Truth Magazine

By Robert F. Turner

The current discussion on “walking in light” has produced more than its. share of ambiguities and contradictions, with some unethical treatment of brethren. These have, however, been thankfully offset by some fair treatment and open study. But the total picture has also revealed our weakness in dealing with basic theological concepts, and that should concern us greatly. We are not theologians-nor do I fault us for that. For the most part, we have been content to dwell on the surface: seeking practical, simple ways of teaching the commands of the gospel, and giving but cursory attention to more basic concepts. But this does not feed with “meat,” nor prepare us to discuss revealed principles that require critical analysis and exegesis. We trip over our own terminology, and contradict principles we would never violate in another context. I freely acknowledge my own inadequacies in these matters, but ask you to carefully consider this effort to improve our study “tools.”

We must seek common ground for a beginning, and “we hold these truths to be self-evident” among the believing students of the New Testament who will likely read this article.

(1) All have sinned, and do “come short,” i.e. continue to sin (Rom. 3:23). The first phrase “gathers up the whole race into one statement (a timeless aorist)”; “and come short. . . ” is “continued action, still fall short” says Robertson (Word Pictures). Aliens sin; and people who have obeyed the gospel also sin; surely there are none who doubt it.

(2) All would be lost save for the grace of God, who forgives sins on the basis of the substitutionary offering of Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:24f). Aliens would be lost without forgiveness; people who have been baptized would be lost without further forgiveness. Does not everyone agree to this? I believe they do.

(3) God has stipulated conditions upon which an alien’s sins will be remitted (faith, repentance, confession, baptism; Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38); and He has given conditions whereby His children will be forgiven (repent, confess and pray; Acts 8:22, Jas. 5:16). Obviously, I am giving abbreviated statements and references, but my readers surely understand, and agree with these basics.

(4) I am persuaded most of my readers will also agree that the citing of unusual or hypothetical cases (a crocodile got him as he was about to be baptized, or before he could say “I have sinned”) do not change these basics. We believe our job is to preach the revealed pattern; and leave “what if” contingencies in His hands.

Now, having these basics in common, how can we have such differing concepts about “forgiveness” and “walking in light” of 1 John 1? I believe the “bottom line” is (1) mechanical exegesis, ignoring contextual effects upon words and phrases; and (2) failure to recognize the grammatical and contextual meaning and use of “walking. ” These errors get us into doctrinal trouble. Then we speculate or invent new “rules” to get out-and only make matters worse. Here we will consider some errors that get us into this mess.

I.B. Grubbs, in Exegetical Analysis, p. 4, says:

The carnal man, as described in Rom. 8:5-8, is the godless man, as standing in full contrast with children of God; but this term is applied with less meaning, of course, to believing “babes in Christ” in 1 Cor. 3:1. And the word is still further contracted in force when applied to Paul by himself, Rom. 7:14, under a comparison with the faultless law of God. It is one of the chief sources of erroneous exegesis that men adopt a sort of arithmetical method of interpretation, and deal with words as if they were numerals, in overlooking the obvious contextual import which they often acquire.

In Romans 6:23 “the wages of sin” is contrasted with “the gift of God,” and “death” is contrasted with “eternal life.” Paul’s sins, and Peter’s, and those of babes in Corinth (1 Cor. 3:3), had not yet reached their eternal conclusion. This does not mean they could not produce such a conclusion. Any sin, unforgiven, will condemn eternally. That is why sinners are warned about all sin. We must “buffet” our body (1 Cor. 9:27); repent, confess, and pray for forgiveness, lest our sins produce the final death. But “a sin” is not 44apostasy” in any and every context. (Apostasy means “abandonment, total desertion of principles or faith.”) Basic error: the mechanical use of terms.

“Walk” is used of one’s continued course of action and life: i.e., the habitual habit and manner of life” (Bullinger, Figures of Speech, p. 832). “Walk” (peri + patomen) is literally “walk about,” “indicating the habitual course of the life” says Vincent. In 1 John 1 it is present, active, subjunctive — ” keep on walking.” Robertson and Davis’ Greek Grammar says present subjunctive”denotes continued or repeated action, ” and “the idea is always linear with no reference to time,” i.e., it is not punctiliar (point action).

