Truth Magazine

By Ramon A. Madrigal

The Book of Acts is a book of conversions. It contains that which the Lord wants us to know about that vital subject. Just before He left His disciples to return to His Father, Jesus gave what is called the “Great Commission” (Matt. 28), and every case of conversion in the Acts of the Apostles was accomplished according to the terms of that commission. While it can be clearly demonstrated that each example of conversion followed th is, pattern, the case of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-39) is the most lucid and celebrated. It is the purpose of this study to discern what was necessary for this man to be regenerated to Christ. Let us notice:

An Open Book

In verse 28 of the narrative Luke informs us that this highly religious individual was reading a portion of Isaiah the prophet. Notice that before any valuable religious discussion can occur, there must be an open book, namely the Bible. Many people often engage in futile religious debate because their Bibles are not open. The eunuch had his scroll open, and although he did not understand the Suffering Servant passage completely, he knew that it was the veritable Word of God. He rightly perceived that “all scripture is inspired of God” (2 Tim. 3:16), and that if he would be free he must seek the Truth there.

An Open Mind

Although this man did have, in fact, and open Book at his disposal, he needed desperately to understand its contents. When Philip the evangelist asked him if he understood what he was reading he admitted that he did not know (vv. 30-3 1). How hard it is for some to admit ignorance or error. But this was the very grave matter of eternal salvation, and the eunuch had no time for vanity or pride. He quickly invited Philip to teach him more about Jesus. This Ethiopian was open and receptive to Truth and thus anticipated the noble tradition of the Bereans (see Acts 17:11). While it is sad that so many Bibles merely collect dust and flower petals, it is equally pathetic for people to open their Bibles and close their minds. This is unfortunate, yet quite common. The eunuch, however, was hungry and thirsty for righteousness (cf. Matt. 5:6). Jesus promised that if we only “ask” it will be “given”; if we would but “seek” we will “find”; if we simply “knock” it will be “opened” for us. The eunuch was seeking. Surely he would find!

An Open Mouth

In verse 35 we notice that Philip “opened his mouth and . . . preached Jesus.” This is yet another important element in the process of conversion, the preaching of the Gospel. While it is certainly possible for anyone with an open Bible and an open mind to discern truth, a teacher definitely helps. The Apostle Paul had this in mind when he queried, “How then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent?” (Rom. 10: 11- 14). Yes, there is a great need for zealous preaching and teaching of the Word. Brethren, are we preaching “in season and out of season”? Are we sending and being sent? Philip was sent and being spent.

Another Open Mouth

“As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized? And Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, you may. And he answered, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”(1) Notice that it wasn’t only Philip who opened his mouth on this occasion. The Ethiopian also spoke. He made the good confession concerning the deity of Jesus. Christ both warned and promised that “Whoever confesses me before men, I will confess him before my Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies me before men, him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 10:32). When Jesus questioned His early disciples about His identity, Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God!” (see also Jn. 11:27 and 20:28). Certainly we can see the need for a public(2) acknowledgment of Christ before men. This is to be done not only as a pre-baptismal “rite” but throughout the life of the Christian (cf. Heb. 3:1 in ASV, RSV, NIV). We must never be ashamed of who Jesus is (Christ) and who we are (Christians).

An Open Water

Read verses 36-38 again. Do you wonder why the eunuch made this request after Philip “preached unto him Jesus”? Obviously, Philip taught the eunuch from Ethiopia the necessity of baptism for salvation. That was part of the “Good News” (Matt. 28:19, Mark 16:16). When Peter preached on Pentecost, he. commanded his audience to “repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ unto (for, eis in Greek) the remission of your sins” (Acts 2:38). In Romans 6:3-4 the Apostle Paul talks a out the symbolism of baptism. It represents the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. “Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. ” This is the very center of the Gospel message.

Notice also in verses 38-39 how both Philip and the eunuch ‘went down into the water, and came up out of the water.” Does that sound like sprinkling or pouring to you? Certainly not! Like all other instances of baptism in the New Testament, immersion is the course of action. Indeed, it is the only action inherent in the Greek word bapfidzo.(3)

Heaven Opened

As the narrative progresses to a close, we find a happy and triumphant eunuch. Indeed, after his encounter with the evangelist, the Ethiopian “went on his way rejoicing.” Why? Because he had obeyed the Gospel call and was saved. He Was on the way to heaven in the presence of God Himself. Notice that he became very emotional. But when did his emotions come into play? It was not before or during his salvation, but after responding to facts with reason.

