Truth Magazine

By Keith Pruitt

For many years, those of mainstream Calvinism have taught that the son bears the guilt of his father’s sin. Reaching back to the original sin of Adam, these same teachers have condemned all under the guilt of Adam’s transgression. This article seeks to find the biblical teachings concerning such guilt.

The Bible student is aware that such a doctrine of inherited sin or total depravity is discussed in two Old Testament passages by prophets dealing with a rebellious and fallen Judah. Jeremiah (31:29-30) and Ezekiel (chapter 18) both deal with the false proverb: “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” In both cases, with Ezekiel being the longer explanation of the concept of individual responsibility, the proverb is condemned as being contrary to the will of God.

From Ezekiel’s writing, we can learn three important lessons.

First, God, in explaining His judgment to the people of bondage, states the falseness of the proverb. “As I live, you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.” But why should they wish for such a proverb to be true? Obviously, it allows one to shift the blame for sin. If one could merely proclaim one’s status before God to be a result of Adam, or one’s father, etc., then the feeling of guilt is removed. People are fond of doing so even in today’s world. “The devil made me do it,” or “it’s all their fault that I am the way I am,” are attempts to cast off responsibility for one’s actions. Judah would like to have thought God unfair for punishing them continually in Babylon for their fathers’ sins. This they would do before acknowledging their own failure.

But so did their fathers. Adam would rather blame God for giving him Eve and then Eve for tempting him, as the cause of his sin, than to admit in the very presence of God his own failure to obey God’s will (Gen. 3:12). Saul found it more honorable to blame the people for his failure to kill King Agag and the animals as God had said than to just admit his failure to lead responsibly before the all-seeing God (1 Sam. 15:13-15). Their attempts failed and so will ours.

One should understand that while God is just at this point laying bare the false concept of inherited sin, the concept had never been true. God has always held man responsible for just the sins he individually commits. And God further gives reasons as to why he so judges. “All souls are mine,” He says. God has no respect of one man over another. AD are accountable to Him. God rules, therefore, with equity (cf. Col. 3:25; Acts 10:34; 1 Pet. 1: 17). That means that everyone starts at the same point with God and will finish his course based upon his own record and not another’s. Therefore, God concludes, “The soul that sinneth, It shall die.” Personal responsibility to God is again taught in Romans 5:12, “for all have sinned.” As if to reinforce His statement, God repeats this message to Judah in verse 20 of our text. “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father. . . ” is plain enough that any Calvinist should be able to understand.

Secondly, God illustrates His point and further expounds that man does not bear the guilt or righteousness of another! (This point is critical in view of the theology of some who have gone out from among us relative to imputed righteousness.) A series of questions is presented. What happens to a righteous man who continues so (vv. 5-9)? This righteous man is then described as one who has not worshiped idols (v. 6) and has treated others fairly (v. 7). This one has done faithfully those things commanded of the law (v. 9). The pronouncement: “He is just, he shall surely live.”

Then what happens to his son who becomes unrighteous? The son is described as being immoral (vv. 10-11) and an idolater (v. 11). “Shall he then live? … he shall surely die; his blood be upon him” (vv. 13,18). The righteousness of his father has not spared nor excused his iniquity. Nor has he been condemned for the sin of Adam but for his own transgressions. (This also surely condemns the idea of universal salvation.)

But this second man has a son (the first’s grandson) who repudiates the sin of his father (w. 14-17). He is as righteous as his grandfather. If Calvinism is true, he should be counted as estranged from God due to the iniquity of his father. “He shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live” (v. 17). Surely he would be condemned for his father’s sin before being condemned for Adam’s. But neither were the case. He stood just before God because he was obedient to the God of heaven.

Finally, God reminds the nation of Judah, so torn from God because of disobedience, that a man can change (vv. 2124). God says that a wicked man can serve Him by turning from sin (v. 21). In the New Testament, this is referred to as repentance. The righteousness of the man, God says, is remembered; his wickedness, forgotten (v. 22; cf. Isa. 1: 18). The responsibility is upon man to turn from sins (Acts 2:40; 2 Pet. 3:9). God would have one also to realize the need for faithful obedience to His will (v. 21; cf. Matt. 7:21-23; Heb. 5:8-9). Thus, if a man is lost, only he is responsible for such. He cannot blame Adam nor his parents nor society.