B.F. Westcott (on 1 Jn. 1) says, “The whole description refers to the general character and tendency of life, and not to the absolute fulfillment of the character in detail.” Westcott further comments on “walking” when discussing the walk in darkness: saying it means to “choose and use the darkness as our sphere of action. The question is not directly of the specific acts, but of the whole region of life outward and inward. . . . To choose this as our sphere of movement is necessarily to shun fellowship with God.”

To maintain the metonymy, . we could call “a sin” on the part of a Christian a “step” in darkness. It is incompatible with God’s nature. Unrepented of and unfortunate, it can condemn to Hell. But a “step” is not walking-whether It is a right or wrong step, It is not “walking. ” And if we are to clearly establish the proper meaning and use of 1 John 1:6-7, we must refrain from reading into the passage something that is not there. According to our text, we neither maintain fellowship with God by “a step,” nor do we break fellowship with God by “a step.” We do it by “walking” in light or darkness. Can we not leave this teaching as God put it?

But someone says, “How could even a ‘step’ in darkness be acceptable to our God who is light?” It is not acceptable. That is why we are told we must confess our sins (repentance and prayer are understood) to be forgiven. God loved us, and gave His Son to die for us, “while we were sinners” (Rom. 5:8). Does that mean God approved of the alien’s sin? Of course not. Neither does He approve of His child’s sin, but calls on the child to use the blood of Christ for further forgiveness. In 1 John 1 access to the blood of Christ, and His advocacy, are stated benefits of “walking. in the light.” If our brethren could look at the above, free of prejudices and reactions gendered by real or imagined “errors” they have heard, it is difficult to believe they would deny any thing written here.

“Walking in the light” is the equivalent of “fellowship with God,” being “in grace,” “in Christ” “in His body,” “knowing, and being known” of God, “begotten of God,” “children of God,” and many like phrases. All of these states or conditions hinge upon our doing God’s will, but I know of no passage of Scripture that teaches such people achieve sinless perfection. Many of these descriptive phrases vary in their application from context to context, and all of them must be understood in the light of grammar and context (cf. 1 Jn. 3:9). God is absolute light, “in Him is no darkness at all” (1 Jn. 1:5). But He is also absolute love (4:16), purity (3:3), holiness (1 Pet. 1:16), and mercy (Lk. 6:36); and in all these passages we are called upon to be like God. Surely it is clear that we can but poorly and relatively measure up to this ideal. Even in seemingly overt service (singing, etc.) the heart as well as the deed is involved, and only God knows if our heart is acceptable (cf. 1 Jn. 3:20f). That is why we must seek mercy in Jesus Christ.

But someone gets the idea that God forgives those who “walk in light” even as they sin. That is not in the text. And another counters with the idea that one who “walks in light” does not sin. The very opposite is in the text. Another says only certain kinds of sins are “in the light.” (The plot is thickening!) And he is countered by one who says “a sin” of any kind takes us out of the light. (Out of grace, Christ, etc.? How can a wholesale apostate get back? [Isa. 59:2; Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26]) It seems once we have gone beyond the limits of the writer’s purpose, there is no stopping.

Prayerfully, fearfully, we suggest: (1) Quit the use of “continuous” or docontinual cleansing,” and say instead, “continually available.” (2) Cease to speculate on hypothetical cases-to usurp God’s place as final judge. (3) Learn that grace was expressed in Christ “before the world began” (1 Tim. 1:9), and profits us only through the gospel. It is not a “Watkins liniment” to be sprayed on in emergencies. (4) Avoid mechanical interpretation of Scriptures, knowing words and phrases vary according to context. And, (5) Become aware that 1 John 1:6-7 is not discussing “a sin” on the part of a Christian. It is contrasting two conflicting ethical realms-the regions of darkness and light.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 18, pp. 550-551
September 19, 1985

By Sammy Bynum

On the evenings of January 14, 15, 17 and 18, Ed Bragwell, Jr., who preaches for the Golden Springs church in Anniston, Alabama, met Roger Jackson of the Betta View Hills church in nearby Oxford, in a public debate of issues involving church benevolence. The discussion, held in the meeting house of the E and Quintard church of Christ, was attended by an estimated 125-150 each night.

Ed O. Bragwell, Sr. of Fultondale, Alabama, moderated for Ed Jr., who was engaging in his first public debate. Clyde Ray moderated for Roger Jackson, a staff writer for Firm Foundation and widely used by brethren who support human institutions.

