Truth Magazine

By George W. DeHoff

There are always many problems in the Lord’s church. The perfect pattern is the New Testament. Because we me human, we sometimes fail to follow God’s plan. In traveling over the country, here are some of the recent problems I have found among the Lord’s people.

1. A new church has been formed in my home to” calling itself “Christ’s church.” We are informed that it will recognize the “Christians” in “all other”, denominations, use instrumental music “when we want it.” (Nothing is said about how Christians got into these denominations or whether the Lord wants instrumental music.)

2. Speaking in tongues in the Bible was speaking in another language but now some brethren have adopted the “Holy Roller” concept.

3. Baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) is clearly taught in God’s Book. Every person who is saved is added to the church (Acts 2:47). One who makes the wrong confession and is baptized for the wrong purpose needs to be baptized again when he learns the truth (cf. Acts 19). Comes now some brethren with the notion that “sect” baptism will please the Lord and we become sectarian by insisting that people do what the Lord has said. Bible baptism is not Catholic or protestant baptism – it is older than these denominational groups.

4.Inspired Bible. Comes now the notion that our “translations” are not “inspired.” Any correct translation is God’s inspired Word – our King James, for example. Christ and the apostles used the “Septuagint” and called it God’s Word. It was a human translation but God’s Word. There is nothing one can learn from Hebrew and Greek that he cannot also learn from English and we do have God’s inspired Word in our language.

5. At a recent big lectureship a man threw his Bible in the floor, stamped his foot on it and said “It is no more than the Tulsa telephone book unless the Holy Spirit comes to energize it.” (And that is God’s verbally, inspired, immovable Word! Truly we need some sermons on “the power of God’s Word.”)

6. And now we have heard everything: a church in Shawnee, Oklahoma has just had “foot washing” services!

7. And out in the West I ran into a fellow who decided that God does not answer prayer!

8. And I see in a popular Bible study course where it is im-possible to obey all the commandments of God but “God’s umbrella of Grace” will excuse all (How do we tell which commandments to obey and from which we will be excused?)

Brethren, we know nothing about how sinners are saved or what the gram of God will do for us except what is taught. in the written Word. It is high time we quit borrowing from the denominations and get back to preaching what is plainly taught in God’s Word – on baptism, tongue speaking, the times of the church, the Holy Spirit, foot washing, the grace of God and everything else taught in the Bible. (Do not say “It cannot happen to us.” It is already happening all over the brotherhood.)

[Reprint from: “The McLoud Messenger”, McLoud church of Christ, P.O. Box 197, McLoud, Oklahoma 74851]

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 15, p. 463
August 4, 1983

By Larry Ray Hafley

I. Introduction:

A. The argument for “Limited Atonement” is the doctrine of “Unconditional Election.”

1. If God has unconditionally elected certain ones to salvation, then Christ must have died for them.

2. If Cod has unconditionally excluded some unto damnation, then Christ could not have died for them, hence, limited atonement.

3. “The question which we are to discuss under the subject of ‘Limited Atonement’ is, Did Christ offer up Himself a sacrifice for the whole human race, for every individual without distinction or exception; or did His death have special reference to the elect? In other words, was the sacrifice of Christ merely intended to make the salvation of all men possible, or was it intended to render certain the salvation of those who had been given to Him by the Father? Arminians hold that Christ died for all men alike, while Calvinists hold that in the intention and secret plan of God Christ died for the elect only” (Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p. 150).

4. “It will be seen at once that this doctrine necessarily follows from the doctrine of election. If from eternity God has planned to save one portion of the human race and not another, it seems to be a contradiction to say that His work has equal reference to both portions, or that He sent His Son to die for those whom He had predetermined not to save, as truly as, and in the same sense that He was sent to die for those whom He had chosen for salvation. These two doctrines must stand or fall together. We cannot logically accept one and reject the other. If God has elected some and not others to eternal life, then plainly the primary purpose of Christ’s work was to redeem the elect” (Ibid., p. 151).

