Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

How does one measure success in preaching the word of God? Frequently, the primary criterion used to measure success is the numerical growth of the church. Where churches are baptizing a considerable number of people, those who are preaching the gospel are viewed as Successful; where few or no baptisms are occurring, some begin to imply that something must be wrong with the preacher, the elders, or the church in general.

Numerical Response Is Not A Good Measuring Stick

Although I do not intend to excuse laziness or failures of another nature on the part of Christians in cases where no baptisms are occurring on a regular basis, I want to remind our readers that numerical growth is not always an accurate measurement of whether or not one is being successful in preaching the gospel. A number of biblical examples will demonstrate that this is so.

When God sent Ezekiel to Israel, He knew that Israel would not obey His word. Israel was “a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me: they and their fathers have transgressed against me, even unto this very day. For they are impudent children and stiff-hearted” (Ezek. 2:3-4). Although Ezekiel preached and labored faithfully, he had very few converts. If he was measured by the stick of numerical growth, he was a failure. Nevertheless, God considered him to be a faithful prophet, one whom I sincerely expect to see in heaven.

In a similar fashion, one might consider Noah. Noah was a “preacher of righteousness” (2 Pet. 2:5) who labored more than a century in calling the wicked men of his day to repentance. When the flood came, only eight souls entered the ark. That is not much numerical response to a -century of preaching! If Noah is measured by the stick of numerical growth, he was a failure. Nevertheless, the Bible honors him as a man of faith whose example we should follow (Heb. 11:7).

The Attitudes Of Men

The success of the preaching of the gospel depends upon the hearts of men. Inasmuch as men have free will, they can accept or reject the divine revelation of God. Even Jesus Himself was not always successful in converting mien. You will recall that the rich young ruler, for example, rejected the Savior’s teachings and went away sorrowful (Lk. 18:18-24).

If we should conclude that we are living in an age in which men’s hearts are hardened toward the gospel, entangled in the cesspool of sin, and obstinate toward God, we should expect that numerical growth would be minimal. On the other hand, if we were to conclude that men generally are “hungering and thirsting after righteousness,” we should expect that the harvest will be more abundant.

At any rate, we need to realize that few baptisms is not necessarily a reflection upon our own faithfulness to God I As preachers, we must be careful not to castigate and berate the saints because we are baptizing so few. Those who are faithful need to be encouraged to remain that way-not condemned and ridiculed because the world will not obey the gospel.

Some Other Measuring Sticks

Inasmuch as I have suggested that numerical growth is not a good measuring stick for whether or not we are successful in preaching the gospel, let me suggest some better criteria to use.

1. Has the whole counsel of God been proclaimed? Paul was free from the blood of all men because, he said, “I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). There are churches which are growing numerically which are not successful in teaching the word of God. They have sought to water down the gospel so that it might be more palatable to the world. They dare not imply that there is only one church or that divorce and remarriage for reasons other than fornication are sinful; other messages which might “offend” the general public are reserved for Bible classes or not taught at all. They glory in the number of responses they are getting to the invitation but are still failures in their preaching.

2. Have we been “instant in season and out of season”? Paul commanded Timothy, “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season” (2 Tim. 4:2). When we seek to measure whether or not we are successful in our work of preaching, we need to be sure that we have used every opportunity which God has opened to us to teach. Have we been willing to go — even when it was not convenient to go? Have we worked with the contacts we have? Have we sought to teach them both publicly and from house to house?

3. Have we spoken the truth in love? The growing child of God is expected to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15). This obligates us to be careful to learn how to teach, as well as what to teach (Col. 4:6). Everything which is unnecessarily offensive needs to be removed from my preaching so that, if one is offended, he will be offended by the message rather than the messenger. Sometimes Christians are so caustic and hateful in what they say that men are alienated by their manner of presentation. There is no place in the pulpit or home Bible study period for arrogance, bitterness, wrath, clamor, strife, and such like things. If we have spoken the truth in love, this is one mark of successful preaching.