But dear ones, the righteous man can also change (vv. 24-26). One can leave righteousness and follow the pathway of the wicked (v. 24). God asks, “Shall he live?” (cf. Rev. 21:8) Could God ignore his unfaithfulness? Adam and Saul are perfect examples of this failure, and they show the consequences of one turning from God. The Scripture in verse 24 of our text says that his wickedness shall be remembered and his righteousness forgotten (cf. 2 Pet. 2:20-22).

This final point shows two tenets (at least) of Calvinism to be wrong. Man is responsible to God to respond to God’s loving grace so as to cause God to count his faith as righteousness. And once a person has started toward heaven, it is possible for that one to so live as to die and be lost. If these verses do not show this plainly, then this scribe has missed the point. One is responsible to live before God righteously; all wickedness is abhorred. May we, therefore, so live as to so die that we might live forever with Him who is perfect in all His judgments.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 19, pp. 595, 598
October 2, 1986

By G.L. Clair

The Scriptures teach that each Christian is to evangelize as is demonstrated by the example of the early disciples (Acts 8:4). The Scriptures also teach that the church as a collective body is to evangelize the world (1 Thess. 1:8; Eph. 4:12). As a result of our becoming Christians and becoming members of a local assembly, we are obliged to evangelize. The responsibility to do the work of evangelization is, therefore, a responsibility not only of the local congregation as a collective body but is also a responsibility of each Christian individually. Since that is factual we present some facts for each reader to consider:

1. The chart reproduced below shows the one hundred largest urban areas in America (cf. Plain Dealer, p. 20A, 7/30/86).

2. In many of those areas the church is non-existent or very small in numbers (cf. Directory of Churches of Christ, Guardian of Truth Bookstore).

3. Since there are a large number of urban areas that have no sound congregation, why not become involved in one or more of these areas either individually or collectively (encourage the elders of the congregation you attend to look into the possibility)? The work in many of these areas is very difficult yet some fruit is surely possible if the effort is expended.

4. There must be some who would be willing to sacrifice for the cause of Christ if these areas are evangelized as suggested.

5. Those who are willing to go there and put forth the effort ought to be encouraged by all of us.

6. The amount of money that has been available for difficult and slow works has diminished considerably over the past twenty-rive years. The congregations that a few years ago were supporting other preachers in difficult areas are now seeking support for the local work (such congregations are not in the majority); these are generally churches that have seen large numbers of their members forced to relocate because of economic problems. Since this is a factor in evangelism those who decide to work in difficult areas should consider the problem that this has created.

7. There are still many sound churches that are able and willing to support good work anywhere. To those churches a great deal of credit should be paid by us all, to those who are willing to do work in such difficult places those churches would be worthwhile contacts (most of those in this category will assist a worthy man if possible).

8. There is another source of support for those who are willing to go and work in difficult areas. The members of one’s family may see the prospects for growth and assist the individual in his efforts at evangelism.

9. Another area of possible support is to approach individual Christians who are financially able to assist; if you do take this approach you need to give several references of faithful members of the Body of Christ so that the individual may feel free to examine your credentials and credibility.

10. Finally, we need to be aware of these responsibilities to do all that we can in the area of evangelizing the world (Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16). As one can observe from the chart of the one hundred largest urban areas compared to the directory of churches, much work needs to be done in American cities.

(NOTE: see attached chart)

Guardian of Truth XXX: 19, p. 597
October 2, 1986

By Earl Kimbrough

Each generation of Christians sees the rise of teachers in the church similar to those whom Paul describes as men of “profane and vain babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge” (1 Tim. 6:20). Professing superior enlightenment and virtue, they lead astray unwary disciples of the Lord with pretentious discussions and erroneous doctrines that contradict the teaching of Christ. A blight of this kind is now infecting some faithful congregations with discord and rebellion through an attractive bi-monthly journal called The Examiner, published by Truth and Freedom Ministry, Inc., of Chattanooga, Tennessee, and edited by Charles A. Holt.