B. Definition of Limited Atonement:

1. Limited – restricted.

2. Atonement – reconciliation, redemption.

3. “We believe that God has an elect people whom he has chosen unto eternal salvation. We believe that the atonement of Christ was for that chosen number and no one else” (Elder Eddie K. Garrett, Primitive Baptist, in The Christian Baptist, March, 1972).

II. Discussion:

A. Arguments used by Calvinists to prove limited atonement:

1. “Us,” and “our” used to refer to the “elect” and exclude “them,” the non-elect (Isa. 53:4-6; Titus 2:14; 1 Cor. 5:7).

a. “All” equals the “us.” Have not the non-elect “gone astray” (Isa. 53:6)?

b. Grace which brings salvation “hath appeared to all men” (Titus 2:11).

c. Christ was sacrifice (“lamb”) for the world (1 Cor. 5:7; Jn. 1:29).

d. 1 John 2:2 – “not for ours only, but also, for the sins of the world.”

2. Christ died for “many,” not for “all” (Isa. 53:12; Matt. 20:28; 26:28).

a. Would not “all” represent “many”?

b. “Many” is used, but not always, to signify only a portion and not all (1 Cor. 12:14).

c. “Many” is used to mean “all” (Rom. 12:4, 5; 1 Cor. 10:17).

d. The “ransom for many” equals the “ransom for ell” (Matt. 20:28; 1 Tim. 2:6).

3. Christ died for His sheep, not for others (John 10:11, 15).

a. Yes, Christ died for the sheep, but this argument assumes He did not die for the goats (non-elect).

b. Goats, non-elect, are not a part of John 10.

c. All men, saved and unsaved, are regard-ed as sheep (Isa. 53:6), but whether they me Christ’s sheep or not is mother ques-tion. If they are not His sheep, they we still sheep, not goats; albeit, lost sheep.

d. Christ appeals to these other sheep.

(1) Evidence of John the Baptist, His works, the Father, the Scriptures, particularly Moses’ writings (Jn. 5:32-46; cf. 10:37, 38).

(2) To hear and follow Christ is to be His sheep (Jn. 10:16, 27).

B. Scriptures which refute Calvin’s limited atonement.

1. John 6:51 – He gave His flesh for the life of the world (Jn. 3:16).

2. John 12:32, 33 -How could His death draw all men if it were not for “all men” (John 6:44, 45 tells how the Father draws.)

3. Romms 5:18, 19.

a. How this was accomplished, whether hereditary or unconditional, is not stated, but the fact of it is.

b. Justification brought by Christ just as extensive as condemnation wrought by Adam.

4. 2 Corinthians 5:14 – “if one died for all, then were all dead.”

a. Note that “love of Christ” constrained Paul; thus, if His death was not for all, then it reflects on His love.

b. How many were “dead”? He died for just as many as were dead. Even Calvinist admits that all men are dead in sins.

5. Hebrews 2:9.

a. Note “by the grace of God,” Christ “tasted death for every man”, therefore, if those for whom He died is restricted, so is God’s grace.

b. The grace of God that bringeth salvation “hath appeared to all men” (Titus 2:11), and it is this grace which sent Christ to die for all.

6. 1 John 2:2; 4:14; 5:19.

a. “Not for ours only” is like Jmnes 2:24, “not by faith only.”

b. That phrase is the nail in the coffin of Calvinism.

III. Conclusion.

A. Consequences of Limited Atonement as taught by Calvinism.

l. It restricts God’s love and grace (2 Cor. 5:14; Heb. 2:9).

2. it negates God’s will to save all men (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9).

3. It assumes and presumes the doctrine of unconditional election to be true. See quote from Boetmer – they “stand or fall together.”

4. It makes a mockery of the great commission (Matt. 28:19; Mk. 16:15, 16). Why preach to “every creature” if all are not subject? See Acts 10:34, 35.

