Truth Magazine

By Irven Lee

There are capable men, both young and old, who have an earnest desire to go into areas where there are very few, if any, members of the Lord’s church. They know that many are supported to work in such areas, so they seek help that they may be supported to give full time to such an effort. Who could condemn this?

It seems that the more ideal situation exists when men go to the field to plant the truth and churches on their own send to them. Paul worked with his own hands making tents until help came. His letters were expressions of gratitude rather than appeals for help. His work in earning for himself became an example by which he did some of his teaching. (Please read Phil. 4:10-19; 2 Thess. 3:7-12; Acts 18:14; 20:33-35; 2 Cor. 11:7-12.)

It would be good if more strong men realized that they could go into special fields of need and work with their own hands while serving the Lord. Some of the best work that I have done in the Lord’s church may have been in the two decades in which I taught math in high schools. It did take some day and night work, but that was not new (Acts 20:31; 2 Thess. 3:8). The time may be approaching in this worldly generation when more good preachers will have to “make tents.”

What do men actually do who go to preach in areas away from those who support them? Paul said, “I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publicly and from house to house” (Acts 20:17-35). Many faithful men, in a similar way, stay busy today. Study is one important way one can occupy his time in this age when men are not inspired. There should be a happy balance between time spent in study and time spent with people. Do some preachers who are in the “mission field” spend heir time very much as retired people do?

People who desire support to go preach should look first among those who know them. Paul was supported by those who knew and loved him. If a man we have never seen or heard of calls us by telephone to ask us if we would help him find twenty-four thousand dollars per year to be sent to him in some area we know nothing about, we are at a loss to find any positive answer. If he people who know him well do not support him, should we? There may be a few who count the support the primary aspect of their mission. They are bored by secular work.

Some should not go into difficult fields because of their lack of knowledge, faith, zeal, willingness to work, common sense or wisdom, etc. Elders need to know what they are doing and whom they are supporting when they dispense the funds. The supply of funds is not inexhaustible, and there are many good works to be supported.

Some churches accumulate many thousands of dollars in the banks to the great benefit of the banks and with no good spiritual reason. This is a big world, and we need to do what we can to help. The sick world needs word from the great Physician. Is there any sign of wisdom in storing back funds in the bank? Is indifference, selfishness, or some other reason back of this? Some churches who are much troubled by lack of unity may have trouble agreeing on where and to whom the money should be sent. People give more when good use is being made of the funds.

In some areas churches are giving to many good people so that their checking accounts are low. There must be an increase in contributions or no more promises of help. It is sad but true that some churches have reached a point of zero growth. They grew in numbers for a while and in the spirit of giving as their incomes increased. There is danger that they will lose their first love as they come to be satisfied and will cease to put forth special effort to evangelize their own communities. Their giving to evangelists in other fields may become a sort of form with little interest in the work being supported. This is a sad note. Some wells of support are drying up.

One who receives financial help should write a thank you note often and include information on efforts, accomplishments, and problems for the maintaining of interest and concern in the supporting church. Any church that is putting thousands of dollars into a work each year certainly deserves to hear what is happening at the other end of the line. Some through ingratitude, thoughtlessness, or some other cause can hardly be persuaded to report with any regularity. Would it be all right to stop sending the checks?

Some who preach need to go far from those who support them because their conduct, disposition, and lack of zeal are such that the supporting churches would not support them if they knew them better. Let us give thanks for the many effective workers who are grateful to the supporting churches and happy in seeing the fruits of their labors where they work. Keep the good work going. Such good workers (laborers) are worthy of their hire.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 13, p. 391
July 4, 1985

By Marshall A. Patton

In brother Diestelkamp’s second article on the issue of continual cleansing entitled “A Necessary Negative,” he quotes a paragraph from a personal letter from brother Willis which in his judgment is a clear, concise, summation of brother Willis’ position. He then proceeds to reply by reviewing the paragraph sentence by sentence, numbering the sections of his reply.

