Truth Magazine

By H.E. Phillips

The “restoration” of anything is putting it back as it was. The word presumes that a departure, decay, destruction, a turning away, has taken place. Galatians 6:1 tells those who. are spiritual to “restore” the one who is overtaken in a fault. “Overtaken” in a fault is the return to the state of sin after having been redeemed by the blood of Christ. To “restore” such an one is to bring him back to the state of redemption by repentance and prayer, according to the word of God.

The restoration of the scriptural organization means putting the local organization of the church back as it was in New Testament days. That local organization was quite simple and unsophisticated. The scriptural arrangement is congregational autonomy with no organization but the local congregation.

Soon after the church was established by Christ on the first Pentecost following His ascension into heaven, Satan began his work to corrupt the doctrine and organization of the church. Paul warned the elders of the church at Ephesus about this (Acts 20:29,30). “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work. . . ” (2 Thess. 2:3,7). “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils. . . ” (1 Tim. 4:1). These verses support the statement that departure from the original teaching and practice of the faith began in the days the New Testament was being written, and the departure would develop into full apostasy. We should expect this to include the organization of the local church.

The Rise Of Denominationalism

The term “Church” is used in the New Testament to include all the redeemed (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22,23; 3:10; Col. 1:18). It sometimes refers to the congregations in an area or district, such as Galatia, Judea, Galilee, Samaria (Gal. 1:2; Acts 9:31, ARV). It is used to signify the assembly of the “called-out” – the church (1 Cor. 11: 18; 14:19,28,34). Then the word is used to describe a local congregation of God’s people (1 Cor. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; Rev. 2:1).

By the close of the second century after the church was established, dangerous changes began to take place in the church government. A bishop with a strong, dominate character and forceful personality began to assume the role of “chief” or “head bishop.” He soon became “The Bishop” instead of one of the number of bishops. The irresistible trend of human organization has been to centralize and place power in one man or one committee. In the case of the papacy, the hierarchy of Rome represents the ultimate in central power and usurpation of God’s authority. By the middle of the third century the bishops of large cities had assumed power over a district of churches and ruled them through an ever expanding hierarchal system. Bitter rivalry developed among the chief bishops, which culminated in a division between the Bishop of Constantinople and the Bishop of Rome. The separation of the two Bishops in 1054 resulted in the Greek Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church. The assumption of the title of Universal Bishop or the “Pope of Rome” was first given to the Bishop of Rome, Boniface III in 606 A.D.

This Universal Bishop claimed to be ruler of both the religious and the political world, thus the development of an Ecclesiastical-Political Hierarchy that suppressed people for centuries. Many subordinate ecclesiastical offices developed and this, of course, necessitated additional organizations. This Catholic Hierarchy is a maze of Political and Ecclesiastical organizations and institutions for every conceivable function. It is so foreign to the New Testament that it is not possible to even make a comparison with the New Testament pattern.

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the rebellion against the Roman Church brought into existence a number of religious bodies with different forms of government. Denominationalism is the product of an effort to reform the Catholic Church in organization, doctrine and practice. As the various forms of church government developed, problems of internal unity arose.

Martin Luther began his protest against the Catholic Church on October 31, 1517 in Germany. Zwingli began in Zurich, Switzerland, and John Calvin set forth his principles in Geneva, Switzerland in 1536. A Presbyterian form of government came from Calvin. Presbyterianism was introduced in Scotland by John Knox in 1560. Henry VIII became head of the Church of England by declaring himself head of the church in 1527 in a dispute with the Pope. Thus, it continued with the development of denominations and various church organizations.

The Beginning Of The Restoration In America

Out of the storm of Reformation discontent and theological disputes came the refreshing winds of Restoration thought and ideals. The decline of moral and religious life near the close of the eighteenth century caused several men of good minds to seek solutions to the problems and a restoration of the spiritual life as it was in New Testament times. They proposed to abandon all creeds and religious councils and go back to the Bible for the basics of early Christianity in doctrine, organization and practice.

Shortly before the turn of the nineteenth century unrest appeared in some of the major denominations in this country. The two principal areas of unrest were: (1) the call to abolish their creeds, and (2) an effort to restore scriptural organization and administration of power. These goals challenged the best minds of that day.

Near the end of the eighteenth century, James O’Kelley was established as a preacher in the Methodist Church. In 1794 O’Kelley led a committee to create a church government that would do away with all creeds and take the Bible only as the authority. This was in the right direction, but it did not get very far because other “conferences” gave birth to more “creeds” of one kind or another.

The Baptist Church was having its trouble with internal demands for change. Elias Smith was a member of the Baptist Church. His diligent Bible study led him to the conclusion that “Christian” (Acts 11:26) was the only name disciples of Christ should wear. He insisted that the Bible was sufficient for doctrine and practice. He later began meeting regularly with a few and established a church, which he called “a church of Christ”; they considered themselves only “Christians.”

Abner Jones, another Baptist, came in contact with Smith shortly after he established this church. They worked together in Vermont and New Hampshire, establishing “churches of Christ” that were free of human creeds, using only the Bible as their authority. They called themselves “Christians.”

