Truth Magazine

By Herschel E. Patton

The first lesson in this series dealt with some false bases for confidence, believed and taught by many, and with the first ground for true confidence – the grace of God and the shed blood of Christ. This lesson deals with the conditions on which one benefits from God’s grace and the blood of Christ.

“Ifs” Of The Christian’s Confidence

Calvinistic philosophy advocates the “once saved always saved – can’t fall” doctrine. This teaching gives confidence (?) to one regardless of what he does or doesn’t do. It also stands in direct opposition to such passages as 1 Corinthians 10:1-12; 2 Peter 2:20-22; John 15:2,6; James 5:19-20.

The epistle of I John was written to emphasize the conditions for maintaining confidence on the part of a child of God. It is pointed out that a Christian can and does sin from time to time (1: 8, 10), how he does, and what is to be done about it. Throughout this epistle are listed proofs or evidences that we are children of God – having been born again – know we are saved, “if we walk in the light” (1:7); “confess sins” (1:9); “keep commandments” (2:3-5),”love not the world” (2:15); “remain-continue” (2:24); “our conscious condemns not” (3:20); “love one another” (4:12).

Many have made the mistake of selecting one of these “ifs” and claiming confidence because of it alone (e.g., 4:12 says, “If we love one another, God dwelleth in us.” I love the brethren so God dwells in me, even though I may not obey in some instances or may love the world) I John 3:21 says, “Beloved if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God . . . .” I have a clear conscience about what I do and am, so have confidence even though I may do wrong in many things! 1 John 1:7 states, “If we walk in the light – we have fellowship – with God and the blood of Christ cleanseth . . . .” I am walking in the light (?), have been translated into Kingdom of Light, am trying to serve God, so am confident that my sins of omission or commission, ignorantly or sincerely committed, are continually cleansed so that my confidence is never in jeopardy, even though I may be guilty of hundreds of sins through human weaknesses and/or ignorance!

The apostle John is not teaching the conclusions that have been drawn from the above examples in his epistle. Throughout the epistle, the apostle gives the ingredients, involving a number of “ifs,” or conditions, that result in, add up to, confidence. If just one ingredient (condition) is missing, confidence cannot be had. The apostle does not say Stone or two of these things, or most of these things if observed, will give confidence, but “these (all) things have I written unto you that believe … that ye may know that ye have eternal life” (5:13). He does not say, “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments (2:3), unless you are ignorant of the commandments” or “If any man love the world, except he is ignorant of a thing being worldly or yields under strong temptation, the love of the Father is not in him” (2:15).

If Guilty

But, what if one is guilty regarding one or two of these ingredients that give confidence? The apostle makes it very clear that guilt in any area destroys confidence. Must one be forever without confidence? The answer is in 2:1-2. “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1:9).

“Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such an one . . .” (Gal. 6:1).

“Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed . . .” (Jas. 5:16).

“Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him (he needs converting) . . . save a soul from death” (Jas. 5:19-20).

Simon, who had “believed,” sinned and was told, “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee” (Acts 8:22).

Certainly, continual cleansing through the blood of Christ (1:7) – the advocacy, propitiation by Christ – is ever available for the Christian who sins. But, is the cleansing automatic and apart from human responsibility? It is just as necessary for a sinning Christian to comply with stated conditions for cleansing as it is for an alien sinner. Neither is cleansed automatically.

One stated condition is, “If we confess our sins.” But, one asks, how can this be done if we are ignorant of the sins committed? The conclusion is then drawn that the general penitent attitude and confessions of a sincere, striving Christian will suffice. This, of course, gives confidence (?) to the sincere Christian who worships with an instrument, supports missionary societies, institutionalism, or is in an unscriptural marriage. But, someone says, “It seems unfair and unmerciful for God to condemn an otherwise faithful child who is ignorantly sinning.” Is this any more unfair than condemning the heathen who are completely ignorant of God and the Christ?

Brethren have said for years, and I believe on scriptural grounds, that God, in His providence, will see to it that where ever there is a soul that would be receptive to His truth, there will be extended the opportunity, as Paul was led to Macedonia by-passing other fields and people. Too, God’s mercy and grace is manifested in “giving space (time) to repent” (Rev. 2:21) – opportunity to learn and know. I have just such faith in God’s providence and mercy.

But, says another, “What if an otherwise faithful Christian dies before he has time to repent of a sin he commits?” This question is the same as raised about the man who is killed on his way to be baptized. Neither question shows baptism or repentance to be non-essential. Our concern should not be with what God will do, but what we are told to tell the man who sins to do. The apostle John says “If any man sin, use the advocacy provided (2:1). The apostle no where says, “If any man sin – ignorantly or through weakness – don’t worry about it, for the blood of Christ constantly cleanses the Christian,” as some now contend.