The Examiner is filled with teaching that will disrupt any church where it takes root. Among other things, it claims the churches of Christ are a denomination, denies authority for a church treasury, and views gospel preachers as hirelings. However, its predominant perversions center in the nature of the church, the role of elders, and church membership. In regard to the local church, it teaches that there is no such thing as “the local church,” that the word church (ekkIesia) has no geographic Imitation, that “the local church” is not a functioning unit, and that there can be only one congregation in a city. Look at some of the editor’s assertions.

The Church Local And Universal

“The New Testament never speaks of either ‘the local church’ or ‘the universal church.’ It does speak often of ‘the church’ and that term means the same thing in every instance. It always refers to disciples, saints, believers, God’s people . . . It refers to God’s people, as an assembly or congregation of people under God and Christ” (The Examiner, Vol. 1, p. 25).

The fact that the words local and universal are not found in the New Testament in reference to the church does not mean the ideas are absent. Universal means “of, for, effecting, or including all or the whole of something; not limited or restricted” (New World Dictionary). When Jesus said, “. . on this rock I will build My church” (Matt. 16:18), He included all it embraces, the whole church. In other words, He spoke of the church universally (cf. Eph. 1:22,23). Local means “relating to place, of, characteristic of, or confined to a particular place or district” (NWD). “The church of God at Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2) refers to the church that was “of, characteristic of, or confined to” Corinth. When Paul spoke of the church in that city, he spoke of the church in its local sense (cf. Acts 13:1).

Of course, the root meaning of “church” remains the same, but the word is not always used the same way. Basically it denotes “that which is called out,” or a “body of people.” But how is it used?. The Septuagint uses it to translate the Hebrew word quhal, “which . . . comes from a root which means ‘to summon… (William Barclay, New Testament Words). “In the Sept. it is used to designate the gathering of Israel, summoned for any definite purpose” (Vine’s Expository Dictionary). “The Greeks used it to describe a body of citizens gathered to discuss the affairs of state, Acts 19:39” (Ibid.). Stephen applied it to Israel in the wilderness (Acts 7:38) and Luke to a mob at Ephesus (Acts 19:32,41).

Even in reference to Christians, the word is not always used the same way. “It has two applications to companies of Christians, (a) to the whole company of the redeemed through the present era, the company of which Christ said, “I will build My Church”. . . (b) in the singular number, to a company consisting of professed believers, e.g., Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 1:2 . . . and in the plural, with reference to churches in a district” (Vine). So it is proper to speak of the universal church, the whole company of the redeemed, and of the local church, the company of the redeemed at a given place. “Universal” and “local” convey precisely what the New Testament teaches about the church.

No Geographic Limitations

“The word ‘church’ (ecclesia) has no inherent restrictions or limitations relative to geography or place. It refers to the same people, all of them, that Jesus spoke of when He promised, ‘Upon this rock I will build My church’ (Matt. 16:18). The meaning is upon this rock I will build, establish, My people” (The Examiner, Vol. 1, p. 25).

“Inherent” signifies the basic nature of a thing, that which is its “natural and inseparable quality” (NWD). The “inherent” meaning of “church” is “a body of people.” This idea belongs to the word regardless of how it is used. But when a noun is modified by a limiting word or phrase, the limitation is not nullified by the fact that the noun itself has no inherent limitation. The purpose of an adjective or an adjective phrase is “to limit or qualify a noun” (NWD). Paul limits the use of “church” in 1 Corinthians 1:2. “Of God” and “those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus” limit the word to Christians. It shows that he is not talking about Israel in the wilderness or a mob at Ephesus. “At Corinth” further limits the word to the saints in that place. It shows that he is not talking about the whole company of the redeemed, nor the church in Jerusalem. The word “church” is limited or qualified by the context of every passage where it refers to a congregation, such as “the church of the Thessalonians” (1 Thess. 1:1).

