Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Five major tenets are the basis of Calvinism. It is identified and signified by the famous acrostic, TULIP.

T – Total Hereditary Depravity
U – Unconditional Election
L – Limited Atonement
I – Irresistible Grace
P – Perseverance

All men are born “wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body” (Total Hereditary Depravity). “By the decree of God some men are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death” (Unconditional Election). Christ’s death, the shedding of His blood, was for the elect only; He did not die for those “foreordained to everlasting death” (Limited Atonement). The Holy Spirit effectually calls and regenerates only those who were “predestinated unto everlasting life,” only those for whom Christ died (Irresistible Grace). The unconditionally elect, those whom the Spirit calls, cannot fall from the grace and favor of God (Perseverance).

Questions And Pertinent Parallels

Our purpose is to consider a few parallels with regard to three of the elements of Calvinism; namely, total hereditary depravity, irresistible grace and perseverance. Man, born totally depraved, cannot act so as to effect his salvation, so the Spirit performs His direct work on the heart of the sinner and the elect inevitably persevere. With that in mind, let us review the case of Adam.

Adam came, body and soul, from the perfect hand of God. “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). Adam had never sinned in body or soul. He was the very essence of pristine purity, clean and clear as crystal. Could we not safely assume, therefore, that he was, in this state, “totally hereditarily righteous”?

If man today is totally depraved and cannot act so as to effect his salvation, how came man to sin? Being totally hereditarily righteous did not preclude the possibility of sin. Did the devil perform a direct, immediate work on the heart of Adam to degenerate him? No, he appealed to man through motive, incentive, inducement. He used words; he appealed to the mind of man. “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 gods, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:4,5). Though man was initially totally hereditarily righteous, he succumbed to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life. “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat” (Gen. 3:6).

A mystical, mysterious, direct inner working on the heart was not necessary. Despite the fact that man was totally hereditarily righteous, he was susceptible to the words and allurements of the devil. Are we to assume, granting that man is born totally depraved, that the gospel is unable to appeal to the heart of man? Is the devil’s word more effective and powerful than the gospel of Christ? If totally righteous man could be led to sin without a direct spiritual work on his heart, why cannot totally depraved man be led to forgiveness without a direct spiritual work on his heart? If the devil’s gospel could seduce and cause totally righteous man to act contrary to his sinless nature, why cannot totally depraved man be induced and cause to act contrary to his sinful nature?

Further, when the elect are regenerated, we are told that they will persevere unto eternal life, i.e., “once saved, always saved.” When totally righteous man sinned in the garden, was he then “once lost, always lost”? The creed says he became “dead in sin.” Was he unable to respond to Divine communication, unable to obey God? No, for after man sinned, he talked with God; he heard and heeded His word (Gen. 3:8ff.). Therefore, man “dead in sin” is able to understand and act in obedience to the will of God.

Conversely, the saint is said to be “dead to sin” (Rom. 6:2; 1 Pet. 2:24). Is he unable to respond to the devil’s word? The Calvinist says man cannot so sin as to be eternally lost. But we have seen that man who was “dead to sin” still could hear and obey God. Why cannot the saved man who is “dead to sin” turn and hear and obey the devil? If it works one way, why not the other?

Surely, Adam was “dead to sin,” having never sinned. However, in this condition man was led to sin; he thus “fell from (his) original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of body and soul.” Alright, then, why is it not possible for the elect who are, as Adam was, “‘dead to sin” (Rom. 6:2) to likewise fall from his righteousness and communion with God, and so (again) become dead in sin, wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of body and soul?

These and a myriad of similar questions deserve answers if the Calvinian system is to stand.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 24, pp. 739-740
December 20, 1984

By Johnny Stringer

Marriage is an arrangement devised by our Creator. After the account of God’s creating woman to be a companion for man, the Scriptures set forth the divine decree: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Gen. 2:24).

Jesus stressed that when God first instituted marriage, He intended it to be permanent. One of the greatest evils in our society today is that so many marriages end in divorce. Marriage is not properly esteemed, but is regarded as something so frivolous that it can be ended at will. Jesus taught that the marriage relationship is a far more serious one than many realize; it is not to be severed. His most extensive teaching on the subject is found in Matthew 19:3-12, the passage on which this article will be based.