In section one, in reply to brother Willis’ statement “that anytime a Christian sins he dies spiritually,” brother Diestelkamp presents a picture of things brethren in the Corinthian church were guilty of and then says, “Yet Paul addressed them in the first chapter of his first epistle to them with very endearing terms and with no indication that they were dead spiritually.” Brother Diestelkamp needs to look again, because there is a clear indication that the guilty individuals were spiritually dead. He has failed to distinguish between the church and church action and individuals within the church who were guilty of sin. How long before God removes the candlestick of a church (Rev. 2:5) for its failure in duty is another issue. Those guilty of immorality were to be “delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” The spirit (soul) of the guilty was lost and needed to be saved – in spite of the endearing terms used in addressing the church. Those guilty of misusing the Lord’s Supper were eating and drinking damnation to themselves (1 Cor. 11:29) – in spite of the endearing terms used in addressing the church. While there is further evidence, this suffices to show that the guilty in Corinth were spiritually dead, Brother Diestelkamp’s concept, when “tried on for size,” is a misfit in the light of scriptural examination.

In the same paragraph he appeals to Peter and Paul as examples of Christians who sinned yet were not lost at the time they sinned. This, too, will not bear up under the light of scriptural examination. His example of Peter is found in Galatians 2:11f. The primary design of the second chapter of Galatians is to show that a Christian cannot be justified by the works of the law; that Christians ought not to revert to it so as to imply that justification was by such law keeping. Peter’s action was an example of such. Hence, Paul said, “I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed (“stood condemned,” ASV) . . . If thou being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (Gal. 2:11-14). Furthermore, such action while seeking justification by Christ causes one to be found a sinner and makes Christ the minister of sin (v. 17). No wonder Paul adds: “God forbid” (v. 17). That is not all. Paul shows further that by reverting to his former life one was building again the things formerly destroyed and thereby made himself a transgressor (v. 18); that such frustrates the grace of God and makes the death of Christ in vain (v. 21). Yet, all that brother Diestelkamp sees in this is a little “scolding” from Paul.

His use of Paul and Romans 7:14-25; 1 Corinthians 9:26, 27 misses the truth just as badly. The Romans passage does not refer to Paul as a Christian! By use of the personal pronoun “I,” he personifies mankind apart from Christ and he refers to himself while he was without Christ. Verse fourteen makes this evident: “. . .I am carnal, sold under sin.” The “I” here is one bought and owned by sin – in bondage to sin – hence, without Christ. No matter how much such a person strives to attain unto righteousness, he fails and can only cry: “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (v. 24). Paul immediately answers in verse twenty five: “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” He then presents a picture of freedom in Christ in the beginning of chapter eight: “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus . . . For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the tlaw of sin and death” (Rom. 8:1, 2). These verses present a contrast between bondage and freedom, between one without Christ and one in Christ. It certainly is not a picture of one spiritually alive while at the same time he is sinning. Again, it is the size of brother Diestelkamp’s argument that does not fit in the light of a textual and contextual study.

1 Corinthians 9:26, 27 implies victory, not defeat, over temptations. By “buffeting” the body we, too, may withstand, endure, overcome.

Our brother then appeals to 1 John 5:16 which deals with “sin not unto death” and “sin unto death.” According to his comments, the former is a sin of one whose heart is right and the latter is a sin of one whose heart is not right. He gives as an example of each: “Ananias and Sapphira lied and died. Abraham lied three times and lived (see Acts 5:1-10; Gen. 12:13; 20:5; 26:7).” Our brother’s count on Abraham is in error – Abraham lied twice – the later reference involves Isaac. His use of 1 John 5:15 is very much in error and is completely void of any textual or contextual exegesis. His position will not bear up under such study.

God will not give “life” (forgiveness) to a brother guilty of “sin unto death” when we pray for such, because such would not be “according to his will” (v. 14). He will give “life” (forgiveness) to a brother guilty of “sin not unto death” when we pray for such, because such is “according to his will” (v. 14). The fact that God must give life indicates spiritual death on the sinner’s part. God’s will in this matter is set forth plainly in 1 John 1:9 “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Therefore, “sin unto death” is a sin of which a brother will not repent and confess. All the prayers of all the faithful will not cause God to save either an alien or a saint contrary to His will.