4. Have we confronted and opposedfalse teaching? Those who teach the gospel have the obligation to stop the mouths of false teachers (Tit. 1:11; 1 Tim. 1-3). In the minds of some brethren, the work of confronting and opposing false teachers is below their dignity. That work is to be reserved for those brethren who are “guardians of the truth” and “keepers of the orthodoxy,” whom they hold in contempt. They continue their work in peaceful, pleasant pulpits, preaching a positive gospel, and leave such unplesantries to others. Frankly, I have never understood Oat I had any choice in whether or not to oppose false teaching, wherever and whenever I was confronted by it. That is a part of my work as a preacher. Hence, resisting false teaching is another criterion for successful preaching.

Conclusion

These are certainly not all of the measuring sticks which we should use in determining whether or not we have been faithful in proclaiming the gospel . Others could be cited by those more experienced and knowledgeable than I. However, these should serve to warn us that the measuring stick of numerical growth is inadequate.

Perhaps this will warn us concerning the danger of berating ourselves because men have not obeyed the gospel. Our responsibility is to plant and water, leaving the increase in God’s hands (1 Cor. 3:6). When we have done an effective job of planting and watering, we have done a good work in preaching.

The yardstick of numerical growth, therefore, more nearly measures the hearts of the audience than it does the effectiveness of the gospel preacher. Though this article is not designed to comfort those who are “bench-warmers” and “pew sitters,” maybe it can encourage those who are faithfully proclaiming God’s word to a world which is engrossed in materialism and worldliness to keep persevering.

In closing, another word needs to be added. Men do not have the same abilities. Some are more effective exhorters, than others; some are better-Aniters than others; some know more about family life, others about doctrinal issues, others about personal work, etc. We must be careful not to criticize and minimize another’s work because he is more effective in one area than we are. We complement each other’s workst Each of us will convert some whom the other may never reach. Those who are experienced exhorters need to encourage those who can effectively discuss doctrinal issues with precision; those who are better students of the word need to encourage those who are bettei experienced in converting others and encouraging saints to be faithful. There is no room in the kingdom of God for petty jealousy and rivalry.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 12, pp. 354, 373
June 20, 1985

By Marshall E. Patton

Brother Mike Willis has rather fervently requested that I review two articles submitted by brother LeslieDiestelkamp for publication in Guardian of Truth. This I propose to do just as honestly, objectively, and as much in the spirit of brotherly love as is possible on my part.

Brother Diestelkamp seems to find comfort and encouragement in the fact that he has “preached in about 53 meetings in 17 states” the past four years and “only three men have stated a disagreement with what I preached.” He says further “in almost every one I have preached at least once on ‘Grace,’ including some expressions about continuous forgiveness.” From this he concludes that 90% of the brethren do not agree with brother Willis on the issue of continual cleansing.

I personally fear that our brother is laboring under a good measure of deception. Both of us have been preaching long enough to know that brethren do not always express their opposition to us personally. Usually such opposition is expressed only by those who have strong convictions and deep feelings on the issue themselves. Even brother Diestelkamp admits this in his statement about the readers of Guardian of Truth: “they don’t write to him (Willis-mep), they write to me and others . . .”

Furthermore, if his observations prove anything in favor of his position, then I can, by using the same standard, prove the other side of this issue. In the past four years I have preached in 58 meetings. While not in 17 states, they have been widely scattered from the East Coast to California, and from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. I, too, have done a lot of preaching on this issue. I find brethren generally not well acquainted with the issue involved and very grateful for the teaching done. Right now I do not recall a single expression of opposition from any brother in these meetings to what was preached on this issue.

Brother Diestelkamp, after all the years we have been preaching, we both have reason to marvel at the respect, confidence, and honor brethren have bestowed upon us. Yours, especially, is a record worthy of praise. Such honor and respect involves a fearful responsibility: “My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation” (Jas. 3:1). However, let neither of us be deceived by the silence or the praise of brethren in determining the truth on any issue.

