Truth Magazine

By Jamie Sloan

You are on the right road, and whatever you do don’t let anybody persuade you that you can successfully combat error by fellowshipping it and going along with it. I have tried. I believed at the start that was the only way to do it. I’ve never held membership in a congregation that uses instrumental music. I have, however, accepted invitations to preach without distinctions between churches that used it and churches that didn’t. I’ve gone along with their papers and magazines and things of that sort. During all these years I have taught the truth as the New Testament teaches it to every young preacher who has passed through the College of the Bible. Yet, in the last few years I have become increasingly alarmed at a spirit which can be seen growing among us. It manifests itself in a number of ways. It looks upon debates and confrontations with teachers of error as ignorant and low-class. It views an unyielding doctrinal stance as somehow legalistic and unloving. “Standing for the truth” and “defending the faith” are being eased out of the vocabulary. A spirit of compromise and tolerance for error are cleverly pawned off as love and concern for those with whom we disagree. The implied choices are twain: co-existence with false doctrines (thus destroying identity), or else you are a fanatical hobbyist. To help offset such a wrong and foolish notion, I want to share with you a quotation which came across my desk a number of years ago. The words were written by J.W. McGarvey to J.P. Sewell in 1902. When the division came which resulted in the Christian Church, McGarvey compromised his convictions and fellowshipped the digressives while Sewell did not. Here was McGarvey’s estimate of the two courses:

You are on the right road, and whatever you do don’t let anybody persuade you that you can successfully combat error by fellowshipping it and going along with it. I have tried. I believed at the start that was the only way to do it. I’ve never held membership in a congregation that uses instrumental music. I have, however, accepted invitations to preach without distinctions between churches that used it and churches that didn’t. I’ve gone along with their papers and magazines and things of that sort. During all these years I have taught the truth as the New Testament teaches it to every yong preacher who has passed through the College of the Bible. Yet, I do not know of more than six of those men who are preaching the truth today. It won’t work.

I would hasten to point out that McGarvey was quite different from the compromising souls of today. He speaks with remorse and regret – they have not seen the error of their way. He had convictions which he had compromised – they see such doctrinal distinctions as “much ado about nothing.” He would have liked to have gone back and chosen the other road – they work for the day when all staunch defenders of the faith are no more than a historical curiosity. However, that day has not come yet, and there is still a remnant set for the defense of the Gospel of Christ. We must work to teach and exhort our brethren to stand against all innovations and apostasies. New issues must be studied and met with strong hearts dedicated to preserving the purity and identity of the Lord’s church. Those who were previously “soft on error” can be influenced by word and example to greater strength. McGarvey’s words are both sad and repulsive. If he saw the folly in the course he had chosen, why did he not rectify it? Another story regarding McGarvey comes to us telling of his declining days when the instrument was introduced into the Broadway church in Lexington, Kentucky where he worshiped. As a majority vote was taken a teenage girl was seen raising her hand to vote for the organ, cancelling out the vote of McGarvey against the instrument. How tragically sad! It must not happen to us. We must not be intimidated by the peddlers of division into cringing and cowardly silence. We must say with them of old, “They shall not pass.”

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 16, p. 486
August 20, 1987

By Frank Jamerson

The New Testament speaks of the church in both the universal and the local senses. In the universal sense, there is one body and it is composed of all the saved of all the world (Eph. 1:22,23; Acts 2:47). In the local sense, a church is composed of Christians who agree to worship and work together, and in this sense there are many churches (Rom. 16:16).

The two unscriptural concepts that we want to study involve how we become members of the universal and the local church. The “language of Ashdod” that is too prominent today indicates that many brethren do not have a clear understanding of the distinctions between these two uses of the word “church.”

First, some talk about “joining the church” when they are speaking about their baptism into Christ. This indicates a lack of understanding about how we become a part of the body of Christ. We do not “join” the universal church. The Bible says, “And the Lord added to the church day by day those who were being saved” (Acts 2:47). The one who saves us, adds us! When does He add us? The context in Acts 2 shows that those who “repented and were baptized for the remission of their sins” were saved (Acts 2:38,41). Paul told the Corinthians, “For by one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:13). The penitent believer is baptized “into one body,” or “into Christ” (Gal. 3:27) in the sense that God forgives his sins and saves him because of his obedience to his commands. That does not make one a member of a local church, but of the universal church.

The second unscriptural concept that we want to notice is the idea that baptism automatically makes one a member of a local church. Just as we do not join the universal church, we are not baptized into a local church.

