Truth Magazine

By Cherrill Schmid

Although the name of John Calvin may be less of a household name than that of Martin Luther or John Wesley, yet he is second to none in influence among Protestant orders.

While studying law in Paris, Calvin experienced what he called a “conversion” which placed him in the class of a heretic when Francis I began his persecutions. Calvin then fled to Switzerland where he had the liberty to follow and develop his religious beliefs. Here he set forth a system that is considered a masterpiece of logical reasoning. This work The Institutes of the Christian Religion which was first published in 1536, is considered one of the greatest books on systematic theology ever written.

Calvin’s form of church government is Presbyterian. His doctrine of salvation has man being born into this world a “totally depraved” sinner that has been predestined (or elected), either to eternal life or to eternal damnation, that Christ died only for those predestined to eternal life, who in turn will find the Holy Spirit, as the irresistible grace of God, acting directly upon him assuring him of salvation which cannot be revoked. The influence of this doctrine and Calvin’s power over the Protestant world can hardly be over-estimated.

Protestant refugees came to ‘Geneva from all parts of Europe and were indoctrinated with the teachings of Calvin. In many cases these disciples would return to their homelands, often at the risk of their lives, to spread Calvin’s doctrine. Schaff observed that “Calvin’s moral power “tended over all the Reformed Churches and over several nationalities – Swiss, French, German, Polish, Bohemian, Hungarian, Dutch, English, Scotch and American. His religious influence upon the Anglo-Saxon race in both continents is greater than that of any native Englishman and continues to this day.”(1)

However, the day for casting off this power was to come to some. The journey out of error is often a slow and arduous one and so it was for the pioneer restorers. It demanded change, and change man tends to resist. But change did come and perhaps as can be expected, the greatest opposition came from within the ranks of the heavily Calvinistic Baptist and Presbyterian churches.

The lives of the restorers often followed similar patterns. First came their own personal struggles for their salvation dealing with the basic teachings that affected them as individuals. Then, after throwing off this yoke, they would often continue to retain some form of the “Calvinian” type of church government only to finally conclude that it, too, was of human origin.

Barton W. Stone

Barton W. Stone, as a young man, found himself vacillating in religion between the Baptist and the Methodist. The result almost killed his religious interest so that religion became distasteful to him. By 1790, he had his plans for the future mapped in the direction of the legal profession. In order to follow this route he entered the academy at Guilford, North Carolina, which was conducted by the able David Caldwell, an ordained Presbyterian minister. While there, a friend persuaded him to hear James McGready, a well known Presbyterian preacher. McGready was able to convince Stone of sin, but, as is the case of Calvinism, not one word of encouragement was offered. For the next year, young Stone prayed and labored trying to obtain saving faith but fearing he would never receive it. Finally, a discourse on “God Is Love,” by William Hodge helped to bring to him the long sought peace of mind. But this was short-lived.

Stone applied for and eventually was ordained a minister in the Presbyterian church. However, he had difficulty in accepting all of the Westminster Confession, the creed of the church. When asked, “Do you receive and adopt the Confession of faith, as containing the system of doctrine as taught in the Bible?” He replied, “I do, as far as I see it consistent with the Word of God.” In speaking of the turmoil that he went through, he said, “I at that time believed and taught that mankind were so totally depraved that they could do nothing acceptable to God till his Spirit, by physical, almighty and mysterious power, had quickened, enlightened and regenerated the heart, and thus prepared the sinner to believe in Jesus for salvation. . . . Often when I was addressing the listening multitudes on the doctrine of total depravity, on their inability to believe and on the physical power of God to produce faith, and then persuading the helpless to repent and believe the gospel, my zeal in a moment would be chilled by the contradiction. How can they believe? How can they repent? How can they do the impossibilities? How can they be guilty in not doing them? Such thoughts would almost stifle utterance, and were as mountains pressing me down to the shades of death. I tried to rest in the common salvo of that day – i.e., the distinction between natural and moral ability and inability. The pulpits were continually ringing with this doctrine; but to my mind it ceased to be a relief. . .”(2) Such mental turmoil was not uncommon of those who had honest, enquiring hearts. By making the Bible his constant companion, Stone found that those things written were written that “ye may believe” so that “whosoever will may come.”