I have extreme difficulty in understanding how his affirmation points I and 2 can be true, i.e., how can one be faithful and unfaithful at the same time. He said, “. . . a faithful Christian … does indeed sin even while he is faithful. Understand, his sin is not an act of faithfulness and God does not approve of it, but his life is a life of faithfulness and God does approve of it.” I see little, if any, difference between this and the argument of our Baptist neighbors on the impossibility of apostasy. Calvinism has long since affirmed that while the body sins, the soul does not; that God approves the soul and, hence, he is “always in grace.” Of course, Calvinism affirms unlimited coverage (for all sins) upon the basis of the personal righteousness of Christ being imputed to the saint. Upon what basis does brother Diestelkamp affirm his limited coverage?

It is not true that whether or not our life is faithful depends upon both our attitude and our acts in life? If one act of unfaithfulness leaves our life one of faithfulness, then how many acts of unfaithfulness may one commit before his life becomes unfaithful? Must the unfaithful acts outnumber the faithful before his life becomes unfaithful?

If it is not the number of unfaithful acts that makes one’s life unfaithful, then is it the kind of act? If so, what kind? Where is the Scripture that identifies certain acts of unfaithfulness which will not make one’s life unfaithful? Is every man free to arbitrarily make his own list?

If this is not true, then it follows that attitude only determines faithfulness.. In this case only a willful, deliberate, intentional sin would make one’s life unfaithful, and all the warnings such as “be not deceived,” “take heed,” “watch,” “prove,” etc., lest one fall, go for naught!

Brother Diestelkamp understands that 1 John 1:7,8; 2:1; Romans 8:1-4; 4:7,8 teach that God does not impute sin to the “faithful” Christian — even while he is sinning. Where is the proof that these verses teach such an idea? Remember, assertion and assumption do not constitute proof! We all know that the one whose iniquities have been forgiven will not have such sins imputed to him (Rom. 4:7, 8). Rather, righteousness is imputed to him on the basis of his obedient faith-faith without (meritorious-mep) works (Rom. 4:5, 6). This is the blessedness of Romans 4:8. It is the blessedness of forgiveness! But where is the proof that God will forgive and not reckon sin (or at least some sins) to the Christian without compliance with the conditions of forgiveness, which involve repentance, confession, and prayer (Acts 8:22; 1 Jn. 1:9)?

I know that brother Diestelkamp affirms that this forgiveness is conditional, among other conditions, specifies “confessing sins of which we are unaware” and “repentance and prayer.” Question: How can one confess a sin of which he is unaware? How can one repent of a sin when he is not aware that such is sin? Think brethren! Repentance involves a change of mind that results in a change of action. If one is not aware that an act in his life is sin, he will not change either his mind or action in relation to it, but rather just keep on doing it. To say that God forgives and does not reckon such sin against the Christian is to affirm a third law of pardon. I have preached all of my preaching life that there are only two laws of pardon-one for the alien and one for the saint. According to brother Diestelkamp’s position, there is forgiveness without repentance. I deny that what he calls repentance, in this instance, is repentance, and I beg of him to reconsider what repentance involves.

The expression “who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (Rom. 8:14) does not mean that a Christian can be forgiven of some sin and not have it reckoned against him because of his otherwise faithful life. Brother J.W. McGarvey along with others of his generation fought a hard and continuous battle with Calvinism. On Romans 8:1 he said:

True, Paul says, “There is now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (Rom. 8:1); but he undoubtedly includes in walking after the Spirit, compliance with the conditions on which a Christian’s sins are forgiven; for John expressly declares that “if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (J.W. McGarvey, “Justification by Faith,” Lard’s Quarterly, Vol. III, pp. 127, 128).

Again, 1 John 1:7, 8 does not teach that a Christian may and “does indeed sin even while he is faithful.” Rather, these verses teach that the one who sins becomes unfaithful, walks in darkness, and is in need of the advocate God has provided (1 Jn. 2:1). He must now “walk in the light,” which involves compliance with God’s law of pardon. He makes use of the Advocate through prayer and by confessing what he is guilty of as 1 John 1:9 shows: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. ” This involves more than confessing sins or that we are sinners-we must confess our “sins,” i.e., what we are guilty of.