Alexander Campbell was one of several who called for an abolition of the clergy rule and the creed making. Efforts were made to restore church organization local in nature and function. This plea gained great favor by the middle of the nineteenth century.

Barton W. Stone and Walter Scott united their labors and efforts with Thomas and Alexander Campbell. The movement grew rapidly, but the missionary conventions proved to be the thorn in the flesh that was to cause division later. A. Campbell tried to justify these “cooperative organizations and meetings” by explaining that they claimed no authority over the churches and formed no governmental organization. He was completely wrong.

However, neither Campbell nor Stone got away from e concept that evangelism necessitated organization above and beyond the local church. They created them d worked through them, but continued to talk about e local government of the church as the only divinely ordained one. Alexander Campbell was the first president of the American Christian Missionary Society, and continued in it until his death. His effort at a restoration of the New Testament organization of the church fell short of its goal.

Problems With The Restoration Efforts

The first meeting of the National Convention of Disciples was held in 1849 and the American Christian Missionary Society was the result. Many lifted their voices against this organization as being unscriptural, but Campbell’s voice was used as assurance that all was being done scripturally. The result was division among these brethren, and the first listing of “Churches of Christ” was in 1906. The Disciples of Christ and Christian Church, which later developed from another division, continued on in unscriptural practices and organization.

As the waves rise and fall with the tides, so the position and power of the Clergy in the organization of the church continued to rise and fall through the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. From the early arrival of clergymen from England the doctrine of Evangelistic Ordination was a vital part of church organization. Churches could not be established without duly ordained ministers, and ministers could not function until duly ordained by an ordained minister. This was the center of local organization.

But this office of Evangelist, with this degree of power, began to decline with the work of Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell. The practice of Evangelistic ordination gave way to the requirement that a man be tested by the Conference or Association to determine whether or not he was suitable to serve as minister.

It was not long, however, until the idea of the superior position of the evangelist arose again. The “Pastor System” became a substitute organization for the eldership. W. Carl Ketcherside and G.K. Wallace debated the proposition involving the Pastor System and Evangelist Oversight in Paragould, Arkansas in 1952, and in St. Louis, Missouri in 1953. These debates are in print and provide some information on the subject. It ran its course and is not now the problem it was, except for a few spots in the nation.

Restoration Into The Twentieth Century

J.W. McGarvey was a student at Bethany College from 1857 to 1860. He graduated with highest honors, and became one of the greatest scholars among churches of Christ. He wrote several books, among them a book on the Eldership in which may be found his position on the organization of the church.

He taught that each church must have a plurality of elders. He wrote that these men were determined suitable for this work by the qualifications given in the New Testament, and that men who were not qualified could not be appointed as elders. He taught that these men were limited in their work to “the flock which is among you.” He insisted that there was no excuse for churches forming any kind of organization in the church in the absence of qualified men to be elders. In spite of the fact that brother McGarvey was so true to the Book on this subject, he accepted the nature and function of the American Christi I an Missionary Society.

H. Leo Boles also wrote a book on the Eldership which set forth the same Bible principles as J.W. McGarvey. Other men of that generation taught and practiced the truth on local church organization as taught in the New Testament.

What The Restoration Produced

The “Restoration” of the organization of the church had to go back to the first century and the doctrine of the apostles. As Paul and Barnabas returned from their first preaching tour they “ordained them elders in every church. . . ” (Acts 14:23). Paul left Titus in Crete, “that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee” (Titus 1:5). The church scripturally organized is pictured in Philippians 1:1: “Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” There are “servants,” 44saints … . bishops,” and “deacons.” That is all!

Restoring the organization to the New Testament church meant that preachers no longer maintained the oversight, in part or whole. Committees, boards, and the like could not substitute for scriptural overseers in each congregation.

A group of elders, not just one man, is to function as overseers in each local church. There are no organizational ties between churches for any function. Elders have no oversight over or into the affairs of another church anywhere. “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof. . . ” (1 Pet. 5:2).

Finally, the restoration produced a self-sufficient church in the local organization. Any organization or institution through which the local church attempts to do the work assigned to it, is unscriptural. Every authorized work given to the church that the church tries to assign to any other body or group is iniquity, and the workers of iniquity will not enter heaven (Matt. 7:21-23).

The restoration of the New Testament church, including the local organization, is not something that can be done one time and be forgotten. It is something we must continually strive to maintain. Every generation must be taught the principles of the New Testament and the requirements of local church government.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 11, pp. 338-340
June 5, 1986

By O.C. Birdwell, Jr.

The attitude one has toward New Testament teaching on the subject of baptism is directly related to his understanding of scriptural authority. Does the New Testament contain the complete and final revelation of God to man? If it does, what it teaches on the subject of baptism is final and authoritative. If the New Testament is not authoritative, cannot be understood, or cannot be understood by all alike, then we have no objective revelation from God on baptism, or any other subject. The study of baptism is approached by this writer holding the belief that whatever the New Testament says is the complete and final word of the Holy Spirit of God. If the reader shares this belief, we can determine what is the action and purpose of baptism, along with just who it is that is to be baptized.

