Truth Magazine

By Hiram Hutto

(Editor’s Note: The following excellent article by brother Hiram Hutto appeared in the 30 June 1987 issue of Sentry Magazine without editorial comment or review. We reproduce it here as one of the clearest statements on the “continuous cleansing” issue yet written and commend it to our readers.)

First of all, it should be pointed out that the question is self-contradictory. How? It speaks about the blood continually cleansing. 1 John 1:7 tells us that his blood cleanseth us from sin. So, if the blood is continually cleansing, it is continually cleansing from sin, which means that there is sin present that needs cleansing. That being true, the person who is being continually cleansed must be continually sinning. Now, how can a person be called a faithful saint (both terms) while at the same time he is continually sinning? Clearly, the question contradicts itself.

Further, to imply that a Christian is one who continually sins is to contradict the Bible. It says that a Christian does not practice sin (1 John 3:9, NASB; the same tense and idea is in 3:6 and 5:18). If a person who is continually sinning isn’t practicing sin, what on earth would he have to do to practice it? Again, when Paul asks, “Shall we continue in sin?”, he answers “God forbid” (Rom. 6:1). According to the position we are examining, he should have said, “Not only may we continue in sin, but we will be faithful saints while so doing”! The fact is, this passage and others show that sin is not the norm for the Christian, it is the exception.

What is frequently meant by such questions as heads this article is: Is the faithful saint automatically cleansed of sins of ignorance and/or weakness. 1 John 1:7 is cited to prove that he is. Not only does I John 1:7 not teach that doctrine, the passage says absolutely nothing per se about sins of weakness or ignorance. It says the blood of Jesus cleanses us “from all sin.” Whatever the passage says about sins of ignorance and weakness, it says the same thing about sins of rebellion and disobedience. It says “all sin.” But someone might respond (and the idea is current), the person under consideration in 1 John I is said to “walk in the light” and a person who is walking in the light will not be guilty of sins of rebellion and disobedience, only sins of weakness and/or ignorance. Who said so? Did God? If so, where? Obviously, a person who is guilty of rebellion and disobedience is not “in the light” at the point at which he is guilty of rebellion or disobedience, but no sin is “in the light.” After all, “God is light and in him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5), and if sin is not darkness, what is? There is no sin (rebellion, disobedience, or whatever) in the light.

Consider another point. In Hebrews 3:2 God says that Moses was “faithful in all his house”; yet at Meribah God said that Moses “did not believe in me” (Num. 20:12) and that he “rebelled against my rod” (v. 24). Although, in general, Moses was described as faithful, he certainly was not faithful there, neither did God approve nor automatically forgive him. Instead, God was wroth (Deut. 3:27) and would not hear Moses, but rebuked him. I cannot conceive of anyone’s thinking that he was faithful in the point where God said he did not believe, and that he was rebellious. To say otherwise is to say that a person can be full of faith (faithful) in a point where he is lacking in faith. A person might be faithful in a number of areas, and yet be unfaithful at some particular point, and as it was in Moses’ case, a very vital point. Surely nobody would claim that Moses died still impenitent and rebellious about the matter but God forgave him anyway. The idea that the only kinds of sins that a faithful Christian (one who walks in the light) commits are sins of ignorance and weakness is not taught in the Bible, nor does it teach that God automatically forgives those (or any other) sins.

To say that a person is automatically cleansed, like the windshield wiper (or that he benefits; i.e., is forgiven, even as he sins), sounds too much like the Baptist preacher who said that he could seduce some woman but God would work it out for his good (benefit). It reminds me of the Baptist who affirmed in a debate with me that a child of God could get drunk, that he could die drunk, and would go to heaven anyway; that a child of God could lie, that he could die with a lie on his tongue (as did Ananias and Sapphira), and he would go to heaven anyway; that a child of God could commit adultery, that he could get killed in the act, and the child of God could commit adultery with a person who was not a child of God, that both of them get killed in the act, and the child of God would go to heaven but the one who was not a child of God would go to Hell. Frankly, it surprised me when he affirmed this publicly and openly, but it shocked me to learn that some brethren evidently believe it and some teach that which logically leads to the same conclusion. I did not believe it then, and I do not believe it now.

