Have Ye Not Read?

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

Two Interesting Letters

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

Modern Practices Of Sexual Immorality

By Kerry W. Gateley

Physicians are often called upon to deal with a large variety of patient problems which are P not directly caused by physical disorders, but nonetheless contribute to the overall illness of the patient. Not the least of these problems is difficulty resulting from sexual attitudes and perceptions, which may be manifested in bodily complaints or even overt disease. To gain competence in managing these situations, it behooves the physician to become informed in the area of sexual function and dysfunction. I think the information I have gathered in my study of this subject may be of interest to preachers and other Bible students. The source of my data is a book published by the American Medical Association entitled Sexual Problems in Medical Practice (Lief, Harold I., Ed., AMA, Chicago, IL, 1981) and the page numbers cited herein are from that work.

Fornication

As mentioned earlier, the physician needs to possess the knowledge to deal with sexual problems presented to him; if this is true for the physician it is many times more important for the Christian, who, as a servant of the Great Physician, deals in spiritual disease that, if left unchecked, kills the soul. One such ailment is referred to in the book cited as “premarital sex,” “premarital intercourse,” and other such euphemisms; of course, this is known simply as “fornication” in the Bible.

Alfred Kinsey was a pioneer in the study of human sexual behavior; his research revealed a rise in the incidence of premarital relations beginning in the 1920’s, with a slow increase across subsequent decades. Later studies have indicated a sharp shift toward earlier sexual experience occurring in the late ’60’s and early ’70’s (p. 54). Of the adult population, 2007o “accepted” premarital intercourse in 1963, 50% in 1970, and 70% in 1975 (p. 62). Data collected in 1979 revealed that two-thirds of all white women were non-virgins by age nineteen. Other studies have documented that “the great majority of men are non-virgins by their late teens” (p. 54). The widespread acceptance of fornication is beginning to give rise to an interesting phenomenon:

Some subcultures still prize virginity highly; young people in these subcultures who want to remain virgins may feel intense conflict over maintaining a standard no longer adhered to by those outside their subculture. On the other hand, as permissive attitudes become more widespread, shame or anxiety over not losing one’s virginity may increase. Young people may feel ashamed or abnormal if they have not experienced coitus by late adolescence (p. 56).

(I might parenthetically note that by this statement Christians constitute a “subculture” in today’s society.)

Of course, fornication isn’t the prerogative only of the young:

. . . the trend toward non-marital sexuality, although most visible among the young, has apparently increased in all age groups. A sizable proportion of adults in their middle years live outside marriage, at least for a while, after divorce or a spouse’s death. They participate in non-marital sexuality as do their children, and fewer conceal behavior that years ago they might well have carried out surreptitiously. Many people over 65 also cohabit, some to avoid losing Social Security and other pension benefits, but others simply because they can accept sexuality outside marriage (p. 56).

This “liberation” of sexual attitudes has exacted a great cost in misery. In 1976 about 780,000 teenage premarital pregnancies occurred. Roughly 530,000 of these terminated in either abortion or miscarriage; of course, the remaining pregnancies resulted in 230,000 illegitimate children. Some 320,000 additional teenage pregnancies involved girls who married before or after birth occurred (p. 58), but studies have indicated that half of these marriages will end in divorce (p. 57). Of course, teenage parents are often forced by the demands of marriage and parenting to drop out of school. Consequently, many lack the qualifications for stable employment, and must depend either on their parents or public welfare for their livelihood (p. 58).

A discussion of the price paid for the “sexual revolution” would be incomplete without mention of the sexually transmitted diseases (formerly known as venereal diseases, or “VD’s”), Gonorrhea is one of our country’s most prevalent infectious diseases. In the three years up to 1981, one million cases of gonorrhea were reported annually the actual number of those infected is probably closer to two million annually. Nearly 90% of these cases occur in the 15-30 year age group. The disease is more severe in females, who suffer 90% of the complications and accrue 85% of the costs attributed to gonorrhea (p. 309). Ten to 20% of women with gonorrhea will develop pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). As the name implies, PID is a generalized inflamation of the pelvic organs; it is the most common cause of sterility among women and a major cause of pelvic surgery and abnormally placed pregnancies (p. 314). Other diseases, such as genital herpes with its well known painful, recurring genital blisters, are also a growing fraction of our payment for “sexual freedom.” Promiscuity can only give rise to further spread of these diseases; certain strains of gonorrhea are already becoming insensitive to penicillin, an almost inevitable result of the widespread use of this antibiotic to control the disease.