Under point 4 of his article our brother affirms the absolute necessity of continuous cleansing. I do not know of anyone who denies this. The issue is, “Upon what conditions may it be enjoyed?” According to brother Diestelkamp, a general repentance (as some would call it) as expressed by the publican, “God, be merciful to me, a sinner,” is necessary. Question: Suppose one sins unawares after he last prayed “God, be merciful to me, a sinner,” and then dies before praying that prayer again, would he be forgiven anyway? If so, then we have forgiveness without repentance (even general repentance). If this general repentance and prayer is necessary, then it follows “unless we die with (this) a prayer upon our lips we may indeed die lost and every hour of every day and night would be a day and hour of misery and fear.”

God’s law of pardon is within reach of every man and it is full of grace. The alien must come to a knowledge of certain conditions of faith. When he obeys these conditions he has performed no work of merit. Truly, he is saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8,9). Likewise the Christian must come to a knowledge of certain conditions of faith. His obedience to these involves no work of merit. Many of the requirements made of him involve matters in which he grows, develops, and in which he becomes proficient. In all such matters (e.g., 2 Pet. 1:5-11) God judges us in relation to our time, opportunity, and ability (Matt. 25:14-30). In all such we will be short of perfection — He requires only that we “give diligence” (2 Pet. 1:5). However, in the matter of absolute conditions of faith, perfect obedience is required. This is the only obedience possible here. One either obeys or he does not. Moses E. Lard made this point of distinction this way:

“Partial obedience to the law is the only obedience possible to man; perfect obedience to conditions is the only obedience acceptable to God” (Commentary On Paul’s Letter to Romans, p. 350).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 11, pp. 337-338
June 6, 1985

By Karl Diestelkamp

“How was your trip to Nigeria?” I respond, “Terrific!” Twenty-eight days packed to the gills with preaching, teaching, answering Bible questions, talking and traveling in seven different Nigerian states, and meeting with hundreds of brethren and scores of faithful gospel preachers — what more could a preacher ask for?

It was my privilege to travel with my father, Leslie, and to work closely with him for four full weeks-a first for both of us in my thirty years of preaching. All who know him know of his great love for Nigeria and everywhere we went it was obvious that he is deeply loved and “esteemed very highly for his work’s sake.” Nearly everywhere we went someone would say, “I was baptized in 1959 (or some other date) when you were preaching on the street in _________,” or, “I was in your Bible training course in Lagos in 19___,” etc. Many stated that it was Leslie Diestelkamp who had brought the gospel to the western and midwestern regions of Nigeria. Others commented that he was the one who taught them to make the proper applications of Bible authority in the work and organization of the church. We thank God that seed sown has brought forth so much good fruit.

We determined to encourage, uplift and strengthen brethren and warn concerning various false doctrines. The excellent reception, for the most part, of our teaching and the strong support given brought added joy. In warning of the evils of “social drinking, ” it was encouraging to find widespread opposition to the practice. The few who “raised questions” on the subject made no substantial defense. We handed out nearly 500 tracts on “Social Drinking” that I had prepared especially for the trip.

We warned about the “Crossroads heresy” and the promise of some to take it to Nigeria in 1986, again distributing booklets documenting the dangers. There were numerous questions relating to premillennialism and one face-to-face confrontation with one false teacher on this topic. His carnal outburst was enough to demonstrate the futility of his position. We taught on the need for Bible authority in the work and organization of the church, showing the unscripturalness of “sponsoring churches” and church support of human institutions such as Nigerian Christian College and Nigerian Christian Hospital. At this point we also exposed World Bible School (WBS) which is simply an American devised missionary society by another name. Yet, WBS “team members” visiting Nigeria do not tell Nigerians what WBS really is. Unscriptural activity in Nigeria (like in America) is far from dead, manifesting itself in institutionalism, the social gospel, and inter-congregational combines.

Another false doctrine exposed was the contention of a few that the only d4scriptural time” to observe the Lord’s supper is in the evening on the first day of the week.

