Truth Magazine

By Allan Turner

This special issue on secular humanism proves, if nothing else, that those who have been speaking and writing on this subject no longer sit as “lonely birds on the roof.” I am happy to share with you the fruit of my study of this subject. It is inevitable that any study of secular humanism would cause us to think about the influence it may be having on our government. I think you may find that it has had a much stronger influence than you had suspected.

When we think of the federal government, we normally think of a vast bureaucracy; so vast, in fact, that it is almost beyond comprehension. But, in reality, we are only talking about 537 elected and 9 appointed men and women. Surprised? Well, let’s count them: I president, I vice president, 100 senators, 435 representatives, and 9 Supreme Court justices. As ours is a democratic republic, these 546 people are the government; the vast bureaucracy, in theory, simply supports these 546 people in doing whatever it is government is supposed to do.

Traditionally, government (at least our government) has been thought to exist for the “common good” of the citizenry. Obviously, if government is to provide for the common good of the people, then it must have an opinion as to the substance of that common good. As secular humanism has become quite pervasive in our society, we should expect to see conflicts arising in government as it attempts to provide for the common good of a people who are sharply divided between a biblically based world view and a secular humanist world view. When we use the term “world view,” we are speaking of the grid through which we view the world. Naturally, there will be a sharp contrast between these two world views when the government attempts to legislate morality (i.e., homosexuality, abortion, marriage, divorce, capital punishment, pornography, infanticide, euthanasia, etc.)

It is my opinion that the conflict between these two world views is the most fundamental and decisive issue of our time. The issue is one quite common to New Testament Christians, who seek after the New Testament order, for it is one of authority: Is God still ruling in both the religious and secular affairs of man, or is man totally autonomous, answerable only to himself and the institutions he has created? These two alternatives underlie most of the major and minor conflicts of our day. Contrary to what some may think, secular humanism is not the “brand name of some organizationally identifiable movement. It is, rather, an ‘ideology’, i.e., an all-comprising, all-permeating world view, ethos and attitude. It is the antithesis to religion” (Klaus Bockmuehl, “Secularism and Theology”, Crux Magazine, June, 1983, p. 7).

Let us get, then, to the subject at hand. The first and last paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence speak of God. U.S. Supreme Court Justice, William O. Douglas, as recently as 1952, said: “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being” (Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306). 1 believe it is beyond dispute that our legal system in America has traditionally reflected biblically based principles. But this viewpoint is quickly changing. So quickly is the change occurring, that some have insisted that the “anti-God religion of Secular Humanism” is already the favored religion of the state (Claire Chambers, The Siecus Circle, Statement appearing on the flyleaf by Charles Rice, Professor of Law, Notre Dame Law School).

Thinking of secular humanism as the official religion of this nation may not be as far-fetched as it may, at first, seem. In 1961 in the case of Torcaso v. Watkins, Justice Hugo L. Black observed: “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.” In this case the Court declared itself neutral of any religious influence when it said that “neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs. “This newly found “neutrality,” or tightrope act, has forced the Court to pretend that the existing legal system is not subject to any religious influence.

In declaring themselves free from any religious influence, they have opted for the self-autonomous religion of secular humanism, and have discarded any notion of a Law above the law. On its face, this is a clear violation of The First Amendment, which prohibits the establishment of a state favored religion, if “religion” in the amendment means “ideological system,” as the secular humanists argue it does. Of course, the use of the term “religion” in the First Amendment has been explained by those who framed it as a prohibition against a national religion or the placing of any one religious sect, denomination, or tradition into a preferred legal status. And as recently as 1961 it was understood by the Court that way. This was articulated by Justice J. Frankfurter, who said “the immediate object of the First Amendment’s prohibition was the established church as it had been known in England and in most of the Colonies” [emphasis added] (McGowen v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 465). It is interesting to note that in the 1963 Schempp case, which outlawed the reading of the Bible, or its use as a religious document, in the public schools, the Court said that the use of the term “under God” could continue to be used in the schools as long as everyone understood that it actually has no “religious purpose or meaning.” The term “under God” in the pledge of allegiance, according to Justice William Brennan, “may merely recognize the historical fact that our Nation was believed to have been founded ‘under God… [emphasis added] (School District of Abington Township, Pa. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 303-04). At the beginning of this rather long paragraph we mentioned that the founding fathers recognized this nation’s dependence upon God. We have now arrived at a point in this nation’s existence where its historical founding “under God” is considered by the United States Supreme, Court as nothing more than an antiquated shibboleth to appease the masses.