But in trying to wedge Christ’s promise into the idea that the word church always means “the same people, all of them, that Jesus spoke of” in Matthew 16:18, The Examiner says Jesus meant “upon this rock I will build, establish, My people.” If this had been what the Lord meant, He most likely would have used laos instead of ekkiesia. When God spoke of Christians as people, He used the former word: “I will call them My people flaos), who were not My people” (Rom. 9:25). The word church does not mean people as such, but it carries the idea of “a body or company of people.”

Attempting to explain away phrases that limit the church geographically, The Examiner says, “the church in Jerusalem . . . simply means that portion of God’s people in Jerusalem and its environs” (Vol. 1, p. 26). But Luke does not say “God’s people in Jerusalem. ” He says, God’s “church in Jerusalem” (Acts 11:22). In using the word church, both Christ and Luke speak of a body or company of Christians: Christ, the whole company, and Luke, a local company. Calling a local church a “portion of God’s people” does not help because a portion of anything is not all of it. Luke does not use “church” to signify “the same people, all of them” that Christ spoke of in Matthew 16:18. He refers only to “the church in Jerusalem.”

No Local Church Organization “The local ecclesia of Christ has reference to nothing more than disciples or saints … and there is no requirement (pattern) from God that they form or constitute themselves into – an organic institutional body corporate or functional unit for doing any work ordained by God” (The Examiner, Vol. 1, p. 25).

Philippians is addressed, “To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons” (Phil. 1:1). This shows that there is more to the local church than saints or disciples. The saints at Philippi were a body or company of disciples, a church (Phil. 4:15), organized with “bishops and deacons. ” Paul also makes this an example for all churches, saying, “The things which you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, these do, and the God of peace will be with you” (Phil. 4:9; 1 Cor. 4:17). Here is apostolic authority (requirement) for the local church, a company of saints overseen by bishops and served by deacons. This is all we contend for by way of organization (cf. 1 Pet. 4:11).

Calling the local church “an organic institutional body corporate or functional unit” does not comport with language commonly used by our brethren, but properly defined, the terms could be correctly applied to the church. However, their use in The Examiner is apparently designed to make “the local church” (“the saints . . . with the bishops and deacons”) seem like something more than that. It labors to define the terms in such a way as to make “the local church” mean an organization separate from its members. It is not, and faithful brethren do not teach that it is. But when men set out to teach false doctrine, they nearly always employ terms that lend themselves to confusion, manipulation, and, where necessary, backtracking.

Only One Church in Each City

“In every place where the word ‘church’ (ecclesia) is used in connection with a city, it is always singular . . . . Let this fact register in your mind. It is a vital point …. God’s people were not divided into independent, autonomous, functional and operational units, such as we have in the ‘local church,’ body corporate today” (The Examiner, Vol. 1, p. 27,28).

The fact that there may have been only one church in a city does not limit a city to one. There was only one congregation in the whole world at one time. The Examiner offers no scriptural basis for its plan of one church per city, except for a gross distortion of 1 Corinthians 1:10- 13. The editor thinks Paul condemns the saints at Corinth for being divided into four different congregations (such as the Northside church and the Eastside church). Even a cursory reading of the text should make it clear that the division at Corinth was within that one church.

While the editor says this is a “vital point,” he admits a touch of scepticism. His says: “This matter requires a lot of careful study. I am not sure that I fully understand (it). ” Some who read his contradictory comments on the church might wonder if he partially understands it. The New Testament places no restriction whatever on the distance between churches and this is the issue that must be addressed here. His doctrine of only one church in a city subjects the church to arbitrary boundaries set by the caprice of civil authorities. Such a limitation would leave room for only one church in New York City.

David Lipscomb asks a question The Examiner should answer: “Why should there be limitation to the number of churches in a city, but none in a country or state?” (Questions Answered, p. 127) There was a church in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:2) and also a church about five miles down the road in Cenchrea (Rom. 16:1), Corinth’s port on the Saronic Gulf. Laodicea, Colossae, and Hierapolis were closer than churches in some of our cities. Romans 16 indicates more than one church in Rome. So having several churches in a metropolitan area accords with the New Testament.