The Need For A Study of This Subject

One recently wrote the following: “I believe the Bible is contained in the word of God.” Along with whatever he meant by that statement, he said that the word of God “is the Christ,” “is in the preaching of the prophets and of the apostles,” “is recorded in scripture … .. is available in nature,” and is “in me” (Mark Berrier, Restoration Review, Vol. 28, No. 3). The article in which Berrier makes the above statement seems to discredit the New Testament as the complete revelation of Jesus Christ. In this, and other such teaching, there is a veiled (with some it is quite clear) concept that God tells us what to do and what not to do apart from New Testament Scripture. When the above statement from Restoration Review is carefully examined one will find that Berrier does not confine the revelation of God’s word to the Bible. Nature may show the being of God and the heavens declare His glory, but nature does not speak one single word to us about what God wants done. All people have the evidence of nature, and the heavens, yet, we are to go and preach the gospel that they might be saved. The word of Christ should dwell in me (Col. 3:16), but it only does so as I study the Scriptures (2 Tim. 2:15), learn of Jesus (Matt. 11:29), and abide in His word (John 8:31). God does not give every individual additional revelation, illumination, or guidance not found in the Bible. Yes, Christ is the Word, but we know Him only through His revealed New Testament. We have heard much about “having a personal relationship with Jesus.” Those who preach this the most never tell us how it is to be done. The only way the Bible speaks of a relationship with Christ is in His body which is the church (Eph. 1:22,23), and letting His word abide within and guide to the extent that we may have the “mind of Christ.” This brings us right back to the need for learning and doing what the New Testament teaches.

How does all this relate to our stated subject? In this simple way. Those who affirm that God speaks to them through nature, in a direct operation of the Holy Spirit, or with some “still small voice,” usually reject New Testament baptism. Seldom do they affirm that baptism had anything to do with their alleged salvation.

Some who question the New Testament revelation, find within it deep dark secrets. They believe they are guided by something other than the New Testament and begin to complain that they are misunderstood by those who still believe the New Testament. They begin to feel that somehow, someway God will save all sincere people who believe Jesus is the Christ and live the best they know how. Hence, they become a little fuzzy on a number of subjects, including baptism. As with the tax laws of our land, they believe Jesus’ teaching of baptism is full of loop-holes. They find acceptable the uniformed recipient of infant sprinkling, the one who believes he was saved by faith alone and was baptized only to show that he was already saved, and even the pious unimmersed.

Just a few pages later in the same issue of Restoration Review which affirmed that God’s revelation to man is not confined to the Scriptures, one wrote, “No New Testament passage explicitly defines baptism as immersion. That is its etymology, but etymology does not prove later usage. The evidence for immersion is certainly strong enough to justify our own practice. Is it really strong enough to rule out the practice of other Christians whose Greek scholars have a different view? ” (Ed Fudge, Restoration Review, Vol. 28, No. 3) Brother Fudge now believes God has given three orders for salvation. He says one is “Believe/forgiveness of sins and receive the Holy Spirit/be baptized. ” He no longer can harmonize Acts chapters 2, 8, and 10, and see in the three, one order. He sees three different orders of conversion, and says, “The biblical pattern is diverse on this point.”

This position on baptism by Fudge may be a little too much for some who teach “unity in diversity” to presently accept. Their position, however, will slowly but surely lead them to his conclusion. It is the natural and logical consequence of a false position on the grace of God. If God extends His grace in a direct way and accepts one based solely on his obedience to the extent of knowledge, then any design, action and purpose of baptism is acceptable. That is, if the person is sincere. We reject such a position.

What Is New Testament Baptism?

The New Testament baptism that needs restoring is not the baptism of John the Baptist. Neither is it the baptism of the Holy Spirit. John’s teaching and baptism pointed to Christ and ceased when people began to be baptized in the name of Christ. People at Ephesus who had received John’s baptism were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 19:5). The baptism of the Holy Spirit was received by both Jews and Gentiles. The Jews received it when the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit on Pentecost (Acts 2:4); the Gentiles received a like gift at the house of Cornelius (Acts 11 & 12; 15:8; 11:17). This completes the New Testament record of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

When Paul said there is “one baptism” (Eph. 4:5), he did not have in mind the baptism of John or Holy Spirit baptism. When he wrote these words, both of those baptisms were history. Note also that he did not say there had never been but one baptism. He said there is presently one baptism. The remaining baptism was that commanded by Jesus in the great commission. Jesus told the apostles to go teach all nations, “baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). Mark’s record says, “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned” (Mk. 16:15-16). This baptism could be administered by man. It was not, therefore, Holy Spirit baptism. It was first preached by Peter and the other apostles on Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2. Many of those who heard the gospel that was preached on that occasion cried out, “What shall we do?” They were told, “Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins” (Acts 2:38). About three thousand were baptized.

The baptism commanded by Jesus, preached by Peter and 0 her disciples during the first and succeeding centuries, and obeyed by those who were “pricked in the heart,” is the baptism that should be restored and preached today. As we shall show, it is a baptism in water unto the remission of sins.

The Action Of Baptism

The Greek verb baptizo is defined by Thayer as meaning “to dip, immerge, submerge.” Instead of the word “baptize” the word “immerse” is used in some translations. This shows that translators and Greek scholars understand baptism to be immersion.