I was greatly impressed with: the strength of so many, laboring so diligently, under conditions we would consider great handicaps; the large number of faithful preachers many of whom are struggling to support themselves (some of the strongest, most able and experienced preachers, in some of the most difficult places, facing some of the greatest opposition, must “make tents” in order to supplement or provide support for their families); the many zealous “young” preachers who are going everywhere preaching the word; the great number of faithful women and the presence of so many children in most assemblies; the increased number of churches able to partially or fully support their own preachers and some even supporting others elsewhere; the enthusiasm Nigerian Christians have for the work, and the worship of God; and last but not least, their determination to plant the gospel seed in new areas of the country and the establishment of new churches. The future looks good!

Starvation conditions found in other parts of Africa have not reached Nigeria, but there is stiff much hardship and deep poverty, and the drought is hurting some food production and supplies. Inflation is seen in every aspect of Nigerian life and though there is visibly more money, it buys less. There has been improvement in major roads, but small roads and city side streets are worse than ten years ago. City traffic is indescribable. More churches have secured their own meeting places, yet some are still forced to meet in cramped quarters and poor locations. Song books are needed in many places. Numerous preachers and teachers are in need of selected basic study materials, books and literature, but can not buy them since there is no way to exchange their, Nira for Dollars.

I am thankful to have had the opportunity to preach again in Nigeria and trust that only good, and no harm at all, will result. I thank those here in the U.S. who made my participation possible and thank God that we are both back safe and well, and that we found our loved ones well at home.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 11, p. 335
June 6, 1985

By Lloyd Nash

“The due order” . . . this phrase was uttered by David, one of God’s great servants. Let’s look at this statement and see what brought it on. David thought it good to bring up the ark of God again. He failed the first time because he sought it not after the due order. Although David was the second king of Israel, and a man after God’s own heart, he still had to follow God’s order.

In 1 Chronicles 13:1-3a:

And David consulted with the captains of thousands and hundreds, and with every leader. And he said unto all the congregations of Israel, It if seem good unto you, and that it be of the Lord our God, let us send abroad unto our brethren everywhere, that are left in all the land of Israel, and with them also to the priests and Levites which are in their cities and suburbs, that they may gather themselves unto us: and let us bring agin the ark of God to us.”

They all agreed. It seems that they had not had access to the ark of God for a long time. So, David and all of Israel went up to Baalah; that is, to Kirjathjearim, to bring up the ark, and they carried it on a new cart (1 Chron. 13:1-7; 2 Sam. 6:30).

They all seemed to be very happy. But, this disobedience caught up with David. Uzzah lost his life because he put forth his hand to the ark. David knew who was to carry the ark: Kohath Levites. He also knew how it was to be carried: on their shoulders. This he knew all along. We can’t say that the Levites were not there, for we can see that they were. The second time David made preparation to bring up the ark, he did it in accord with the due order. He said none ought to carry the ark, but the Levites – for them God had chosen. He told them why he failed the first time. So, when he followed God’s plan, his joys were not turned to sadness.

Paul tells us, “for whatsoever things were written afore time were written for our learning.” So, being Christians, we should follow the Lord’s order in worship. This includes singing without mechanical instruments of music. Some say they don’t see anything wrong with musical instruments. David didn’t see anything wrong with carrying the ark of God on a new cart. But, God did (Rom. 15:4; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16).

As members of the church of Christ, we must follow the due order. We preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified; one Lord, one faith, one baptism. We preach one gospel, and anything more than this is out of order. We pray. Paul said, “I will that men pray everywhere.” We pray as did our Lord that we all be one. We give as we prosper in accord with the order. This does not authorize pie and barbecue selling (1 Cor. 2:2; Eph. 4:5; Gal. 1:6, 8, 9; 1 Tim. 2:8; Jn. 17:21; 1 Cor. 16:1-2).

As Christians, we try to reach sinners so we can teach them about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. This with the hope that it will produce faith which will lead to repentance, confession of Christ, and then baptism for the remission of sins. Following the example of early Christians, we do not sprinkle sinners, baptize babies, or pour water on their heads. If we do these things, we would not be following the due order, for the act of baptism is a burial (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Acts 15:7; Heb. 11:6; Mk. 2:7; Acts 2:38; Matt. 10:32; Rom. 10:9-10; Mk. 16:15-16; Rom. 6:1-4).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 11, p. 339
June 6, 1985