The Ethopian eunuch was baptized by Philip, and “went on his way rejoicing” because he was saved (Acts 8:38,39), but he was not a member of any local church at that time. Saul of Tarsus had been baptized into Christ, and accepted by brethren in Damascus, but when he went to Jerusalem and “assayed to join himself to the disciples” there, he was not automatically accepted (Acts 9:26). After Barnabas “took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus,” they agreed to accept him (Acts 9:27). The next verse says he “was with them” (v. 28). He did not just “join up,” he “joined in”! But there had to be the desire to “belong” on his part, and the willingness to “accept” on their part. When Apollos wanted to go from Ephesus to Achaia, brethren in Ephesus wrote a letter “to the disciples to receive him” (Acts 18:27). What the word of mouth accomplished for Saul, the written word accomplished for Apollos! Before there can be local church membership, there must be a desire to belong and an acceptance on the part of others.

How is this desire and agreement expressed? The Bible does not give the details about this, therefore we must use our judgment in applying these principles. There are three ways that I know that have been used. (1) When a person moves to an area, or is baptized into Christ, and begins worshiping with a congregation, his participation is accepted by the church and understood by him as indicating desire to belong and acceptance, and no word is spoken. (The danger of this method is that one party or the other may misunderstand the intentions of the other. Simply worshiping with a group does not necessarily indicate a desire to belong, nor a willingness to accept.) (2) A person goes forward and states his desire to the preacher, or expresses it to the elders and a public announcement is made of this person’s desire to “identify” or join this group. Unless there is some reason to question the person’s faithfulness, he is accepted by the congregation as a member. (3) When a person expresses a desire to be a part of the church, the elders meet with him, or her, and discuss their mutual responsibilities. After such discussion an announcement is made that this person is a part of the congregation. (Elders have a special responsibility toward members of the flock and such a meeting serves to let the prospective member know what we are doing, as well as what we do not practice, and find out what they have done in other places and are willing to do here. This is the approach that the elders here use.)

Other methods may be just as good in fulfilling the two requirements for local church membership, but we need to keep clearly in our minds that we are baptized “into Christ” (this is not “joining a local church”), and we join a local church (we were not baptized into it).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 16, p. 495
August 20, 1987

By Ron Halbrook

Sodomy or homosexuality has been in the news often during recent years. There has been a concerted effort to remove all stigma from this practice. Homosexuals seek social acceptance, political power, and even religious approval. Then came the AIDS scare, followed by a publicity campaign aimed at making sodomy safe. Is it really safe and sane, or is it sinful, shameful, and destructive?

In Genesis 19, Lot received two male guests into his home. “The men of Sodom compassed the house round, both old and young,” demanding to take Lot’s visitors for homosexual purposes. In desperation, Lot offered his own daughters to these men who were insane with lust, but they continued to demand instead the men inside. The visitors were actually angels or messengers from God, and they struck the men of Sodom blind; These poor souls were so inflamed with lust that still they tried to take Lot’s visitors. The angels announced to Lot the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

“Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.” Lot barely escaped with his daughters. In Jude 7 we learn that God destroyed Sodom for homosexuality in order that it might remain an example all through history, “suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” The anger of God against this perversion pursues the sinner not only in this world but even in the next! Sodomy is not safe and sane, and we can never make it so. The story of Sodom stands to remind us that homosexuality is self-destructive and destroys respect for our fellow man.

Romans 1 teaches that men fell into such sins when they rejected the true knowledge of God from their lives.

For this cause God gave them up to vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due (Rom. 1:26-27).

The context of this passage confirms what we see happening all around us. Homosexuality is associated with the grossest sins and perversions, destroying respect for God, for others, and for self. To live and die in such sins is to judge ourselves unworthy of everlasting life and to condemn ourselves to an eternity in hell (Gal. 5:19-21).

The good news in Christ is that God is ready to forgive the sin of sodomy as well as all other sins! He sent His Son into the world to die in order that we might have eternal life (Jn. 3:16). 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 teaches that some of the early Christians had been “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind,” which refer to the sins of homosexuality.

And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of our God (1 Cor. 6:11).

They were washed, sanctified, and justified by believing the gospel of Christ. This true faith caused them to repent of all their past sins, to confess Christ as God’s Son, and to be immersed in water for the remission of their sins through the blood of Christ (Acts 2:38).

We can never make sodomy or any other sin safe and sane! A slogan widely used in the current anti-drug campaign says, “Just say No! ” Rather than trying to make sin safe, we need to “Just say No!” to sin and say yes to God. Through the power of the gospel of Christ, He will save us from all sins.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 16, pp. 483, 503
August 20, 1987

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

“Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin” (Rom. 4.8).

