Truth Magazine

By Leslie Diestelkamp

Restrictions suggested by the editor require that this be very brief. I shall not waste space with non-essentials. This is to provide some rebuttal to the two review articles by brother Marshall Patton regarding two articles I wrote on continuous forgiveness for the faithful Christian. But at one point brother Patton says that I (L.D.) affirm the absolute necessity of continuous cleansing. Then brother Patton says, “I do not know of anyone who denies this.” But “continuous” means “without interruption.” Well, that is what I am contending for-that the faithful Christian, as long as he is faithful, is kept clean by the grace of God and the shed blood of Christ. Of course, brother Patton teaches that a Christian becomes unfaithful every time he sins regardless of the nature of the sin-that one cannot be spiritually alive while he sins, He teaches that one ceases to walk in the light when he sins at all, and he then is again in the light when he repents. Thus we are in and out, in and out, in and out of the light and of the darkness. We are going to have to be very fortunate if we die “in the light”!

Brother Patton says that I teach that God does not impute sin to the Christian — even while he sins. Please let me state what I do teach on that matter. I teach that God counts every transgression as sin (conversely brother Patton says he doubts that lying, swearing, etc. are always sin). I also teach that God forgives those sins that do not constitute the Christian as walking after the flesh and as living in sin (Rom. 8:1-4; 4:7; 1 Jn. 1:7). He asks, “How can one confess a sin of which he is unaware?” Well, to confess it (specifically) he cannot. But he can confess that he sins and he won’t need to tell the Lord the verse that says so (1 Jn. 1:8). Brethren do it all the time in public prayer, thus: “Forgive all our sins, for we know we do sin.” I take that as an acknowledgment of all sin — even those one does not know about. We all sing, I ‘Forgive the sins we have confessed to Thee; forgive the secret sins we do not see.” But brother Patton asks, “How can we repent of unknown sins?” Well, repentance includes determination to change and we can determine to learn, to grow, to mature and to change as we become aware of sin. No, I do not teach forgiveness without repentance, but I even urge confession of unknown sins.

Brother Patton thinks I was wrong in my discussion of the brethren in Corinth. But I see no evidence that all of those who were involved in squabbling over men or those who were not rebuking the adulterer or those who were eating and drinking unworthily-that all such were spiritually dead. In error, yes; dead, no. He teaches that Peter was lost when Paul scolded him. I find no evidence that this was true. Yes, Peter sinned, but that he was lost is not stated or hinted. Then brother Patton says that in Romans 7:14-25 Paul was not referring to himself at all unless it was when he was Saul, the alien. I think Paul was simply identifying his own humanity for the example of all of us — that he was subject to temptation and was an imperfect man. Brother Patton says some hard things about Abraham (and I did goof — Abraham lied twice, not thrice). Brother Patton says Abraham lied with “aforethought, purpose, plan and intentional design to deceive.” But Abraham is called “the friend of God” (Jas. 2:23) and “the father of us all” (Rom. 4:6). Indeed, I believe Abraham lied twice out of fear – yes out of weakness, not out of willfulness. But he did lie, and he did live, whereas Ananias and Sapphira lied and died!)

Brother Patton says that David, in Psalm 19:12 was circumventing God’s law regarding forgiveness of sins of ignorance. No! David may have made the sacrifices, but there was no law of sacrifice for sin that was unknown-only for those that had become known (see Lev. 3,4). So David was praying for forgiveness of sins about which he had no awareness. Today sacrifice has been made for us in Christ’s death, but we still need the humility to pray for forgiveness of all sins, even the unknown ones. Brother Patton says the publican of Luke 18 was guilty of “wholesale apostasy.” But this is mere assertion. Rather it seems that he was of a contrite heart. And the fact that he was a publican does not mean he was a reprobate, etc. Matthew was also a publican, you know. Brother Patton says some matters are relative and some absolute. Certainly that is true. Yet he says that the music used in worship, the day to observe the Lord’s supper and the pattern for church organization are all absolute-that one does not become proficient in these matters. Thus, he teaches that one must have perfect (absolute) understanding of these matters instantly when he is baptized into Christ. I wonder how he discerned this. It means we must teach each one completely on such matters before baptism.

Now let us notice some things brother Patton did not even mention in his review of my articles: (1) that continuous cleansing is without a satisfactory alternative-because if this is not so, there is no hope at all for any of us; (2) if the blood of Christ does not keep us clean while we walk not after the flesh, then unless we die with a prayer upon our lips, we have no hope.