New Testament accounts clearly show that baptism was immersion. When the eunuch was baptized, “they both went

own into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him . . . they came up out of the water. . . ” (Acts 2:38-39). There was a going down into the water and a coming up out of the water. This is required for immersion. I is not required for sprinkling.

The figure of the burial and resurrection of Christ that is presented in baptism requires a burial. This is precisely how Paul presented baptism. He says, “We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death. . . ” (Rom. 6:4). In Colossians we read, “. . . Having been buried with him in baptism. . . ” (Col. 2:12). Paul said, “We were buried … through baptism.” His baptism, along with that of the Romans, was immersion. Ananias told him to “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins. . . ” (Acts 22:16). In obedience to this command, according to his statement, he was buried in baptism. The action of baptism is very clear to those who wish to see.

The Subject Of Baptism

Who is to be baptized? Jesus said, “Go . . . make disciples of all nations, baptizing them. . . ” (Matt. 28:19). Jesus is saying that the people of all nations are to be baptized. After the church was established, Philip preached the gospel in Samaria and baptized both men and women (Acts 8:12). Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. . . ” (Mk. 16:16). The men and women Philip baptized “believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ.” Those who were baptized on Pentecost heard Peter’s sermon, “were pricked in their heart,” and said, “what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37) They were told, “repent ye and be baptized . . . unto the remission of your sins. . . ” (v. 38).

It is clear from these passages that the men and women of all nations who hear the gospel, believe it, and repent of their sins, may be baptized. The belief held in the heart should be confessed with the mouth (Rom. 10:10).

In none of the accounts of conversion found in the book of Acts do we have infants being baptized. They cannot believe the gospel or confess their faith in Christ. They have no sins of which to repent. They, therefore, are not subjects of baptism. The practice of baptizing children needs to cease. It is done without New Testament authority.

Having to wrestle with the questions and the emotional struggles that come up when this subject is discussed is not new. Much of it comes from past practices and human tradition connected with baptism. The problem increases when there is an improper attitude toward Bible authority. In the early 19th century the motto, “Where the Bible speaks, we speak, where the Bible is silent we are silent,” was presented. The motto is basically a rephrasing of 1 Peter 4:11. The principle is not new to those who through the years have labored to restore New Testament teaching and practice. The motto, however, when presented, brought an immediate response because of the practice of infant baptism. Andrew Munro said, “If we adopt that as a basis, then there is an end of infant baptism.” To this the answer was given, “Of course if infant baptism be not found in the scriptures we can have nothing to do with it” (Search For the Ancient Order, Vol. I).

The Purpose of Baptism

Why is one to be baptized? Is it because his sins have already been forgiven? The Bible does not so teach. Saul was told, “Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins” (Acts 22:16). Peter said baptism is “unto” remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16). Belief and baptism stand before salvation. Repentance and baptism are in order to obtain remission of sins.

Almost one hundred years ago, J.W. Shepherd edited a book called Handbook on Baptism. The book is out of print, but it would be a worthwhile investment if one could obtain it from a used book dealer at a reasonable cost. It contains nearly 500 pages of testimony from well-known scholars dealing with the action, subject, and design of baptism. The following is from Henry Thayer in a letter to the author dated May 5, 1893:

I accept the rendering of the revised version “unto the remission of your sins” (the eis expressing the end aimed at and secured by “repentance and baptism’ just previously enjoined).

Scholar after scholar reaches the same conclusion as Mr. Thayer. The purpose of repentance and baptism is to secure for the alien the remission of sins. This is not, however, the teaching of most of the well-known denominational churches and preachers of our day. While some do not baptize infants and insist that baptism is immersion, they have changed the purpose of baptism. They falsely affirm that baptism follows remission of sins and confirms a salvation already obtained by faith only. If this is your doctrine, my friend, you need to restore New Testament baptism.

Often a preacher will take a position that there is no need for one to understand anything about baptism except that it is to obey God. Surely all that one does in religion must be done to obey God. We obey God when we eat the Lord’s Supper. Yet, there must be more known than this for it to be properly observed. On Pentecost, people asked, “What shall we do?” They were told to be baptized “unto remission of your sins.” Peter did not say, “Be baptized to obey God.” Saul was told to “be baptized and wash away your sins.” He was not told to be baptized to obey God. It is almost inconceivable for a gospel preacher to baptize one who has not been informed to the point that he understands that baptism is unto remission of sins. Philip preached unto the Samaritans concerning the kingdom and the name of Jesus Christ. Jesus told Nicodemus that the new birth of water and the Spirit was in order to enter the kingdom. Would too much be expected if one were asked to know about the name of Jesus Christ, His kingdom (the church), and that his baptism is for remission of sins? This is what Jesus and inspired men taught the people. Let us not do less.

It might be suspected that argument against any specific knowledge before baptism is not because of any New Testament teaching, but rather to justify the acceptance of any person regardless of when, how, or why he was baptized. This is another example of the “obey to the degree of your knowledge, and God will take care of the rest” doctrine. It, however, is not New Testament doctrine.