Divorce Forbidden (vv. 3-6)

The Pharisees asked Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” (v. 3). This question reflected a controversy among the Jews. Some thought it was permissible under Moses’ law for a man to divorce his wife for any reason, no matter how trivial, while others thought adultery was the only thing making divorce permissible.

In His response, Jesus did not enter into their controversy over what Moses’ law allowed. Rather, He went back beyond Moses’ law, and pointed them to the scriptural account of God’s instituting the marriage relationship (vv. 4-5), showing that God joins the husband and wife so as to make them one. Then He stated the obvious conclusion: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (v. 6). No one but God has the right to sever the marriage relationship. Divorce is contrary to the principle; therefore, Jesus prohibits divorce! This truth is corroborated by other passages which teach that marriage binds the husband and -wife to each other for as long as they both live (Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:39).

Deviations From Original Plan No Longer Tolerated (vv. 7-8)

Jesus’ answer naturally provoked a second question: “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?” (v. 7). If divorce was wrong, why was it a part of the Law of Moses?

Jesus’ answer is found in verse 8: “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. ” Jesus thus went back to the beginning, pointing out that from the beginning, when God first instituted the marriage relationship, He intended it to be permanent. The Law’s instructions regarding divorce in Deuteronomy 24 were not given because God desired divorce, for He did not. It was contrary to His original intentions for marriage. God permitted it because of the hardness of their hearts. He, for some reason, saw fit to yield to man’s stubbornness and tolerate divorce. His instructions in Deuteronomy 24 were designed to regulate -divorce so as to make the best of a bad thing.

Jesus’ law, however, went back to God’s original intentions regarding marriage. God’s original plan was: one man for one woman for life. He allowed some deviation from that plan, tolerating divorce under Moses’ law. Another deviation from that plan that He put up with was polygamy. Jesus, however, made it clear that under His law, no deviations from God’s original intent would be tolerated.

Adultery

If it be so that man has no right to sever the relationship of marriage, if it be so that those who marry are bound to each other for as long as they both live (Rom. 7:2-3), then it naturally follows that if one marries a second mate while the first mate still lives, his relationship with the second mate is adulterous. If he is bound to one mate he certainly has no right to live with a second mate.

This is the conclusion to which we are forced, and Jesus plainly stated that it is the case. Going back to God’s original intentions that marriage is to be permanent and there is to be no divorce, Jesus condemns all marriages entered into by divorced persons as sinful (with one exception). His words are clear: “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away His wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso, marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (v. 9).

The General Rule and the Exception

The general rule set forth by Jesus, in keeping with God’s original intention for marriage, is that marriage is permanent; there is to be no divorce; one is bound to his spouse for as long as they both live, so that if he marries a second mate while his first mate is still alive, he is guilty of adultery.

Jesus made one exception to that rule: If one puts away his spouse for the cause of fornication, he bears no guilt for the divorce, is released from his contractual obligation to the first spouse, and is free to marry another. More will be said about the exception in a future article.

Disciples Impressed With Seriousness of Marriage (v. 10)

Jesus’ teaching regarding the permanence of marriage shows that the marriage relationship is a serious thing. The disciples recognized this to the extent that their first reaction was to say that a man would be. better off not marrying than getting involved in a relationship so serious that he could never get out of it (v. 10).

If people were properly impressed with the seriousness of the marriage relationship, they would not enter into it lightly. They would be exceedingly careful in selecting a mate and they would have the determination to make the marriage work. They would be most diligent to resolve any difficulties that arose in the marriage, and it would never cross their minds to end the marriage because of the problems encountered. Divorce lawyers would have to find another way to make a living.

The permanency of marriage, which the disciples found so startling, is the very thing that makes it the glorious relationship it is. When two people are committed to be true to each other for as long as they live, they have a sense of security; they know they can depend on each other. You know that if you get sick, your mate will be there; if you become disabled, your mate will be there; if you become physically disfigured, your mate will be there; if you get into trouble, your mate will be there; whether times are good or bad, your mate will go through them with you. This is the beauty and the glory of marriage. How men degrade that noble, divinely established institution when they make it a casual relationship which can be ended at any time!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 24, pp. 738, 740
December 20, 1984

By Frank Jamerson

3) Another argument made is that “the early church met in homes, and homes had kitchens in them, therefore it is right for the church to provide a kitchen.”