The Bible clearly teaches that a child of God can sin. John says, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8). But it just as clearly teaches that a child of God does not have to sin. In fact, John wrote his first epistle so that his readers would “sin not” (2:1). If a Christian cannot keep from sinning, he has to sin, and John wasted his letter. Such a claim impugns the wisdom of God. And Peter says, “If ye do these things, ye shall never stumble” (2 Pet. 1:10) that a child of God can not fall (note the important difference between “cannot” [impossible] and “can not” [possible not to]). He doesn’t have to fall. If a Christian must sin (“man, because he is man, sins” is as false when taught by “conservative” brethren, as it is when taught by Edward Fudge or John Calvin), why does God hold him responsible for doing something he could not keep from doing anyway?.Such does away with man’s being a creature of choice. Man sins all right enough, not because he must sin, but because he chooses to sin, and therefore is guilty. The idea that a faithful Christian saint is continually cleansed because he is continually sinning is not in the Bible.

Some have even claimed that when a person unknowingly violates God’s law, God automatically forgives him (like the windshield wiper), then later when man learns that he has broken God’s law he must repent, etc. Why should he repent? What does he have to repent of? After all, if God forgave him at the time he sinned, the sin isn’t on his record; he doesn’t need to repent. What he should do, if the argument is correct, is thank God for having already forgiven him without repentance and before he ever learned about it! Still others claim that a person who unwittingly violates God’s law is not then guilty (they need to read Lev. 4:13,22,27) but when he later learns that he has violated God’s law, if he does not then repent, he is guilty. Among the many problems with this argument is, it changes God’s definition of sin. God said, “Sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). This doctrine says, “No, this is wrong.

Sin is not the transgression of the law. Sin is the awareness of the transgression of the law.” But the Bible doesn’t teach that either.

Yes, Christians sin, and God has made provisions for them when they do, but he has made no provisions for them to live in sin. When John states that the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin, he does what is frequently done in the Scriptures – he is simply stating a truth without giving all the details of the matter. Just as Jesus said, “Father, forgive them” (Luke 23:34), he did not give any conditions for forgiveness, and it was several days later when Peter told them what those conditions were (Acts 2:36-38). So the blood cleanses us from all sin (v. 7), but it is verse 9 that mentions one of the conditions man must meet for that forgiveness; it does not mention all of them for it says nothing about repentance. That is learned, elsewhere. The passage also says that we must confess our sins. It does not say we are to confess that we are sinners, nor does it say that if we confess that we are sinners, God will forgive. That may or may not be true, but 1 John 1:7-9 does not say so. It says that we are to confess our sins to be forgiven. Instead of teaching one to be confident of his salvation and feel secure about it because the blood of Christ will automatically or continually cleanse our sins, we need to teach people as Peter did Simon, “Repent . . . of this thy wickedness, and pray the Lord, if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee” (Acts 8:22).

No, the faithful saint is not continually cleansed by the blood of Christ because a faithful saint is not continually sinning. But a saint may be often cleansed by the blood, just as often as he meets the conditions given by God.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 16, pp. 491-492
August 20, 1987

By Harold Fite

One would think that we as Americans, having lived in this country since birth, would have no difficulty in communicating with one another. But strange as it may seem, the opposite is true. We have a difficult time “getting it across.”

One of the great problems in marriage is lack of communication between husband and wife. Parents and children do not really know one another because of a break-down in communication. Loss of life has resulted from poor communication or none at all. The recent shelling of U.S.S. Stark by Iraq is a prime example. In the sports arena, a high percentage of “busted” plays occur because someone didn’t get the message. Those in the market place are constantly stressing “get it right,” but like our tax forms, verbiage in the office memos makes it difficult to understand them. Doctors and lawyers have created for themselves a language which the average person cannot understand. Many fail to recognize that we talk to “express” not to “impress.”

