Truth Magazine

By Stanley Paher

(Editor’s Note: Brother Hafley submitted the following letter from brother Stanley Paher for publication in, Guardian of Truth. I contacted brother Paher and asked for his rebuttal to brother Hafley and gave brother Hafley a similar concluding statement. This exchange on forgiveness is presented with the hope that it will contribute to subject.)

Dear brother Hafley,

I do not subscribe to that august magazine Guardian of Truth, and so your 7 June article on the “Yo- Yo Syndrome” has just recently crossed my desk. Concerning the yo-yo controversy, either you do not understand the on-going discussion, or you are subtle in your defense of a false concept and you must strain the Scriptures you cite to prove your point. None of the points you cite is an example of “Lost-saved-lost-saved” or – “up-down-up-down ” as so ably described, by, Barney Cargile, Jr.

Please reread the Cargile quote and see what he is driving at in describing the yo-yo syndrome. He and about three-fourths of the conservative preachers who agree with him essentially are trying to combat the unsettling idea that the faithful child of God is in and out, in and out, up and down, up and down, depending on whether or not he might have an “‘unforgiven sin”on his record in heaven. Less than a quarter of the conservative preachers, namely you and the rest of your ilk, reject constant cleansing (1 Jn. 1:7-9) and keep timid brethren stirred up by stern, warnings about hell and earthly

rejection if they should inadvertently miss the mark in any of the areas of thought, word, deed or action. In this particular area you and I have strong disagreement.

Your first three examples are not examples of yo-yo and you misread the text by concluding that, say Simon, is an example Of “lost-saved-lost-saved. ” The best you can do is “saved-lost. ” These first three examples are not examples of yo-yoism, because the frame of reference for that term is, as hinted by Cargile, within the context of day-in-day-out sinning and praying. What a difference! The sad thing, my brother, is that I think you do see the difference but you want to confuse unsettling minds on this matter.

Number four is not talking about super yo-yos. You have perverted a beautiful passage on forgiveness and placed it in the context of a brother being saved and lost from heaven’s point of view, when the subject of the passage is earthly forgiveness. What lengths you and others must go to unjustly and unfairly reply to the honest argument of Cargile and others who show the fallacy of your in-out and in-out and in-out of grace concept. Fuzzy thinking, my friend. Number five example is just too far out of touch from reality to comment upon it.

If you and your friends would accept the Bible position of justification (Rom. 4:16) and quit trying to figure out where God saves and unsaves us, then the Baptists would not make fun of you. You do not have a yo-yo position; you have a shallow conception of justification which fruit shows in a certain minority of congregations here and there filled with confused people who are uncertain about their salvation – and it shows when outsiders see a joyless, semi-neurotic band of people try to convert a visitor to such a religion. It won’t work, and your doctrine is dying. I am out of room.

Stanley Paher

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 1, p. 6
January 3, 1985

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Question: A few years ago I was talking with a Baptist preacher about baptism and he said the passages on baptism were not binding because Acts was written (or events were recorded) in a transitional period from the religion of the Old Testament to the religion of the New Testament. How would you answer that argument in regards to baptism?

Reply: It is true that there was a space of time between the death of Christ and the first gospel sermon that was preached in Acts 2. It is not true that all of the events recorded in Acts were in this interval; therefore, the claim that passages in Acts on baptism are not binding is erroneous.

The old covenant had been abolished by Christ’s death (Rom. 7:4; Col. 2:14) and He had already ascended to heaven when the events recorded in Acts 2 took place. Peter preached a gospel sermon in which he set forth the terms or conditions of the new covenant. In response to the inquiry made by the hearers, as to what they should do, Peter commanded them to repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins (Acts 2:38). When some three thousand souls were baptized, they became members of the church which Jesus had promised to build (Matt. 16:18). Thus it was on the day of Pentecost, the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, that the new covenant was inaugurated, and the church had its glorious beginning.

The law that people obeyed on that day is the same law to which people must comply today. And furthermore, that which was set forth for people to do then is that which follows in the remainder of Acts. The teaching and examples of baptism in the book of Acts are no different from that which is found in books of the New Testament that were written later (Rom. 6:3,4; 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27; 1 Pet. 3:21; etc.)