As disheartening as the obvious physical consequences of this sin are, what about the unseen spiritual carnage? We cannot be mistaken here: Although the attitude of our society toward “premarital intercourse” may have changed considerably, the attitude of the Word of God toward “fornication” has changed not at all. Paul says that the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord (1 Cor. 6:13). Fornication is one of the deeds that Paul told the Ephesians was not once to be named among them, “as becometh saints” (Eph. 5:3). The Thessalonians were told that abstinence from fornication was the will of God, and part of their sanctification (1 Thess. 4:3). The act is a work of the flesh, and as such will prevent inheritance of the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:19-21). Society’s vacillating morals are based on the shifting sand of public opinion, but ours must continue to be based on the Rock of the Word!

What direction, then, shall we take? Naturally, we must continue to denounce this sin in preaching and teaching. Beyond this, the home must assume a major responsibility. It is not enough to try to blame the problem on things beyond our control-for example the availability of oral contraceptives. A 1976 study (16 years after the “pill” became available) showed that most sexually active teenagers had never used oral contraceptives “regularly, if at all” (p. 55). In a study of pregnant adolescents and their parents, it was discovered that, parents were often taken by surprise when their teenager became pregnant, even though those parents were usually aware that most of the adolescents in their neighborhood were sexually active (p. 56). These parents were “genuinely shocked” at their daughters’ pregnancies even though they were aware of the immoral influence surrounding their children. Indeed, as our society’s mores have changed, the lax attitude toward premarital sex has become pervasive. Perhaps the parents who were “genuinely shocked” in the aforementioned study failed to listen to what their children were listening to on their stereos, and neglected to view what their children were viewing on their televisions. The wise man said, as a man thinks in his heart, that is what he is (Prov. 23:4). If a person’s thoughts are constantly directed toward sexual immorality, whether by television or movies or whatever, what will that person become? Jesus said a good man brings forth that which is good from the good treasures of his heart, the evil man evil things from the evil treasure of his heart (Lk. 6:45). If the treasure of the mind is continually filled with ideas of lust, licentiousness, and sexual permissiveness, what will inevitably proceed from that mind?

What can be done? Parents, as a young man I urge you to be aware of the nature of the treasure that televisions, radios, magazines, books, and friends are trying to store in the hearts of your children. I suggest that you make sure their hearts are filled with these instead: whatever is true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, and gracious; things of excellence, and things worthy of praise (Phil. 4:8). See to it that the attitude in your home is one of “thinking on these things,” and not on the turpitude of the world. Most of an, make certain that your children know what the Scriptures say on these things!

Adultery

This work of the flesh is also known as an “extramarital sexual relationship.” Somewhat less research has been done in the realm than in that of premarital sex. Kinsey (mentioned earlier) reported that about half of all married men and one-fourth of married women had engaged in extramarital sex at least once by age 40. More recent data indicated this rate to be steady among men but rising in women (a Redbook study indicated that among women born in the 1930’s, 40% had had extramarital intercourse) (p. 62).

Although attitudes concerning adultery have altered less rapidly than those involving fornication, they are changing nonetheless:

. . . A minority view of intimacy, but a growing one, is the diffuse and partial one. According to this view, one person cannot satisfy all of another’s needs for intimacy, and there is room in one’s live for several (perhaps almost equally important) sources of support, friendship and sharing on an emotional if not also on a physical level . . .. Some marriage counselors agree that the diffuse view of intimacy is more realistic and that the total view (i.e., keeping to one mate for life-KWG) expects too much from a mate, thereby inviting resentment and disillusionment (p. 63).

Much of what has already been written about fornication applies equally well to adultery; God’s condemnation of it has not changed, even though we are witnessing the “glorification” of adultery in the entertainment media, where it is accepted and ultimately expected. Once again, if we allow our minds to be filled with this treasure of death, we cannot but anticipate the results. Jesus said if we harbor that illicit lust in our hearts, we are already adulterers (Mt. 5:28). With the lascivious attitude prominently displayed by many in our society we must take special care to “guard our hearts with all diligence, for out of it are the springs of fife” (Prov. 4:23). The person who dishonors the God-given institution of marriage by an “extramarital sexual relationship” in thought or in deed renounces his inheritance in the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9-10) and draws upon himself the judgment of God (Heb. 13:4). To a man who loves his wife “even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave Himself for it” (Eph. 5:25), the concept of turning one’s desires to another woman should be as repugnant as the thought of Christ denying His Bride; to a woman who is submitted unto her husband “even as unto the Lord” (Eph. 5:22-24), the idea of submitting herself to another man should be as repulsive as the notion of the Church in rebellion to Christ. Such unfaithfulness we can never imagine!