As expected, this change in Stone would not go unchallenged. Stone had five strong co-laborers in John Dunlavy, Robert Marshall, Richard McNemar, David Purviance, and John Thompson. The Washington Presbytery (Calvinistic organization), charged McNemar with heresy when he taught contrary to the Confession. The charges were then sent to the Kentucky Synod, which in turn sustained them. Realizing that McNemar’s fate was a prelude to what was to follow for the rest of them, the six met and submitted objections to the treatment of McNemar, reporting that the Confession of Faith was an impediment to revival.

As of this time Stone had not completely left Calvinism, for he and his five cohorts established the Springfield Presbytery (Calvinistic oversight). Things seemed to go well with them, for in less than a year fifteen churches were established, seven in Ohio and eight in Kentucky, but within the year also finds the composition of the “Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery. ” This document recognizes this Calvinistic form of church government for what it is human in origin, and a hinderance to the gospel.

In the meanwhile, Stone reported his changes to the Presbyterian churches with whom he had been working, relieving them of their financial commitment to him. He continued his work among them laboring on his own farm to support himself. This change not only cost Stone a large salary but also the friendship of two large congregations. But, no longer would Calvinism be a millstone about his neck – he was free!

Thomas Campbell

Thomas Campbell, a preacher for the Anti-Burgher Seceder branch of the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), came to America in 1807. His preaching circuit of Washington, Pennsylvania suffered much the same bitter divisions that had existed among his brethren that he had left in Scotland. His efforts to bring peace among them caused him to be marked as a heretic by the Presbyterians, within six months of his arrival in America. Thomas Anderson, in the February meeting of the Chartiers Presbytery, accused Thomas Campbell of teaching that there was only human authority for confessions of faith and creeds of men. The Presbytery in turn took away his preaching appointments and the Synod of the Associated Churches upheld the action, which finally led to Thomas Campbell denouncing the authority of the Presbytery, the Synod, and their courts. He now was an independent preacher with no denominational ties to human creeds.

It was at the home of Abraham Alters eleven months later that Campbell coined the phrase, “Where the scriptures speak, we speak, and where the scriptures are silent, we are silent.”(3)Andrew Munro responded, “Mr. Campbell, if we adopt that as a basis, then there is an end of infant baptism. . . . ” Campbell replied, “Of course, if infant baptism be not found in the scripture, we can have nothing to do with it.”(4)

Alexander Campbell

Alexander Campbell was reared under the strong Calvinistic influence of his father’s Presbyterian faith. It might be noted that the Calvinistic influence came also from the strong faith of his mother Jane who was of French Huguenot extraction. As the Presbyterians, so the French Huguenots also received their creed and form of church government from Calvin.

About four years after the aforementioned exchange between Alters, Thomas Campbell, and Munro, the Campbells were forced into an application of this bold position. Thomas Campbell’s family is now in America with him. Alexander, who subscribes to the same positions as his father, has become a father himself. Now, should the new baby Jane be a recipient of infant baptism or not? Studying everything available to him, Alexander eventually concluded that not only should she not be baptized (sprinkled), but that sprinkling was not even baptism, in which case he had never been baptized himself. This conclusion was hard to accept for sprinkling and infant baptism had been the practice of the Seceder church for generations. However, within three months of the birth of Jane (March 13, 1812), Thomas Campbell and his wife Jane, Alexander and his wife Margaret, Alexander’s sister and Mr. and Mrs. James Hanen were immersed in Buffalo Creek.

In the fall of 1813, the Brush Run church, which had been established by the Campbells May 4, 1811, applied for and was accepted in the Redstone Baptist Association. This short, shaky relationship was doomed from the beginning for some of the basic beliefs of the Association were not only Calvinistic, but held by the Brush Run church as being completely without scriptural authority.

The Baptists subscribed to the Philadelphia Confession of Faith which is a Calvinistic document; the Campbells did not. It, however, was not until Alexander’s famous sermon on “The Law” before a meeting of the Association, that efforts were made to try him as a heretic. Before this could be done, the Brush Run church withdrew from the Redstone Association and joined the less radical Mahoning Association. By 1830, the Mahoning Association was dissolved as being without Bible authority. During his life, Alexander participated in five debates, three of which dealt with Calvinism.