Conclusion

As evidenced by quotations in this article, there are some religious journals, editors, preachers, and writers trying to undermine New Testament dependability and authority. They have few answers but many questions that are designed to create doubt in the hearts and minds of men and women even on the subject of baptism. This should tell us that there must be more firm and forthright preaching and teaching on first principle subjects such as baptism. Brethren, let us get back to “book, chapter, and verse” preaching. Let us have the determined resolution expressed by Peter in the following statement:

Wherefore I shall be ready always to put you in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and are established in the truth which is with you. And I think it right, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance (2 Pet. 1:12-13).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 11, pp. 335-337
June 5, 1986

By Leon Goff

There is always a great need to restore people to confidence in New Testament teaching on these important themes. God’s truth does not need to be restored for it has never been lost or destroyed. The so-called “Restoration Movement” does not need to be restored, but men who have departed from the truth need to come back to New Testament teaching in all areas of belief and practice. The New Testament church does not need to be restored for it has never been destroyed, but men, and women who have apostatized from the doctrine of Christ need to come back to belief .and practice of New Testament teaching concerning the church (1 Tim. 4:1-2; Acts 20:28-32).

Controversy has raged, especially since the days of John Calvin and the Protestant reformers, over the place of faith and works in man’s justification. Calvinism has had wide influence upon protestant denominationalism in general, and those of the “Restoration Movement” have persistently fought the battle against Calvinistic influence with regard to faith and works. However, in recent years, many of us have been surprised and disturbed to see a number of preachers and brethren among churches of Christ promoting some of the Calvinian views relating to faith and works. Brethren, we need to know the difference between New Testament and Calvinistic teachings on salvation by faith and works.

New Testament Teaching on Faith

Justification by faith is a New Testament teaching (Rom. 5:1; 1:16,17; Heb. 10:38,39; Gal. 3:11,12), but the doctrine of justification by faith only is opposed to everything taught in the New Testament (James 2:14-24; Heb. 10:38-12:4; Rom. 6:17,18).

1. Justification by faith is justification by the gospel, the faith. Paul preached “the gospel” (Gal. 1:11), but in so doing he preached “the faith” (Gal. 1:23). He also wrote of the faith that was heard (Gal. 3:25), the faith that came (Gal. 3:23,25), the faith revealed (Gal. 3:23), and the “word of faith, which we preach” (Rom. 10:8). Jude speaks of “the faith which was once delivered to the saints” (v. 3). Then Paul wrote of the faith that was believed (Gal. 2:16; Rom. 3:22). But, does the existence of the gospel, the word of faith revealed, automatically assure everyone salvation? Only the universalist so affirms.

Justification by faith is not justification by an opinion (Heb. 11:29; the Egyptians had the opinion they could make it). Justification by faith necessarily includes justification by the gospel, for without this word of salvation from God man could not believe in his heart unto salvation (Rom. 10:17). The Israelites heard God’s word and marched by faith, but the Egyptians marched by opinion because God did not command them to march (Heb. 11:29).

2. Justification by faith is justification by belief in the heart of the individual produced by the preaching of the gospel, or the preaching of the faith (Rom. 1:16,17; 10: 8- 10). These Scriptures make it clear that believing is an act performed by man in his heart. These passages that show the importance of believing do not exclude other acts commanded in other Scriptures. For example, faith passages do not exclude repentance, confession, ot baptism simply because they do not specifically mention these acts.

3. Justification by faith is justification to the faith (Rom. 1:5; 16:25,26; Acts 6:7). Since “the faith” and “the gospel” are synonymous, then “obedience to the faith” and “obedience to the gospel” are equal ideas. Paul says that his Israelite brethren in the flesh were lost because “they have not all obeyed the gospel” (Rom. 10:16). At the same time he argued they were lost because they tried to be justified or made righteous by works of law and not by faith (Rom. 9:31,32). Therefore, Paul distinguishes between justification by works of law and salvation by obedience to the faith or the gospel.

In Hebrews 11, the list of Old Testament faithful is a demonstration of the kind of faith that is “to the saving of the soul” (Heb. 10:38,39). Saving faith was a faith that “offered,” “moved,” “prepared,” “obeyed,” “refused,” “chose,” “forsook Egypt,” “kept,” “passed through,” “marched,” etc. (Heb. 11). It was always an obedient faith, or a faith that obeyed.

In James 2:14-26, the point is the same. What kind of faith presents one acceptable, righteous, justified before God? Not a faith “without works” (2:20,26); not a faith that is alone” (2:17,24); which is described as “dead” (2:17,20,26); and one that does not profit (2:14-16). Saving faith is a faith that is perfected in works of, or obedience to the faith (2:21-25).

New Testament Teaching On Works

Just as there are different kinds of faith (dead, weak, alone, without works, and saving faith), there are different kinds of works. Both Webster and Vine define a work as being an “act” or “deed.”(1) The word is used to refer to an “act” or “deed” performed by (1) God (John 10:37; 14:10; Heb. 1:10); (2) Christ (Mt. 11:2; John 5:36); (3) the devil (John 8:41; 1 John 3:8); (4) Babylon (Rev. 18:6); (5) unbelievers (Mt. 23:3,5); and (6) by believers in Christ and God (Mt. 5:16; Rom. 13:3). It should be obvious that the works of the devil, Babylon, and unbelievers do not justify, but this does mean that works of no kind have anything to do with our salvation.