The legislative branch of our government has been charged with policy making, the executive branch has been charged with carrying out those policies, and the judicial branch as been charged with making sure the other two branches do not go beyond the Constitution in creating and implementing those policies. Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the authority to make policy, but this has been occurring now for a generation (ever since Earl Warren became Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court). Instead of a democratic republic, for all practical purposes, we are a people ruled by judicial fiat. What some who sit on the Supreme Court seem to think is their right to carry on their own “Constitutional Convention,” we, the people, recognize as nothing less than tyranny.

Felix Frankfurter, who himself became a Supreme Court Justice, wrote to Franklin Roosevelt in 1937 what we all now know. “People,” he said, “have been taught to believe that when the Supreme Court speaks it is not they who speak but the Constitution, whereas, of course, in so many vital cases, it is they who speak and not the Constitution. And I verily believe that that is what the country needs most to understand” (Max Freedman, ed., Roosevelt and Frankfurter.- Their Correspondence, 1928-1945, p. 383, 1967). Justice William 0. Douglas recounted that when he came to the Court, Chief Justice Hughes “made a statement to me which at the time was shattering but which over the years turned out to be true: ‘Justice Douglas, you must remember one thing. At the constitutional level . . . ninety percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections’ . . . I knew that judges had predilections . . . But I had never been willing to admit to myself that the ‘gut’ reaction of a judge at the level of constitutional adjudications dealing with the vagaries of due process . . . was the main ingredient of his decision. The admission of it destroyed in my mind some of the reverence for immutable principles” (William 0. Douglas, The Court Years, 1939-1975, p. 8, 1981). In other words, he was converted to the secular humanistic concept that there are really no immutable or absolute laws. As Frederick Moore Vinson, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, is reported to have said: “Nothing is more certain in modern society than the principle that there are no absolutes” (Quoted by Francis A. Schaeffer in How Should We Then Live?, p. 217).

The humanist world view is being forced on the rest of us by a few unelected individuals on the U.S. Supreme Court (remember it only takes five of the nine justices to rule). Whether or not they are admitted humanists, or even aware of their humanistic tendencies, is really of little significance. The main thing is they have encompassed the ideology and are acting, either knowingly or unknowingly, as the High Priests of this “new religion”; a religion which is, in fact, really quite old. Humanism is as old as man. Sacred as well as secular history is replete with man thinking it possible for him to direct his own path. All such endeavors have ended in failure, and left those who espoused such in despair. Man is not now, nor can he ever be, his own savior, and thinking he is, or can be, is one of the great follies of humanism.

I have concentrated on the United States Supreme Court, because at this moment in our nation’s history the executive and legislative branches of government are under the control of the Court. Neither the President nor Congress can do anything without the approval of the Supreme Court. The Court, except within the confines of the church and the home, has completely secularized our society. The Bible is forbidden to be used in our schools as a religious document. It is illegal for school children to be granted even a few minutes “quiet time” to address their Creator. It is illegal for schools to post on their walls anything that refers to the Bible, such as the Ten Commandments. When teachers discuss the highly metaphysical subject of origins, only one theory can be lawfully taught: the humanistic theory of evolution. The murder of some 15 million babies in utero is approved by the Court. Infanticide and euthanasia are both being sanctioned by the judiciary. The Court has involved itself in reapportionment of local government and the destruction of neighborhood schools. There are other things we could mention, but space just will not allow us to do so. All these acts have been done against the will of the executive and legislative branches of the government by, in most cases, five unelected men. For humanism to have such a dramatic impact on current society, it was not necessary for it to subvert a whole government, just five men.

The situation is much more critical than most are willing to admit. In his first speech as a newly declared candidate for re-election, President Reagan said: “How can we survive as a free nation when some decide that others are not fit to live and should be done away with? This nation cannot continue turning a blind eye and deaf ear to the taking of some 4000 unborn children’s lives every day – one every 21 seconds.” The President went on to say: “We cannot pretend America is preserving her first and highest ideals – the belief that each life is sacred – when we’ve permitted the deaths of 15 million helpless innocents since the Roe v. Wade decision” (Address to the National Religious Broadcasters convention, January 30, 1984).