“Racoon” John Smith

“Racoon ” John Smith was reared in a Baptist home under the guidance of the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. As a young man he began thinking about his own salvation, knowing by Calvinistic faith that he must receive a sign from God showing him that he was among the elect. He tried to convince himself that he was totally depraved which created turmoil within him. He waited anxiously for the revelation, suffering much intense emotion. After one such battle he began to relax and a calm came over him. Maybe this was the sign. At least the church accepted it as such and he was voted into the Baptist church and baptized.

John went through the same type of struggle in seeking a sign that he should preach. This sign seemed as elusive as did the sign of salvation. Finally, in a life and death struggle with an ox, he vowed that if God would spare him he would give his life in preaching the gospel. Smith was spared and he accepted this as a divine call to preach. And preach he did. He became one of the ablest preachers the Baptists had – able to defend the doctrine of Calvin.

Smith, however, had a chink in his armor in the form of a keen wit, an honest heart and an inquiring mind, for he recognized the inconsistencies of the Calvinistic faith. Questions like, “What if the elect do not believe, will they still be saved? What if the non-elect believe, will they be lost?” kept coming back to haunt him. This happened in Spencer’s Creek while John was urging the sinners to repent and believe the gospel. These questions so badgered him that he said, “Brethren, something is wrong — I am in the dark, — we are all in the dark, but how to lead you to the light, or to find the way myself, before God, I know not.” “Seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened to you,” and this is what John did. With the help of Campbell and his Christian Baptist periodical, Smith came to know the truth and stood firmly against Calvinism.

Perhaps the impact of Calvinism on the “Christian” world can be stated no better than Barton Stone did himself. “Let me here speak when I shall be lying under the clods of the grave. Calvinism is among the heaviest clogs on Christianity in the world. It is a dark mountain between heaven and earth, and is amongst the most discouraging hindrances to sinners from seeking the kingdom of God, and engenders bondage and gloominess in the saints. Its influence is felt throughout the Christian world, even where it is least suspected. Its first link is total depravity.”(5)

The restorers herein mentioned are by no means all of them but these do typify the general situations that were brought on by Calvinism. Calvinism has perhaps put on a new coat now, but it still rides the same horse.

Endnotes

1. Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, Vol. VIII, p. 806.

2. Richardson, Robert, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, Vol. 11, pp. 190-191.

3. Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 237.

4. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 238.

5. Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 192.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 1, pp. 22-24
January 2, 1986

By Sam E. Stone

Over the past year we have published several essays and news reports growing out of current efforts to develop a sense of unity with our brethren in the non-instrumental churches of Christ. These articles have brought mixed reactions from our readers.

A brother wrote from Northern Ireland:

I first came into contact with the brotherhood’s musical instrument problem when a loving Christian couple in the U.S.A. lent me Murch’s Christians Only. I have since been reading the articles which have appeared in the Standard. When I first read about the problem the answer to it was so obvious to me that I wondered why it still existed. I still think the same.

It is obvious to all that it is the instrument itself which is the reason for the disunity, bitterness, and hatred shown by both sides. There is no reason whatever why a congregation should not worship without an instrument. All are agreed on that point. The obvious answer then is, “Give up the instrument!” Would that be too big a sacrifice to make for the sake of the one who sacrificed everything for His church? Surely not!

We share our brother’s grief at the division that exists among those committed to the restoration of New Testament Christianity. We are not so sure that following his suggestion would solve the problem, however.

Certainly no congregation should insist that everyone must worship with an instrument. On the other hand, no Christian or congregation should condemn those brethren who may choose to employ musical accompaniment with their singing. We are perfectly willing to forego the use of a musical instrument in worship (and have done so many times), but we are not willing to be bound by a non-Scriptural legalism that forbids its use. Christian liberty, as well as sensitive consciences, must be respected.

Further, solving the instrument question cannot by itself bring about unity. The acappella, churches of Christ give ample evidence of this sad truth within their own ranks. While none of their congregations use instrumental music in worship, they remain seriously fragmented over other issues (e.g. Sunday schools, individual Communion cups, orphanages, pre-millennialism, etc.).