Now look at what brother Diestelkamp has done in the case of Abraham. The lie Abraham told was with forethought, purpose, plan and intentional design to deceive. Heretofore he has affirmed only a limited coverage for sins, namely, inadvertence, ignorance, and weakness. Now, in the case of Abraham, he goes all the way with Calvinism and affirms coverage for a willful, deliberate, intentional sin. I know he denies teaching this elsewhere in what he writes and teaches – “O Consistency, Consistency, thou art a jewel.”

Concerning section 2, I know of no law of pardon for a Christian except the one stated by Mike: “he must repent of his sin, confess it and pray.” However, there is a difference between repenting of and confessing what one is guilty of and in enumerating specifically every instance of that guilt. The latter is not necessarily a part of the former and ought not to be forced upon one as such.

The publican of Luke 18:3, in the light of what is revealed and in the absence of anything to the contrary, was guilty of wholesale apostasy, and the word “sinner” must be understood with that connotation. Even Jesus shows the general attitude toward publicans from a spiritual viewpoint (Matt. 18:17). If one is guilty of wholesale apostasy, that is what he should confess. If, however, he sins while striving to live as a Christian, he should confess only that of which he is guilty. In both instances one confesses the what of his guilt – and only then should it be to the one or ones against whom the sin was committed.

Psalm 19:12 needs more study than space win here permit. Suffice it to say that in view of God’s plan for forgiveness of sins of ignorance in that day (Lev. 4 and 5), David was circumventing God’s ordained plan, if brother Diestelkamp’s position be true.

There is some doubt in my mind that the examples submitted by brother Diestelkamp, under the conditions described by him, constitute sin. However, there are hypothetical situations that are difficult to handle in the tight of revealed truth. No man however, should presume beyond that which is revealed! Cases like the alien who is killed on his way to be baptized must be left in the hands of the Great Judge. It is His prerogative to grant clemency commensurate with justice. Yes, I think too many are “whittling on God’s end of the stick.”

In section 4 brother Diestelkamp again misuses 1 John 2:1. This “advocate” does not act in our behalf unconditionally. The context demands a confession based upon repentance (1 Jn. 1:9), which necessarily involves “ceasing the practice of sin.” Short of this we have no assurance that the “advocate” will act in our behalf.

God does not demand perfect knowledge of truth or perfect living of any man. God’s judgment in many matters will be in relation to our time, opportunity, and ability (Matt. 25:14-30). Hence, these are relative. Everything in which one grows or becomes proficient with time and opportunity are indeed relative. In these matters one’s faithfulness is in proportion to his sense of responsibility and spiritual appreciation. One is not born into the kingdom with a full measure of such. However, some conditions of faith are absolute. One does not become proficient in the kind of music used in worship, the day on which he observes the Lord’s Supper, or in observing the pattern of the church organization and work. Carefully distinguishing between the relative and the absolute will solve many problems posed by some.

I look forward to brother Diestelkamp’s reply and fervently pray that this study may be of spiritual benefit to all.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 12, pp. 368-370, 375
June 20, 1985

By Leslie Diestelkamp

In the last issue of Guardian of Truth I had an article entitled “A Requested Affirmation.” Brother Mike Willis had repeatedly asked me to write an affirmative of my convictions regarding forgiveness for the Christian. I submitted that affirmative with the understanding that I then be allowed to present a negative regarding some of the teaching Mike has done on this same subject.