It will be our purpose in this article to review and examine some of the major arguments made by each disputant during the course of the discussion.

The First Proposition

The proposition discussed the first two nights and affirmed by Roger Jackson was the following: “It is in harmony with the Scriptures for churches of Christ to contribute from their treasuries to benevolent institutions structured like Childhaven, so that the needs of orphaned children might be adequately met.”

In lieu of Scripture to support his proposition, Jackson’s argumentation consisted chiefly of human reasoning, setting forth emotional and hypothetical situations, and taking verses which address individual responsibility (Jas. 1:27; Gal. 6:10) and trying to apply them to collective church action in benevolence.

Not surprisingly, he began with the assertion that the issue was one of “how” the work of benevolence was to be done, and that the “home” of his proposition was simply a “how.” He further claimed that his proposition would be established by necessary inference based on James 1:27 and Galatians 6:10. Also included in his affirmative argumentation were various statements made to appeal to emotion and prejudice. He enjoyed talking about a petty cash envelope, containing some of the church’s money, out of which he supplied the needs of sinners, and queried whether or not all the members of Betta View Hills would go to hell if they did not repent. Many other efforts in the vein, no more worthy of mention than the latter, were also made in seeming imitation of Woods, Highers, etc.

The main thrust of Jackson’s affirmative was what he referred to as a “component part” argument, in which he purported to have put together elements comprising the “total situation” from Scripture which justified church support of benevolent institutions like Childhaven. In it he included the following points: (1) God has given the church an obligation to orphans; (2) God has not specified the details; (3) Recognition of the true meaning of the word “orphan”; (4) God’s love extends to all men and we are not to do the opposite as His body (Matt. 5:43-48); (5) The church and the home are two distinct institutions; (6) The needs of a destitute child cannot be adequately met without his having or being a part of a home; (7) A home can scripturally meet legal requirements; (8) Legal homes structured like Childhaven are homes; and (9) The church may send funds from its treasury to institutions structured like Childhaven.

Brother Bragwell countered the affirmative arguments of brother Jackson by first pointing out that the discussion was not one of “how” the work of benevolence was to be done-method-but “who”-which organization is to provide for the needy to whom the church is responsible stating that it is the work of the church and not a human benevolent institution. Effectively shown by use of a chart was that the church has no more right to maintain a benevolent institution to do its work of relieving the needy than it does to maintain an evangelistic institution to do its work of spreading the gospel, or an edification institution to do that work for it.

He also noted that Jackson had shown no passage in which a benevolent institution like Childhaven was necessarily inferred, and that it was a misuse of Scripture to apply passages such as James 1:27 and Galatians 6:10 to church activity. He also replied to the various emotional and prejudicial statements by simply pointing out that such were characteristic of denominational attempts to justify unscriptural action or to set aside the teaching of Scripture.

Bragwell countered the “component part” argument by (1) noting that some essential “parts” were missing, namely Scripture showing that benevolent institutions like Childhaven are authorized, and that the church can contribute to it; (2) pointing out that he was assuming the thing to be proven with his last part of the argument, (3) using the same kind of misapplied logic to show that with such any kind of proposition could be proven.

The Second Proposition

The second proposition was affirmed by brother Bragwell the last two nights of the debate. It stated: “The Scriptures teach that the local church in its work of benevolence, may only provide the needs of the saints.”

At the outset of his speeches, brother Bragwell stated the basic issue involved in the proposition. He pointed out that it was not (1) whether churches have a work of benevolence, or (2) what the responsibility of individuals may be in benevolence, but whether a local church is to provide benevolent aid for non-saints from its treasury.

Furthermore he emphasized the importance of respecting scriptural authority by following the New Testament pattern for church benevolence. By examining passages in Acts 2, 4, 6, 11, Romans 15, 1 Corinthians 16, and 2 Corinthians 8-9, he showed that the objects of church relief were always saints, thus limiting church benevolence to saints only. He paralleled the New Testament pattern in benevolence with the pattern found therein with respect to singing, pointing out that just as the exclusive pattern of “sing” authorized d6singing only,” so the exclusive pattern of church benevolence to saints authorized “saints only.”

Brother Bragwell also reminded the audience that since he was in effect affirming a “negative proposition,” that it would be necessary for brother Jackson to give scriptural authority for church benevolence to sinners to sustain any rebuttal.