This problem was addressed by Leroy Garrett in a letter to H.A. (Buster) Dobbs, editor of Firm Foundation. Brother Garrett wrote:

Your editorial in the 11 June Firm Foundation about instrumental music, particularly in reference to claims recently made by some of our brothers in the Christian Church, reminds me of how long we have discussed that issue without resolving it. . . . It is the same with other issues of a similar nature, and we all seem to be on both the pro and anti side, depending on the issue. Our good brother… G.B. Shelburne, would make the same argument from the silence of the Scriptures in reference to the Sunday School that you make on instrumental music. As you said in your recent editorial, “We do not use mechanical means of making music in the worship of the church because the Bible is silent with reference to the practice!” He would say the same thing, inserting “the Sunday School” where you have “instrumental music.” That makes you the pro or liberal and he the anti.

But then brother Shelbourne becomes the liberal when it comes to a plurality of cups for Communion, for the anti-cups brethren will take your same proposition and argue that since the Bible is silent about cups they do not use them. On and on it goes. . . . (Restoration Review, September, 1985, p. 131).

Brother Garrett has put his finger on the sensitive center f the problem. The solution will not be found by simply removing all of the pianos from a of the Christian churches. The difficulty of a questionable hermeneutic remains. We feel it is impossible to hold the exclusion-by-silence principle with consistency.

While we oppose anyone’s legislating where the Lord has not, we strongly encourage consideration for the feelings of our non-instrument brethren. Believers who choose to worship with the accompaniment of a musical instrument must not insist that all others follow their preference.

We agree with Leroy Garrett: “That the Scriptures are silent on any given subject means only that the Scriptures are silent on that subject, and no other conclusion can be drawn. Silence neither proves nor disproves anything. . . . Do we not have to conclude that since no law can be imposed when the Bible is silent, we must leave it to each one or to each church to decide what disposition to make on such matters?”

Guardian of Truth XXX: 2, pp. 35-36
January 16, 1986

By Herschel E. Patton

For years Calvinism had no impact upon New Testament Christianity at all, except as a heresy to be met by strenuous opposition.

Calvinism involves the underlying theme of salvation being wholly by grace and apart from any works or responsibility on the part of man. The theory contends that man is born totally depraved: God unconditionally elects or predestinates each one who is saved: The atonement was not for all but only the elect: Those elected will be irresistibly made new by a direct operation of the Holy Spirit; And those thus saved will persevere (can’t fall) by God’s grace unto the end. The obvious conclusion from all this is that man is passive, has no responsibility at all, but is made new and saved eternally solely by God’s grace and power. It is argued that if man has to do anything to be saved from sin and eternally his salvation would be by works and not grace.

Brethren connected with the Restoration Movement and “pioneer preachers” successfully met each tenet of the Calvinistic theory in preaching, writing, and debates. Even throughout the greater part of this twentieth century, gospel preachers have done the same, with the brotherhood resounding with a hearty “Amen.”

In some instances, the Calvinistic idea of foreordination – all that comes to pass has been unchangeably foreordained of God (what is to be will be), is seen to have had some impact on a few brethren’s thinking as they speak of tragedies in life as “God’s will,” “God sent for some purpose,” or “God’s chastening for some evil done” (cf. contentions of Job’s friends). This impact, however, has been small.

However, in the latter part of this century, charges of “Calvinism,” “Shades of Calvinism,” and “Neo-Calvinism” are being heard. Some advocating things provoking these charges have drawn away disciples after them and formed groups that are estranged from other brethren. Some congregations are filled with unrest and doubts, and even divisions have taken place.

What actions, sentiments, teaching has brought this rift about? Was what was being done and taught of sufficient magnitude to merit protests and opposition?

The New Unity Movement

Almost two decades ago Carl Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett, and others switched from an extremely conservative position and became greatly involved in what was called “The New Unity Movement.” They admit having been affected by the voice of “our religious neighbors in ecumenical circles.”

Ketcherside said “there may be children of God scattered among various sects today” (Mission Messenger, Feb., 1958, p. 12). “It does not at all disturb me to think that many pious individuals who love God and their fellow man within a denominational tradition will walk the golden streets” (Ibid., Aug. ’73, p. 111).

Leroy Garrett said, “Saints of God are scattered throughout the Christian world, belonging to all sorts of sects and denominations” (Restoration Review, Sept., 1964).

The reasoning by which these men justify their present beliefs and practices had a great impact on some brethren who were dismayed, disheartened, and discouraged by numerous divisions in the brotherhood (institutionalism, sponsoring church type of cooperation, social gospel, etc.), and wanted some means of justifying fellowship with all brethren regardless of these differences. Edward Fudge was one, among others, greatly influenced by the teaching of Ketcherside and Garrett, and was in the forefront of what came to be known as the “Grace-Fellowship” movement.

