Truth Magazine

By Foy E. Wallace, Jr. (1896-1979)

The basic principle of all obedience is understanding. “He that heareth the word and understandeth it” – Matt. 13:23. “Go preach the gospel – he that believeth (the gospel) and is baptized shall be saved” – Mark 16:15-16. Believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is not all that must be understood in rendering obedience in baptism – there are other essential principles of a gospel faith.

Institutions with design carry the necessity of understanding the design. Example: The Lord’s Supper – “in memory” of Christ without knowing it. The preposition “for” in Acts 2:38 is “EIS ” in the original, and the preposition “in” of 1 Cor. 11:23 is the same “EIS” in the original. No man can take the Lord’s Supper in order to, unto or into, the memory of Christ if he does not know it, and for the same reason no man can be baptized in order to, unto or into the remission of sins or salvation, if he does not know it. One cannot accidentally obey God.

If it is not necessary to understand the purpose of baptism, why is it in every case emphasized from the teaching of John to the last verse on the subject in the New Testament? If it is not to be understood, then, that part of the subject is non-essential and when we preach the design of baptism we are preaching something not necessary to be believed, therefore, preaching a nonessential. Why debate with a Baptist preacher on the design of baptism fits design does not have to be believed or understood? Why debate on a non-essential?

Is there a single case in all the New Testament where the person baptized did not understand the purpose of the act?

It is sometimes said that the purpose is not a part of the command. Let us see:

Acts 22:16 – “Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins.” The subject understood is you – with the triple predicate -and fully rendered with each part supplied it reads: You arise and be baptized and you wash away your sins. Arise is part of the command; be baptized is a part of the command; wash way your sins is part of the command. No man can do that who believes his sins have already been washed away.

It is said that “to obey God” is the main purpose of baptism. Then why is that purpose never stated? Is it not singular that the New Testament failed to mention the main purpose in connection with the command but on the other hand emphasized the non-essential purpose, or the purpose not necessary to be believed? “Remission of sins,” “into Christ,” “shall be saved,” “newness of life,” and all other expressions are just one design stated in different ways. Baptism has only one design. Alexander Campbell established this premise, and lays it down in that very proposition, in his book on “Baptism,” I mention this because so many refer to Campbell on the subject.

We are sometimes asked: If it is necessary to believe that baptism is for the remission of sins then should we not make it a part of the confession and ask every one “Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and do you also believe that baptism is for the remission of sins?” This is dodging the issue. Try it on the other contention. If the main purpose is “to obey God,” then, the argument would require that it also be made a part of the confession: “Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and are you being baptized to obey God?” It’s a poor rule that will not work both ways. As a matter of fact, all sincere people in religion perform every act of religious service with the general motive to obey God. Baptism has a very specific purpose – just as does the Lord’s Supper – and the general idea that it is a command, but not essential to salvation or that it is a duty but the duty of one already saved is a perversion of Bible teaching. If one can be scripturally baptized with such a belief then all our preaching on the subject is inconsistent.

To say that a man can believe that he is saved before he is baptized, and then be baptized to be saved, is to argue that what a man believes has nothing to do with what he does.

It is frequently said that if one is satisfied we have no right to question them. Why should we hold an inquest? Paul evidently “held an inquest” over the twelve in Acts 19. True, the same thing may not be wrong in the case before us – but something was wrong there and something else just as vital may be wrong now. Satisfaction is not salvation. Apply the argument to other things people believe and do in religion and where would it lead to? If it can be applied to baptism why not to everything else?

It takes more than the right act to constitute valid baptism. The right act based on the right belief: Error preached, error heard, error believed, is error obeyed. Truth preached, truth heard, truth believed, is truth obeyed.

Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” This cannot be made to mean “You may believe error but if in your error your aim is to obey God, then your error will make you free, anyway.” Such apologizing for denominational error cannot advance the truth. It is much easier to teach people to obey the gospel than to defend them in their error (Bible Banner, May 1948, p. 14).