The events recorded in Acts 2, beginning with Peter’s sermon and following, are no more transitional than that which is recorded later in other inspired writings. The “argument” made by the Baptist preacher has no merit whatsoever. It is void of scriptural proof and is, therefore, a false assumption. Also, worthy of note is the fact that he denies the essentiality of baptism for salvation, regardless of what New Testament book teaches it. He denies it even in books written by Paul and in other inspired epistles which he would agree are not transitional. Transition, then, is not his real problem. His problem is an attitude toward authority. When man refuse to acknowledge and accept what God says upon matters, they turn to human reasoning (see Matt. 21:25). Passages in Acts on baptism are just as binding as in any other place where God has taught on the subject. It is indeed amazing what people will concoct in their efforts to evade the plain teaching of the Scriptures that we must be baptized in order to be saved.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 1, p. 4
January 3, 1985

By Titus Edwards

True Happiness

“Daddy,” said the little boy, “mules must be great Christians, for they have such long faces!” One of my college professors liked to tell that one. I fear that we have often given the wrong impression of Christianity to people. It is almost like we believe that God took a look and saw everything that was fun to do and then proclaimed those things as wrong and sinful to do. Some believe that God does not want anyone to enjoy life and have fun. Well, it just isn’t true!

I really believe that the way to true happiness in life is by living as a Christian should! I also believe that God does want us to enjoy life here and the blessings He gives! In Ecclesiastes 11:9, Solomon says, “Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let they heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes: but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment. ” It sounds like he is saying to live it up and enjoy your youth. He is! It is a joy and happiness that comes by living with a view toward judgment, not just of unrestrained wildness.

Do you believe God is good? Do you believe God wants the best for you? Do you believe God knows more about man and what will make him happy than man does? If these things are true, then it only follows that God’s instructions are given for our own good, to lead us not only to heaven, but true joy and fulfillment here! “And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always . . .” (Deut. 6:24).

There is happiness in being a Christian! We are to “rejoice in the Lord” (Phil. 3:1). The beatitudes begin with the word “blessed” which means happy. Happy or blessed is the person whose life is filled with those characteristics. “Blessed are they that do his commandments. . .” (Rev. 22:14), not those who muck it up in sin! The kingdom of God consists of “joy in the Holy Ghost” (Rom. 14:17). Paul said that “godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is. . . ” (1 Tim. 4:8). Do you really believe godly living is profitable unto you now in this life? It is I Do you want to enjoy life and see good times? Peter tells you how to do such. “For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile: let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it” (1 Pet. 3: 10-11). The good life comes by exercising some restraint with sin and doing good!

Our whole purpose for being here is to “fear God and keep his commandments” (Eccl. 12:13-14). That is what gives meaning to life. Without that kind of direction, we are like a ship without a rudder, endlessly running in circles. Joy, happiness, fulfillment, satisfaction, comes by serving God and your fellow man, for it gives you the direction you need. Sin’s pleasures are fleeting and non-filling. They are “but for a season” (Heb. 11:25), and “passeth away” (1 Jn. 2:17). The “do-your-own-thing” philosophy leads to selfishness and misery.

The 103rd story of the Sears building in Chicago is where the observation deck is on the world’s tallest building. From there you can see much of Chicago beneath. You could easily direct a person to where they needed to go, for you can see all of the routes and know which ones may dead end at the river or lake, and which ones get the person to the final destination. On the ground, it is much harder to see the city. The buildings get in your way. It is easy to get lost for you can’t see where you are going from where you are. The difference is perspective. I believe that God is in the Sears Tower of life! He knows the end from the beginning. His Word is to help us know which way to go, recognizing that our perspective is limited. It is hard for us to see the forest for the trees. Trust in God and live according to His wisdom, that “it may be well with thee,” and that you can enjoy true happiness.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 1, p. 5
January 5, 1985

By Larry Ray Hafley

It is easier to characterize an article as a “rambling response” than it is to answer it. “Larry has not answered my argument,” he avers. Let the reader judge.

