Truth Magazine

By Ray Votaw

Yes, I know this is a very discouraging maze of material to read through but it will thrill you and motivate you. Please take the time to “wade through it.” For years those of us in South Africa who have stood against the encroaching apostasy of brethren in regard to the work and organization of the church have heard: “Yes, but this is only happening in the U.S.A.” For this reason my attitude toward these apostasies has always been, “what thou doest, do quickly” (Jn. 13:27) – so that “they which are approved may be made manifest” (1 Cor. 11:19). Now this blatant “take over” bid by the Memorial Church of Christ in Houston, Texas in response to their fear of “Crossroadism” has presented sound brethren with a unique and thrilling situation for the gospel in Southern Africa. Brethren, for the sake of the cause of Christ in this part of the world Conrad Steyn and George Harris need your support – now! Although there are scores of faithful churches among all race groups here in the Traansvaal Province there are only 3 or 4 struggling groups in the whole of the Cape Province which is over twice the size of Texas. These two men who have completely and publicly renounced “liberalism” have had a hand in establishing and encouraging some 25 churches in the greater Cape Town metropolitan area. Already some 30 members are standing for the truth with these 2 preachers as the Constantia Church of Christ. Many South Africa churches have helped Conrad and George financially on a temporary basis. But the truth is that churches in this country are really pressed in the preacher support they are already providing and the benevolent work they are having to do because of the financial climate here – due to disinvestment, international boycotts, etc.

Conrad Steyn and George Harris need to be “on the road” right now in salvaging the souls of those who know them best. Brethren, if you know anything at all about me you should know my reluctance over the years to raise American support for South African preachers. This has got to be a special case for me to make this appeal. When Conrad saw that I was agonizing about this matter he said, “Don’t worry, my brother; they can grind me into dust and starve my family but I will never go back to this rubbish by way of apostasy.” I truly believe he meant what he said.

These men need around $2,000 each per month to enable them to freely do the work which needs to be done. Please examine your finances carefully and prayerfully and strive to help sound brethren in South Africa “strike while the iron is hot.” Any amount sent on a one time basis or regularly will be that much toward a very worthwhile goal in our part of the world.

I have in my possession tape recordings, transcripts, business meeting notes, etc. to well document all that you will find in this material. The repercussions have already begun here in South Africa and we already have more in contact with us about these matters than any of us have been able to follow up. Again, please help us keep these two good men in “harness.”

I have collaborated on this matter with the other sound preachers in this country – Doug Bauer, David Beckley, Basil Cass, Hendrick Joubert, Piet Joubert, Les Maydell, Eric Reed and Paul Williams – and they concur with me in this action. Also, I might mention in passing that both of these men, Conrad and George, from a strictly scholastic standpoint, hold Doctorate degrees.

Statement From Steyn and Harris

We would like to state as briefly and yet as fully as necessary that we have, unwittingly at times, been “caught up” in much error as regards the work and organization of the Lord’s church. We must state that much of our error has been by associations, yet we recognize now that our practice at many times did not measure up to our teaching. By this association we have espoused and promoted the “sponsoring church” arangement, “institutionalism” and certain aspects of the social gospel. After a recent traumatic experience with the blatant violation of our church automony here in Cape Town by the Memorial Church of Christ in Houston, Texas, after much general soul searching, after much fervent prayer and after extensive study and discussion with brother Ray Votaw, our error is apparent and we freely acknowledge such. The “sponsoring church” practice violates New Testament teaching on local church autonomy. “Institutionalism” is a slap in the face to the sufficiency of God’s organization – the local church. True New Testament “fellowship” is a relation enjoyed by faithful brethren in accomplishing God’s eternal purpose in the church,. and this fellowship excludes church sponsored recreation and using the church’s money for those other than qualified needy saints.

Our beloved brethren, we have repented of any and all contributions we have made to those errors in our association and teaching and have asked God for forgiveness. We’re asking you as faithful brethren to forgive us, and we covet your prayers on our behalf that we might use the further years of our lives in proclaiming the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Conrad D. Steyn

P.O. Box 133, Rondebosch

Cape 7700

South Africa

Phone: (021) 65-7545

George Harris

P.O. Box 300,Steenberg

Cape 7947

South Africa

Phone: (021) 75-7262

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 15, p. 464
August 6, 1987

By Mike Willis

The crucifixion of Jesus caused all of Jesus’ disciples to scatter like sheep without a shepherd. During these final days, two of the apostles were particularly affected. Judas betrayed Jesus, committed suicide and passed into eternal damnation. Jesus said, “Woe unto the man by whom he is betrayed” (Lk. 22:22). Simon Peter also fell during this period when he denied the Lord Jesus.