There are different kinds of works that professed believers sometimes perform: works or deeds that are the traditions, doctrines and commandments of men (Mt. 15:9), works done to receive the applause of men (Mt. 23:5); works of the law of Moses done after the New Testament came into force (Acts 13:39; Gal. 2:16; 3:16-25; Rom. 9:30-10:4); and works of sinless perfection by which a person would merit or earn salvation, or works, even though not perfectly sinless, in which a person has the attitude that he has paid for or earned his justification (Rom. 4:4,5; Eph. 2:8,9; Gal. 3: 10; Rom. 10:5). Again, it should be obvious that none of these works has anything to do with our salvation.

But, there is yet another kind of works of which the New Testament speaks, called works of faith (1 Thess. 1:3), or works that perfect faith (James 2:22); good works or works of God’s righteousness, because they are authorized or commanded by God. They are works, acts or righteousness done or performed by man arising out of the faith in the God who commanded the works (Tit. 3:8-14; Acts 10:34,35; 1 John 2:29; 3:7, 10). Even faith itself is called a work of this kind (John 6:28,29). This kind of works or obedience is absolutely necessary to our salvation (Heb. 11:6; 2 Thess. 1:7-9).

If we can understand that the act of believing (performed by man in his heart) is not a work that merits or earns salvation, why cannot we understand that the acts of repentance, confession of faith in Christ, and baptism in the name of Christ are not works that merit or earn salvation? They are, rather, works (acts/deeds) of faith performed by man that show confidence and trust in Christ our Savior as surely as the act of believing shows trust in Christ.

In fact, in Galatians 3:26-29, in the context in which Paul is setting forth justification by faith without “works of law,” he classifies baptism as an act under justification by faith, not under justification by law. He wrote that they were children of God by faith for (for the reason) that they had been baptized into Christ. In Galatians 5:1-6, Paul classifies circumcision under law by which we are not justified. Where did the idea originate that if a person is baptized under the commandment of Christ in order to receive forgiveness of sins he is saying by his act of baptism that he is sinlessly perfect and has earned his salvation? Not from the Bible, but from Calvinism. As the Bible does, we must distinguish between acts performed by man in faith toward Christ to receive forgiveness, and acts performed designed to say that I am so good that I do not need forgiveness, for I have earned salvation.

Calvinism In Contrast

Calvinism teaches that a person is a sinner before he ever commits one sin. He inherits at birth the guilt of Adam’s sin (Total Hereditary Depravity) and that “His will is not free . . . he will not – indeed he cannot – choose good over evil in the spiritual realm.”(2) He is not a sinner by choice, but he was born a sinner and has no choice but to sin. Secondly, Calvinism teaches that each person is chosen individually by God to salvation or to remain in condemnation of sin without any choice or without “any foreseen response or obedience on their part, such as faith, repentance, etc.”(3) (Unconditional Foreordination, Predestination and Election). Calvinists further state: “Thus election was not determined by, or conditioned upon, anything that men would do. . . . “(4) Thirdly, those elected to salvation are the only ones Jesus died for (Limited Atonement), and remember that the elect and non-elect are not such by their choice. Fourthly, that “the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call. . . (which is only to the elect) cannot be rejected. . . . By means of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ”(5) (Irresistible Grace). At this point even though they speak of the Spirit causing the elect to come freely and willingly, such a thought is contradictory because the point has already been admitted that they are irresistibly drawn (forced) to be saved. Lastly, Calvinism teaches the doctrine of the “Perseverance” of the saints, or “once saved, always saved.” They state: “True believers do fall into temptations, and they do commit grievous sins, but these sins do not cause them to lose their salvation or separate them from Christ.”(6) Why is this? “Christ, acting on behalf of his people, perfectly kept God’s law and thereby worked out a perfect righteousness which is imputed or credited to them the moment they are brought to faith in Him. . . Consequently, when his people are joined to him by faith, they are credited with perfect righteousness and are freed from all guilt and condemnation.”(7) In the Calvinist’s view, God would have to condemn His own Son in order to condemn one of the elect regardless of what sins he may commit and continue in.

Many Calvinists beg the question on this point (including Calvin himself)(8) by saying the elect will do good works and not evil. But they meet themselves coming back, arguing in one breath that what one does has nothing to do with his salvation, and in the next breath arguing that a person’s evil works is proof that he never was one of the elect. It cannot be both ways.

Calvinism teaches that one is a sinner and lost without his choice, then he is saved or left in a lost condition without his choice. Once he is saved, he could not be lost if he wanted to be, and if he is lost (non-elect) through no choice of his own, he could not choose to 6e saved even if he wanted to be.

In pointing out the consequences of Calvinism, I realize that I have not satisfied Calvinists by the manner in which I have commented upon their teaching, but I have shown the inescapable conclusions of these false doctrines. Remember, because Calvinism teaches that no kind of good work or obedience done by man has anything to do with his salvation, they are forced into the position that no evil works will condemn a Christian. If evil works condemned, then they would have to teach men the necessity of quitting evil works and doing good works in order to be saved. But, they are already committed against that proposition in spite of all the Scriptures that teach obedience of faith being necessary to salvation. Calvinism is not an innocent optional religious philosophy, but is a false system to the core, and will condemn one’s soul to hell.

