Truth Magazine

By Dick Blackford

While some situationists have completely discarded the Bible there are others who attempt to prove their new found standard of morality by the Bible. It is needful then that we examine such attempts to mishandle the words of our Lord.

Pretext of the Situationists

The two chief and strongest arguments made for situationism are the cases of Jesus’ disciples eating corn on the sabbath and David eating the shewbread (Mt. 12:1-8)). However, situationists make a similar mistake as that of the Pharisees – only worse. There is irony in Jesus’ question (“Have ye not read?”). The Pharisees took pride in their knowledge but had not read (understood) one of Scripture’s most common incidents. Jesus did not break the Law nor endorse violations of it. How do I know? Because (1) Sin is transgression of the law (I Jn. 3:4), and (2) Jesus committed no sins (Heb. 4:15). When the disciples plucked corn they did not break the law. They only violated the Pharisaical misconception of the Law. Obviously, the Pharisees “had not read” (nor had Joseph Fletcher) of the humane provisions made in the Law for wayfarers and sojourners. “When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbor, then thou mayest pluck the, ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbor’s standing corn” (Deut. 23:25). “Eat thy fill, but pocket none” (an Old English proverb) is undoubtedly based on this passage. Christ’s disciples did not practice situationism but were engaged in carrying out the will of Christ who was “Lord of the sabbath” (one possessing authority over; institutor, governor). No man on earth today is “Lord” over circumstances where morality is involved – certainly not Fletcher. We must subject ourselves to the One Lord (Eph. 4:5).

In David’s case Jesus specifically says what he did “was not lawful” (Mt. 12:4). Eating the showbread violated a condition of the Law (Lev. 24:9). David lied to obtain it (I Sam. 21:1-6). Jesus did not approve either act. To infer He did is to make Him approve a violation of the Law and thus approve sin. His message to the Pharisees was this: “You condemn the innocent and acquit the guilty.” Under no situation did Jesus approve lawlessness. Consequently, Fletcher is left standing in a worse predicament than the Pharisees. He believes both Jesus and David violated the Law, but it was “OK” because of th circumstances! Under this system it is nearly impossible to be wrong. Fletcher admits his views are almost devoid of the concepts of guilty, sin, repentance, and forgiveness. The redemptive work of Christ at Calvary is nullified.

Such a concept would mean Hitler was not wrong for murdering millions of Jews. By being able to give more jobs to Germans (his beloved countrymen) and greatly improving the economy, who could doubt that he did the “loving thing”? Many Germans thought so. The New Morality can be summed up with the phrase “the end justifies the means.” Paul was accused of this. He said the man who says “Let us do evil that good may come” has a “just damnation” (Rom. 3:8).

The Bible And Morality

The Bible does make some absolute ethical demands. There is a sense of “oughtness” and “ought notness” in its pages. But it is not merely a book of cold, hard rules. Behind it is a loving, personal God who motivates us to love him by his abundant blessings. All of His commandments are pure, good, sure, and not grievous (Ps. 19:7-9; 1 Jn. 5:3). Thus, when He tells us not to steal, lie, commit adultery, covet, etc., it is for our own good. The Christian must “love not the world” (1 Jn. 2:15-17). He must not be “conformed to the world (Rom. 2:2). He must be “dead to the world” (Rom. 6:2-7). He must quit the world (Eph. 4:17). His death implies he is finished with it. He must “flee youthful lusts” and “flee fornication” (1 Tim. 2:22, 1 Cor. 6:18).

It is unfair for Fletcher and other situationists to use the Bible when they think it supports their view but then reject the preceding demands. The Bible is a demanding book. It demands that it be read, believed, obeyed, lived, defended, and that it be the final answer in religion and morality.

Consequences of Situation Ethics

Sometimes the folly of a thing can best be seen by looking at its consequences. It may be that I would feel driven to do wrong in a given circumstances. I would be no less guilty. But Fletcher would come out “smelling like a rose” by justifying himself on the basis of the circumstances. John Warwick Montgomery said it well: “We plead with Professor Fletcher to cease the irresponsible practice of sticking his thumb into sinful human situations, pulling out the plum of moral self-vindication, and saying, ‘what a good boy am I!'”(1)

Situationists find great sport in citing some condition that appears as a dilemma and demanding that one of two equally wrong and unpleasant alternatives be chosen. They overlook the always possible third alternative of doing right. They forget the faithfulness of God who promises a way of escape from temptation (1 Cor. 10: 13). Their way of escape is to go ahead and commit the “lesser” evil and tell yourself it was “OK.” Some escape.

H.A. Dobbs gives an interesting illustration: “When my son was four years old he asked.- ‘Daddy, would you rather jump off a 44 story building without any clothes on or be ihot in the head by an automatic pistol?’ ‘Thanks a lot’ ‘ I answered, ‘but for my part I’d rather eat chocolate pie.'”(2) The situationist must be dealt with accordingly. He wants to eliminate the third alternative. Even when I have to make tough decisions in moral matters, I must remember that I am not the standard.

The New Morality insults God, deifies man, makes love for man greater than love for God, obscures right and wrong, and presumes absolute knowledge on the part of participants that the situation will turn out good. Now, back to Mrs. Bergmeier! What if her husband had resented her adultery? Fletcher justifies this case because of the “good” that came. But he violates his own rule that we should “love persons and use things.” One becomes so emotionally involved with pity and tears for the Bergmeier family that he forgets one other person – the guard! Mrs. Bergmeier treated the guard as a “thing” to be used and not as a person. With no regard for his family or his’soul, she deliberately used a fellow human! No one can really claim to love another when he works against that person’s eternal welfare. Fletcher forgets that an all wise God might have his own way of freeing a woman from a prison camp – if she doesn’t lose her “cool,” her patience, and her concern for fellow humans.

The New Morality also destroys individual responsibility and makes society guilty. Charles Manson blamed society for the murders committed by his hippy family.’ Wonder where he got that idea? Haven’t we heard that society was guilty of the murders of JFK, RFK, and Martin Luther King? The Bible teaches that each must give an account (2 Cor. 5:10).

Our next and final article deals with the question, “Who can consistently oppose the New Morality?”

Endnotes

1. John Warwick Montgomery, Situation Ethics (a debate between Fletcher and Montgomery), p. 47, Dimension Books, Bethany Fellowship, Inc., Minneapolis, MN.

2. H.A. Dobbs, Situation Ethics .Anchor, Vol. 2, No. 2, p. 9.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 3, pp. 72-73
February 2, 1984

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