The Scripture’s comments regarding the sin of Peter are particularly instructive. By his circumstances, I am reminded of the constant danger which sin presents to my soul. Consider the sifting of Simon with me.

On the Thursday night of his betrayal, Jesus ate the Passover with his disciples, instituted the Lord’s supper, washed the saints’ feet, and prayed for them (Jn. 17); he spoke especially to Peter saying,

Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death. And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me (Lk. 22:31-34).

From what happened to Peter, let us learn these lessons:

I. The Activity of Satan

Jesus said, “Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat” (Lk. 22:31). To Jesus, Satan was no mythical creature. He is a real spiritual person working to destroy the souls of men. In Jesus’ own life, he confronted the Devil in the temptations (Matt. 4:1-11); he recognized Satan at work when Peter protested the prophecy of his death. He replied to Peter saying, “Get thee behind me, Satan” (Matt. 16:23).

Satan was the one who induced Adam and Eve to sin against God in eating of the forbidden fruit (Gen. 2-3). He was the one who appeared before God making blasphemous charges against Job (Job 1-2). He has always been the great adversary of man, seeking to persuade him to disobey God.

In Peter’s case, the Lord revealed that Satan desired Simon – he wanted Simon for himself. He wanted to “sift” him as wheat, to see whether he was grain or chaff. No doubt Peter remembered Jesus’ words on this occasion when he wrote, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet. 5:8).

Just as the Devil was active in trying to destroy Peter’s soul, he is trying to destroy my soul. If someone sins against me, he will try to create a spirit of bitterness within me; if my loved one becomes sick and dies, he will try to convince me that God does not care about my circumstances or does not love me; he will try to seduce me with lasciviousness, persuading me to make one compromise after another until my soul is destroyed by worldliness; he will try to get me preoccupied with the cares of this world that he might root God out of my life. Yes, the Devil is working any and every way he can to destroy my soul. What happened to Job and Peter was not unique. The Devil is working in the same fashion with every other Christian.

Being reminded of his activities, let us be vigilant and sober. We face a cunning enemy and need every spiritual advantage to overcome him.

II. Jesus’ Intercessory Prayer For Peter

Jesus told Peter, “I have prayed for thee.” Indeed he had. In his intercessory prayer, he addressed the needs of the apostles.

I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. . . . Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. . . . I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil (Jn. 17:9,11-12,15).

I need to remember that Jesus desires my salvation just as much as he desired the salvation of Peter. He is not watching to catch me in sin so that he can get some kind of sadistic glee from casting me into hell. He loves me and desires my salvation.

Heaven only knows the spiritual battles which have been fought for my soul. Satan wants to sift me as wheat. Jesus pleads my case before God. The deciding factor is whether or not my faith fails.

III. Peter’s Sin

A number of things need to be said about Peter’s sin that night. Please consider these with me:

1. Peter’s sin demonstrates the danger of over confidence. When Jesus told Peter that he would deny knowing him that night, Peter affirmed his loyalty. Later in the Garden of Gethsemane, Peter slept when Jesus admonished him to watch and pray that he enter not into temptation (Lk. 22:40,45). Peter is an example of the danger of which Paul warned: “Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12).

2. Peter’s sin demonstrates the possibility of a Christian failing into sin. Whatever the creeds may say to the contrary, Peter’s sin demonstrates that a child of God may fall into sin. The doctrine of “Christian perfection” or “entire sanctification” as taught by Wesleyan groups is false. The Methodist creed teaches that man’s inherited sinful nature is renewed by the Holy Ghost “whereby we are not only delivered from the guilt of sin, but are washed from its pollution, saved from its power, and are enabled, through grace, to love God with all our hearts and to walk in his Holy commandments blameless” (Discipline of the Methodist Church 1940, “Of Sanctification”). Regardless of what the creed may read, Peter’s “sanctification” had not and never did progress to the point that he was not tempted to sin; from time to time, he stumbled into sin. Unlike some Wesleyans who say that they go years without sinning, Peter fell into sin. He was not so sanctified that he could not or would not sin. Christians need to remember that the Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification is just as dangerous as the Calvinist doctrine of impossibility of apostasy.