Guardian of Truth XXX: 4, p. 105
February 20, 1986

By Daniel H. King

One thing which becomes very obvious after some study of the premillennial theory, is that the theory itself is the hermeneutical principle by which its advocates measure most everything else. The person who believes sincerely that Revelation 20 teaches a literal one thousand year reign of Christ on earth at the end of time has a tendency to interpret all, or most all, prophecy in the light of this conviction. If you expend much energy and time on the prophets then you know it can prove a real frustration to see a passage which has a fairly obvious meaning be given an obviously forced interpretation in order to make it fit into the millennialist’s “master plan” of eschatology. Clearly the text of the Bible is made to serve the needs of the theory instead of the reverse.

Some interpreters are so enamored of this way of viewing the “time of the end” that they write and speak about it and almost nothing else. Instead of getting the richly deserved name of “heretical fanatic” or some such designation, they are given by their admiring public the title of “prophecy expert.” No title could be further from the truth. The messages of the prophets are not proclaimed by these men. They merely use what there is in the prophets that can be forced into the mold of their speculative hypothesis. Simple, candidly figurative language and straight-forward use of simile, hyperbole, metaphor and other similar literary phenomena, come to spell out literal events, persons, and even numbers. It would not be legitimate to read the newspaper this way, but it is considered acceptable when the Word of God is thus read. This approach is taken in spite of the fact that the book of Revelation itself, said to be the theory’s inspiration, claims (in the author’s own words) to be written in signs and symbols (Rev. 1: 3)!

Premillennialism has been around quite some time now, has even threatened the unity of the church and the purity of her doctrine for a number of years. Most brethren are no longer amenable to the pollutions of this error at present, though, for enough preaching, teaching and writing has been done to head off a large-scale threat to the church. Many of our brethren have given credit to Foy Wallace for making preachers and elders cross the country aware that there was danger from a small element of premillennialists and a considerable number of sympathizers in our midst. Brother Wallace did a great deal of writing on the subject, as well as making it a persistent topic in his preaching. Whether he ought to be given credit for heading off a sizeable division or not may be a matter of dispute, but it is certain that he aroused the interest and concern of enough brethren in positions of influence to awaken them from their lethargy.

The result was that Christians across the country closed ranks and shut out those who were set upon spreading these speculative views. Today there is almost no fellowship and little communication between those that hold this view in the church and those who do not.

Some have questioned this state of affairs from time to time. I can recall that in the Bible course at David Lipscomb College, for example, brother Batsell Barrett Baxter expressed his own opinion that brethren should never have divided over an issue which is purely speculative like this one. But the fact is that no denominational headquarters handed down the decree for this to be done. It was carried out by local elders and their congregations out of sincere concern at the spread of an error which they were convinced was both false and dangerous, and moreover, their action proved very effective. Except for those churches which proclaim themselves openly sympathetic to the premillennial cause, premillennialists or even sympathizers to their cause are as scarce as “hen’s teeth” in most churches of the Lord. If any preaching is done on the subject of eschatology (“last things”) at all, it inevitably includes some discussion of the theory and a refutation of its major tenets.

In recent years another movement has grown up among us which has many very clear-cut similarities to the premillennial view. This is not to suggest that this theory is the same as the premillennial one – in fact it represents an almost precisely opposite extreme. Whereas premillennialists desire to make just about everything literal that rightly should be seen as figurative and thus interpreted, so this new band of “realized eschatology” fanatics tend to make that which properly deserved to be seen as literal into mere symbolism, with the practical result of robbing the New Testament of any doctrine of last things.

Those who have followed this line of reasoning have generally fallen into the trap of their premillennialist precursors by feeling the need to reinterpret all of Sacred Scripture with this plan in mind. The result is an entirely new and different way of viewing much of the Bible, and in particular, its teaching on the end of time. Many of its preacher-adherents have become full-time apologists for the theory (in times past they would have been referred to as “hobby-riders”).

They are producing books, tracts, and pamphlets at a rapid pace – all with the promotion of this theory as the immediate business at hand. Informed readers will know the name of Max King (no relation to the present writer) in this connection. King has been quite outspoken, engaging several capable men in debate and writing on the subject as well. Studies In Bible Prophecy, a journal now in its eighth volume, is mailed out by the West Avenue Church of Christ in Ashtabula, Ohio. Its editor is Charles Geiser, with staff writers C.D. Beagle, Tim James, and Terry Siverd. The masthead of this paper reveals the creed of these writers: “The holy Scriptures teach that the second coming of Christ, including the establishment of the eternal kingdom, the day of judgment, the end of the world and the resurrection of the dead, occurred with the fall of Judaism in 70 A.D.”