Ketcherside, Garrett, Fudge, and others made a distinction between “gospel” and “doctrine,” saying that gospel only involves the things about Christ, His divinity, mission, death, burial, resurrection, and glorification. The conclusion drawn from this was that whoever believed in Christ – these facts of the gospel – accepting and acknowledging them, was saved by the gospel of His grace. It is denied that fully understanding and observing the teaching of Christ, involving details of worshiping, serving, and living “before God” are essential to eternal salvation. They tell us that as long as there is in one’s heart faith in Christ, resulting in a sincere effort to please God, even repenting of recognized, known sins, there is no reason to be concerned about detailed orders and instruction which we may not understand or observe. God’s grace takes care of all these failures.

This theory allows for limited obedience in becoming a Christian, in worshiping and serving God, and lessens one’s responsibility for faithfulness, making one’s security rest solely in the grace of God without concern for personal responsibility. Is it any wonder that the charge of “Calvinism” has been made concerning this teaching?

The teaching that there is a distinction between gospel and doctrine, one being important while the other is not, is completely false. Paul preached “gospel” to Rome (Rom. 1:15); they obeyed the “gospel” (10:16); obeyed the form of “doctrine” (6:17); hearing the “word of God” produced “faith” (10:17), and the apostles “ministered the gospel” (15:16). The thing that people obeyed, resulting in salvation, is called “doctrine” (Rom. 6:16-17), “faith” (Acts 6:7; Rom. 1:5), “gospel” (Rom. 10: 16; 2 Thess. 1:8-9), “truth” (1 Pet. 1-22; Rom. 2:8; Gal. 3:1; 5:7), and “word” (1 Pet. 3:1).

Transgressing and abiding not in the doctrine (teaching) of Christ breaks fellowship with both the Father and the Son (2 Jn. 9). Instead of “the doctrine of Christ” being just the things about Christ (His divinity), it is actually what is elsewhere in this chapter referred to as “truth” (vv. 1-2, 4), “His commandments” (v. 6). Those who teach a distinction between gospel and doctrine teach a false doctrine which is designed to relieve one of the responsibility of complete obedience or faithfulness, which is the design of Calvinism.

Continual Cleansing

Concern about the situation of the dedicated Christian who sins unknowingly, inadvertently, or through momentary weakness has lead some to teach an automatic, continuous cleansing by the blood of Christ, based, not on repentance, but on one’s relationship and dedication to Christ. This is very much akin to the Calvinistic theory of “The Security of the Believer” (God does not charge the believer with sin), so has brought forth the charge of “Neo-Calvinism.”

One brother wrote, “While it is possible for a Christian to leave God’s grace, I do not believe it is probable. As a matter of fact, I believe that many, if not most, Christians never lose their relationship with God from the day they are baptized into Christ until they finally enter heaven itself. Christians who are in the light of God are continually saved (1 Jn. 1:7). When they sin their sins aren’t even charged to them but rather to their Lord Jesus who is paying their debt (Rom. 4:8, 23-25). That means that as long4s they are in the light they are forgiven immediately when a sin is committed. Because of their sensitivity and commitment they will pray about their sins but the sin is forgiven even before they ask. It is forgiven because that is one of the benefits of being in the light (1 Jn. 1:7)” (J.B., The Highland Announcer, Vol. 11, No. 17, May, ’82).

Other brethren have publicly declared that a sincere brother who is “in the light” is cleansed “even as he sins.”

Such declarations are based upon the Calvinistic belief of “imputed righteousness”; as the brother quoted above said, “Their sins aren’t even charged to them but rather to their Lord Jesus who is paying their debt.” While some deny believing the doctrine of “imputed righteousness,” they view 66 walking in the light” (1 Jn. 1:7) as a protective realm rather than a course of action, which coincides with the Calvinistic theory of “The Security of the Believer.” It provides for a cleansing apart from the responsibility of complying with conditions (repentance and prayer), and this is Calvinism.