3. Peter’s sin demonstrates the possibility of apostasy. Whatever the creeds may say to the contrary, Peter’s sin demonstrates that a child of God can fall from grace. The Calvinist creeds teach that once a child of God is in grace, he is always in grace. Nevertheless, Peter’s sin brought him into disgrace and in danger of eternal damnation. He denied knowing the Lord (Lk. 22:34,57,57,60). Jesus said, “But whosoever (Peter was included in whosoever) shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 10:28). Peter’s sin, had he not repented of it, would have resulted in Jesus’ denial of him before the Father. One can also see the condition of Peter’s soul by Jesus’ comment: “and when thou art converted” (Lk. 22:32). What kind of soul needs “converted”? A soul which is saved does not need converting. Hence, this statement implies that Peter’s soul was alienated from God, full of guilt, and separated from him by his sin.

4. Peter’s sin demonstrates that sins of weakness bring one’s soul into a state of alienation from God. Peter’s sin was not that of high-handed rebellion. Peter’s intentions were good. When Jesus told Peter that he would deny him before that night was over, Peter protested saying, “Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death” (Lk. 22:33). That he was sincere is seen by the fact that Peter drew his sword and tried to kill Malchus (Jn. 18:10). Peter knew that he could not overcome the entire band of soldiers sent to arrest Jesus. He was ready to die for him. Yet, later that night when Jesus was being tried, Peter became afraid for his own life and denied knowing Jesus. His was a sin of weakness, not a sin of high-handed rebellion. Nevertheless, his sin alienated him from God.

IV. Peter’s Restoration

Two apostles sinned on the night of Jesus’ betrayal. Judas betrayed Jesus into the hands of the Jews and Peter denied knowing him. Judas was exceedingly sorrowful and, in his deep grief, committed suicide. Peter, on the other hand, exhibited a godly sorrow which brought him to repentance.

At his third denial of Jesus, the cock crowed. From the place where he was standing, he could see Jesus on trial before the Jewish Sanhedrin. When Peter denied him the third time, “the Lord turned, and looked at Peter” (Lk. 22:61). “And Peter remember the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And Peter went out, and wept bitterly” (Lk. 22:61-62). Can you imagine how Peter must have felt when his eyes met the eyes of his Lord?

His sorrow was not a sorrow unto death; rather it was godly sorrow that brought him to repentance (2 Cor. 7:10). Rather than driving him away from God, Peter’s grief for his sin drove him back to God. Consequently, he was anxious to see the resurrected Jesus (Jn. 20:1ff); no doubt, he had a few things he wanted to say to the Lord Jesus. God grant us, when our footsteps slip, the heart to weep such tears as his!

As a result of his own experience, Peter could identify with the sorrow which a penitent erring child of God experiences. He knew exactly what to tell the erring child of God to do in order to obtain the forgiveness of his sin. He did not say, “You need not worry about your sins of weakness because the grace of God continuously cleanses you from all sin.” Rather, when he confronted the young Christian Simon (the sorcerer) who stumbled into sin, Peter said, “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee” (Acts 8:22). I need to follow his example, telling erring Christians to meet the same conditions in order to be forgiven, whether their sins be committed in ignorance, weakness, or high-handed rebellion.

Conclusion

My soul is threatened by the assaults of Satan in the same manner as Peter’s soul was. I sometimes fall into sin just as he did. My faith needs to drive me back in penitence to the Lord to seek his forgiveness, even as Peter’s did. When it does, I will obtain the same forgiveness which Peter found in the grace of God.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 16, pp. 482, 502-503
August 20, 1987

By Wayne Greeson

James 1:27 each Christian is instructed “to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.” Unfortunately, some have abused this passage in an attempt to justify the church contributing to human benevolent organizations. An even greater problem is the attitude that has resulted from this practice. How many have dropped a dollar in the collection plate thinking, “I have visited those in need,” when they have failed to fulfill the most basic element of “visiting.”

The translation of James’ instruction from the original Greek to English has lost its full meaning and force. When you say today “I’m going to visit,” you usually mean you are going to see someone and chat awhile. But the Greek word episkeptomai, translated “visit” in English, means much more. In Greek to “visit” is “to look upon or after, to inspect, examine with the eyes; . . . in order to see how he is, i.e. to visit, go see one: Acts 7:23; 15:36 (Judg. 15:1); the poor and afflicted, Jas. 1:27; the sick, Mt. 25:36, 43 . . . b. Hebraistically, to look upon in order to help or benefit; e.g. to look after, have a care for, provide for. . .” (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Henry Thayer, p. 242). “Visit” in Greek is related to the Greek word “overseer,” so to “visit” includes “to look upon, care for, exercise oversight” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W. E. Vine, p. 1213).