The Chief Executive Officer of the United States is now on record as identifying the abortion issue as the most critical

issue affecting the survival of America. The current U.S. Supreme Court position on this subject is clearly the product of secular humanistic thinking, which selfishly place the whims of the mother over the life of her unborn baby, and shamelessly proclaims a constitutional “right” for the mothers of America to legally kill their unwanted, unborn children.

There must be no mistake about it, if the government of the United States adopts humanism, there will occur a complete transition from the Romans 13 government ordained by God to a Revelation 13 government ordained by Satan. Revelation 1-3 governments are, by their very nature, antagonistic toward God’s people. If, and when, humanism is successful in wresting the reins, you can be assured the church will be persecuted. Are we going to be like those we have criticized and say, “If the Lord is going to save us, He’s going to have to do it all by Himself, because if we help Him, then it’s not totally of grace”? People who won’t do the works commanded by God aren’t worth saving, I know it, you know it, and the Lord knows it.

Therefore, let us “put on the full armor of God, that (we) may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world-forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in heavenly places. Therefore take up the full armor of God that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; in addition to all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming missiles of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints” (Eph. 6:11-18).

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 14, pp. 428-430
July 19, 1984

By Wayne S. Walker

To whom it may concern,

The brethren over at Green Meadows asked me to hold a Sunday through Sunday meeting for them and I agreed. The meeting began with two fine services on Sunday. Even if I do say so myself, my sermons on faithfulness and dedication to the Lord really went well. But Monday night, one of our kids had a band concert at school and we just couldn’t miss that!

On Tuesday night, just as I was ready to leave, some. friends dropped in. They stayed around till 8:00 and by then it was too late to make it. Then on Wednesday night we stopped by the school for the kids’ open house with plans to go on to the meeting from there. But a film was being showed that they needed to see so we decided to stay since we felt it was more important than the meeting.

The weather finally broke Thursday and I was able to get some jobs around the lawn done. I worked so h4rd all day that when I came in that evening I was really tired, and oh, how my back hurt. There was no way I could make it to the meeting. (The last time this happened to me, I had the hardest time sitting through my son’s baseball game!) So we went shopping in town instead.

I have a part-time job to help make ends meet, and Friday night the boss called for me to come in and do some extra work. Boy, you can’t turn down that overtime for anything. Saturday night, he asked me if I would make a quick trip out of town to take some papers to a branch office. He had more important things to do but, of course, I didn’t.

Well, I was finally able to get back over to Green Meadows on Sunday morning. Do you know, those brethren had the audacity to tell me that they were not going to pay me for the meeting! Why, the very idea. I had good, valid reasons for not coming every night. By the way, why didn’t you go to the meeting?

signed:

Bro. I.B. Lax, evangelist

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 14, p. 438
July 19, 1984

By Lewis Willis

You do not hear much from them today, but perhaps it has always been that way. I refer to godly women. They either have no time for, or interest in, the feminist rhetoric that captures the attention of the media. These godly women simply go about their business as wives, mothers and homemakers, striving to be credible helpmeets in the truest sense of that word. They are respected by their families, admired by their neighbors and they are blessed of God. Their homes are as God would have them and they are central elements in the orderly function of society. The godly woman is not the source of unrest and strife that permeates modern life.

So, where does the confusion originate concerning the woman and her role in the 1980s. Who are these women who champion the feminist cause? What are their backgrounds? What are their contributions?

Last week I saw a CBS Morning News interview with the “mother” of the movement, Betty Friedan. It was 20 years ago that her book, Feminine Mystique, was published. The modern women’s liberation movement attributes much of its impetus to the appearance of this book on the scene. It is viewed as the “bible” of the movement.

Just who is Betty Friedan? Perhaps you have known for years who she was, but the interview I saw was actually my introduction to her. She is an old, arrogant, foul-mouthed gal – the embodiment of all that is ugly in a woman. She makes Yasser Arafat look like Prince Charming. She is so unattractive that I can now understand how she had time to write her book. Her husband would probably like for her to write some more books. How this “excuse” for womanhood could be so greatly admired is beyond me. If she is all the women of this world have to idolize, we are in worse shape than many of us think we are.