Indeed, the view brother Patton advocates means that unless we have perfect discernment of God’s word (know every truth without a mistaken interpretation), perfect application of what we know and perfect perception of our own selves (to know our own weaknesses and faults, perfectly) — unless all of this is true of us, we are hopeless creatures. Yes, if the faithful Christian is not cleansed of all sin when he humbly prays with contrite penitence, then we have no advantage over the alien or the heathen. But “in Christ” there is assurance (read Heb. 4:6; 11:40).

Summary

Remember, I have not taught the Calvinistic doctrine of once saved, always saved, nor any other doctrine peculiar to Calvinism! I have clearly taught that “the wages of sin is death” but at the same time I have taught that “the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:23).And I have taught that “if we walk in the light . . . the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin” (1 Jn. 1:7); that there is continuous cleansing for the faithful child of God who walks not after the flesh but after the spirit and who forgives others (Mt. 6:12,15), confesses sins (1 Jn. 1:9), repents and prays (Acts 8:22). Brother Patton has engaged himself in a review of my teaching and has asserted repeatedly that I am in error, that my argument will not bear up under scriptural examination and that I miss the truth. But usually he only asserted — he did not make an examination that proved such. I suggest to readers that you re-examine my first two articles. I will trust your discernment of truth I presented even in view of response that was made. Feel free to write me.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 13, pp. 400, 402
July 4, 1985

By Marshall E. Patton

This article is in reply to brother Diestelkamp’s “Rebuttal” appearing on p. 16. I hope that the demand for brevity and my compliance with it will be appreciated by our readers.

The difference between brother Diestelkamp and me on continual cleansing involved the conditions upon which it is received. His conditions simply involve an attitude of the heart. He insists that one with the proper attitude of heart is forgiven–even as he sins. If this is so, then there is nothing for him to do after he sins in order to be forgiven — he has already been forgiven-even as he sinned. This eliminates repentance! Remember, repentance involves a change of mind that results in a change of action. If one repented before the act of sin, it would preclude the sin in the first place. It would be impossible to repent simultaneously with the act of sin. If one repented after the act of sin, it certainly would not be “as he sinned.” Thus, there is no place for repentance in the cleansing he affirms. I insist that there is only one law of pard6n for the Christian who sins, namely, repentance, confession and prayer (Acts 8:22; 1 Jn. 1:9). I know that elsewhere he affirms repentance as a condition of forgiveness, but such is the inconsistency of his position.

In spite of my effort to be clear, qualify my statement even with emphasis-about his examples of lying, offending, etc., he misunderstood me. For example, I believe that lying is sin, but we differ over what constitutes lying that is condemned in the Bible.

Brother Leslie continues to affirm that some sins committed by Christians “do not constitute the Christian as walking after the flesh and as living in sin (Rom. 8:1:4; 4:7; 1 Jn. 1:7).” Notice, he makes no argument based upon the verses cited-he only asserts. On the contrary, I carefully examined these verses textually and contextually in my review articles showing that they do not teach what he asserts and then showing what they do teach.

Brother Diestelkamp continues to make 1 John 1:9 say something that it does not say. Yes, we all sin (1 Jn. 1:8), but the next verse offers hope only to those who repent and confess what they are guilty of-not that they are sinners. He ignored my argument on this.

Furthermore, the consequences of his position demand acceptance and fellowship with every sincere brother in error, including premillennialists, those of the Christian Church, our liberal brethren, et al. These pray the same prayer and just as often that brother Diestelkamp prays with respect to unknown sins.2 His exclusion of such is purely arbitrary.

At other times, he includes such brethren. In reply to my affirmation that music in worship, the day to observe the Lord’s supper, and pattern for church organization are absolutes, he says, “Thus he teaches that one must have perfect (absolute) understanding of these matters instantly when he is baptized into Christ.” If there is any point to his reply, it is that brethren without such knowledge and who are practicing such are included in God’s fellowship and ours. Thus, his inclusion and exclusion of such brethren is, indeed, arbitrary and inconsistent! Perhaps statements like this from him account for some young men accepting the grace-unity doctrines, using his name in their defense.

When in public prayer we pray “Forgive us our sins,” such presupposes repentance on the part of each individual of what he is guilty. Public prayer is no place to identify each individual’s private sins.

Concerning the Corinthians, Paul, and Peter sinning but not being spiritually dead, I gave a textual and contextual exegesis of the passages involved which he completely ignored. He simply proceeded to express what “I think” (his think so). Look, again at the consequences that followed from Peter’s action as set forth in my articles based upon Galatians 2-Peter “stood condemned” (ASV)!

