.”

Truth Magazine VI: 5, pp. 2-3
February 1962