Answer:

1. It is hard to imagine a stopping place for this “logic.” Churches may meet in school buildings (therefore they may provide school houses), motels (therefore they may provide sleeping quarters; and do not “houses” also have bedrooms?), car garages (therefore churches may provide places to repair cars), etc.

2. The church provides and arranges a place to do its work. The fact that other things may be done in the same building has nothing to do with the work of the church.

The editor of the Enon church of Christ Bulletin published an article (Aug. 5, 1994) that we will now review.

1. He quoted 1 Cor. 11:22: “What? have ye not houses to eat and drink In? or despise ye the church of God, and -shame them that, have not?…” Then he said, “It should be noticed that the verse also says something about drinking. Does it follow that if one wants to ‘drink’ that he Is to do it at ‘home’ and not at the place where Christians meet?” “There seems to be an eating of a common meal and the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11.11 He concluded that “during worship they were not to eat a common meal, but outside worship they could.”

Answer:

a. If taking a drink of water is the “eating and drinking” of 1 Cor. 11, then the preacher who takes a swallow of water during his sermon is eating a common meal “during worship”! I wonder if anyone seriously believes that “water fountain” argument! Have you ever heard anyone announce: “Remain for an hour of fellowship around the water fountain”? No, and you won’t, because that is not what it is for!

b. The fact that a baby nurses or eats a cracker during worship, or a preacher takes a drink of water during worship, has nothing to do with the context of 1 Cor. 11. If it were talking about such things, by their very argument, both the babies and the preachers would have to wait until “after worship” to “eat and drink”!

c. They were coming together for the purpose of eating a common meal and were told to quit it. When the church comes together to do congregational activity, common meals are not to be a part of it. Paul said, “have ye not houses to eat and drink in?” It still means that.

2. The editor said: “Paul even states in verse 33, ‘When ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.’ What Paul is saying is that the rich should not bring their provisions and eat them all before the poor arrived. The Lord’s Supper was not intended to satisfy one’s appetite.”

Answer:

a. The “tarrying” or “waiting” of v. 33 is not waiting for a common meal. He had just forbidden the eating of a common meal in verse 22. Verses 33, 34 make it clear that he is talking about “waiting” to observe the Lord’s Supper together. “Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait one for another. If any man is hungry, let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto judgment . . .”

b. The factious spirit was to be corrected by communing together, not by “tarrying” for a common meal.

3. The author then tries to parallel 1 Cor. 11:22 with women keeping silent in 1 Cor. 14:35. To get the whole argument, we quote a lengthy paragraph.

In 1 Corinthians 14:35 Paul wrote, “And If they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home; for it Is a shame for women to speak in church.’ Paul uses the Greek word olkeo here. But what is designated by this term? Does Paul here condemn women who ask questions for the purpose of learning at the place where Christians meet for worship? Can a woman ask her husband a question on church property? If 1 Corinthians 11:22 condemns one eating and drinking on church property, why doesn’t 1 Corinthians 14:35 condemn women for asking questions for the purpose of learning on church property? The same term is used. What do the terms oikeo and oiklas designate? In Acts 12:12 (cf. verse 5); Romans 16:5, 19, and Philemon 2, these terms show that the church met in homes or houses for the purpose of worship. Since homes or houses were used for worship, could these two terms designate “a place of worship”? If these two terms can designate a place of worship which we have shown they can do, why can’t they also designate “outside of worship”? Is not this what Paul Is saying In 1 Corinthians 11:22 and 14:35? Since houses were used for the purpose of worship, eating and drinking could still take place at the same place where they met. But during worship, they were not to eat a common meal, but outside of worship they could. The same Is true with a woman. She could not ask questions during worship, but she could outside of worship” (Bobby Gayton, emphasis mine, F.J.).