Why do we have this difficulty in communicating? While verbiage may be the cause in some instances, in my opinion the real culprit is the failure to listen! In communicating with a person, listening plays an important part. We spent 80 percent of our time communicating, and 45 percent of this time is spent in listening. But most of us, however, listen at an efficiency of less than 25 percent. In schools students spend 60-70 percent of their classroom time in listening. In business, listening is cited as being the most critical managerial skill. Seminars and classes in college are now dealing with the art of listening.

Listening is more than just hearing: (1) there must be the interpreting of what is heard, which leads to an understanding; (2) evaluation, when you weigh the information and decide how you will use it; (3) reaction, based on what you heard, and how you evaluated it – you react.

Poor listening can be attributed to prejudice, being overly emotional, and various other distractions. And we all must accept the simple fact that we cannot do a good job of listening while we are talking!

Now let’s put all of this in the framework of the spiritual. In a recent Gallup study conducted for the Christian Broadcasting Network, when asked how God communicated today, one in three (36 percent) said God has spoken directly to them, and 11 percent said they believe God speaks out loud to people. Nearly half of all Americans (48 percent) said they believe God speaks through one’s internal feelings and impressions, and 49 percent said God also speaks through the Bible.

The problem with many is that they haven’t been listening! The writer to the Hebrews said, “God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds” (Heb. 1:1,2).

In olden times God spoke through the prophets (Ezek. 38:17), his method varying with the messenger and the message. By mouth he spoke to Adam (Gen. 3); through an angel he spoke to Lot (Gen. 19); he used a dream, a bush and an ass to speak to Jacob, Moses, and Balaam respectively, and wrote a message on the wall for Belshazza (Dan. 5). But in this dispensation of time God speaks to us through his Son. He doesn’t communicate with us directly, or through dreams, feelings, or other human beings – but only through his Son. On the mount of transfiguration God said, “This is by beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him” (Matt. 17:5).

The reasons for not hearing Jesus are the same in the spiritual realm as in the secular. Prejudice closes the mind to truth. When people have a preconceived idea of how things should be, there is the tendency to close the mind to anything contrary to it. The Jews had a preconceived idea of what the Messiah would be. When he didn’t fit their concept they rejected him. Jesus said, “For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest haply they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should turn again, and I should heal them” (Matt. 13:15).

Being overly emotional negates one’s reasoning powers. When a person says he has the baptism of the Spirit, can speak in tongues, feels that he is saved, and wouldn’t trade his feelings for a stack of Bibles, you might as well save your breath to cool your coffee, for that person is not going to listen while in that state.

Poor listening in business and the social realm may cost jobs, money, and friendships, but to fail to listen to God has eternal repercussions. Jesus said, “Take heed therefore how you hear” (Luke 18:8).

How does God communicate with us today? Through his word as it is articulated through Christ. Are you listening?

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 16, p. 487
August 20, 1987

By Edward O. Bragwell, Sr.

“So when they had appointed elders in every church. . .” – Acts 14:23

One can hardly read about Paul’s first preaching tour in Asia Minor without being thrilled at the introduction and success of the gospel among the Gentiles of that region (Acts 13,14). H. Leo Boles estimates that Paul traveled “twelve hundred eight miles; this was a long journey for that time with the ancient modes of travel.” Boles adds, “Paul and Barnabas had traveled the twelve hundred eight miles and had established more than half a dozen churches within the two or three years that they were gone on this journey” (A Commentary On Acts by Leo Boles).

Not only were these churches established, at least three of them – Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch – had an eldership in place (Acts 14:21-23). All of this within about three years.

I am impressed with a number of things. The efforts and sacrifices of Paul and Barnabas to get the gospel to the lost. Their persecutions for the gospel’s sake. Their successes and failures in converting the lost. The reactions to their preaching – ranging from whole hearted acceptance to outright violence. Their being able to appoint elders in the churches on their return trip.