Then there is the lovely Ginny Foat. She has been on leave from her job as California president of the National Organization For Women (NOW). She championed the NOW cause until her arrest on January 11 of this year for murder. In her celebrated trial, her husband, John Sidote, an admitted alcoholic and convicted killer, testified that 18 years ago she had beaten an Argentine toy manufacturer to death with a tire iron. Yesterday (11/16/83) her trial ended and she was acquitted of the charge. However, from the public and media reaction, this gal is destined to become another of the champion of the feminist cause. Such sterling character is deserving of respect!

The Akron-Beacon Journal (11/13/83) reported that Foat had worked in a New Orleans bar as a gogo dancer. USA Today (11/16/83) reported she had had an illegitimate baby at that time and had given it up for adoption. She is a marriage dropout; Sidote was the second of her four husbands. She has only been married three times since 1965! The details of that sordid and corrupt relationship made her trial spectacular. The National Organization For Women must surely be proud of such a wonderful representative for their cause! She is just the kind of image that NOW deserves. All people make mistakes and Foat’s mistakes are not greatly different from those that many other people make. However, the tragedy with her is that there is no evidence that she would do things differently today than she did back then. She is sorry that her exploits were exposed by the media and her trial, but her defense is that she was a victim of an abusive husband and her environment. The last several years of her life have been spent trying to get society to look with favor on such conduct and thus remove the stigma attached to those who do such things.

What has been the impact of such women on society. Politicians, from the local to the national level, have been led to believe that Betty and Ginny represent the aspirations of modern women. In their search for votes and in an effort to “be elected at any cost,” these politicians have recently tried to bless our nation with another Equal Rights Amendment to replace the one that the states would not ratify. The latest effort failed to win approval in the House of Representatives, being defeated when less than a two-thirds majority voted for the amendment on Tuesday (11/15/83). Feminists across the country were outraged and they vowed to defeat every representative who voted against the issue. God bless those statesmen who voted in favor of the well-being of women instead of knuckling down to the threats of a few malcontents who have failed to find happiness by living ungodly lives.

Behold, not wishing to be left behind, the National Council of Churches has lent its ear to the utterances of these women and responded favorably to NOW purposes. This national council represents 30 Protestant and Orthodox denominations. Their work through the years has done as much for religion as Betty and Ginny have done for women. The NCC has just published the Inclusive Language Lectionary. The Lectionary is a collection of Bible readings that eliminates references to God as being solely male. NOW must be rejoicing! The Lectionary could possibly become the basis for many other books by Betty. Ginny’s attorney might introduce some of its wisdom in her next trial for deeds in her colorful past. In some passages, God is referred to as both Father and Mother – as in “Our Father (and Mother) which art in heaven. . . . ” They altered the language about Jesus to refer to him as the “child” of God, instead of the “son” of God. The 112-page Lectionary is billed “as an attempt to re-think the language of Scripture . . .” (Akron Beacon Journal, 10/14/83). Why can’t these people just say what they are trying to do? The National Council of Churches is responding to the feminist movement and if it is necessary they will desecrate the Sacred Scriptures to attain their purposes! Their efforts, if the past provides us a measure, will be applauded by the clergy of most mainline Protestant, Jewish and Catholic bodies. With Betty and Ginny, the clergy will correct all of God’s mistakes about the role of women!

I was just thinkin’- I think I will continue to believe and teach the Scriptures teach and honor those godly women who respect Divine Revelation. Let the world applaud the NOW gals, but let godly women remember that “her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her” (Prov. 31:28). “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husband; . . . whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price . . . . Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered” (1I Pet. 3:1-7).

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 14, pp. 441-442
July 19, 1984

By Jack L. Holt

In the November issue of Action there is an article by Rubel Shelly with the title, “A Question of Eternity.” The editor of Action, Jimmie Lovell, gives the article his editorial approval and blessings.

Brother Shelly wrote about a conversation he had with a man he was trying to convert to Christ. This man finally got around to the issue that disturbed him. He could see his need to obey the Gospel but was reluctant to do so because as he said to Shelly, “Rubel I think my mother was the godliest woman who ever lived. She loved us kids, taught us the word of God and showed us how to live with respect for everything that is good. I don’t know whether she was immersed or not. Are you saying my mother will go to hell if she wasn’t immersed?”