I have genuine appreciation for many, many fine articles in Guardian of Truth in recent times, but I have serious negatives to offer with regard to many of Mike’s editorials over the last several years. In this brief review, it will be impractical for me to quote at length from the many editorials to which I object, but in a letter to me dated October 8, 1984, Mike summed up those arguments he had made, and did so very neatly and briefly. I quote his full paragraph as follows:

For the sake of further clarification regarding my views of what sin does to a person in order that both of us can understand each other more accurately, let me make these comments. I believe that any time a Christian commits a sin, he stands condemned (Gal. 2:14) or he dies spiritually (Gen. 3). In order to be forgiven of that sin, he must repent of his sin, confess it, and pray for forgiveness from the Lord. I do not believe that a man can stand justified before God so long as he continues in the practice of sin. Though there are many circumstances which brethren can imagine to which I cannot give the answer, I know of no Bible verse to which I can direct a man who commits a sin of weakness, ignorance, inadvertence, or presumption which teaches that he can stand justified in the sight of God without ceasing the practice of his sin.

After years of correspondence with Mike, I believe the above paragraph does indeed express exactly what Mike believes and teaches. If you would add up all that he has written on this subject, the above paragraph would summarize it all. So let us consider, as follows:

Reviewing Each Sentence

1. Mike says that anytime a Christian sins he dies spiritually, or stands condemned. Let’s try that on for size! The brethren at Corinth were guilty of division, of compromising with immorality, of going to law with each other, of mis-use of the Lord’s supper and of some other things. Yet Paul addressed them in the first chapter of his first epistle to them with very endearing terms and with no indication that they were dead spiritually. Peter was weak in the flesh and was guilty of dissimulation — needed to be blamed — but there is no indication that he was lost at the time (and we don’t even know what his reaction was to Paul’s scolding). Paul admitted that he had to struggle with his own flesh and that he sometimes didn’t do what he wanted to do, etc. (see Rom. 7:14-25; 1 Cor. 9:26, 27).

Certainly, if we live in sin (Rom. 6:1,2), we die spiritually and stand condemned. If we practice the “works of the flesh,” we cannot enter the kingdom of God (see Gal. 5:19-21). There are sins unto death” and “sins not unto death” (1 Jn. 5:16). Most of all, there are people who sin whose hearts are not right with God (Acts 8:21), and there are those who sin whose hearts are indeed right with God and whom God forgives. For example, Ananias and Sapphira lied and died. Abraham hod three times and lived (see Acts 5:1-10; Gen. 12:13; 20:5; 26:7). This does not mean that sincerity will save a person who follows a false doctrine and thus is not “in Christ,” or who does not follow faithfully. But it surely does mean that some sins of weakness, ignorance or inadvertence that are committed by faithful Christians whose hearts are right with God, are forgiven and not reckoned against those people (see Rom. 4:7,8; 1 Jn. 2:1).

2. Mike says that in order to receive forgiveness of that sin “he must repent of his sin, confess it and pray.” Of course, the faithful Christian will always have a penitent attitude that motivates him to pray, “God be merciful to me a sinner” (Lk. 18:13) and “Cleanse thou me from secret faults” (Psa. 19:12). But notice that Mike’s statement suggests that each sin must be identified by the person involved. He steadfastly denies that each sin must be specified but what else do those statements mean? He speaks of “that sin” and “confess it.”

Now suppose you offend your brother but you do not know you offended him. He never tells you. You die without knowing about it. Or suppose you tell a lie, but you did not know it was a lie. And you never find out. Or suppose you use a euphemism that actually is profanity, but you don’t know that is its meaning. You never find that out. Scores of such examples could be mentioned. My point is this: Is there anyone who will affirm that he knows perfectly every truth, that he follows perfectly that which he does know and that he perceives perfectly all of his own faults? Who is so arrogant?

3. Mike says he does not believe one can be justified as long as he continues in the practice of his sin. Well, certainly one who “lives in sin,” that is, practices those sins that constitute him as living after the flesh and not after the Spirit-one who walks in darkness and not in the light-that person has no promise of forgiveness. But one whose heart is right with God will not live in such sins-he will not practice the “works of the flesh.” Yet, his heart may be right even when he does not know everything, and when he still has some weaknesses of the flesh. Indeed, every humble Christian will acknowledge that this is his condition. If it were not so, he would need no Savior, no justification, no grace. He could lift up his clenched fist and say, “I am good enough.”