There are three elements required by episkeptomai, “to visit”:

1. Personal contact – Going to the needy.

2. Personal examination – Seeing their needs.

3. Personal provision – Providing for their needs.

The word “visit” occurs ten times in the New Testament and every use demands the three elements of personal contact, examination and provision. Christ’s “visit” was not just to chat awhile or the sending of a representative angel. “The Dayspring from on high has visited us; To give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, To guide our feet into the way of peace. . . . For He has visited and redeemed His people” (Lk. 1:78-79, 68). Christ’s visit to men was God’s personal contact and inspection to oversee our great need for salvation from sin and He personally provided the redemption price to meet that need.

Likewise, Jesus emphasized the individual duty of His followers to personally visit the less fortunate, “For I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you took me in; I was naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you visited me; I was in prison and you visited me” (Mt. 25:35-36).

Thus the command to “visit” the less fortunate is intensely personal and practical for each and every Christian. Greek authority Marvin Vincent writes of “visit” in James 1:27, “James strikes a downright blow here at ministry by proxy, or by mere gifts of money. Pure and undefiled religion demands personal contact with the world’s sorrow: to visit the afflicted, and to visit them in their affliction” (Vincent’s Word Studies, Vol. 1, p. 736).

Those churches which unscripturally send money to human benevolent organizations cannot find support for their error in James 1:27, by the very definition of “visit.” The apostle James is clearly instructing individual Christians to assist those in need. James is teaching pure religion is individual and personal, not institutional and impersonal. Those who give money to the church, for the church to give to a human benevolent organization, for the human organization to give to those in need are twice removed from truly “visiting” the fatherless and widows in their affliction! Where is the personal going? Where is the personal oversight? Where is the personal assistance? Compare the biblical concept of “visiting” with the practice of church contributions to human organizations.

“To Visit” – (Episkeptomai)	Church Contributions To Human Organizations
1. Personal contact – You go to the needy.	1. No personal contact – The organization goes to the needy.
2. Personal examination – You oversee their needs.	2. No personal examination – The organization oversees needs.
3. Personal provision – You provide for their needs.	3. No personal provision – The organization provides their needs.

God demands personal religion not proxy religion. You cannot visit the sick and needy by putting money into the collection plate at church. The preacher cannot do the visiting that you are commanded to do, nor the elders, not even the church. Jesus promised, “inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Mt. 25:40).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 15, p. 467
August 6, 1987

By George Harris

(Editor’s Note: a similar statement from Conrad D. Steyn was included. Because of their similarity, I am only publishing one of them.)

At the outset let me say that I recognize that we all make mistakes, none of us is perfect, and that we all have sin in our lives. “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Further I acknowledge that many of us find ourselves not practicing what we preach.

I was “born” into the liberal church, and yet have never been a preacher of a social gospel, but have always spoken where the Bible speaks, and been silent where the Bible is silent; I have called Bible things Bible names. I have studied myself out of some error; in the past (particularly whilst working in England), I have had to make decisions on my own and dared to be different against all odds.

Let me share with you some experiences. I “obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine that was delivered me” on 19 April 1974. In 1977 I went to Memphis School of Preaching for training; there was something about the system that perturbed me and I was only there for 5 weeks and left. Albeit institutionalism, per say, was not the word on my lips, not being familiar with the terminology at that time. I subsequently became a product of 2 Timothy 2:2, a faithful evangelist, committed unto me, a faithful man, the things which he had heard and I have taught others also.

I have taught autonomy of the local church and the restrictions of the authority placed upon the eldership of the local church, and yet I have been caught up in the “sponsoring church” concept which I acknowledge violates the New Testament teaching on the local church autonomy. Having said that, it has concerned me for a few years that there must be a better way than the “sponsoring church” system. I found out this year that there is a better way – “God’s Way.” I am so delighted that I have found brethren who want to preach the truth and observe it. God forgive me for my ignorance but I didn’t even know who “anti-brethren” were until a recent incident (I will explain a little later). It has always been my desire to preach and do things God’s way and honor him in submitting to the authority of Christ, which is vested in the written Word, and slowly over the years God has revealed though circumstances, His plan (Rom. 8:28).

On occasions it has appalled me that the liberal church has been wasting so much money which could be better used in preaching the gospel. I think of such things as family life centers and gimmicks to get people “involved” in church activities. The Southern African Bible School has been a pet bug of mine; apart from the institutional aspect, the graduates with few exceptions remain in the Benoni church instead of being taught to pioneer the gospel in new territory, as did the Apostle Paul (see Rom. 15:14-22, esp. v. 19).

There is no doubt that in spite of the fact that I have not promoted institutionalism, I have been in fellowship with those who are, and stood guilty before God, for which I asked his pardon. Further I was caught up in the “sponsoring church” arrangement which I realize also violates God’s pattern for the church.