That question seems to give modern preachers a lot of trouble. I say modern preachers, for this question didn’t give preachers like Jesus and the apostles any trouble at all. The Lord told the apostles, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mk. 16:15). Now, why were they to do that? Because every creature needs the gospel of Christ. Jesus didn’t say, “Go present some things that can be the basis for a religion,” or “Go preach a gospel.” But “Go preach the gospel.” Then, “He that believeth (that gospel) and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:16).

There are five facts that stand out in this commission: (1) every creature needs the gospel; (2) because every responsible creature is a sinner; (3) every creature can understand it; (4) every creature is responsible to it; and (5) only those who believe it and are baptized can be saved. Jesus views the whole world as lost. The world is lost because it is in sin. The gospel is the only way out of sin.

When the apostles labored under that commission, they went forth to preach the only saving gospel to a lost world. In the preaching of that gospel the saving grace of God was fully and finally revealed. The only grace of God that can be preached with His approval is “the word of His grace” (Acts 20:32). There is only one gospel of God’s grace (Gal. 1:6-9). To preach another does not mean one is loving and kind, but accursed.

Paul tells us, “The grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men” (Tit. 2:11). The word appeared means “to make clear, manifest.” It refers to the sudden coming of God’s word into a sinful world as light comes into a dark place. When Jesus said, “Go preach the gospel,” He is saying “let the light of salvation burst upon a lost world.” Or to put it another way, “Go tell a lost sinful world about the saving grace of God, those who believe and are baptized shall be saved; but those who disbelieve will be damned. ” Those who obey the gospel are saved “by grace through faith” (Eph. 2:8-9).

The Scriptures tell us we are saved “by grace through faith.” I ask, “Through faith in what?” Is it through faith in what we think God will do, or through faith in what God says He will do? To reject what God says He will do is unbelief. Is faith in God faith in what we think is true, or faith in what He says is true? For example if we have faith in God we must accept His view of the world. In God’s view every responsible creature who has not obeyed the Gospel of Christ is lost in sin, perishing and is “without hope” (Eph. 2:11).

In God’s view one has saving hope only in Christ. One comes to the Father through Christ, not through human goodness. Now shall I sit in judgment on God? Brother Shelly says, “God forbid that any human being presume to sit in judgment on the eternal destiny of another.” Well, Paul was a human being and he said those who “obey not the Gospel will be punished with everlasting (eternal) destruction . . .” (2 Thess. 1:7-9).

Brother Shelly, was Paul wrong in “presuming to make such judgments upon the eternal destiny of another?” Is it wrong to declare to lost men God’s judgments upon the disobedient? Is it wrong to tell an unbeliever his destiny will be damnation if he doesn’t change? Does God make any exceptions upon the basis of human goodness?

I have said it before, I say it now again: ” There is no objection that can be made against a preacher who properly quotes the Scripture in proof of a proposition that is not also made against God who gave the Scriptures. ” Faulting the preacher of the Scriptures is faulting God. To put it another way, to criticize those who contend for the pattern is to criticize the One who gave the pattern!

Brother Shelly wrote, “Judgment is the work of the Son of God when He sits on the great white throne in the last day (Acts 17:31; Rev. 20:11-15). It is an arrogant thing for any sinner to think himself fit to pass judgment on any other sinner.”

It is true there will be a final judgment day in which the Lord will pass sentence upon all men. But it is not the purpose of that judgment to determine whether one is saved or not. We can know that now. I may just ask, “Brother Shelly, are you fit to pass judgment on yourself?” Or would that be arrogant? Whether one is saved or not is a judgment we can make now. That judgment is going on daily. Jesus said, “He that believeth in me is not judged, but he that believeth not is judged already” (John 3:18). Now is a gospel preacher unfit to tell an unbeliever about this judgment? Brother Shelly, do you judge an unbeliever to be condemned or not?