Stanley says I have violated Matthew 18:15 by not coming to him “directly.” Stanley, let me introduce you to yourself. You say I did wrong by not coming to you directly. Well, why did you not come to me directly about my’ “violation”? You made my “violation” public without coming to me to “respond directly.” Did you not then violate Matthew 18:15? Paul rebuked Peter “to the face . . . before them all” for his action regarding the Gentiles. Shall we, charge Paul with having “violated” Matthew 18:15 (Gal. 2:11-114)? Stanley, on Matthew IS: 15, have you “perverted a beautiful passage on forgiveness and placed it in the context of a brother being saved and lost from heaven’s point, of, view, when the subject of the passage is earthly forgiveness”?

“But all one can get out of Acts 8:18-24 is saved, lost, saved, if that.” See my first response. Still, I wonder if brother Paher thinks Simon is a case of “faith failing”? Was it, Stanley? Was Simon’s salvation “interrupted” by his heart not being “right in the sight of God”? Did his “wickedness” cause his salvation to be “interrupted”? And how dare anyone mock an alleged “yo-yo” doctrine when he supports a salvation that can be “interrupted.” Further, we need to know if an “interrupted” salvation can be restored, and if it can, can it be “interrupted” again? If so, would this be an “on-off, yes-no, up-down thing”? If my “yo-yo string is jammed,” his is fluttering up and down quite nicely.

Brother Paher says, “Anyone with a profound sense of sin would not argue about how God saves and what he does about sins, day in and day out.” Who says so? Why, Stanley W. Paher! If any of you brethren “argue about how God saves and what he does about sins,” you do not have “a profound sense of sin.” Stanley, does that include arguments with alien sinners “about how God saves and what he does about sins, day-in and day-out”? Further, Stanley has argued this issue in this exchange and in Vanguard for months. Stanley, does your arguing about these matters prove that you do not have “a profound sense of sin”?

I Stanley says that, “To Larry and others of the Guardian of Truth, Faith and Facts, and Searching the Scriptures triad of papers sin is treated subjectively rather than objectively” and that such concepts do not save from sin itself,” nor do these concepts save one “from the corruption of a man’s heart.” Who are these “others” of Guardian of Truth, Faith and Facts, and Searching the Scriptures? Such men as Connie Adams, H.E. Phillips, John and Robert Welch, Ron Halbrook, James R. Cope, Eugene Britnell, Marshall and Herschel Patton, Hoyt Houchen, Dudley Ross Spears, Weldon Warnock, Bill Cavender, Irven Lee and a number of “others” will feel indicted by your remarks. Are all of the men on the staffs of these papers all lumped together with me? If not all are, which ones?

“Righteousness . . . comes through grace-faith and not solely by obeying New Testament commandments. ” True, but who has said that righteousness does not come “through grace-faith,” but solely by obeying New Testament commandments”? Who Stanley?

“Remission of sins . . . was never intended to come by mere law keeping.” Again, true, but who has ever contended that “remission of sins” comes “by mere law keeping”? Stanley, check the staffs of the “triad of papers” and name just one who has ever so argued.

Addendum

In addition to his response above, brother Paher sent along a note to me with further argument on Acts 8:23, “For I see that thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.” Stanley cited an alternate reading which would translate Acts 8:23 thusly, “For I see that thou wilt become gall (or a gall root) of bitterness and a bond of iniquity.” Brother Paher then commented on this rendering, “In view of v. 23 . . . I would not bet the ranch that Simon was lost. ‘Wilt become’ means that if he pursued his present course he would be bound by his sins. Nothing here to establish your yo-yo doctrine, or lost-saved-lost-saved within a day’s experience. Thus Simon is not an example of yo-yo-ism in the context of the present on-going debate. I will not be corresponding with you again on this matter, unless you change your mind. I can give you the most sophisticated arguments and you, like the Mormons merely brush them aside and not even consider them.”

