Truth Magazine

By Don Willis

It has been said, “A little knowledge is dangerous.” Mankind is a finite being; i.e., he is limited in all attributes. Therefore, we have but limited knowledge. The twentieth century man has more available information that he might be more knowledgeable.

When one feels that he knows it all, he becomes dangerous. The Bible is God’s complete, all wise counsel. The Bible affirms, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Modem science is ready and anxious to discredit what the Bible says. God asked Job:

Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare if thou hast understanding (38:2-4).

Later God asked Job, “Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place?” Man cannot control time, space, etc. But all is at the command of the Almighty God!

The scientist is foolish who discredits what God has said. To prove God wrong, one would have to know everything . . . because if there was one thing that man did not kril6w, it just nuight be that God is, and that His power is all that it is said to be.

Faith, how simple it is! How consoling to the inner man to acknowledge God and submit in trusting confidence to His supreme being.

Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? . . . I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded (Isa. 45:9,12).

“Nay but, 0 man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?” (Rom. 9:20).

Modern man is quick to argue against the mighty revelation of God to His people. The Jew will argue with the manifestation of Jesus as the Messiah. His Deity is proven by prophecy, miracle, teaching, and the ultimate, by the resurrection from the dead (Rom. 1:4). Yet, many continue to argue with God about this.

The Calvinists continue to argue with God. They teach that “faith only saves.” The Bible teaches that faith saves, but it is the obedient faith. Demons believe . . . but they are lost! Will one continue to argue with God?

Baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:28; 22:16; Mk. 16:16). Still popular religious institutions repudiate the plain teaching of the Bible. They simply do not have adequate faith to accept what the Lord commands. They will attempt to argue with God and the Bible. One favorite expression is: “I know the Bible teaches that, but I don’t believe it is necessary.” If one knows the Bible teaches it, then saving faith requires that it be accepted! Why argue with God? Why keep the soul in jeopardy? Saving faith says, “Speak Lord, thy servant hearest.” The servant asked Naaman, “If the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he said to thee, Wash, and be clean?” (2 Kings 5:13).

Quit arguing with God, and move to obey Him!

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

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