Answer:

a. This sounds pretty good on first impression, but upon careful study it is neither scriptural nor consistent.

b. Notice the bold, italicized expressions. They are not parallel. If “home” and “house” mean eta place of worship,” then the opposite of that would be “not in the place of worship.” He does not believe that, so he changed from “place of” to “worship” itself.

c. There is no scriptural reason to make “house” stand for “a place of worship” nor for “worship” itself.

d. The author would have a real problem if he tried this argument on brethren who do not believe that a woman can ask a or answer a question in a Bible class. Is the Bible class “worship”? If “house” and “home” mean “outside worship,” then a woman cannot ask a question in a Bible class, is it is “worship”!

e. No one objects to eating and drinking “in the place of worship” as we have already shown. We are opposed to the church providing the place and materials necessary for socials and recreational activities.

f. The “speaking” of 1 Corinthians 14:34,35 is not talking about all talking on church property. Women sang (which was “speaking” Col. 3:16), and may participate in Bible classes, but they were not to address the assembly, nor to interrupt the assembly by asking questions. (See verses 18, 19, 28-30). Those who had husbands were to “ask their own husbands at home.”. (This does not mean that a woman cannot ask anyone except her husband, nor that she cannot ask a question anywhere else. Other passages give more general authority in these areas, but the kind of speaking in 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 was to be “at home.” There is no reason to make it anything else.)

g. The fact remains that Paul told the Corinthians to eat their common meals at home. It is not the work of the church to provide social meals. (If it is, it can provide the place, the food and the cooks to accomplish the work!)

This is not a new position. We are quoting some sources from the past to show that brethren have made the same scriptural contention for years. We hope that you will read with profit.

Now, may I ask, what is the purpose of the church of the Lord? . . . I say to you, with caution and thought, that it is not the work of the church to furnish entertainment for the members. And yet many churches have drifted into such effort. They enlarge their basements, put in all kinds of gymnastic apparatus, and make every sort- of an appeal to the young people of the congregation. I have never read anything in the Bible that indicated to me that such is a part of the work of the church. I am wholly ignorant of any scripture that even points in that direction (N.B. Hardeman, in Tabernacle Sermons, 1942).

In 1944, Floyd A. Decker, who.had left the Christian Church, wrote an article on why he had left. One reason was: “The Christian Church emphasizes society and thephysical man by appealing to the carnal nature, with church carnivals, bands, plays, choruses, dramatics, church kitchens, church camps, and elaborate fellowship hails; the church of Christ does not (1 Cor. 10:7; Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 11:22,34).”

Note: a deacon in a local congregation recently told me that he would not be opposed to setting up “a circus” if it got the crowd therel If you think that is unscriptural, what is the difference between that and a church kitchen, or church ball team? (They stand or fall together.)

“For the churck to turn aside from its divine work to furnish amusement and recreation is to pervert its mission . . . as the church turns its attention to amusement and recreaton, it will shorn of its power as Samson was when his hair was cut” (B.C. Goodpasture May 20, 1948, Gospel Advocate ; Editorial).

“It is also needful to give some consideration as to the proper use of the church building. Some people say the church building is sacred and that should determine its use. However, I doubt that many people are of that persuasion. We know the use of the building would be determined if the building.were sacreil. However, most people who object to the way many churches use their buildings do not do so on the basis of the church being sacred. The use of tife building must be determined by considering the purpose for which it was, built. It is a misapplication of truth and right to build it for one purpose and justify its existence on that ground and then use it as we please. There is no way to justify the use of a church building for political purposes or for community projects or fortntertainment purposes. When we object to such misuses, let it be understood clearly that we do not object to the ingathering, to the eating, or to the drinking that is incidental to and.necessary for the performance of the required service. But I know we can see a difference between these things and the practices of many who conduct secular education classes, who have non-religious services, and who cat and drink in an assembly for purely social and entertainment purposes. Making fun of a water fountain or a blackboard or a baby’s bottle and comparing such things to many practices of the day may satisfy a number of people, but it will not satisfy people who want to go by the Bible. People can make fun of and ridicule conscientious Christians who object to such abuses all they choose, but such ridicule does not produce the authority for the church to provide a building for these misuses.

“Let us build good buildings in keeping with our needs. Let us equip them with the things which are incidental to and necessary for the performance of the required service. Then let us use them for the purposes by which we justify is buried.

their existence” (Curtis E. Flatt, Searching the Scriptures, March, 1962).

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 24, pp. 752-753, continued on page 751
December 20, 1984

By Tom Roberts

Among scuba divers and those who swim in the ocean, there has developed a program for safety known as the “buddy system.” When a person decides to go scuba diving, the “buddy system” demands that one always has a friend to go with him. This friend knows the equipment, stays close at hand, watches out for danger and is ready in times of trouble to lend a helping hand. In this fashion, a diver is never alone in case help is needed quickly. It is a terrifying thought to be alone in strange waters, threatened, with no one to assist. Both divers are protected by the presence of the other and, born from necessity, the “buddy system” is a good idea.