Let us have the kind of faith in Christ that will lead us to do what He commands (Lk. 6:46).

Endnotes

1. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary; W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. IV, p. 231.

2. David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., p. 16.

3. Ibid., p. 17.

4. Ibid., p. 30.

5. Ibid., p. 18.

6. Ibid., p. 56.

7. Ibid., pp. 38,39.

8. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. II, Book III, Chap. XVII, 12.

9.(NOTE: No corresponding notation found in original document) Ibid., Book 111, Chap. X1, 14.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 11, pp. 333-334, 353
June 5, 1986

By James W. Adams

“All-sufficiency” is a compound term composed of two words: (1) all; (2) sufficiency. “Sufficiency” signifies: enough, equal to the end proposed,”and “all” means: totally, wholly, completely, without limitation. To speak of the “all-sufficiency of the Scriptures” is to say that they are completely equal to the accomplishment of the end for which they were designed by the God of Heaven. We must regard it as axiomatic that: whatever God institutes for specific purposes is

always totally adequate for the accomplishment of those purposes. Otherwise, God would not be God. Other articles in this special issue of Guardian of Truth address themselves to: “The Validity of the Restoration Principle” and “The Restoration of Respect for the Authority of the Bible. “‘ If one believes in the infinite wisdom, power, and goodness of God, the verbal inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, and in the validity of the “restoration Principle,” he cannot escape the necessity of embracing the conclusion that the Holy Scriptures are all-sufficient. The premise is irresistible. It never ceases to amaze, me, when those who profess to accept our first three propositions, theoretically and/or practically deny their obvious conclusion — the postulate that is the subject of this article. Yet, they do!

It should be obvious to them that: to deny, either theoretically or practically, the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures is tantamount to affirming that God was not wise enough to produce a revelation of Himself and His will that would complement man’s nature, capacity, spiritual and fleshly needs in his present, earthly environment, and his eternal destiny in the world to come. On the other hand, if it be acknowledged that God was wise enough to”produce such a revelation, we may conclude that He did not possess the power to do so. If it be admitted that He had the power to do , so, but did not, we are forced to conclude that He did not will to do so. This would impeach His benevolence — Hisgoodness. It is almost universally agreed among believers that man is a responsible and accountable being who will one day answer to God in judgment for “the deeds done in the body” (2 Cor. 5:10; Rom. 14:12). Hence, to repudiate the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures would be to impugn the justice of God. Under a system of justice, responsibility and accountability emanate from and their extent is determined by a universally available, intellectually intelligible, and totally inclusive standard of human conduct. Therefore, it is with supreme confidence that we affirm the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures with reference to the conviction and conversion of the alien sinner and the sanctification, and eternal salvation of the child of God, believe implicitly, as we do, in the infinite wisdom, power, justice and goodness of God.

Amplifying this point, it should be noted that one who believes in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures is obliged to acknowledge their authority, unless he is prepared to repudiate the right, of God to rule his life. If he acknowledges the right of God to rule his life, the verbal inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, and human fallibility – the proneness of humans to err from the Divine standard, he is compelled to acquiesce in the validity of the “Restoration Principle”; that is, a return to the original, Divine standard in his faith and practice.

The Scriptures Attest Their Own All-Sufficiency

It has been established that the acceptance of the verbal inspiration and authority of the Scriptures demands an acceptance of their all-sufficiency. The Scriptures profess to be Divinely revealed and verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit. Note the following passages:

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:11, 12).

But as it is written, Eye hato not seem, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost (“the Spirit,” ASV) teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual (“words,” ASV) (1 Cor. 2:9-13).

The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21).

It has also been established that the recognition and acceptance of the Scriptures as authoritative in the realm of religious faith and practice demand an acceptance of their “all-sufficiency.” Being Divinely revealed and verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures represent themselves as being infallible, imperishable, and authoritative. The New Testament Scriptures characterize themselves as an inerrant and complete record of the word of Christ, either spoken in His own person while on earth or through His Holy Spirit inspired apostles and prophets after He ascended to His throne in heaven. They likewise represent themselves as being the standard of eternal judgment. Jesus affirmed the inerrancy and immutability of Scripture in general when He said: “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son of God?” (John 10.34-26) The expression “the Scripture cannot be broken,” affirms inerrancy and immutability.

It is acknowledged that the quotation of Jesus is from the Old Testament, yet His statement concerning Scripture is an appeal to a general principle governing all of the sacred writings. Jesus made it clear on many occasions that such was true of His words. Note several of these instances:

“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Mt. 24.35). “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one thatjudgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:48). “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you. . . ” (Mt. 28:18-20a, ASV). “I testify to every man that heareth the words of the book of this prophecy, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, Godshall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18,19).

The inspired apostles and prophets of Jesus Christ likewise emphasized the inerrancy, inviolability, and authority of the words which the Lord spoke from heaven through them. They also set them forth as the standard of eternal judgment. Note several examples of this in the following Scriptures:

“If any man among you think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37). “If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:9). “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). “Whosoever goeth onward, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. . . ” (2 John 9). “So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty” (Jas. 2:12).