Homosexuality

While premarital sex and to a less extent extramarital “affairs” have insidiously, gradually become widely accepted, the recent vociferous demands of the “homosexual community” for approval of their “alternate lifestyle” have with alacrity been thrust upon us. As always, it hasn’t taken too long for their position to begin gathering general acceptance with the public. In 1974 the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from its classification of mental illnesses (p. 78). (Healed by the almighty Ballot Box1) As in other areas that the Bible calls “sin,” proposals have been put forth suggesting that homosexuality is a result of “aberrant fetal biology,” thus attempting to diminish or abolish the role of choice in the state of the homosexual (p. 71).

Approximately 3 to 6% of American adult males are predominantly or exclusively homosexual, while 1 to 3 % of adult females are believed to be so. This translates to anywhere from six to eight million people in the United States today (p. 78). Further, perhaps as many as 33016 of all people will have had some kind of homosexual activity in their lives (p. 71).

In the face of growing public acceptance, “genetic” theories, and militant “gays,” what can we say? What the Bible has always said-homosexuality is sin. In I Corinthians 6:9-10, we read that homosexuals have no part in the kingdom of God. The familiar passage in Romans 1: 18-32 describes the awful state of the homosexual among those rebellious to God. It is certainly hard to conceive of the depths to which the noble human being, made after the likeness of God, can sink! Yet it is true that the further man drifts from God, the more like the animals does he become. As the brightness faded from Moses’ face after his return from the presence of God on Mt. Sinai, so does the glorious light of God’s image wane on the souls of men who turn their faces from God! One study revealed that one-half of white and one-third of black homosexual males reported having had at least five hundred different sexual partners; another one-third and one-fourth, respectively, reported between 100 and 500 partners. Among the white homosexuals in this study, 79% said that more than half of their partners were strangers and 70% said they had sex only once with more than half their partners (the figures among black males were 51016 and 38%, respectively) (p.77). The mind is boggled at such gross depravity, yet the author goes on to say:

The fact that a predominant number of homosexuals (males, essentially) have numerous, and frequently changing, sexual partners who are strangers may or may not be indicative of pathology. There are not exactly comparable data for heterosexuals, but whatever data do exist indicate that heterosexual partner number and frequency of change are typically a fraction of that of many or most homosexuals. It is easy to make value judgments (as distinct from psychiatric judgments) about having so many casual partners, but such judgments may have little basis other than moral prejudice or even envy (p. 78).

No, Christian, envy should be the last emotion we feel for the homosexual, the adulterer, or the fornicator, even though envy of them seems precisely what our society wants to promulgate within us. Even though the preaching of the Word may be “out of season” in our present age, we must preach it and live it nonetheless! As a young man, the experiences and impressions of my youth are still fresh in my memory, and thus with conviction I can exhort: Parents, teachers, and preachers, do not assume that the sins that have been discussed are remote from you and your children, or that it is impossible for those of your family or congregation to become entangled therein. A mountain is worn to a plain by the constant, gentle touch of the rain; even the strongest faith may be weakened to breaking by the unrelenting and subtle assault of the evil influences around us, if they are allowed to progress unopposed. As it is written, “Let him who thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 13, pp. 386, 404-405
July 4, 1985

God’s Plan For Man’s Salvation

By Robert F. Turner

Ask your Bible class to explain briefly “The Plan we of Salvation,” and many will be content to say, “Faith, Repentance, Confession, and Baptism” or the like. I could tell you flatly that is not a complete answer, and leave you in shock; or we can study our subject and the place of faith, repentance, confession, and baptism in that plan, and perhaps all will gain a better perspective of important material.

The commands, faith, repentance, confession, and baptism, are not found as a stated unit in the Scriptures, as most of you know. For that matter, the expression “plan of salvation” is not found in the New Testament. The demoniac woman of Philippi said of Paul and his company, “These men . . . show unto us the way of salvation,” (Acts 16:17) although I know of no one who would insist she referred to faith, repentance, confession, and baptism. The gospel is called “the power of God unto salvation,” (Rom. 1:16) and the word of truth is the “gospel of your salvation” (Eph. 1:13); but responsible exegetes realize there is far more under consideration here than faith, repentance, confession, and baptism. Please note, “more . . . than,” for we are not pitting “The Man” against “The Plan,” nor do we accept the fallacious argument that “gospel” is limited to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. We seek means of impressing you with basic elements in God’s plan for man’s salvation which will be missed if we limit ourselves to thinking faith, repentance, confession, and baptism every time we hear “plan of salvation.”