The Examiner’s peculiar ideas about the local church are untrue. They are also apparently impractical. After a score of years in which its editor has been teaching and honing his theories, neither he nor his followers can point to a single congregation that conforms to them. If so where is it? Trot it out and let us have a look at a non-church “portion of God’s people” in operation. The failure here is not surprising for The Examiner’s teaching is not calculated to build churches. The editor says he cannot find anything in the Bible about “starting a church,’ ‘building up a church,’ or ‘growing a church.”‘ Maybe he can’t, but if he looked closely enough I’m sure he would find something about teaching false doctrine and sowing discord among brethren.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 20, pp. 609, 630-631
October 16, 1986

By Johnie Edwards

From time to time God has entrusted men with various responsibilities known as trusts. Most banks have a trust department which takes care of the property of others and is held responsible for the use of such. Let’s take a look at some sacred trusts.

The Gospel of Christ

God expects men to teach men. So Paul told the Thessalonians, “But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts” (1 Thess. 2:4). No doubt this is the reason, soon after Paul was converted, that 49 straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20). Often we sing, “Into our hands the gospel is given” and as we sing this song we need to be impressed with the responsibility of “adorning the doctrine of God” (Tit. 2: 10) in our own lives. We are “stewards of the mysteries of God” and we must remember that “it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful” (1 Cor. 4:1-2). We betray the trust when we fail to teach others the pure gospel of our Lord.

Our Talents

We all have talents and God expects us to use what we have to their fullest extent! It has been suggested that most folks use less than three percent of their abilities. Suppose we doubled that and used six percent! Look what we could accomplish. The parable of the talents recorded in Matthew 25:14-30 indicates that our talents become sacred trusts for which we are responsible.

Elders Watching For Souls

Most elders spend too much time being concerned about physical things to the neglect of the spiritual. God placed elders in the position of “oversight” (1 Pet. 5:2) with the responsibility of “watching for souls” (Heb. 13:17) and that’s a sacred trust. One reason a lot of churches get in such bad shape is a failure on the part of the elders to realize the gravity of their work. Like it or not, elders “must give account” of their rule (Heb. 13:17). The story of the lost sheep of Luke 15 demonstrates the care and concern a shepherd must exercise in regard to this sacred trust. A lot of elders are not even aware that some sheep, for which they are responsible, are lost. A real conviction concerning this sacred trust will cause elders to “go after that which is lost, until he find it” (Lk. 15:4).

Our Children

“Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord. (Psa. 127:3). Have you, as a parent, realized that your children are a sacred trust? Your children are valuable and you are responsible for their upbringing. Paul said, “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). Our children are like putty in our hands to mold as God would have them, “but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame” (Prov. 29:15). By realizing that our children are a sacred trust, we will “Train up a child in the way that he should go” (Prov. 22:6) which includes teaching him, showing him what and how to do it and see that he does it!

Marriage

Marriage is a sacred trust. When you say, “I take thee this day to be my husband or wife, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish as long as we both shall live” you need to know that’s the way it must be! To illustrate that a person cannot be under two laws at the same time, like the law of Moses and the law of Christ, Paul said, “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man” (Rom. 7:2-3). A failure on the part of either marriage partner to “render due benevolence” (1 Cor. 7:2) is a major cause of marriages not holding together and the result, many times, is the betraying of that sacred trust.

Time

Time is a sacred trust. A failure to use time properly is a problem of many. Time is of essence. The Psalmist said, in light of the brevity of life, “So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom” (Psa. 90:12). The time we have on this earth has been given to us of God and we are responsible for how we use it. “Redeeming the time” (Eph. 5:16) is required of all and there is no telling what we could accomplish if we would but use our time wisely. Have you ever considered how much time you really waste?

Our Souls

“For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit which are God’s” (1 Cor. 6:20). God ” formeth the spirit of man within him” (Zech. 12:1). Our spirit is a sacred trust and God will hold us responsible for how we take care of it. You do know that “the dust shall return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it” (Eccl. 12:7). Our most valuable possession is our spirit and it is no wonder that Jesus said, “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul: or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matt. 16:26)

Guardian of Truth XXX: 20, p. 616
October 16, 1986