Some contending for “continuous cleansing,” not from the standpoint of being always available, but actual “even as one sins,” contend that the cleansing is conditioned on repentance. But, the repentance they have in mind is actually a penitent attitude which causes one to regularly pray to “forgive us our sins.” Unless such general repentance avails for sins of ignorance, inadvertence, and weakness, we are told that there can be no confidence – feeling of security -for a believer. It is argued that if each sin must be confessed and repented of, then the Christian, knowing that he often sins inadvertently and ignorantly, can never have confidence, unless he dies immediately after repentance. The same thing is true with those who contend that general repentance (“Lord, forgive our sins”) is necessary for continual cleansing. Unless one believes this general repentance takes care of sins to be committed in the future, there could be no confidence unless this prayer is prayed just before one dies. But, how can one repent of a sin not yet committed.

This teaching involves a cleansing by the blood of Christ apart from repentance. The continual cleansing envisioned is actually based upon a penitent attitude (disposition) and because one is in a protective realm, rather than meeting the conditions – repentance, confession, and prayer. Thus, this view of continual cleansing does involve “shades of Calvinism” . . . a cleansing, security, apart from compliance with conditions.

Confidence In Clear Bible Teaching

If brethren would quit trying to justify (excuse) wrong doing and emphasizing God’s grace in “overlooking” wrong doing, or theorizing on what God will do with certain ones under certain circumstances (“whittling on God’s end of the stick,” as brother Robert Turner says), and just follow what is plainly revealed, Christians could press on toward the eternal goal with knowledge, safety, joy, and confidence.

The Bible clearly teaches that all do sin and come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23; 1 Jn. 1:8, 10). But, it is comforting for Christians to know that when they sin, they are not without hope (1 Jn. 2:1-2). Christ is our advocate with the Father, our, propitiation, and through, Him we find forgiveness “if we confess our sins” (1 Jn. 1:9).This is the “walking in the light” – action – of 1:7 that results in cleansing by the blood of Christ.

The Bible clearly teaches that sin (any sin) separates from God (Isa. 59:2). It just as clearly teaches that this separation does not have to be permanent (1 Jn. 1:9; Acts 8:22). Repentance, confession, and prayer results in forgiveness – a return to God.

These plain facts trouble some, causing them to wonder if “every sin” separates from God, and if so, conclude that throughout life one is frequently “in grace” and “out of grace. . . an apostate.” This is what the apostle John is explaining in 1 John. A man is not without hope, even though he sins. He has an advocate with God through Christ, as he complies with the conditions laid down.

The word “apostate” is often misunderstood in the way it is used. It simply means a departure from the commandments of God (translated “to forsake” in Acts 21:21 and “falling away” in 2 Thess. 2:3). Often the word is used with reference to one who has completely abandoned the faith and is doomed with little, if any, hope of recovery. This latter use of the term certainly does not describe one who sins but will repent, confess, and pray and again have fellowship with God. Galatians 6:1 describes one who sins, is separated from God, in need of restoration, but is not an apostate in the sense of one who has abandoned the faith with no hope of restoration. It is not, therefore, a matter of “in grace” or “an apostate” in every case.

The Bible, in revealing to us God’s mercy in dealing with His children’s frailties in matters of growth and service, and grace in providing an ever abiding means for forgiveness, gives the Christian all the assurance he needs to live “under the sun” with confidence, joy, and hope. The false doctrines of Calvinism can add nothing, other than false hope, to this.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 1, pp. 25-26
January 2, 1986

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: Does the confession mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 10:32, 33 refer to confessing or denying Him in one’s life, or does it mean with the lips?

Reply: Jesus said, “Every one therefore who shall confess me before me, him will I also confess before my Father who is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 10:32, 33).

Some time ago I received by mail a bulletin in which the following comment is made on the above passage: “Note that the confessing or denying is, in this context, in life, and by one’s life. ” It is difficult to understand how the author of this statement arrives at this conclusion. We believe that this comment is erroneous for the following reasons:

(1) The context of the passage is seen in the background, where Jesus is encouraging His apostles to not be afraid when they would be persecuted. The confession or denial in Matthew 10:32,33 refers primarily to times when they would be brought before tribunals. The word “therefore” in this passage indicates that what follows is in regard to what has preceded. What had preceded? Jesus had said in verse 28, “And be not afraid of them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” The Lord is encouraging His disciples not to fear men. After assuring them of their Father’s care (vv 29,30), He says, “Fear not therefore. . . ” (v. 3 1). Then Jesus follows with the statement under consideration, “Every one therefore who shall confess me before men. . . . ” The context should be obvious, not only from the preceding verses, but also by those which follow. Note that Jesus states in verse 34, “Think not that I came to send peace on the earth.” Jesus is telling His followers that He does not preach peace at any price. They are not to compromise the truth, even at the cost of their own families (v. 37). The passage then closes with the Lord’s admonition to each of them to take his cross and follow Him (v. 38). Finally, “He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it” (v. 39). It is in this setting (vv. 28-39) that our text is found. To “take his cross” would sometimes necessitate an oral acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. To confess Him publicly could mean persecution (Acts 4:19-21; 5:33-42) and in some instances it was death (Acts 12:1, 2).

(2) The definition of the Greek word homologeo, translated “confess” in Matthew 10:32,33, refers primarily to an oral confession. The expression “confess me” is an Aramaic idiom and is literally, “make his confession in and for me” (see A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the N. T., Vol. 1, p. 83). The confession to be made implies identification or union with Christ.

W.E. Vine defines the word: “to declare openly by way of speaking out freely, such confession being the effect of deep conviction of facts, Matt. 7:23; 10:32 (twice) and Luke 12:8” (Expository Dictionary of N. T. Words, Vol. 1, p. 224).

J.H. Thayer defines the word: “to declare openly, speak out freely, confess” (Greek English Lexicon, p. 446).

Edward Robinson defines it: “to confess publicly, to acknowledge openly, to profess.” Also, “to confess in behalf of any one, i.e. to profess or acknowledge him, Matt. 10: 32; Lk. 12:8” (Greek and English Lexicon, p. 507).

R.C.H. Lenski comments on the word: “The verb really means ‘to say the same thing’ as another, to voice agreement with him, and thus to acknowledge and to confess him” (The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel, p. 421).

William Hendricksen, commenting on the word says: “To profess or ‘confess’ – Christ means to acknowledge him as Lord of one’s life and to do so openly (‘before men’), even in the hearing of those who were opposing him” (Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, p. 473). He also observes that the passage (Matt. 10:32, 33) is an example of antithetic parallelism (verses 32b, 33b; Ibid., p. 473). In view of this, if the context of Matthew 10:32, 33 is “in life, and by one’s life,” then it would follow that the confession of Jesus before His Father in heaven would also be “in life, and by His life.” This would be absurd. Who can believe it? No, Jesus is primarily referring to a lip confession in our passage, as the context shows, and the confession of Jesus before the Father in heaven will also be oral.

(3) The Greek word translated “confess” also means an oral confession in other passages in the New Testament. In Matthew 7:23, the same Greek word is translated “profess.” Jesus said, “then will I profess unto them.” This refers to the day of judgment, and that this profession will be oral, we cannot deny. Paul, in Romans 10:9, wrote: “because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord . . .” It is obvious that this is an oral confession. The gospel of John states (Jn. 12:42), “Nevertheless even of the rulers many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess it.” They failed to acknowledge orally what they believed to be true. Writing to young Timothy, Paul mentions that the young evangelist “didst confess the good confession in the sight of many witnesses” (1 Tim. 6:12). Wc do not know for sure when that confession was made, but probably when he was on trial for his life (see Heb. 13:23). It was an oral confession in face of danger or even death. We read in 1 John 1:9, “If we confess our sins . . .” It is apparent that this confession is oral, not by our life. Likewise, the same word is found in 1 John 4:2: “every spirit that confesseth that Jesus is come. . . . ” No one can deny that this is an oral confession. Then in 2 John 7, “For many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh.” So, in the foregoing passages, the Greek word that is translated “confess” or “profess” is homologeo and in every instance it is to be understood as oral.

We have seen that the context of our passage indicates an oral confession, the Greek word showing the confession to be primarily oral; and other passages where the same word is used plainly illustrate that it is oral. It is true that we confess Jesus by the lives that we live, in addition to our lip profession; but the conclusion that the context of Matthew 10:32, 33 is “in life, and by our life” is a mere assertion and contrary to the teaching of Jesus. We are always to continue confessing Jesus orally as well as by our lives (our profession). We must confess Him in word and deed.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 2, pp. 37, 50
January 16, 1986