Truth Magazine

By Keith Pruitt

A few years back, a convicted murderer named Gary Gillmore requested to die by firing squad in Utah. One would perhaps think nothing strange of the situation if any but Mormons were involved. I thought little of it until sometime later. I was told that Gillmore, a Mormon, had made the request in order that he might have atonement for sins. Even then the statement did not click.

Recently, research on Mormonism uncovered some interesting discoveries concerning the official belief concerning justification and the efficacy of Christ’s blood. The fact is, Mormons do not believe that Christ’s blood has the power to forgive all sins. Therefore, they teach that one’s own blood must be shed for redemption of certain sins. Note the following quotes:

Once we have been resurrected, it will be our own efforts, and not Christ’s sacrifice, that will be the deciding factor (Wallace Bennett, Why I Am A Mormon, N.Y., 1958, p. 191 as quoted in History and Beliefs of Mormonism by Einar Anderson, p. 19).

Are you aware that there are certain sins that man may commit for which the atoning blood of Christ does not avail? (Joseph F. Smith quoted, R.C. Evans, Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage, p. 14).

I will say further; I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins. It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, IV, pp. 53-54).

Thus, there are some sins that cannot be atoned for through the blood of Christ. They can only be atoned for by the shedding of the sinner’s blood. A murderer is one, and an adulterer is another (Charles W. Penrose, Blood Atonement, as Taught by Leading Elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1884, p. 29 as quoted in Mormonism and Inspiration, Jack Free, p. 339).

In view of the above quotes from Mormon sources, it is not difficult to understand why Gillmore would ask to die nor is it difficult to see why Utah uses execution via a firing squad. Their efforts are noble, but they fail for lack of biblical sanction.

But directly to the point. Does the blood of Christ cleanse us from all sin? Let the book speak. Let us demonstrate the universal nature of the sacrifice and its efficacy.

“This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief” (1 Tim. 1: 15). “. . Who gave himself a ransom for all. . . ” (1 Tim. 2:6). “. . And loosed us from sin by his own blood. . . ” (Rev. 1:5). “. . . For this he did once when he offered up himself. . . ” (Heb. 7:27). “. . . There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. . . ” (Heb. 10:26). “. . But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. . – ” (Heb. 9:26). “. . . So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many. . . ” (v. 28). “. . He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Jn. 1:9).

Now what sin can His blood not remit? What person cannot be saved? Listen to Paul’s address to the Corinthians. “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, . . . nor adulterers, . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but ye are washed (see Rev. 1:5, KJV), but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9-11; see also Eph. 1: 7). Now the blood of Christ was sufficient to cleanse the Corinthians who had been fornicators and adulterers. It will cleanse the obedient alien of all sin and the penitent Christian of all sin. .

The fact is, if the blood of Christ will not cleanse from some sin, it will not cleanse from any sin! Sin is sin in God’s sight. A man stands as condemned for neglecting his family as for murdering his neighbor (1 Tim. 5:8).

If the blood of Christ could pardon Saul of Tarsus of the murder he was guilty of, would it not pardon the apostle Paul of the same offense (had he been guilty of such)? If not, why not? Under what rules would God show more favor toward an alien than the child of the covenant?

It is a shame that ignorant and deceitful men have led so many astray. Countless hundreds become Mormons every year. They are following a system of teaching that cannot save and are teaching that Jesus is even powerless to save some. How ludicrous and devastating.

Gillmore perhaps went to this death thinking that the very act of the civil government would atone for his unrighteousness. But if one ounce of Gillmore’s blood could atone for any sin, there would be no need of Jesus Christ.

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 11, p. 333
June 4, 1987

By Vestal Chaffin

“Why, I never heard of the church withdrawing from anybody,” is a statement recently heard from two members of the church in widely separated areas. Neither of these members are young in years. Both are probably in their late sixties. This points up a fault that has existed among churches of Christ for many years, and still does in many areas today. I speak of disciplinary action toward members of the church who fail to live as God directs Christians, His children. There are many members of the church who have been members for 40, 50, or maybe 60 years, who have never seen the church take disciplinary action against any member. It is not that they have never seen members who “walked disorderly,” or who have flagrantly violated God’s law, but because the church has failed to take the action that it should.

To “withdraw” ourselves from brethren who refuse to live as God commands them, is a command of God just as much as to sing, pray, teach, eat the Lord’s Supper, or any other that he has given to the Christian. Listen: “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus …. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat” (1 Cor. 5:4-5,11). “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us” (2 Thess. 3:6). Thus it is clearly stated that this action is a command of God.

I am convinced that this command has not been carried out in many instances, because of the unpleasantness connected with it. In many cases the offender has been associated with the brethren in the congregation where he is a member, friendships and ties have been formed that are of long standing; and, in some cases, the erring brother has relatives whom the brethren think might be offended if disciplinary action is taken. But this is no excuse for failing to carry out God’s command. They regard and esteem fleshly ties greater than that of spiritual. Consequently, the ultimate disciplinary action is never taken.