Now, with the introduction out of the way, let’s get to the real reason of this article. I am disturbed by the number of churches that are operating without an eldership. I am also concerned by the lack of concern among us about this condition. I do not believe that we are overstating the case when we say that there is a serious leadership crisis among the churches. There are churches, good sized churches, who have met for, not two or three, but twenty or thirty years or more without elders to lead them. Instead of getting better in recent years, the trend has worsened. I fear that in many areas elders are becoming an endangered species. If the trend continues, my grandchildren may be members of congregations for a lifetime without the guidance and oversight of an eldership. I have had older Christians to tell me that they have been Christians from their youth but have never served under an eldership. It is down right scary to one who has spent most of his preaching life warning against departures from the faith in church organization.

I do not have all the answers as to the why this situation exists in every case, nor do I know how to solve it in every case. If I did, I think I would write a book and sell it to many other brethren whom I know to be wrestling with the problem. I do not think some of the simplistic answers that I have heard lately will solve the problem. It is sometimes suggested that if men cannot be found who meet all the qualifications for elders (1 Tim. 3; Tit. 1), then the church ought to appoint those the nearest to qualified.

Others seem to want to put an arbitrary time limit on how long a church can go without elders. One preacher suggested in a gospel meeting that there is something badly wrong with a church that exists more than five years without appointing elders. Maybe so, but maybe not. If they have men qualified and will not appoint them, then there is something bad wrong. Congregations, like individuals, develop at different paces. To arbitrarily set a definite period of time for every Christian to become a teacher (cf. Heb. 5:12-14) or be considered badly wrong is foolishness. Some may be teachers, almost immediately, because they already know a lot about the Bible before they obeyed it. Some people just naturally develop knowledge and abilities faster than others. To find a brother who just about comes up out of the water ably preaching the gospel does not mean there is something wrong with another who must have more time before he can become a teacher. Similarly, churches vary in the time needed to develop an eldership. Some almost from the very beginning may have two or more men who are qualified. Others may not have such men for years. So, let’s not be too hard on churches simply because they have not appointed elders in “X” number of years. We need to look at other factors as well.

Antioch (of Pisidia), Lystra, and Iconium had men qualified and appointed in a short time. It can be done. Some have suggested that since these were appointed so soon after their conversion that maybe we are putting too much emphasis upon meeting every qualification of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. It is assumed these men could not have had time to develop every thing on the list. Wait a minute. This assumes that we know how little these men knew; and that they did not already have many of the abilities and character traits when they were baptized. The Bible is silent on these matters.

However, it can be easily seen that these men would not have had to “start from scratch” in their path to qualification. Some of those converted in each place had been Jews. They would have already had a good knowledge of the Old Testament and possibly even the ability to teach it. If they had been devout Jews they would have already proven themselves to have most if not all of the moral traits necessary. They could have been ruling their houses well for years, as was customary among the Jews. They were of a people, who for generations had lived looking for the Messiah (Christ), having; learned from the prophets much of what he was to be. Now, they and their families learn the truth about Jesus’ being the Christ and obey him. It should not take one with such a background long to become grounded in the faith and be apt at teaching and defending it. No, I do not know that this is how these men became qualified so quickly. The Bible does not say. I do know they were qualified because they were appointed by the one who wrote the qualifications to Timothy and Titus. He did not give them one standard for appointing elders and use another for himself. Surely we can see from the above that it is not even unreasonable to think that these men could meet every qualification in such short time.

There are a number of factors contributing to so many churches being without elders other than they simply have not had time for men to develop the qualifications.