I am amazed at how freely Calvinists and some brethren, who say they are not Calvinists, use this passage. To the Calvinist it proves his brand of the security of the saints. To such brethren it proves their brand of continuous cleansing of the saints. In either case it is used to prove that a Christian’s sins, at least some of them, are not held against him by the Lord.

The main difference, the best I can determine from their writings, between Calvinists and the “continuous cleansing” brethren is that Calvinists believe that no sins are charged to the Christian’s account while the brethren believe that only some sins are charged to his account – mainly those high-handedly committed.

If the Lord does not impute sin, in the sense of never charging it to our accounts, then there is no need to talk about “continuous cleansing.” One does not cleanse that which is not soiled. If sin is not imputed, in the sense of not being charged to him, he is not soiled by the sin. He needs no cleansing – continuous or otherwise.

The popular illustration of the windshield wiper effect does apply here – even though this is one of the proof texts usually used in connection with it. The most recent usage that I have seen is in a sermon by Guy N. Woods being distributed in tract form by Britnell Publications of Little Rock, Arkansas. For the reader who may not be familiar with the windshield wiper illustration, it goes something like this: When one becomes a Christian his “windshield wiper” is turned on. Rain drops (sins) will continue to fall on his windshield (soul) but they are immediately wiped off by the wiper (blood of Christ). So, they say, a Christian’s sins are taken care of without his having to reach and turn the wiper on each time a drop hits his windshield – it is automatically wiped off. They may deny (as they do) that they are teaching “automatic continuous cleansing” rather than mere “continuous cleansing” – the windshield wiper illustrates automatic cleansing or it is a pointless illustration. The difference between hard core Calvinists and the brethren that use the illustration, as I see it, is that once the Calvinist’s wiper is turned on there is no way he can turn it off; while brethren leave us with the option of turning it off through high handed or willful sin.

Anyway, if the sins are not charged to our account then what is produced is not a windshield wiper effect, but an umbrella effect. One is covered by an umbrella when he becomes a Christian. Though sin may fall all around him, in the case of the Calvinist, even soaking his flesh, it is not allowed to get to his soul because the Lord will not impute it to him, holding an umbrella over his head.

Really now, who is this man to whom the Lord will not impute sin in Romans 4? Anything more than a superficial reading of this statement in context should make it clear. It is the man whom God has forgiven after he has confessed his sin. It is not the man whose sins are never imputed to him. It is not the man whose sins are forgiven without their being confessed. Verses 7 and 8, of Romans 4, should be taken together. They form a quote from Psalms 32:1,2.

It seems to me that these two verses alone identify the kind of person contemplated as a forgiven man. If he is forgiven, the sin was at one time imputed to him or there would have been no need for forgiveness. Once forgiven, he is a blessed man to whom the Lord no longer imputes the sin because it has been forgiven.

When one takes the first 5 verses of Psalms 32 together it becomes abundantly clear that the sin that is not imputed is confessed sin.

In the first two verses, those quoted in Romans 4, David tells of the blessedness (for any man) of being forgiven – of not having sin imputed to him. He then turns to a practical application of the principle in his own life.

Verses 3 and 4 tells of his own lack of blessedness as long as he did not confess – i.e., “kept silent”:

1. “My bones grew old through my groaning all the day long”

2. “Day and night Your (the Lord’s – EOB) hand was heavy upon me”

3. “My vitality was turned into the drought of summer”

In verse 5, he gives the basis upon which he now enjoyed the blessedness of “the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity”:

1. “I acknowledged my sin to You”

2. “My iniquity I have not hidden”

3. “I said, ‘I will confess my transgression to the Lord,”‘

4. “And you forgave the iniquity of my sin.”

So, if one is going to find any basis for some kind of cleansing of unconfessed sins, he will have to find it in some other passage. It looks to me like David had to consciously “turn the wipers on” when he said, “I will confess my transgressions.”

1 John 1:7-9 does teach continuous cleansing for the Christian as long as he confesses his sins (not merely acknowledging his sinfulness). “If we keep on confessing our sins, God ‘is faithful and righteous to forgive our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.’ ‘Faithfulness’ and ‘righteousness’ are attributes of the great Jehovah; and when we confess our sins before him, we enter into and partake of the blessings which result from them. He has promised to forgive us on condition that we confess our sins. . . ” (A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles, pp. 219 220, by Guy N. Woods). All emphasis in the preceding quotation are mine and I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 15, pp. 462-463
August 6, 1987