Earlier, brother Paher indicated that Simon, from “Acts 8: 18-24” may have been “saved, lost, saved,” but now he “would not bet the ranch that Simon was lost. ” In five debates with Baptists on the apostasy question, I have never met a Baptist who would “bet the ranch that Simon was lost,”either. What, then is the condition of a man who has been told: (1) “Thy money perish with thee”; (2) “Thy heart is not right in the sight of God”; (3) that he needs to “repent of this they wickedness and pray” for forgiveness?Stanley, was Simon lost or saved? It is time for one of your “sophisticated arguments,” Stanley. Tell us, or will you “brush” these questions aside and . . not even consider them” and be “like the Mormons”? Stanley, would you “bet the ranch that Simon was saved”?

Finally, in a memo to me, appended to his response, brother Paher adds, in part:

“The bottom line seems to be that it is o.k. for you and your editor friends to bully your way in these types of situations. It’s o.k. for you guys to throw your weight around, exert undue influences over Christians and churches afar off. But when anyone like myself says enough and responds to your advances . . . well, somehow it’s all wrong and you are easily offended. If you enter the polemical arena, then you have to be able to take criticism, roll with the punches.

“The time has come and now is (Jn. 4:23) that many concerned Christians like myself are rising up and calling into question you and others who employ the unfair tactics you use and meeting head-on your brand of partyism, brotherhood politics, economic and journalistic control, hiring and firing of preachers, and other ungodly and unrestrained behavior. The time has come and now is to point out the inconsistency of the Guardian of Truth, Searching the Scriptures, and Faith and Facts editors and staff writers who, on the one hand rightly oppose the liberal cooperative efforts but seek to exhibit a similar if not identical sphere of influence over preachers and churches, thus similarly violating Peter’s ‘among you’ for proper limits of evangelism and edification. Is there not enough for you to do in Pekin, Illinois?”

Stanley Paher can decry and denounce our efforts in strong terms. That is fine. We can take the heat, especially since Stanley is turning his stove off. But remember who the “bad guys” are. It is alright for him to charge us as being a “joyless, loveless, semi-neurotic band of people.” It is acceptable for him to charge me with purposely and willfully trying ” to confuse” others. He can compare me to the Mormons and say that I will “brush” aside and refuse to “consider” his “sophisticated arguments.” He can state that the “editors and staff writers” of Guardian of Truth, Faith and Facts, and Searching the Scriptures and “others” are bullies who “throw your weight around,” “exert undue influences over Christians and churches,” “employ . . . unfair tactics,” practice “partyism, brotherhood politics, economic and journalistic control, hiring and firing of preachers, and other ungodly and unrestrained behavior.”

Yes, Stanley can say a that and be a “concerned” Christian, but when we respond, we are “loveless, semi-neurotic” bullies who cannot take the heat. My apologies to all you brethren on the staffs of the papers and to . ‘others” who have been summarily dispatched by brother Paher. I did not mean to drag all of you down with me. With Stanley’s view, though, do not worry. If Simon was not lost, surely the Lord would not condemn an “ungodly” partyistic bully who suffers from neurosis.

Indeed, “the time has come and now is” when all should realize the importance of these issues. Some have deemed that instrumental music separates one from God. Others say that the sins of the social gospel do not put them out of God’s grace. Consider the consequences before you dismiss this as a “diatribe” or a “preacher fuss.” Brother Paher may well oppose liberalism, but his arguments are used by the advocates of the positions cited above.

As he stated, brother Paher may choose not to respond further. He may leave the kitchen, that is his prerogative, but we are staying. He need not bandy his views about in public media and then sue for privacy. These issues will be met, and the truth will be defended.

Emancipation Proclamation

In deference to brother Paher, however, I now relinquish my brotherhood political position. All of those under my economic and journalistic control (you know who you are) are now henceforth and forever free and independent. You may go your way. To those churches that I have controlled, you may now hire and fire preachers on your own from this day forth. You need not fear any sanctions or reprisals from me. My days as a semi-neurotic bully are over, except, of course, at Pekin, where I shall continue my tyrannical domination and woe unto all them that fear not. Amen. Thanks to brother Mike Willis who has so charitably granted me this leave of absence from my office.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 1, pp. 8-9, 19
January 3, 1985