The fact that Abraham lied and lived and was not struck dead as were Ananias and Sapphira affords no proof that such an individual goes uncondemned. If so, what of all liars today who are not struck dead-are they uncondemned?

If David could have been forgiven of sins of ignorance by the prayer of Psalm 19:12, then the law and sacrifices for sins of ignorance when they became known would not have been necessary (cf. Lev. 3 and 4).

What Matthew, the publican, was before he was called and what he became afterwards may be two entirely different things. Zacchaeus was a publican who made a radical change (Luke 19:1-9). The general attitude toward publicans is clearly set forth by Jesus in Matthew 18:17, and in the absence of any exception one must conclude the publican of Luke 18 to be guilty of wholesale apostasy.

No, one does not have to have perfect knowledge of the duties of a Christian in order to become such. However, in order to observe the Lord’s supper acceptably, he must do so on the right day. So with all other absolutes-perfect obedience is required. In relative matters, one should grow in knowledge and proficiency commensurate with his time, opportunity, and ability (Matt. 25:14-30).

The last paragraph of both my review articles offered an alternative to brother Diestelkamp’s view of continual cleansing. Read them again as well as the following.

Brother Diestelkamp has unduly magnified his “in and out, in and out” situation. The alternative which I offered, involving absolute and relative commands, is not nearly as “in and out” as his position. He has affirmed that there is no hope for the child of God who does not “confess and pray as did the Publican, ‘God be merciful to me a sinner.”‘ Thus, he affirms that general repentance, general confession, and prayer are necessary to forgiveness. If so, one is “in,” and then “out” when he sins — until he meets these conditions. Thus, he is “in and out” as often as he sins. If he sins since last forgiven and dies without meeting these conditions and God forgives him anyway, then such is not necessary as he affirms, and we have forgiveness without repentance-even general repentance. If this general repentance and prayer are necessary, then it follows “unless we die with (this) prayer upon our Ups we may indeed die lost and every hour of every day and night would be a day and hour of misery and fear.” And there goes his assurance.

Brother Diestelkamp’s position, in my judgment, has severe consequences. It makes null and void the warnings: “take heed,” “watch,” “prove,” etc. After all, according to his position, sins of ignorance and weaknesses of the flesh for the sincere Christian are forgiven — even as he sins.

Brethren, “be not deceived.”

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 13, pp. 401-402
July 4, 1985

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: How does Satan go about tempting us today?

Answer: Satan tempts us today in the same way that he has always tempted men. He tempts us through three avenues: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the vainglory of life (1 Jn. 2:16). Eve, in the garden of Eden, was beguiled through these three avenues. God had forbidden Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit of the tree that was in the midst of the garden (Gen. 3:3). Death was the penalty that God had imposed upon this couple should they eat of it. “God hath said, ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.” But the serpent (the devil) seduced Eve, saying to her, “Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:4,5). Then in verse six we are told: “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food (the lust of the flesh), and that it was a delight to the eyes (the lust of the eyes) and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise (the vainglory of life), she took the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat. “

Achan was tempted to sin through these same three avenues. The booty taken from captured cities was devoted to the Lord, and if anyone should take it for himself, he was doomed to destruction. Achan took the devoted (accursed) thing from Jericho (Josh. 7:1); thus he was taken and found guilty. He confessed his sin by saying, “When I saw among the spoil a goodly Babylonian mantle, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight, then I coveted them, and took them; and behold they are hid in the earth in the midst of my tent, and the silver under it” (v. 21). It is obvious that he was tempted by the lust of the flesh when he coveted these items; he was tempted through the lust of the eyes when he saw them and he succumbed to the vainglory of life when he possessed those things which he saw and desired. His sin was progressive: “I saw,” “I coveted,” “I took.”

Satan tempted Jesus in the same way. Jesus had fasted forty days and forty nights and he afterward hungered (Matt. 4:2). The devil appealed to the lust of the flesh when he suggested that Jesus command the stones to become bread (v. 3). He appealed to the lust of the eyes when he showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, promising them to Jesus if He would fall down and worship him (vv. 8,9). He appealed to the vainglory of life when he suggested that Jesus cast Himself down from the pinnacle of the temple, and thus exercise His power of divine protection (vv. 5,6).

Satan is the same Satan today that he has always been, and he is doing his same work by using those same tactics. His goal is to tempt us to evil (Jas. 1: 13,14). He is real and very much alive, which is attested to by our ungodly society. He is active in politics, in social life and in the church. The apostle Peter admonished, “Be sober, be watchful: your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (I Pet. 5:8). We must be aware of his subtleness, for the devil blinds men (2 Cor. 4:4). Paul expressed his concern to the church at Corinth, “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness, your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3). One of the foremost subtleties is to eliminate or hide sin as the cause of misdeeds. For example, some say that criminals are not responsible, but rather they are misunderstood by society, not understood by their friends, parents, and school teachers; or their crimes are due to inhibitions, etc. A fellow gospel preacher well stated it when he said, “It is hard to find an old-fashioned sinner anymore.” We need to realize that sin is prevalent because the devil is ever active.