Jesus did promise that whoever knocks, it would be opened unto him. Here, the noble Ethiopian was knocking. He opened the Scriptures and his mind to its teachings. Philip opened his mouth in preaching and the eunuch opened his mouth in confession and was then baptized in open water. As a citizen of the Kingdom he had open access to the throne of grace.

Have you opened your mind and your heart to this message from God’s Holy Book? Why not respond as did this man of old and you, too, can go on your way rejoicing?

Endnotes

1. Verse 37 of Acts 8 is missing in the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts of the NT. That is why most modern translations do not include this verse in the text (see ASV, RSV, NASB, and NIV). The reason that the KJV included this verse is because these reliable manuscripts were not discovered until after 1611.

2. Yet note that the eunuch made his confession before only one man.

3. see Thayer, Vine, Ardnt & Gingrich, etc.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 2, pp. 50-51
January 19, 1984

By Bobby Witherington

A brother in Christ from another area enclosed with a personal letter to me a copy of the July 31, 1983 issue of The Persuader, a bulletin published by the Scyene Road church of Christ in Dallas, Texas, and which is edited by brother Arnold Hardin. A featured article in this bulletin was one entitled “Afraid of Grace,” written by brother Dan Rogers. In his first sentence Dan said: “Although many will no doubt deny it, I believe that, generally speaking, we church of Christ folk are terribly, terribly afraid of grace.” In his last paragraph brother Rogers again said, “We church of Christ folk are terribly, terribly afraid of grace.”

I must confess that I did not know that we are “terribly, terribly afraid of grace.” Most people tend to avoid those things of which they are “terribly, terribly afraid.” For example, I am “terribly, terribly afraid” of wild, wounded bears. So I leave them alone. Entirely. But I do not avoid the subject of grace. In fact, in my last gospel meeting I preached a sermon entitled “Salvation by Grace.” And as a matter of coincidence on the day before receiving this “Afraid of Grace” article, along with brother Dodson, I taught a lesson on grace to some patients at Patton Hospital. These patients are not yet members of the church of Christ, so that lesson naturally did not scare them. But brother Dodson did not seem unnerved by my lesson. Come to think of it, the brethren in the church where I last preached a sermon on that subject did not seem unnerved either. In fact, on numerous occasions I have preached on grace, but I do not recall any “church of Christ folk” becoming “terribly, terribly afraid.” Maybe some brethren are “terribly, terribly afraid of grace,” but I have not met any. And brother Rogers believes that “generally speaking, we church of Christ folk are terribly, terribly afraid of grace.”

Thayer’s Lexicon defines grace as “good-will, loving kindness, favor.” Additionally he stated “the New Testament writers use charis (grace, bw) pre-eminently of that kindness by which God bestows favor even upon the ill-deserving and grants to sinners the pardon of their offences, and bids them accept of eternal salvation through Christ. ” That thought thrills my soul! It does not make me “terribly, terribly afraid.”

However, I must confess that I believe in a Savior Who “cannot deny himself’ (2 Tim. 2:13). This means that whatever the Lord taught on one subject does not contradict what He taught on other subjects. It means that the “grace” passages harmonize with the passages which teach the necessity of obedience. Of course, I believe Ephesians 2:8,9: “For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves. it is the gift of God., not of works, lest any man should boast.” “Grace, ” as used here sets forth the divine side of salvation – God doing for us what we can not do for ourselves. “Faith” sets forth the human side of salvation -God requiring of us what we can do for ourselves. The expression, “and that not of yourselves.- it is the gift of God,” refers neither to grace nor faith, but to the whole process of our being saved by grace through faith. It has to be the “gift of God,” for man, through sin, offended the infinite holiness of God and thus alienated himself from God. This being true, man is utterly powerless to devise his own system whereby he may receive God’s forgiveness. If man could devise his own law of pardon then he could claim salvation on the basis of human merit – earning God’s favor by his own self-appointed meritorious works.

But it is one thing to rule out man-conceived, meritorious works, and quite another to rule out the Christ-authorized works of obedience. That human activity must compliment the grace of God is suggested by the following: (1) Grace is given of God (Jas. 4:6) but man has access to it by faith (Rom. 5:1,2). (2) Grace brings salvation (Tit. 2:11), but man must work it out by obedience (Phil. 2:12). (3) Grace provides the word (Acts 20:32), but man must receive it with meekness (Jas. 1:21). (4) Grace elects man to salvation (Rom. 11:5), but we are elected unto obedience (1 Pet. 1:2). (5) Grace is in Christ (2 Tim. 2: 1) but man must enter Christ by baptism (Gal. 3:27). The grace of God teaches (Tit. 2:11) but man must practice the teaching (Tit. 2:12).