The reader would do well to read and reread the statements contained in this credo. Perhaps it is the epitome of understatement to say that these views are quite far-reaching in their implications. These people are saying that the only return of Christ that there will ever be happened in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70! They are saying that the only last judgment that there will ever be happened in 70! They are also saying that the only resurrection of the dead that there will ever be happened in 70!

Have you gotten the full force of this view now? Surely you can see that this theory represents far more than a different-but-benign position on the second portion of Matthew 24. Like the premillennial doctrine, the views of these people on the 21st chapter of Luke (primarily) pervade all their interpretive efforts. It is the interpretive principle of their system. Every passage in the New Testament having to do with the destruction and judgment of the world suddenly requires to be interpreted in the light of the symbolism of those texts prophetically pointing to the fall and judgment of Jerusalem. They are as wed to this hermeneutical prejudice as are the premillennialists to theirs.

Until recently, conservative brethren have done almost no writing at all on this error. This likely also represents the amount of preaching and teaching that has been done during the same time period. Most conservative Christians consider this false doctrine to be the problem of liberal brethren, and of course, in large measure it still is. But the old saying, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is surely applicable here. In my own work around the country I have been recently surprised to find that there are those convinced of the validity of these ideas worshiping and working with congregations standing in opposition to liberalism. I am not a prophet or a prophet’s son, but I think the ramifications of this are rather plain to see. We may not currently have a problem on this point, but if the growth of this tumor is not stopped, then we will surely have difficulties on up the road.

Let me encourage all who read this article, especially preachers and elders, to do some serious study of this question. And then some serious teaching and preaching on it. This is no doubt the reason that as little teaching and preaching has been done on it as has been up to now. Like premillennialism it is a doctrine that covers a wide range of Scriptures and requires a good bit of preparation to speak and write about. Over time brethren in places of responsibility have seen the need to become informed about the premillennial error and have read about it, written on it, and generally fitted themselves to deal with this system in a decisive way. We are going to have to do the same with this system of “realized eschatology.” Several printed debates are available on the market and may be obtained from Guardian of Truth bookstore. At present there is a crying need for more literature written in defense of truth and against this new heresy. More of our good writers need to turn some of their attention and at least some of their writing time toward this problem. I do not want to sound like an alarmist, but I genuinely fear that most of those who worship with conservative churches do not even know that this false doctrine exists.

In most places today we can freely and easily preach and teach on this issue without the slightest disturbance. The time to inform our people on this subject is now, while it is a simple matter of teaching them the issues involved. But if we wait, then we may awake one of these days to find ourselves fighting this issue in our own backyards, and with some of the very people whom we could easily have grounded in the truth!

Guardian of Truth XXX: 4, pp. 114-115
February 20, 1986

By Irven Lee

Secular humanism claims to be a religion, and these humanists use the school room to promote their philosophy as faithful preachers use the pulpit to teach the gospel. The atheistic humanists would forbid Christians to teach the story of creation, the deity of Christ, and the wonderful principles of righteousness that are taught in the Bible while they insist on teaching the theories of evolution and a disrespect for authority of any kind. The atheists claim that the Constitution demands the separation of church and state. The Constitution forbids Congress to establish a religion for the people, but the founding fathers did not intend that everything be done that possibly could be done to destroy faith in Christ and respect for His pattern of behavior. The very opposite was true. Our legal system in America has been based on the Judaeo-Christian system of righteousness. In the early days of the public schools often the teacher in a one room school was the preacher, and he was expected to read the Bible and to build respect for it. It was often one of the main textbooks he used in teaching. Long memory passages would be assigned from it, and the passages would be discussed. Too often false doctrines were taught, but the students came to have a respect for the Bible as the word of God.

As recently as my high school days, we had chapel (a worship assembly) every morning. One preacher or another was invited to speak in this assembly every Monday morning. On some other days, some faculty member would speak on topics that were intended to motivate or challenge us to the more useful life. At the close of school some preacher was invited to deliver a baccalaureate sermon as a special challenge to the graduates. This, in fact, continued until very recent years.