The Holy Spirit says, “Be ye angry and sin not. . . ” (Eph. 4:26). Why “sin not”? Obviously, because “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). Today, some are saying “be angry and sin . . even curse . . and don’t worry for if you die before realizing what you have done or repent, your sin is covered by the blood of Christ.”

Brethren, the apostle John does not list the exceptions of ignorance and human weakness along with the “ifs” (conditions) of confidence. The conditions for Christian confidence are as clearly stated as the conditions for the alien’s remission of sins. Men ought not to teach confidence on anything less than what is divinely revealed. Any confidence given, based upon human wisdom and emotions, would be false.

Let us not falter because of the conditions of confidence, but humbly submit to every one of them, and give thanks to God that “we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” and are assured, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins . . . .” Such teaching is not a “no confidence” doctrine, but that which gives true confidence.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 3, pp. 71-72
February 2, 1984

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: In Second Peter 3:13 it is said, “we look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. ” I have never heard anyone comment on this Scripture before. I would like to hear what you have to say on this.

Reply: In the verse preceding the passage in question, Peter has revealed what will take place at the second coming of Jesus. In verses 10-12 he had written: “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief; in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing that these things are thus all to be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy living and godliness, looking for and earnestly desiring the coming of the day of God, by reason of which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?”

In view of the fact that this present universe (including our world) will be destroyed at the second coming of Christ, we look for “new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” What are the new heavens and earth referred to by Peter?

To properly understand the meaning of the phrase under consideration, we must look at the word “new” which is translated from the Greek word kainos. This word does not mean simply that which is young in contrast to that which is old, but rather, it has reference to quality – “the fresh, unworn.” It is defined: recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the N. T., p. 317). In the new heavens and earth, righteousness will dwell. There will be the residing place of righteous people.

Where the “new heavens and earth” will be, we are not told. Many guesses could be made as to the composition of the new heavens and earth, but they would only be speculations. We have no divine revelation as to those and similar questions. That there will be “new heavens and a new earth” after this present earth and heavens and dissolved, there can be no mistake.

The premillennialists expect a future reign of Christ upon this present and literal earth. But we are told that when Jesus comes again, this earth and its work will be burned up (2 Pet. 3:10). It is impossible, therefore, for Jesus to return to this literal earth at His second coming. Furthermore, the reign of Christ (which is present) will terminate when He returns (see 1 Cor. 15:23ff). This passage (2 Pet. 3:13), therefore, gives no comfort to the premillennialists, whose future speculations are confined to this literal earth.

Where is the final abode of God’s people? Is it not heaven? In view of this truth that God’s people will dwell in heaven (as taught in other Scriptures), we conclude that since the “new heavens and earth” will be the abiding place of the righteous, the passage must refer to heaven – the future home of the righteous.

Since the word “new” conveys the meanings of “fresh” and “unused,” as we have learned, the “new heavens and earth” for which we are looking will not be this old literal earth renovated by fire, as some believe. The expression in 2 Peter 3:13 is found in other passages (see Isa. 65:17-20; 66:22-24) where it refers to a new order, specifically, the restoration of God’s people from Babylon. In the sense it is used there it is symbolical. So, merely because the word “earth” is used in the passage by Peter, does not have to mean this old literal earth. Heaven will be the new dwelling place for the people of God.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 3, p. 70
February 2, 1984

 

(Editor’s Note: I am producing below an exchange between Larry Hafley and Arnold Hardin which occurred as a result of an article which brother Hafley wrote in Guardian of Truth. The exchange is revealing because it demonstrates the weakness which the grace-unity advocates have in the area of baptism. Those who start off stating that the Lord forgives a man of sins which he commits of which he might be ignorant or which he commits inadvertently are logically compelled to make the same application on the subject of baptism as they make in other areas. The result is-that men begin to question whether or not one must be baptized for the remission of his sins in order to be saved. I think our readers will profit from reading these letters.)

Hafley’s Controversial Remarks

(5) Design. What is the aim, the object, the purpose of New Testament baptism? Remember, we shall answer the question by appealing to the word of God. There are numerous, diverse responses from the creeds and churches of men, but we are going to be guided by the Bible. But, first, why was Christ’s blood shed? Jesus said it was “shed . . . for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Now, if you were asked for the design, the purpose, for the shedding of the blood of Jesus, you could correctly say that it was shed “for the remission of sins.” In Acts 2:38, the apostle Peter said that one is baptized “for the remission of sins.” Would you deny that the precious blood of our Lord was shed “for the remission of sins”? No! By the same token, then, you will admit that baptism is “for the remission of sins.” Suppose I said that the Lord shed His blood because we are already saved; or, suppose I said He poured out His blood to show that we were saved before His death on the cross? You would not like it if I advocated that. Well, baptism, like the shedding of the blood of Christ, is “for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28; Acts 2:38). Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16). Ananias, a preacher sent of God, told Saul to “arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). On two occasions, Paul said that we are “baptized into Jesus Christ” (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27). Peter said that “baptism doth also now save us” (1 Pet. 2-11). What do you say? (Guardian of Truth, September 15, 1983, page 562)

Brother Arnold Hardin’s Letter

9/25/83
Scyene Church of Christ
2920 Prairie Creek Rd.
Dallas, Texas 75227

Dear brother Hafley,

I have read your article, “Five Components of Baptism,” and I am concerned about point five – Design.