Withdrawing fellowship from a member of the church is to be used as a last resort, when all other efforts to restore them have failed. We should do all we can to convert him “from the error of his way” (James 5:19-20). We should “warn them that are unruly” (1 Thess. 5:14). We should do all we can to “restore such an one” (Gal. 6:1). If these efforts fail, then we must “withdraw” ourselves from him.

Sometimes, when this final step is taken by the church, those members who are close friends, or relatives of the one withdrawn from, become offended and will stop attending the services of the church or go elsewhere to services. Such action on their part shows that they do not know the purpose of discipline, or they are esteeming the fleshly ties greater than the spiritual salvation of a soul.

What then, is the purpose of church discipline? It is not taken to get at someone. It is not taken for revenge on the offender. But the God-given purpose of withdrawing from a brother is two fold: (1) To save the guilty party from eternal destruction, “that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 5:5). (2) To save the church from pollution, “Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” (1 Cor. 5:6) The Lord wants the church to be pure (Eph. 5:25-27; 2 Cor. 11:1-2; Col. 1:22), but if we harbor sin and rebellion in the church, even in one member, others will be inclined to follow the example of the sinful one. If we fail to carry out disciplinary measures against the unruly member and permit sin to be engaged in by the members, then the church will have lost it distinctiveness and its influence for good; and it will become a hiss and a byword in the world.

After we have withdrawn from a member, we must not completely stop all efforts to save him. We are to “count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother” (2 Thess. 3:15). May the Lord ever give us the faith, the courage, and the wisdom to carry out His divine will in all things.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 11, p. 339
June 4, 1987

By Paul K. Williams

In response to my article in Guardian of Truth in which I lamented the fact that in most churches evangelism in other places has a low priority, brother Leslie Diestelkamp wrote me an admonishing letter. He was concerned that my tone was too sharp.

And the elders of a church which is helping brother David Hurst in his plans to come to South Africa (I have heard that he is still hoping to come. Write him at Rt. 4, Olney, IL 62450) wrote to show that they are concerned about preaching the gospel in other places.

Therefore I want to give grateful thanks to all those faithful brethren who truly love the Lord and the work of preaching the gospel. Brother Diestelkamp put it rightly: “Under proper circumstances there are still many brethren who would at least figuratively give you their right arm and who would literally dig deeper to find ways to help worthy appeals.” I believe that and am very grateful for it. It is brethren like that who make it possible for me to remain in South Africa preaching the gospel.

These are usually the ones who take to heart such appeals as I made. It is a sad fact that when a preacher preaches on giving, the ones who listen with open hearts and search to find ways to please God more in that area are the ones who already are generous givers. The stingy ones appear not to hear a word of the sermon.

So I suppose that my article will be felt the most by those who already have tender hearts. The great numbers who have long justified themselves for their selfish attention to their own comfort before thinking about the lost souls of the world will pass such an article by with some excuse which will be enough for their consciences. Pity, but that is the way people are.

I am thankful, though, that attitudes can change for the better. A church with which I was closely connected in my early years had the attitude “We will only support preachers in places close enough for us to see the work.” For many years now they have been generous in their support to preachers in foreign fields. Perhaps articles such as I wrote and continual preaching on the subject by local preachers will help many to look at their attitudes and change for the better.

Because another thing which brother Diestelkamp wrote is true. In giving advice on how to raise support for preaching abroad he wrote: “Send, principally, to churches already involved in such work.” In other words, the churches which are not supporting preachers in other places are hard to interest in such work. The evangelist will waste his efforts in presenting his appeal to those churches.

How sad. These are the brethren who need to be awakened, but how hard to do it. And they are so many that the evangelists had better get a list of the churches already interested in foreign evangelism, or his efforts could result in failure to get enough support to go!

These are the brethren I was writing for, and I am afraid that they make up a large portion of churches in America – perhaps a majority. Keeping house for the Lord in comfort is not going to please God, my beloved. Jesus gave himself to save souls, and that is what we must be busy doing.

I sincerely believe that we who preach need to be earnestly searching for ways to reach the hearts of our brethren with the message that the whole world needs the gospel, and that God is depending upon us to preach it.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 11, p. 340
June 4, 1987

By Harold V. Comer

What is the audience (or the congregation) of the Television Church like?

What motivates Christians to watch TV preachers and give their approval? Will their TV interest effect their local church affiliation and attendance?

If viewers stay home more and attend services less, what benefits will they miss?

What kind of personalities are particularly influenced by the appeals of today’s TV evangelists?

Why do people give money so readily to people and programs of work that they know so little about?