We can not know God’s full purpose in creating man, but Scriptures indicate there was a “plan” for innocent obedient creatures. Paul told the Athenians God made man to “seek the Lord . . . feel after him, and find him” (Acts 17:24-27). From the Roman letter we learn all men are expected to “glorify” God and “be thankful” (1:21). Such praise, honor, and “glory” could not come from brute beasts nor from men who were but puppets without a will of their own. God’s plans for man necessitated moral creatures with the power of choice — and that is exactly how man was made. God gave man something of Himself, for he made him “in the image of God”: capable of forming purposes, and directing thoughts and actions to attain these ends. Man can say “Yes” or “No” to his Maker — something many theologians find impossible to swallow. But what seems a divine limitation is in reality God’s plan to attain eternal purposes. Obviously, man can not say “No” with impunity. The absolute sovereignty of God is vindicated in final judgment.

Did God know man would sin? Yes, He did, although we remind the reader that foreknowledge is not the same as foreordination. God knew man would sin, but this does not make God responsible for sin. On the contrary, at great cost His plan for man’s redemption from sin before man was created. Ephesians 1:4 tells us we were chosen “in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world.” This is the “eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3:1). God “saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began” (2 Tim.1:9). Careful study of the above will greatly assist us in understanding “grace,” as well as God’s plan for our salvation, for they are inseparable.

God acts in keeping with His nature. Being a just God, “the soul that sinneth, it must die.” But God is also merciful, and “full of grace and truth.” Paul says sinners are “justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:24); i.e., in Christ’s death on behalf of sinners (v. 25; 5:8-9). Look at it carefully! We are justified (freed of guilt, forgiven) by grace (God’s benevolent disposition toward man), through redemption (a buying back process); namely, Christ’s blood (His life, given in our stead). I sinned, therefore I should die. But God gave His Son to die in my stead: “that he might be just” (consistent with His justice) “and the justifier” (merciful, consistent with His grace), of those who believe (put their trust in Him).

Here is God’s plan for man. Having made him a self-determining, free moral agent, God intended man, of his own free will, to love and praise his Creator. Failure on man’s part condemned man to eternal separation from God. But there is God’s plan for man’s salvation. He freely gave of Himself (His Son) to die in man’s stead (Isa. 53) and promised to forgive all who would, of their own free will, put their trust in Christ. The means of salvation is Christ; the operation of salvation is forgiveness; and the condition for salvation is faith – complete loving, obedient trust. Forgiveness at the point of obedient faith is not a denial of grace; it is wholly consistent with God’s purpose in making these free moral agents.

The woman soothsayer of Philippi said the Philippians had been shown “the way of salvation” (Acts 16:17). Judging by what follows, she must have referred to Christ. We can know that when the Philippian jailer asked what he “must do to be saved,” he was told to “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ” (vv. 30f). This is no “faith only” passage, as the context clearly shows, but emphasis is given to faith in Christ as a basis for all that followed. Repentance, confession, and baptism are the results of a proper trust in the Savior who died for us. They are embodied in the condition (faith) as stated in Romans. The same principle is observed in all New Testament sermons.

On Pentecost, Peter preached the resurrected, glorified and enthroned Christ. Then, when believers asked what to do, they were told to repent and be baptized. Note the emphasis in Acts 3. In Acts 8 Phillip preached Christ as ruler (kingdom) and means (name) to lead Samaritans to baptism (vv. 5,12). To the Eunuch, he began with Isaiah 53 and preached Jesus (Acts 8:35f). An explanation of Isaiah 53 is a most appropriate way to preach Christ today and to lead people to want to obey Him in baptism.

Walter Scott is credited with having “organized” what many call the “Plan of Salvation” about 150 years ago. (His “order” was faith, repentance, baptism, remission of sins, gift of Holy Spirit — five items he counted on his fingers.) Scott knew that Christ was our Savior, but he assumed common ground with his hearers and moved from that to fight “faith only” and “experience of grace” advocates. T.W. Brents in his great book The Gospel Plan of Salvation, said Christ was “the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world” (Intro.); and “the elect one . . . on whom others believe to their salvation” (p. 17). Then he stated his immediate purpose: “We are more concerned in examining the election of men . . .” And our emphasis, for the past 150 years, has been on just this. But while we were telling people what to do, we have to some extent slighted the gift of God that gives meaning to that obedient faith. This ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. To truly appreciate and have others to appreciate the glorious gospel of Christ, we must resolve to preach a balanced “Plan of Salvation.”

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 13, pp. 390, 407
July 4, 1985