Preachers often have buddies (friends). Surely there is nothing wrong with this practice. Even Jesus loved John in a special way. Whether a preacher’s buddy is another preacher or a member of the congregation is of little importance. We all need to be around others: to talk freely of problems, to study together, to relax together, to watch out for one another. Every Christian should have a buddy who will truly watch out for the other’s welfare.

But among preachers, the buddy system can be abused (as, I suppose, it could be with other relationships). But I speak specifically about preachers, since I can be classed among this species. No one enjoys being a friend to others or having friends more than I. It is wholesome and one of life’s truly great blessings. When preachers get together, they often study, discuss their problems, encourage one another, give constructive criticism, talk about sermons, and yes, watch out for one another. I have been in studies with a number of preachers where a note of warning has been sounded toward another preacher, face to face, about an idea that does not seem to fit the “pattern of sound words.” Some of these gatherings have been rather heated. But most of the time preachers appreciate such warnings when they are given, realizing that the “wounds of a friend” are better than the praise of an enemy.

How then could this “buddy system” be abused? What is the danger that it presents?

Friends, it becomes a danger when someone “uses” the system to hide behind friendship or when friendship will be so little understood that a “buddy” will be in danger and the friend will fail to warn of it. Also it can be dangerous when a person will surround himself with “friends” who will protect him while he continues to promote dangerous doctrines while camouflaging himself by the faithfulness of the very friends who protect him. This is an abuse of the buddy system.

Back during the rise of liberalism, there were many preachers who were closest of friends. When liberal doctrines and practices began to abound, many friends who were preachers studied and discussed these issues over many hours. Admonitions against error were given to those who needed them and, when all else failed, even though friendship continued, separations had to come because different doctrines led in different directions. Eventually those who went into liberalism found new friends who would not “wound” them with the truth. A few camouflaged themselves with faithful friends while in reality changing positions. It took a long time for them to present their true colors because they claimed to be faithful, had faithful friends, but were actually heading into liberalism. And, of course, there were a few preachers who stuck their heads in the sand and would not stand for the truth because they were afraid of hurting their friends. Time solved the problem and as liberalism became more intense, it was revealed where everyone stood in spite of the abuse of the buddy system.

Today we are seeing the introduction of a “new unity movement” based on the principles of neo-Calvinism. And we are seeing an abuse of the buddy system again. Some preachers are crying that they are misunderstood and misrepresented even while they actively propagate the doctrines of Ketcherside, Garrett, Kilpatrick and others. They seek to surround themselves with faithful preachers even while teaching unsound doctrines. Eventually time will tell the tale and true colors will show. Those who are changing will enter into a new “buddy system.” In fact, Ketcherside, Garrett, Kilpatrick, etc., are already giving the pat of approval upon a number of preachers who used to be sound in the faith but who are now actively promoting neo-Calvinism. along the lines of Ensign, Mission Messenger, and Restoration Review, journals which have led the way into neo-Calvinism. But these preachers who are “buddies” with Ketcherside, et A are still trying to maintain a “buddy system” with faithful preachers. They give the appearance of soundness by the friends they keep. Personally I find few things more reprehensible than that of a person playing both sides of the field. The New Unity Movement is an insidious threat whose full danger can be seen by the Central church in Irving joining the Dallas ministerial alliance and giving full fellowship to denominations. This is the goal of the movement. When preachers teach the same principles, doctrines and errors, using the same terminology as the digressives, yet hide behind their friends who either cannot see their digression yet or are still trying to save them from error, they abuse the buddy system.

Scuba divers learn pretty quickly who they can trust in the “buddy system.” An untrustworthy “buddy” can get you killed. Preachers (and all Christians) ought to learn a lesson from this. If your “buddy” is not trustworthy, you will lend your reputation to error, be used for evil purposes and provide sanctuary for a false teacher. Jesus taught us to “go the extra mile” but He didn’t teach us to sanction error. Maybe it’s time for us to take another look at our “buddies”.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 23, pp. 724-725
December 6, 1984