I did not desire to write anything about it until I had an opportunity to ask you about it. What you had to say seems typical; yet going even farther than others. As written, it seems no conclusion can be drawn than that you are equating the design, purpose of baptism and the blood of Christ as being “for the remission of sins.” How can you remotely draw such a conclusion? There is only one thing designed or for the purpose of washing away sin. How can baptism be equated with the blood of Christ for the purpose of washing away sins?

Baptism is essential to one’s reaching the blood as it is faith objectified or embodied and just as it expresses a sinner’s repentance and confession. But to say baptism is for the remission of sins just as the blood is saying that which is unknown to the Bible. Or am I misunderstanding what you were seeking to say?

I would appreciate it if you would clarify this matter.

Sincerely,

Arnold Hardin

Brother Larry Hafley’s Reply

September 30, 1983
Northside Chuch of Christ
P.O. Box 1187
Pekin, IL 61554

Dear Brother Hardin,

Thank you for your letter.

You stated that my article “seems typical.” First, will you please explain what you mean? Of what is it typical? Second, you state that my comments went “farther than others.” Farther than what? And who are the “others,” and what did they say that I exceeded? Your answers to these questions will give me more insight to answer your queries.

Now, your questions:

(1) “As written, it seems no conclusion can be drawn than that you are equating the design, purpose of baptism and the blood of Christ as being ‘for the remission of sins.’ How can you remotely draw such a conclusion?”

Reply: Christ’s blood was shed “for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). It is the basis, the grounds, of our salvation. Repentance and baptism are said to be “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). They are the terms or conditions salvation.

(2) “How can baptism be equated with the blood of hrist for the purpose of washing away sins?”

Reply: Jesus “washed us from our sins in his ow blood” (Rev. 1:5; 7:14). Ananias told Saul, “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Christ sanctified and cleansed the church “with the washing of water by the word” (Eph. 5:26). We art sanctified by the blood of the covenant (Heb. 10:29). We are sanctified by the truth (Jn. 17;17). We are sanctified “in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God” (I Cor. 6:11). The blood of Christ is the basis, the grounds, of our sins being washed away. Baptism is one of the conditions we must meet in order to have our sins washed away (1 Pet. 1:18,19,22; 3:21; Rev. 1:5; Acts 22:16; 2:38; 3:19).

(3) “Or am I misunderstanding what you were seeking to say?”

Reply: Brother Hardin, what is water baptism for? What is its purpose or design, according to Acts 2:38? 1 say it is “for the remission of sins,” do you?

A few parallel propositions may assist you in reaching an understanding of my remarks.

I. At least three things are said to justify.

(A) “Justified freely by his grace” (Rom. 3:24).

(B) “Justified by faith” (Rom. 5:1).

(C) “Justified by his blood” (Rom. 5:9).

I preach justification by grace, but when I say we are justified by grace, I am not negating or equating either faith or the blood of Christ. I preach justification by faith, but when I say we are justified by faith, I am not negating or equating either grace or the blood of Christ. I preach justification by the blood of Christ, but when I say we are justified by the blood of Christ, I am not negating or equating either grace or faith.

Suppose you were to write an article on faith, as I did on baptism. Suppose you mention that we are justified by grace, faith and the blood of Christ. Then suppose I write you a letter and inquire, “As written, it seems no conclusion can be drawn than that you are equating the design, purpose of faith and the blood of Christ as being that which Justifies.’ How can you remotely draw such a conclusion? But to say faith justifies just as the blood justifies is saying that which is unknown to the Bible. Or am I misunderstanding what you were seeking to say?”

Brother Hardin, how would you respond to that hypothetical letter? Perhaps your response to such a given circumstance will serve to “clarify this matter.”

II. Further, imagine that you have preached a sermon as per Acts 2. At the conclusion of your lesson, you exhort the audience of sinners, “Save yourselves from this untoward generation” (Acts 2:40). At this point, a man from the audience replies, “No, we cannot save ourselves. Jesus is our Savior” (Matt. 1:21). The respondent continues, “What you had to say seems typical; yet going farther than others. As stated, it seems no conclusion can be drawn than that you are equating man with Jesus as his own Savior. How can you remotely draw such a conclusion? There is only one Savior from sin. How can a sinner be equated with Christ as Savior? To say man can save himself just as Christ saves is saying that which is unknown to the Bible. Or am I misunderstanding what you were seeking to say? I would appreciate it if you would clarify this matter.”