On the basis of the preceding considerations, the conclusion is irresistible that: The gospel as God gave it is perfectly adapted to man as God made him and totally adequate for the accomplishment of the purposesfor which God gave it, hence “all-sufficient.” To the correctness of this conclusion, Paul and Peter, apostles of Christ, gave their inspired testimony: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16,17). “Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God and our Saviour Jesm Christ, according as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue” (2 Pet. 1:2,3).

The All-Sufficiency Of The Scriptures Practically Repudiated By Professed Christians

Many constituents of so-called “Christendom” give lip service to the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures while repudiating the principle in their practice. Roman Catholics do this. They profess to honor the Scriptures as the inspired word of God, but repudiate their all-sufficiency by recognizing two sources of authority, the “written word” and “the unwritten word.” By “unwritten word,” they mean Roman Catholic “tradition.” They believe that “the word” was delivered to the church at the beginning in unwritten form and that she was made the guardian and preserver of this “body of doctrine,” that the church has “infallibly” kept this body of doctrine “free from any admixture of error at each point of time, from its foundation to the end of the world.” This is accomplished, they believe, through “tradition.” This body of tradition they call “the deposit of faith,” and they insist that all Scripture be understood and applied by an “analogy of faith.” This simply means that Roman Catholic “tradition” supercedes the obvious, literal meaning of any statement of Scripture relative to matters of faith, and morals. This point of view is well illustrated in the decree of the Council of Trent in its fourth session: “No one, relying on his own skill, shall, — in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, — wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to the sense which holy mother Church, — whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures, – hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. . . . ” Joseph-Dixon, Archbishop of Armagh and primate of all Ireland, explains this decree as follows: “The sum of this decree is, that no one is to presume, to interpret the scripture against that sense which the church has held and holds, nor against the unanimous consent of the fathers.” He goes on to say later, “We must not by any means, attach to any text of scripture such a sense, as would be irreconcilable with any portion of the doctrine, which the church teaches” (Introduction to the Sacred Scriptures, pp. 196-198).

In the formation of human creeds as bases of communion and fellowship, protestant denominations, despite their protestations to the contrary, repudiate the all-sufficiency of the revealed word of God. “Sold Scriptura” was one of the mottoes of the “Reformation” of the sixteenth century. This means “Scripture only,” yet those who originated it were flagrantly guilty of repudiating it in their practice by formulating human creeds around which their followers rallied and upon the basis of which they formed separate communions of professed believers.

We pose the following objections to human creeds in religion: (1) They are unreliable, because they are based on the mere inferences of fallible human wisdom, and understanding; (2) they are incomplete and inadequate, because, in the very nature of the case, they can contain no more than the combined wisdom and knowledge of the fallible men (however dignified) who formulate them; (3) they impeach, as we have previously established, the wisdom, power, and/or goodness of God because the sense of necessity that gave them birth is, within itself a repudiation of the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures; (4) they disparage, in the face of their existence, the revelatory work of the Holy Spirit – i.e., they are formed and promoted on the assumption of the inadequacy of the Holy Spirit’s revelation; (5) they are not apostolic in origin – the apostolic church had only the words of the Holy Spirit; and (6) they are either unnecessary or evil – if they contain only that which Scripture teaches (as denominational scholars insist) they are unnecessary, and if they contain less or more than the Scriptures, they are condemned (Gal. 1:6-12). It is often argued that they are essential to unity. This is absurd. With the formulation of every human creed in history, a new sect has been born. Jesus’ prayer for unity (John 17:20,21) was predicated on the words of the apostles as its basis. Unity was attained in the apostolic age without human creeds, hence why should they be needed now to achieve it?

Modern cults such as: so-called “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, and so-called “Christian Scientists,” while professing to recognize the Scriptures as inspired of God, repudiate their all-sufficiency by the reverence which they manifest toward the writings of The Watchtower Society, Ellen G. White, Joseph Smith, and Mary Baker Patterson Eddy.

Brethren among professed churches of Christ insist on the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures, yet deny it in practice by their inordinate reverence for the points of view of the dignitaries of “The Restoration Movement,” or the “consensus of the views held by the majority of the churches of Christ in the brotherhood.” Brethren likewise indict the all-sufficiency of the Scriptures when they form human organizations unknown to the word of God and/or convert local churches and elders into centralized agencies through which the churches generally function to perform Divine responsibilities. They indict the principle of all-sufficiency when they presume to add to the acts of social worship things not authorized by Scripture (such as mechanical instrumental music) or to the work of the church things purely social and recreational in their character. The only course consistent with the all-sufficiency the Scriptures is that expressed in the slogans which animated the churches in days. past: “To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is not light in them (Isa. 8:20); a thus saith the Lord for every act of Christian work or worship; let us call Bible things by Bible names and do Bible things in Bible ways; let us speak where the Bible speaks and remain silent where the Bible is silent.” Sad it is that brethren once dedicated to this course in religion, seek now for justification of religious faith and practice in a mythical “law of expediency” or smugly excuse obviously non-authorized teaching and practice with a shrug of the shoulders and a glib, “We do many things for which we do not have Scripture.”

Guardian of Truth XXX: 11, pp. 323-325
June 5, 1986