The most potent counter-attack to Satan is the word of God. With each temptation, Jesus countered with, “It is written.” Peter wrote, “Resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (Jas. 1:7). All men are tempted, but it is not hopeless. We are reminded that Paul wrote, “There hath no temptation taken you but such as man can bear: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation make also the way of escape, that ye may be able to endure it” (1 Cor. 10: 13).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 13, p. 389
July 4, 1985

By Bill Cavender

Recently in the Guardian of Truth there was an article by me entitled “Wages to Preachers.” This was a rewritten and reprinted article that I had written about nine years ago in a church bulletin I edited. Then, as now, the article elicited a number of letters to me from preachers, thanking me for my effort and telling me of problems they had encountered, problems in principle which I had mentioned in the article. It is my purpose now, in this present article, to present two of the letters written to me, deleting the names of the writers and places to which they refer, and deleting the congregations which they have worked with or are presently working with. I hope to follow this article with a series of articles, “Letters To A Young Preacher,” which I trust will be helpful to all preachers, young or old, and to all brethren in their dealings with preachers. The two letters are now presented.

I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed your article on ‘Wages To Preachers.’ It was a topic I feel should be discussed more often in more places. I come from a faithful family that has produced many gospel preachers, men that I admire and have tried to follow their example. Among these men are my uncles, and a first cousin (here he names three well-known gospel preachers-BC). I was a full-time preacher for two years in _________, Kentucky. Before that I was a part-time preacher at ________, Texas. I am now working on my master’s degree at __________ University in ________, Texas, and am preaching part-time with the church in __________, Texas.

“The reason for writing this letter is simply to let off steam and get something off my chest, to mention a few problems that I encountered, that may or may not benefit you or others.

“I received about as much discouragement as encouragement when I first decided to preach, which I couldn’t understand. Nonetheless, I went on. Then came the chore of finding a church that would take a beginning preacher. I spent over $300.00 driving around ‘trying out’ that I was never paid for, just for my expenses. I drove from __________, Texas, one Friday to preach the next day, on Saturday night, over 900 miles to a church in Kentucky. I just barely had time to look over my notes and shave before preaching. One of the men gave me $20.00 and said, ‘This is for your trouble.’ Another church in Kentucky told me they did like me but they were considering another beginning preacher who was unmarried and 20 years old but who had 2 years at ________ College. I was married, 25 years old, and a Viet Nam veteran, and had a college degree from ____________ University. One night at 10:30 they phoned me. I’d been to this church twice in Kentucky and they still hadn’t made up their mind after 2 trips. Well, they finally phoned and said their first choice decided to go somewhere else, and would I come. They had kept me on a string for 2 1/2 months and I needed a job. I told them if a ________ College graduate didn’t want them, that I didn’t either! So I took the offer from _______, Kentucky, which is another story I won’t go into. The problems of this first work and the lack of opportunities for the beginning preacher were so discouraging.

“Another complaint is the big churches with big name preachers, with young men in that church who want to preach. This is how I started along with many other men I know. We went out in the ‘boon docks’ with the small country churches that have been sitting there for years doing nothing. Now this is how it is always done. But is this the best way? To send a young, inexperienced preacher out like this on his own? Maybe this is how it should be to weed out those who ‘really don’t want to preach.’

“The problems encountered in these small churches that these young preachers have no way of handling are so discouraging. They are there to preach and gain pulpit experience. The handling of problems comes with experience which they simply do not have yet. I’ve seen, and have been one, of those young preachers whove been hounded and run off. It would seem to me that it should be the other way around. Let the young preacher stay in the large church with elders to gain experience, in a friendly atmosphere among brethren who are trying to develop this potential gospel preacher. And let the big name preacher go out in the ‘boondocks’ and take on the brethren who just sit back and wait for fresh meat of the young preacher.

“There are big churches that do use young men as a second preacher to train them but there aren’t enough of these churches to take care of all those who want to preach.

“Another complaint is that it was always hard for me and other young men to be able to discuss our problems with the big name preachers, to seek counsel and advice. We always felt we were taking their time or that our problems were too small and childish to bother them with. But to us our problems were big and important.