During the first two centuries of our nation about all the private schools were started as “Bible schools” or schools for religious training. One of the very sad changes in the last century was the turning to evolution, so called higher criticism of the Bible, and other aspects of atheism in the “Department of Religion” in each older private university. Atheists taught religion in these schools that were started by men of conviction. This was a ridiculous inconsistency, and this sort of training for denominational preachers has come down to the average citizens, destroying respect for the authority of Christ and His word. We need to keep our children away from ,’modernists” or “liberals” in religion. They are certainly wolves trying to appear to be sheep. Ultra liberal religious groups like the Unitarians are hotbeds of humanism. The Unitarian preacher is likely to be a secular humanist (atheist). Such preachers have no God to whom they may pray, no Bible with a divine message, and no heaven for which they may hope. They are indeed “without hope and without God in the world” Eph. 2:12). Their position in life is parallel to that of the pagan in the ancient Roman Empire.

Millions in our generation are going back to paganism rather than back to the Bible. Marriage ties are broken, many seek money by dishonest means, violence is very common, and there is an amazing lack of reverence for the name of God. The beauty of holiness goes unnoticed while many seek for satisfaction in alcohol and other drugs, with selfishness, child abuse, and covetousness taking the place of brotherly kindness, happy homes, and honest labor. What can devout parents do to train their children in the right way of the Lord in such a wicked world?

Alert parents are alarmed as they see what unbelievers are doing to our world. It is because of changes like those mentioned above that a few parents are taking their children out of the public schools to train them in private schools where it is hoped that faith will be strengthen ed rather than destroyed, and that righteousness will be encouraged rather than sexual immorality, hedonism, and situation ethics. The number of private schools has greatly increased in recent years. Parents are taxed to support public schools, but beyond this cost thousands are supporting private schools by tuition and gifts as they search for something better for their children.

Some parents are taking their children out of public schools to train them at home. Do they do the job? Are these children cut off from adequate education for the modern labor market? Which mother or father is capable of giving instruction in all fields of learning that are now important? Children need to mature in their ability to work with others. Will they get this in home training?

When alarmed parents make special moves to see that their children are trained in a safe environment, they should remember that we all are still in the world. Television, pornographic literature, and unbelieving neighbors are all about us. We would have to get out of the world to avoid all human contact (1 Cor. 5: 10).

Children need to be with people their age. They must learn how to deal with others or they will not be able to carry out their responsibilities as Christians or to provide for their families. The Lord is not looking for hermits. We are to be trained to live and work with people. Christ wanted His disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15). In the book of Acts we learn of some wonderful men who were busy at work in the wicked world. They fought a good fight against the sin and crime of that day. Look to the last part of the first chapter of Romans for a description of the people of that day. Are not the sins mentioned there the same sins that alarm us today?

Guardian of Truth XXX: 4, p. 110
February 20, 1986

By Fred Melton

It has been said that behind every successful man there is usually a wise woman. Even the unmarried Apostle Paul found spiritual strength in those he called honorable or “noble women” among the Greek churches (Acts 13:16, 17; Rom. 16:1-4). 1 myself have found such women in almost every church I have been associated with. These women seem to have a special relationship toward the gospel of Christ and those who are dedicated to teaching it.

There is not the slightest indication of the “feminist” attitude among these spiritual giants. Indeed, at least one rather tongue-in-cheek appraisal of the feminist movement was expressed as, “Why should we lower ourselves to the social and moral equality of the men in this world.” These women do not need any social adjustments for they are already one of the greatest blessings in the church today.

The wives of foreign workers and those in other hard places may be singled out as notable in respect of dedication to preaching the gospel. Some of these “foreign women” have started their adult lives as virtual teenagers in what the rest of us might regard as intolerable conditions. Separated from family and friends, they are often thrown into an alien and sometimes hostile world where they must make new friends, learn different customs and sometimes a new language. This dedication can only be explained by a strong love of God and a desire to please their husbands.

Such women are to be highly commended and respected for their work’s sake as they are “noble women” in the making.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 4, p. 111
February 20, 1986