Brother Hardin, perhaps your clarification and explanation of such it situation will answer your reservation regarding my article.

Brotherly,

Larry Ray Hafley

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 3, pp. 68-69
February 2, 1984

By Don Martin

When we refer to the “Lord’s church,” we have reference to the church you read about in the New Testament. By “different” we mean unlike, separate and distinct. I submit that the Lord’s church is radically different from all the numerous man-made churches. What makes Jesus’ church different?

The founder of the Lord’s church? The church of the New Testament does have a unique founder – the sinless Son of God. “And I say also unto thee,” Jesus stated to Peter, “that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). Charles Russell, Henry VIII, or John Wesley did not build the New Testament church; the Lord did! Certainly, then, the Lord being the founder of his church makes the Lord’s church separate and different from the many human originated churches. However, I do not believe this is what really makes the Lord’s church different.

The origin of the Lord’s church? Jesus’ church had her beginning in Acts 2 about the year 30 A.D. Jesus had promised that He would build His church and that the church or kingdom would come into existence in the life span of those whom He addressed in the setting of Mark 9: 1. When we consider the origins of current denominations (1520 A.D., 1534 A.D., 1607 A.D., etc.) we are made to appreciate the separateness of Jesus’ church. Nonetheless, I do not believe this is the thing that really distinguishes her.

The designations applied to her? The church Jesus founded did not and does not wear human names or designations. For example, there was the church of God at Corinth (I Cor. 1:2) and the churches of Christ referred to by Paul (Rom. 16:16). Lutheran, Episcopalian, and Methodist were designations unknown to the apostolic period. Admittedly, scriptural designations set Jesus’ church apart from the others. Notwithstanding, I still do not believe this is the distinctive characteristic.

The public worship in which she engaged? As you study your New Testament you find the Lord’s church partook (1) of the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; every week, cf. Acts 2:42), (2) engaged in singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (Eph. 5:19), (3) gave of their means (1 Cor. 16:1,2), (4) engaged in prayer (Acts 4:31), (5) and had unadulterated preaching (Acts 20:7, cf. 2 Tim. 4:1-5). The members (Christians) worshiped daily by leading a life of holiness (2 Cor. 7: 1). 1 do not, however, believe ,_this is the primary difference which makes her unlike other religions.

The way the church financed her work? As we study denominationalism we f1hd most denominations financed by a number of carnal, secular methods. There are pie suppers, bingo games, raffles, distilleries, real estate investments, ad infinitum. The church of the New Testament, beloved, was only financed by the Lord’s Day offerings of the members (I Cor. 16:1,2). Nevertheless, I do not believe we have found the paramount difference.

Guarded fellowship? Unquestionably, the first century church practiced guarded fellowship (1 Jn. 1:6,7; 2 Jn. 9-11; 2 Thess. 3:6). We acknowledge that guarded, controlled scriptural fellowship is peculiar to Jesus’ church, but we still are not persuaded guarded fellowship is the decided difference.

The plan of salvation which she teaches? The plan of salvation as presented in the word of God – belief, repentance, confession, baptism for remission of sin – is only taught by the Lord’s church (Jn. 8:24; Acts 17:30; Rom. 10: 10; Acts 2:38). The denominations teach faith only, baptism because of salvation, etc. While the plan of salvation the church of Christ taught and teaches makes her radically different, I do not believe this is the unique peculiarity which separates her.

While all of these foregoing characteristics of the New Testament church set her apart, there is one feature, actually an idiosyncrasy, which is more directly responsible for her separateness than anything else – her insistance upon having a thus-saith-the-Lord for everything she believes and practices (cf. Matt. 28:18; Col. 3:17; 1 Thess. 5:21; Acts 3:22,23; 2 Jn. 9-11). “And hath put all things under his feet,” Paul teaches regarding Christ and his church, “and gave him to be the head over all things to the church . . .” (Eph. 1:22).

Beloved, the reason Jesus’ church wears scriptural designations, teaches the true plan of salvation, and practices guarded fellowship is because of her conformity to the doctrine of Christ. Denominationalism, quite plainly, is not concerned about New Testament authority. They believe what they do and practice what they do because it is convenient, feels good, or simply what they want to do! Conversely, the church for which our Lord shed His blood seeks to do all they do in the name of the Lord (by His authority, cf. Acts 4:7,12), and speak as the oracles of God (Col. 3:17; 1 Pet. 4:11). This determination to have book, chapter, and verse for everything believed and practiced makes her peculiarly and radically different. What happens when she ceases to demand authority? She ceases to exist and simply becomes another “sectarian order” like all the others around her!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 3, pp. 67, 69
February 2, 1984