Brother Jackson’s responses to the affirmative were characterized by the same kind of argumentation that he used when he was in the affirmative-inflammatory and emotionally charged statements, supposition and speculation, and misuse of Scripture-only to a greater extent.

Being weak in scriptural argumentation, his apparent attempt to turn the debate from one based on “thus saith the Lord,” to one muddled by the wisdom of man, was quickly manifest in his stating that the issue was “Can’t the church give to a little child as a token of love,” and whether or not an innocent, hungry orphan would starve before the church would take ten cents from the treasury to feed it. In response to these and a number of other such “classics” (including some absurd statements made in total ignorance about the costs of brother Bragwell’s clothes, car, and living quarters), brother Bragwell aptly noted that such were an admission of being deficient in Scripture.

Jackson replied to Bragwell’s argument on the New Testament pattern of church benevolenct to saints only by conjecturing that Acts 2, 4, and 6 possibly included some nonsaints who were aided. He discoursed on the possibility of their being one or two hundred “walk in” children to the assembly in Jerusalem who were aided out of the treasury.

In response to brother Bragwell’s point that he needed to give Scripture to justify benevolence to sinners, Jackson responded, “I don’t have to prove a dime’s worth of anything.” It might be added that as far as Scripture is concerned, he was pretty true to his statement.

Although using James 1:27 and Galatians 6:10 as he had the first two nights, Jackson sought to make his stand from Scripture at 2 Corinthians 9:13. From there he made the argument that “them” were Christians, and that the “all men” were sinners; thus the churches had helped both saints and sinners. His apparent lack of understanding of the passage was indicated by (1) his stating that there was nothing in the context that would limit “all men” to Christians, and (2) his battle with the straw man argument that all transfer of funds does not constitute fellowship, overlooking the import of koinonias in the verse. In his response to Jackson’s argument from 2 Corinthians 9:13, Bragwell pointed out (1) the limitations of “all” in the context, (2) the meaning of the term translated “distribution,” as indicating the relationship which exists only among Christians, and (3) the fact that such construction as found in the verse is not necessarily mutually exclusive, as he illustrated by Matthew 3:5.

In conclusion, it should be noted that the discussion held in Anniston illustrated that brethren who disagree can do so in a cordial manner, and that such a discussion affords an opportunity for many to hear both sides of the issues which divide brethren. Tapes and charts of the debate are available and can be obtained by contacting brother Bragwell.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 18, pp. 562-563, 566
September 19, 1985

By Dennis C. Abernathy

In the Baptist Standard appeared an article by Jim Lowry concerning a conference taught by John Sullivan who is “pastor” of Broadmoor Baptist Church in Shreveport, LA. The article is entitled: “Sullivan: Church Can Be Hospital, Firing Squad.” In this article Sullivan said he tries to approach problems (Divorce and Remarriage) on the basis of love, mercy and forgiveness rather than legality.” He further said: “The church has to deal with the problems of the family. When dealing with persons who remarry, the church becomes either a hospital or a firing squad.” Sullivan said: “It’s interesting, we are willing to forgive everything but divorce.” “In your church you have to answer if whether you are as ready as Jesus to forgive and reclaim the divorced and remarried persons.” “People are going to marry, even within the church, so they can fit back into society. We need to learn to have a forgiveness that releases from the bondage of guilt and helps us to live in a forgiving community.” Jim Lowry states that “Sullivan performs marriages between divorced individuals and holds the opinion, ‘If they ask forgiveness for the sin of divorce, they are not living in adultery. “‘

A “dilemma” is “a situation involving choice between equally unsatisfactory alternatives.” It seems to me that not a few of our brethren, and a considerable number of churches, are in a dilemma on the matter of divorce and remarriage. A couple is divorced (not for fornication) and then one or both remarries and seeks to be a member of the local church. Here is the dilemma. The church must inform the couple that they are living in adultery and cannot be in fellowship as long as they remain in that condition and that they must repent of the sin (which means to cease the relationship they are in). Realize, too, that there may be children involved and if these people are turned away from the church, the children, more than likely, will grow up alienated from the church. Facing the reality that not many will cease from such a relationship, many of our brethren feel this choice and course of action is too harsh, being void of love and mercy, and is legalistic, therefore unacceptable. On the other hand, they realize what the Bible says concerning divorce and remarriage. To accept divorced and remarried people into fellowship (when the divorce was not for fornication) also seems unacceptable. Hence, the dilemma. Brethren, these situations just do not go away. They must be dealt with in a scriptural way. We must know what the Bible says on this matter and have the courage and conviction of heart and love for the souls of others, to tell them the scriptural course to follow.