Salvation by grace proves that man lacks ability; it does not destroy accountability. It proves that salvation is unmerited; it does not make salvation unconditional. After we meet all the conditions we are at best “unprofitable servants” (Lk. 17: 10). We can earn salvation, but we must do ” The will of the Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 7:2 1). Are we “terribly, terribly afraid of grace?” No! A thousand times no. What we are “terribly, terribly afraid of” is not Bible teaching on grace, but the unbiblical attempts of such men as Arnold Hardin and Dan Rogers to array passages on grace against those passages which stress the necessity of obedience.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 2, p. 49
January 19, 1984

By Earl E. Robertson

The fifth erroneous point in the five-point system commonly recognized as Calvinism is the Perseverance of the Saints. This doctrine is known around here as “once saved, always saved” or “the impossibility of apostasy.” It is the contention that after God saves one, that individual can never be lost in hell. They tell us that God will so chastised His children that they will be always acceptable.

One preacher wrote a booklet under the title Do A Christian’s Sins Damn His Soul? saying, “We take the position that a Christian’s sins do not damn his soul. The way a Christian lives, what he says, his character, his conduct, or his attitude toward other people have nothing whatever to do with the salvation of his soul …. All the prayers a man may pray, all the Bibles he may read, all the churches he may belong to, all the services he may attend, all the sermons he may practice, all the debts he may pay, all the ordinances he may observe,. a the laws he may keep, all the benevolent acts he may perform will not make his soul one whit safer; and all the sins he may commit from idolatry to murder will not make his soul in any more danger …. The way a man lives has nothing whatever to do with the salvation of his Soul . . . .”

This is exactly what many believe but no scriptural proof is offered to substantiate such. If any passages of Scripture are offered, they will be twisted and perverted. Apparently these individuals have not learned that eternal life is both conditional and future. Paul says “continue in the doctrine – save thyself” (1 Tim. 4:16); “Sow to the spirit – reap life everlasting” (Gal. 6:8). Peter shows that if Christians “do these things – they will enter the everlasting kingdom” (2 Pet. 1:10, 11), and that we are “kept by power through faith – salvation to be revealed” (1 Pet. 1:5). These passages are sufficient to impress us with the fact that our salvation is conditional, and that having lived acceptably in this life we will be accepted by Him for heaven itself. Jesus says, “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee the crown of fife” (Rev. 2:10).

To the Christians in Galatia, Paul writes, “Ye are severed from Christ, ye who would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace” (Gal. 5:4). This person is lost!

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 2, p. 47
January 19, 1984

By Irven Lee

It was Paul, a servant of God, who went to the wicked, idolatrous city of Corinth to plant the seed of the kingdom. Apollos watered and helped to establish the brethren. Several others went there to help in the work, and there came to be some worthy brethren at Corinth who helped one another. The immorality, idolatry, and the love of money in the city were well known, so Paul was there with a sense of weakness, fear, and trembling, but he faithfully preached Christ and Him crucified. He taught the same gospel there that he taught “every where in every church. Aquila, Crispus, Gaius, Stephanas, and Justus we names we may know. Silas, Timothy, and Titus are also mentioned in connection with this work.

It should be no surprise to learn that the church at Corinth had problem because the evils of an am tend to come into the church. Even the church as a body did not deal with the fornicator as quickly as it should have done (1 Cor. 5:1-13). The fact that the apostle had occasion to rebuke the brethren for this matter, and for several other serious problems, did not prevent his addressing his letter to “the church of God which is at Corinth.” It was in error, but he loved the brethren and set about to bring about proper corrections.

Paul found others who could be persuaded to join with him in bringing about the needed changes in their course. It would be hard to find a church now with more grievous problems than could be found in that church. The apostle wrote it, sent others, and went himself because it was sick. The changes were to be brought about by teaching rather than by pressure tactics. It was time to “reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2). The word is the seed of the kingdom, and it includes the milk and meat for edification.

It is very obvious that churches at Ephesus, Philippi, and Thessalonica were not asked to withdraw from Corinth, nor were men forbidden to go there to preach. We do not know how much they knew about the situation in Achaia. Each church would have its own work and its own problems to face. No church in other provinces would know the people involved and the details of the problems to handle the sins of the brethren at Corinth. The wisdom of God is evident in ordaining elders in every church and in asking them to “tend the flock of God which is among you” (1 Pet. 5:1-5).