“While in Kentucky, I met many big name preachers, some of whom I highly respect and admire. Others I do not. Some of these men helped me quite a bit when I went to them with questions. Others did not. I remember talking to one preacher who said he would drive nothing but a big Buick or Cadillac. His car was worth more than my yearly salary. This was a discouragement at the time. I grew tired of hearing preachers and elders ‘putting down hard’ those men who are full-time preachers and being quiet on those who were only part-time preachers. I haven’t met many elders in a large congregation who were willing to stop being part-time elders and leave their high paying jobs and let the church support them, as the church can. But how they encourage men to be full-time preachers!

“And then finally, churches that think they need full-time preachers when they do not. I know of a church right now in the area that was built from scratch, composed of many young families. They built a fine building and hired an exfull-time preacher, who at one time was outstanding but in his later years amounted to little. It seemed to me that they should have fired this man and done the preaching themselves. They had about 10 men who were good speakers. Think of how well they themselves could have grown spiritually if they did the preaching for one or two years, paid for their building and then looked for a full-time preacher. A man learns much more from preparing a sermon than he normally does from hearing it. His whole family could have learned more. It seemed to me a rare chance for those men as a whole to learn and develop. But instead they kept the man they had and as a result lost many members that were discouraged and moved away. They could not afford a new building and preacher at the same time. It is a shame because a good work could have been done in that area. I see all these things happening over and over again.

“I truly love the church and intend to always serve the very best I can. But I will never be a full-time preacher again, unless I am financially independent. However, I will always, if possible, be a part-time preacher because I now see a real need in those small towns and rural churches that cannot afford or attract a full-time preachers. I highly respect any man who is working as a full-time preacher and I understand his problems. One day I hope to be a full-time elder and help solve some of these problems. The most discouragement I ever received was from my own brethren, and many times I didn’t even know why.

“Thank you very much for your kind consideration. I hope I did not appear to be bitter or mad because I am not. But I am concerned and only want to help as I can. And I hope I haven’t made you mad. I am only 27 years old and know I still have a lot to learn. I may change my mind completely in 10 years. But as for now, these problems do exist and are big and important to me. Again, thank you for your time. Yours in Him, _________.”

A second letter I wish to print is from a preacher of 12-15 years experience, a husband and a father, and of good reputation. His letter says:

“Once again you’ve done an excellent job and provided a service to brethen by writing on ‘Wages To Preachers.’ Though I’ve taught on it some, I admit that I’m one of those who is uneasy because of the charges brethren make when you do.

“Let me give you a personal example of how brethren treat preachers. When I moved here, they had someone preaching ‘part-time- who was earning $260.00 per week. With the size of the congreation (175 in attendance) the preacher suggested they hire someone ‘full-time.’ I was hired two years ago. I was told they could pay no more than $400.00 per week (that’s total, everything!), because of their big building payments. But they would evaluate my salary every year and do better when they could. I believed it and with the extra income from our business we felt we could get by. Well, two years have gone by and no raise. But we are making extra payments on our building. Last year we made 8 extra payments on the principal!

“Bill, I learned one thing-you have to deal with the brethren when you first move, because after you get there, you are at their mercy. Another case I know of, first hand, in a nearby congregation. They were looking for a preacher and offering $21,000.00 per year. Finally, they raised it to $23,000.00 to a certain man. He tried out and said, ‘I have to have $32,000.00.’ That upset some of the members, but others said, ‘We can do better.’ Anyway, to make a long story short, they offered him $28,600.00 and he accepted, and last Sunday was his first Sunday there. But there’s an example of a situation, if he had accepted their offer of $23,000.00, he would have been stuck. I wonder? If the brethren could pay $28,600.00, why didn’t they do it in the first place? It’s the old story: ‘the best preachin’ for the least pay.’

“After seeing your article, I just wanted to share those two stories with you to let you know how badly it is needed. By the way, I have resigned here and will be moving sometime this summer. I don’t know when or where yet. Lack of adequate wages was not my only reason for resigning, but I must honestly admit that it was one reason. Of course, in my situation, some think we are getting ‘rich’ in our business, and if we’re making some of the side, the church is not obligated to pay as much. I don’t suppose the members would agree to let their boss cut their pay because they had a side-line income, do you?

“Bill, don’t think I am discouraged over this or am thinking about quitting. I know I could make much more if I devoted my full time to business, but I want to preach. I just wanted to let you know that your article was appreciated and update you ‘information rile’ on actual situations regarding wages to preachers. Best wishes to you and yours. God bless you in your work. Brotherly, _______”

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 13, pp. 387-388, 402
July 4, 1985