I’m afraid that too many members of the church have taken the course outlined by John Sullivan, “If they ask forgiveness for the sin of divorce, they are not living in adultery.” But one cannot be forgiven of adultery until one repents of adultery. And one cannot repent and at the same time continue to live in adultery. If one is living with another that he has no lawful right to, he cannot just say that he is sorry and then go on living with the one he has no right to live with.

Understanding what Jesus said on divorce and remarriage is not the problem leading to the above dilemma, but applying it to ourselves, our friends, and our loved ones is the thing that causes the dilemma.

Jesus is very plain on this subject. It involves those who did the “putting away” and those who were “put away.” A key question is this: Was fornication (adultery) involved in the “putting away”? Why that question, you ask? Jesus said in Luke 16:18 that one who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. He then says that “whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” The only exception to this is when the “putting away” was for fornication (Matt. 19:9). Then, the one doing the putting away (the innocent party) can remarry, and the one who is put away (for fornication) cannot.

But brethren facing a dilemma, will say that two people can divorce for reasons other than fornication and then later when one of the parties remarries, thus committing fornication, the other party can then put that one away (in his mind or in the eyes of God) and be free to remarry. I freely admit brethren, that I have never read that in the Bible. Will you please read it to me?

Jesus said when people divorce, where no fornication is involved, both the one who does the putting away and the one who is put away are living in adultery if they remarry.

In conclusion, all who love God and their fellow man should be willing to forgive another of any sin when the sin is repented of and forgiveness is sought in God’s way. But to say that we as individuals, or the church as the church, should set aside God’s laws on divorce and remarriage because it is difficult to apply in some situations is not tenable. Brethren, think on these things.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 18, pp. 547-548
September 19, 1985

By Ronny Milliner

“And who is my neighbor?” asked a certain lawyer of Jesus. The story that Jesus told in answer to that question shows that my neighbor can be anybody, not just the fellow next door (Lk. 10:25-37). Paul shows in Romans 13:8-14 that our basic duty to our neighbor is to love him.

Love’s Debt

“Owe no one anything except to love one another” (13:8a). Love is the debt we cannot ever pay off. It may seem like we will never get the car or the house paid off, but if time continues those debts can be met, But not love. Every individual on the face of the earth is made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). We must come to respect each person and love him even as God does.

Love’s Design

Paul continues, “For he who loves another has fulfilled the law” (13:8b). A man who truly loves his neighbor will not take his neighbor’s wife. A man who truly loves his neighbor will not take his neighbor’s goods. A man who truly loves his neighbor will not lie about his neighbor. A man who truly loves his neighbor will not covet anything that belongs to his neighbor. No wonder Jesus said concerning the commandments to love God and to love our neighbor that “on these two commandments hang all the Law and the prophets” (Mt. 22:37-40).

Love’s Degree

To what degree am I to love my neighbor? Paul answers, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (13:9b). Of course, this implies that one loves and is concerned about himself to the right degree. I should do for my neighbor even as I would do for myself. The principle of the “Golden Rule” will be followed here (Mt. 7:12).

Love’s Denial

There is a negative side of love. “Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law” (13:10). Have you ever noticed the number of “nots” in Paul’s great description of love in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7? He says, “Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” Loving my neighbor as myself will keep me from abusing or mistreating him in any fashion.

Love’s Directive

Two reasons are given as to why we should love our neighbors. One is that it is time to awaken. The apostle writes, “And know this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand” (13:11-12a). Opportunities to love my neighbor and do him good are quickly flying by. Soon we will be in eternity and time will be no more. Therefore we should hasten to the duties at hand.

The second reason given is that it is time to alter (13:12b-14). We should put off the deeds of darkness, like revelry, drunkenness, licentiousness, lewdness, strife, and envy. The flesh and its lust have no part in the Christian’s life. Instead, we should put on the armor of light, a proper walk, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Conclusion

Do you treat your neighbor like yourself? You should be willing to do so. “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 17, p. 531
September 5, 1985