1. There are men who need to be elders who do not want to be. They meet every other qualification except they just do not desire the office (function). It is true that if one does not desire it, he does not qualify. These men need to be impressed with the importance of this work. Having been an elder, I know how hard it is to have and keep the desire, knowing that so much is expected of you. The weight of responsibility that one feels is awesome. Then there are times, as a famous comedian says, you “don’t get no respect.” No matter what decisions elders make or what advice they give they know they will have to face critics over it. However, the work done by elders is so crucial to God’s plan for the church that qualified men must stand up and accept the work in spite of the problems associated with it.

2. There are men who want to be elders who do not need to be. These either want to be appointed to the eldership or want to do the work of elders without being appointed. Some think of “desiring the office” in a political sense, so they virtually announce that they are running for office. These men keep good men from accepting the office, because they know that they will constantly have to deal with these carnally ambitious men who resent the fact that they were “defeated” and are constantly “campaigning” in preparation for another run at the office.

Then there are others who know that they could never be elders “officially,” but who want to be elders nominally. They want to be leaders, doing the same work that belongs only to elders, even though they admit they are not qualified for the eldership. These are found among preachers and other members of congregations. So, they find a way to block the appointment of good men as elders because they would diminish their own leadership role. They have a long list of nit picking reasons why this church is not ready for elders.

3. There is the failure to fully recognize that the Lord’s kingdom is not of the world (cf. John 18:36). The governments of most institutions in the western world are democratic. This seems to work best in nations and other institutions, so why not in the church? So, being influenced by the world, brethren are more comfortable with some system where all have equal say – so they like majority rule business meetings better than submitting to the rule of an eldership. Even where there is an eldership, they look at it as being their representatives who can only reflect the will of “those who (s)elected them.” Elders are warned not to “lord it over” the church or be abusive in their rule (1 Pet. 5:1-5), but they have been made overseers by the Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28) and must rule according to God’s will rather than the will of the church. I am firmly convinced that the reason some churches are without elders is the thinking that some form of democratic rule is the better course.

Granted that, in the absence of elders, things must get done and the Bible is silent as to how the churches reached decisions without elders. We do know they got along somehow before elders were appointed. A general business meeting of the men has, over the years, proven to be expedient without violating any biblical principle. If attitudes are good, it pretty well gets things done that must be done. Until someone comes up with some better expedient, in the absence of elders, brethren do well to use it. Brethren should participate and help each other come to a consensus as to how to best scripturally and peacefully facilitate the Lord’s work. However, it should be considered just an expedient – and a temporary one at that! It is not a substitute for elders!

The longer a church delays qualifying and appointing elders, the greater the danger becomes that what should be the exception (no elders) becomes the norm – the longer a mere expedient becomes regarded as the established and preferred order and divinely authorized elders be considered inexpedient. The danger of other disorders arising and becoming ingrained in a congregation is also great. Decisions are often the result of political manuevering to get things passed in business meetings where a teenage novice may have equal voice with a brother of years experience – rather than the result of the careful investigation and deliberation of men who meet God’s standard for elders. Too, mere “leaders” become a substitute for elders. Younger men of ability and knowledge, but without the experience and wisdom of elders, are looked to more and more to manage the work program of the church. Sometimes it falls upon a preacher, who is not an elder, to run the affairs of the congregation. These often come to relish the leadership role forced upon them by default and take more and more upon themselves to act and speak for the church – and are reluctant to surrender that role even after elders are appointed. “All the saints . . . with the bishops and deacons” (Phil. 1:1), can easily become “all the saints . . . with the leaders and committees. “

We need to encourage more and more men (and their families) to work toward the eldership as a goal. Churches need to do more to train men, not only to preach, teach, lead in public worship, but to do the work of elders. All of us need to desire that the church have elders and be willing to submit ourselves to them with due honor so that they may do their work with joy (Heb. 13:17). This might encourage more qualified men to accept the responsibility. Those who are elders need to give more attention to “ruling well,” in being examples worthy to be followed, watching for souls, and not being lords over God’s heritage (1 Tim. 3:5; 1 Pet. 5:2-5). This might help keep many brethren from thinking that churches get along better without elders.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 16, pp. 484-486
August 20, 1987

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