There are a number of questions that I have about the “congregation” of the Television Church that gathers a few feet from the flat glass pulpit and seems to respond so thoroughly to the appeals and messages of the television evangelist. Some of these questions cannot be completely answered but the questions that can be answered will provide us with a greater awareness of our challenges today and also give us an appreciation of the benefits of God’s plan of worship.

Examples And Case Studies

Harry is an untalented salesman who is struggling to be a success. He is addicted to the programs of Robert Schuller and Jim Bakker.

Harry is irregular at the local church where his wife, who is stronger than Harry spiritually, attends faithfully. For her part, she is repulsed by the television preachers he watches and is fearful of the doctrinal efforts they teach. Harry admits that they are wrong some of the time, but thinks that his favorite preachers still say a lot of “good things.”

“Good things” to Harry are the materialistic promises of the “wealth” and “success” theology at the core of the preachers that he listens to. He thinks that he is going to be a better salesman by watching them and that is very important to Harry.

Harry illustrates some of the motivation that traps weaker Christians and draws them into the audience of the Television Church.

A Different Case Study

A second example will illustrate another personality that finds TV preachers appealing. Alice is a Christian who is also a fan of some television ministers. Alice has a great awareness of her aches and pains. She is in relatively good health but has a great fear of illness and poor health.

Like Harry, she is a weaker member also. She likes the assurances of the “healing” ministers who promise her a perfectly healthy body. In contrast, the local preacher has a crippled leg and he recently lost a child. He has preached some on biblical help for your suffering. Alice is always troubled by those lessons and prefers a “positive” approach that assures her that God will never allow her to have to face such difficulties.

Her loyalty has gradually shifted from assembling with the congregation of saints to being in her Lazy Boy pew when the 15 piece band opens the program.

The Problem

We live in a materialistic, body-conscious world and television ministers must touch very deep immediate motivations to open up people’s pocketbooks. Health, wealth, unity, and entertainment to replace reformation of character, are appealing approaches to weak Christians who don’t understand all of the things they are missing as they gravitate to the Television Church.

What You Miss In The Lord’s Supper

The first thing you miss if you stay home more is the loss of the benefits of the Lord’s Supper. You miss the communion with Christ (Matt. 26:29) and with the body of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16). You lose the deep intense motivation that comes from fully visualizing the cross and the body and the blood of the Lord. Without that weekly image, you become weak and sick spiritually (1 Cor. 11:30).

When you say that the Lord’s Supper didn’t do you much good when you went, you simply confess that you did not .observe it reverently and thoughtfully. When the Lord’s Supper is properly visualized and appreciated, it will always be meaningful and effective in moving us to greater spirituality. When you miss service, you miss the Lord’s Supper and the many deep benefits that God incorporated into this act.

What You Miss In The Singing

The second thing you miss when you stay home to be entertained by the well performed “special music” of the expensive television productions is the loss of the subconscious instructions you receive when you sing in worship. Singing is for teaching and admonition to one another (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16), but I teach myself most of all when I sing with awareness and reverence.

When I repeat familiar songs, I deepen the process of “keeping my heart” (Prov. 4:23) through that repetition of valuable messages. There is a significant loss when I don’t sing, don’t sing with alertness, or watch someone else perform.

What You Miss With Your Brethren

The third thing I miss when I withdraw to my television set is the loss of association with God’s people. Urbanized brethren are taught by their daily experiences to withdraw from closer associations. Yet God teaches us to prefer our brethren (Rom. 12:10), and to love them (1 Pet. 1:22).

That loving family closeness is lost when I don’t make an effort or when I seldom go to service. Note, the Bible doesn’t tell us to “be loved,” it tells us to do the loving. Maslow says that one basic need of human beings is that of “belonging.” I belong more when “I love them” than I do when “they love me.” I only begin to start to develop these deeper relationships by fellowshipping with my brethren in worship together.

The contacts of the television watcher are more distant, less intimate, less personal, and therefore less satisfying and fulfilling. You need more than that.

What You Miss With Soft Preaching

Finally, the man who stays home to watch the television preacher will miss some pointed and important lesson that he needs. Television preaching must be less controversial and less provocative. Hard preaching drives away too many essential contributors.

So the viewer finds the T.V. messages unoffensive. His toes are never stepped on, except about general morality, selfishness, and giving. He loses the stimulation that comes from a minister who cares about him as a person and from elders that back the preacher to fully say what God commanded. I’ve never heard a television preacher deal with the subject of divorce except to be accommodating about it finally. You need someone who cares enough about you to say the painful things. We all need our toes stepped on.

Conclusion

Many of us don’t appreciate the great benefits we have in following the simplicity of God’s plan. When we neglect the assembly for a television performance, we weaken our souls and our spirituality and we sin before God. We all need something far better than the erroneous “health and wealth” promises of today’s television ministries. They offer false assurances and they rob the weak of far more important gifts that God has hidden for us within His commands to assemble reverently and lovingly with His saints.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 12, pp. 353, 391
June 18, 1987