An elder from the Memorial Church of Christ in Houston, came to Cape Town and presented the men of the River View congregation with a new constitution drawn up by the elders at Memorial. This constitution listed five trustees, three of them resident in America (two being elders of the Memorial church) and the remaining two residents in South Africa. Conrad Steyn was listed as one of the new trustees. The River View church had a constitution of their own. The first I knew about this new constitution was when the elder presented it to the men of the congregation, 11th February 1987. The elder who brought this document to Cape Town, explained that the Memorial church wanted to help us, and protect the congregation and the property against infiltration and possible take over by the Boston Crossroads Church of Christ (even though there was not a Crossroader in the city). The new constitution was so designed that all the assets of the church whether immovable, movable or personal, be vested in the five trustees, and that these trustees were to be self perpetuating, as it was stated in the constitution. “The trustees for the time being, voting at any duly convened meeting of the trustees or until the trustees by majority vote, elect any other or additional trustees, in place of, or in the addition to the above mentioned or trustees for the time being.” Note that our congregation had no say in the above matter, nor were they consulted about all of this. We were also told by the elder, that this is what Memorial elders did in Scotland and the South African Bible School. Someday when we had faithful and strong elders, Memorial may deed the property back to us. We had a lot of money invested in the property and the property belonged to River View. At a meeting with the men the elder was asked how they envisioned the church at River View should take care of their own affairs (building, etc.). We were told that he had brought signed proxies giving the church permission to take care of our affairs. We were also told that a congregation becomes autonomous when elders are appointed and until then, the sponsoring church had oversight over the work.

The men of the church met twice with the elder and to my delight rejected the constitution by 9 to 1, as a violation of our congregational autonomy. It demonstrated to me that they had been taught about the limit of eldership authority, that it was confined to “the flock which is among them.” The one in favor was Philip Liebbrandt, the other preacher working with the River View congregation, supported by Memorial.

After these meetings the elder handed me a letter telling me to take my family and get out of the River View, and told us that the Memorial church was making arrangements for another preacher to work with Liebbrandt at River View. The elder left and what followed the last 3V2 months has been like a horrible nightmare. The faithful men were set at nought, (see Rom. 14:10), all of their decisions and letters to the Memorial elders and Leibbrandt (who had been asked by the men of the church to leave River View) were ignored. Memorial flew a lawyer from Cape Town, South Africa, to Houston and gave him an open mandate to get my father-in-law, Conrad Steyn, and myself out of River View and secure the property. They also flew down to my sponsoring congregation in Selmer, TN and told them that I was causing division in the church and that I was unworthy of support. This was absolute disinformation. Leibbrandt with the blessing of Memorial massed (he claimed) 51 percent of the members to have a general meeting to get rid of us and reversed the decision of the men. Among the ones assembled for the two meetings which were held in a school building, were delinquents he rounded up, some had not been at a worship service in 3 or 4 years. One man whose proxy Leibbrandt presented had never been a member of the River View congregation. I could not believe my eyes. The group met to vote against the decision of the faithful men. Women making up two-thirds of their group totally usurped the authority over these men of God (see 1 Tim. 2:11-15). Memorial was prepared to go to litigation against us (see 1 Cor. 6:1-9).

Finally, about 30 of the faithful brethren not wanting to shame our Lord or destroy the influence of the church, and also caring more for their souls than to be part of this travesty, moved out and relinquished the property and made the break. I am fully aware that what we have done is not the popular thing to do, but there was no room for compromise. I also know that I will be accused of dividing the church but all of the events have been clearly documented, and the decision of the men and group to withdraw and break away was entirely their own.

Brother Ray Votaw flew down from the Traansvaal and met with Conrad Steyn and me and he was such an encouragement to me. I thank God for sending Ray, for in my stand for Christ and the truth against the Memorial Church of Christ, he helped me to see that my allegiance to God lay in preaching the truth and associating with the faithful brethren of the “conservative” church. That following Sunday Ray preached for our group and we were all delighted at the things that he had to share with us.

Since then the church at Bellville, where Ray’s son-in-law, Eric Reed, preaches, has worshiped with us. Ray is coming down next week again, and we will have another combined worship, Ray will preach for us and Eric will teach our Bible class. We are looking forward to this event with great enthusiasm.

I am so excited about the way things are developing. Please pray for us in our stand for Christ and the truth, and that our God will provide for me and my family in His service, that I might use the remainder of my life on this earth in proclaiming the simple gospel of Jesus Christ to the saving of souls and bringing glory to God.

Your loving brother in Christ,

George Harris

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 15, pp. 465-466
August 6, 1987