4. Mike says he knows of no Scripture that promises justification to a person “without ceasing the practice of sin.” John said, “. . . sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father” (1 Jn. 2: 1). He didn’t say, “Sin not and if you cease from sin, then you have an advocate.”

A few people who carelessly read what I have written, or who read with preconceived notion, will say I am excusing sinfulness and am giving license to ignorance, etc. But those who read carefully and without bias will see that: (a) I teach that the Scriptures condemn all sin (Rom. 6:23); (b) I teach that “the works of the flesh,” rebellion and rejection constitute one unfaithful and without forgiveness (Gal. 5:19-21; Heb. 10:29; etc.); (c) I teach that we must “resist the devil” and “draw near to God” (Jas. 4:7,8).

At the same time you will see that I teach a doctrine of hope and assurance. We don’t have to live in fear and dread. We don’t have to despair because we find weaknesses in our own lives. Our hope is not in human merit (perfection) but our hope is Christ, the sinless, suffering, sacrificed Savior of all who come to God by Him (see Heb. 4:15; 5:8,9; 9:24~28; 7:25). In Him we “have a strong consolation,” the “hope which is an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast” (Heb. 6:18,19).

Conclusion

In concluding this “Necessary Negative,” I point out that the views Brother Mike Willis has advocated really mean there is no hope at all unless there is perfect discernment, perfect application, and perfect perception of self. But I have also shown there is genuine assurance if a Christian maintains a heart that is right with God and a devotion that keeps him walking in the light and walking not after the flesh but after the Spirit (1 Jn. 1:7; Rom. 8:14).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 12, pp. 368-370
June 20, 1985

By Lewis Willis

(Author’s Note: The information that follows is not original with me in its content or arrangement. It has passed among the preaching Willis boys for a number of years. I have no idea who the original author was. However, it is good information and usable in this form. In 1984 1 used it in a one-night public exchange with a Holiness preacher, and he would not so much as give it consideration. I hope it will help some of you who read this.)

We hear the testimony and the claims of miraculous healings on a regular basis. We need some information which will help us to distinguish between truth and error regarding this matter. We shall set forth the significant characteristics of the miracles which we read about in the New Testament. With this information, and by comparing modem claims, we can easily see that the so-called healings of today are phony. Following is what we learn about New Testament miracles.

1. The healings occurred instantaneously (Matt. 8:3,15; 9:27-30).

2. Faith was not always required in the one being healed (Jn. 5:13).

3. All kinds of healings were done (Matt. 4:24; 8:16; 9:35).

4. Not just headaches and sinus trouble (Matt. 15:30; Lk. 17:11-19).

5. The healings were open for public scrutiny-that is why they were so effective (Matt. 12:9,13-14; Acts 3:16; 4:21; 9:35).

6. The person healed was completely healed or made whole; he did not need to wear glasses after a cataract was removed (Matt. 12:13; Acts 3:16; 4:9).

7. The healing was acknowledged even by the enemies of truth (Matt. 12:13-14; Acts 2:22; 4:16).

8. They were always God-glorifying — not man glorifying (Acts 3:9).

9. They supported truth and not error (Heb. 2:34).

10. The healings were not used to establish and maintain a denomination.

11. Those who were healed were not always present (Matt. 8:5-13).

12. Sometimes people were healed because of the faith of other people (Matt. 8:8,10,13).

13. Jesus and the apostles did not claim that God would heal everybody and then go about with a disease themselves.

14. In New Testament healings, there was no preliminary investigation to “weed out” hard cases.

15. They did not try to heal and fail, blaming their failure on the sick. If a failure occurred, it was due to the faithlessness of the healer (Matt. 17:20).

16. They did not say it was impossible to perform a miracle because unbelievers were present (Mk. 3:2).

17. No social healing services were conducted.

18. An emotion-charged atmosphere was not required for success healing.

When you find it necessary to deal with the modem claims regarding miracles, take this information and see if the modern claims meet these requirements. If not, you can be assured that the Devil is at work again and you know what to do with the works of the Devil.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 12, p. 362
June 20, 1985