It seems that some may right weak churches rather than try to help them, and to agitate for division rather than working for peace. The apostles’ effort was to bring peace where there was envy and strife. Even Corinth was not a hopeless case. The elders at Ephesus were not asked to withdraw from the fornicators at Corinth, nor were they asked to withdraw from the church at Corinth for failing to ad as quickly as it should have acted in purging out the leaven of wickedness. The elders at Ephesus were to tend the flock which was among them. They were certainly not obligated to try to destroy the sick church in southern Greece!

Individual disciples from various places might go to a church which was endangered by worldliness, false doctrine, or envy, but they would not go as official representatives of the churches from which they came. They were not official fact finders, nor were they there to deliver threats from other churches. The churches in the days of the apostles were not tied together in some sort of association, synod, conference, or convention. Each moved in its local capacity alone.

Each church was aware of the spread of the gospel in other areas and rejoiced in this fact. Greetings and encouraging words could be sent through Paul’s letters and, no doubt, by other means of communication. Such greetings were not meant to indicate approval of sin and error in the church to which they sent their salutation. Their message of encouragement did not indicate that after thorough investigation of the distant church they had found it to be without problems or dangers. No church in the days of the apostles felt any obligations to meddle in the decision making process of other churches, or to handle the discipline of an erring disciple in another community.

Even in this article, I could send greetings to any brethren anywhere who might read it. I could also say that the church here at Jennings Chapel where I preach regularly is happy to know that good men are doing good work in many places. We do pray for our brethren in difficult situations, and especially for those we help to support. We could, of course, cease to send greetings and to pray for them. We send funds to preachers in North Carolina, Kentucky, Washington, and to the Republic of South Africa. We might learn of some situation that would cause us no longer to help one or more of these men. We have absolutely no plans to try to make the local decisions for the churches where these men work. They are not “missions” under the “mother church” here.

In a well-established church with elders where we may live and worship, there are men who are over us in the Lord. We are to know them, obey them, and esteem them highly for their work’s sake (1 Thess. 5:12; 3:1; 1 Tim. 5:17-20; Heb. 13:7,17). We have no such relationship with elders that live and work in other areas. They are not overseers over us. They do not watch for our souls and will not have to give account for us. An elder or any one. else from some distant place might have personal contact with one of us at some time, and if he observes an error in us he would be free to teach, reprove, rebuke, or exhort us. He could and should avoid our error. He, as an individual, might be aware of danger to the brethren where he lives and warn them.

If I observe the ungodly life of some man in the community, I could talk with him frankly about his behavior and the reaping that will be sure to come. I could not threaten to divorce him because I am not married to him. The elders in one place are not in charge of discipline in another area and should not pretend that they are.

When there are rumors that a member of the church is immoral, the elders in that community may find it difficult to learn the truth in the matter and act as they should. If there are elders in another area that think they are to investigate every matter and take official action, they may in their lack of information take vigorous action in favor of the fornicator who has deceived them and against good elders who have done their duty. It would be far better for these distant elders to tend the flock of God where they live (Acts 20:28-31; 1 Peter 5:1-5).

The churches of Macedonia might send funds to Paul or other worthy workers, or they might send relief to the poor saints at Jerusalem or at other places. They could mention their interest in the church at Rome and joy in the report of its great faith. This would be pleasant and helpful fellowship. They could cease their giving when there was no longer a need or no longer an opportunity to send funds. If some unworthy behavior showed up in those who had been receiving the funds, those giving could withhold further gifts. That would be all they could withdraw. They never had the oversight or authority to command those brethren in other areas.

When good Bible students who have fought many worthy battles for truth decide that they must act officially on every church problem, their worthy influences becomes a disturbing and hindering factor in every community in which they attempt to take decisive action. If there has ever been any good results come from such meddling in the affairs of other churches it is not evident. If one church divides that should not lead to powerful forces to divide all churches within a large area.

The wisdom of God is evident in His leaving every church independent and autonomous. If one church goes down into apostasy it does not necessarily pull several others down with it. If numbers of churches were organized as a synod, conference, or an association the whole diocese would likely digress together. We are not all under some diocesan bishop. Let us all give thanks to God for this, and let each of us decide never to seek to take charge of many churches. In trying to reach out to all as judge, one destroys his good influence and does harm to many churches. The Lord is looking for doers of the law and not judges. Brethren over yonder are as capable of handling local problems as is any one of us. This tendency to enter into this aspect of judging is spreading and is doing much harm.

Guardian of Truth XXVIII: 2, pp. 46-47
January 19, 1984