Brother Shelly told this man: “I had no judgment to make about his mother, him or any other person,” Well, that’s strange talk coming from one who professes to know the truth as it is in Christ Jesus. Tell us, brother Shelly, since you were talking to this man before he obeyed the gospel, did you tell him he was saved or lost? Did you make any judgments about that? Further, do you judge sinners are lost? If not, why preach to them? Again, is a sinner lost until he obeys the gospel? If you are unfit to judge about this, why are you preaching? If you can pass judgments on one’s present condition as set forth in God’s grace and not be arrogant, why can’t you pass judgments based on God’s grace about a dead sinner’s condition and not be arrogant? God’s grace teaches that if one dies in his sins, where Jesus is there he cannot come (John 8:21-24). What gospel of grace sets aside that gospel of grace?

We need to come to grips with the truth that in situations where one has a good kind mother or father, that the question is not one of human goodness, but human sin. One’s parents may be worthy of the highest praise, but goodness doesn’t remove the fact that they are sinners. Jesus came to “save sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15), and this includes dear sweet mothers, fathers and children. Christ died for all men, which in turn shows that all men need His death, “for all were dead” (2 Cor. 4:14). The godliest mother that ever lived needs the cleansing blood of Jesus just as does the vilest sinner.” If righteousness comes by law (any law-moral or Moses) then Christ died in vain” (Gal. 2:21).

If the blood of Christ will cleanse the unbelieving sinner upon the basis of his goodness, then we have a new gospel. We could then preach, “Go into all the world and tell every sinful creature that he that is a good kind person can be saved; but he that is not may be lost.” But then we would have to be arrogant and judge who is good or bad! “O, what a deceitful web we weave, when first the gospel we do leave.”

To get a better look at Shelly’s error, let’s picture Shelly talking to this man’s mother about her salvation one week before she died. Would he tell her she must believe and be baptized to be saved? Suppose he did and she responded, “You’re judging, and it is an arrogant thing for any sinner to think himself fit to pass judgment on any other sinner.” How would Shelly answer? Would he say, “Well, I suppose you’re right. Judgment will come at the great white throne and I won’t be so arrogant as to say you’re lost.” Yet this same Shelly claims to be a gospel preacher.

Brother Shelly claims that he preaches one must be baptized to be saved, or at least to obey God. But then he says, “Some will surely find mercy in their ignorance and unbelief.” Now Brother Shelly wouldn’t be so arrogant as to pass judgments about that would he? Does he think he is “fit” to do that. The idea, “one human being passing judgments upon the eternal destiny of another human being! ” Well, that settles it Lord. “Judge” Shelly, who doesn’t believe in judging, has now spoken from the judgment seat. He is “surely” sure about it all.

It is remarkable how some will tell you you are not judging if you say a living unbeliever is lost, but it is arrogant, unfit judging if you say a dead unbeliever is lost. Jesus said, “. . . but he that believeth not shall be damned.” When I say what Jesus said am I preaching the truth in love? Can I preach the truth in love and say the unbelievers will be saved? Again, if one can be saved in unbelief when dead, why can’t that same one be saved in unbelief when alive? And if saved, why preach to them?

Brother Shelly affirms that God will save unbelievers! Look at this quote again, “some will surely find mercy in their ignorance and unbelief.” This is Shelly’s judgment of what God will do. Never mind that Jesus said, the unbeliever will be damned. Rubel Shelly has spoken. There is nothing arrogant about that – or is there?

Brother Shelly says, “God’s mercy is the only hope any of us has.” True indeed. But to whom does the Lord show mercy? Listen, “But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear Him and keep His covenant, and to those who remember His commandments to do them” (Psa. 103:17-18). Now we find that He will be merciful and save sinners in unbelief.

We need to keep in mind that God never commanded anyone to go apologize for His gospel. Should anyone be ashamed to preach what God was not ashamed to reveal? If the great God in heaven was not ashamed to write His gospel, why should we be ashamed to preach what is written? His ways and thoughts are higher, more loving and merciful than ours, no matter what we think about it.

Brother Shelly concludes, “How much better if we simply teach leaving both increase and judgment to God.” Very well, but teach what and to whom? One can’t teach without making judgments upon the spiritual condition of men. I preach to only two classes; (1) the sinner saved; and (2) the sinner unsaved. My preaching doesn’t put these people into either class. They are already there. I teach all men that if they do not obey the gospel they will be lost in hell. In doing that I simply teach what God’s judgments are and I will leave the matter of my fidelity in purpose to Him.” God forbid that any human being think himself fit to sit in judgment on God.”

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 14, pp. 439-440
July 19, 1984