B. The death of Christ was for you.

1. “If my man . . .” (Jn. 6:51).

2. “If we believe on him,” God will justify us through His death (Rom. 3:21-26; 4:24, 25).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 15, pp. 461-462
August 4, 1983

By R.L. Whiteside (1869-1931)

Things new to me keep coming up. When I was twenty years of age, I heard a Cumberland Presbyterian preacher in debate refer to the fifteenth chapter of Acts to prove the scripturalness of the General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. Some years ago I attended the Mason-White debate in Dallas, Texas, and heard Brother Mason use this same scripture to prove their right to hold conventions. Just recently I heard this same scripture put to a new use – namely, to prove the right of a church to settle a question of doctrine by popular vote. This seems to be a convenient chapter. Will the reader please stop here and carefully read that chapter?

The last preacher referred to was accused of preaching unsound doctrine in that he had preached that the blood of martyrs is the seed of the kingdom, and had challenged my one to show where the Bible says that the word of God is the seed of the kingdom. In a meeting called to consider the matter, the preacher took the position that the whole church should by popular vote settle the matter of his soundness. A visiting preacher argued against such procedure and raised this question: “if a preacher should preach that sprinkling is baptism would you leave it to a popular vote to determine his soundness? Where would such a course and?” In reply, the accused preacher brought up the proceedings of the meeting outlined in the fifteenth chapter of Acts, and argued that the whole church at Jerusalem settled the question of circumcision that was then agitating the churches, which were composed of both Jews and Gentiles. It was later pointed out to him that the decision was inspired, for the document sent out says: “for it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us,” etc. (verse 28). To this the preacher replied: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit just a it seems good to the Holy Spirit now when we come to conclusions in harmony with Scriptures.” To hear a Christian preacher ague that a church may by popular vote settle matters of doctrine is astonishing enough, but to hear him try to prove his point by the proceedings of that mating is amazing beyond measure. If there is another gospel preacher who would take such a position, 1 would like to hear from him.

What are the facts concerning this meeting? What gave rise to it? How was the matter under consideration settled? In all the churches composed of Jews and Gentiles the question of circumcision was for a while a disturbing question. A certain class of Jews from Jerusalem was very determined to bind the law of Moses on all Gentile con-verts. “And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, saying, Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). This was at Antioch in Syria. “The fact that these men came from Judea, where the gospel was first preached, and where the original apostles had been the teachers, gave their utterances much authority from the apostles for their teaching, though it is possible they did . . . . The Phraseology employed shows what is brought out express ly farther on (verse 5), that they insisted on circumcision ‘after the custom of Moses,’ because they held that all the baptized, whether Jews or Gentiles, must keep the law of Moses in order to final salvation …. Paul, who had long ago received by direct revelation from Christ a correct knowledge of the gospel which he preached (Gal. 1:11, 12), knew perfectly that this teaching was erroneous, and Barnabas had learned the same from him, if not from some other source: so the two united with all their might in opposing the Judea teachers …. Paul and Barnabas did not succeed in silencing their opponents, but they so conducted the discussion as to bring about a fortunate decision of a provisional character” (McGarvey).

“And when Paul and Barnabas has no small dissension and questioning with them, the brethren appointed that Paul and Bunnies, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question” (verse 2). These Judaizers did not recognize the authority of Paul as an apostle; if so, his word would have settled the matter. And had it been proper for a church, by popular vote, to what matters of doctrine disturbing it, why did not the church at Antioch take a vote to see which set of teachers was teaching sound doctrine? Why send them to Jerusalem at all? The question was not disturbing the Jerusalem church, but only those churches composed of Jews and Gentiles, or of Gentiles only. If the church at Jerusalem had the right to determine by popular vote what other churches should believe and practice, would not another church have the right to reverse by popular vote the decision of the Jerusalem church, and thus bind circumcision on all? Is not such an idea absurd in the extreme? Is it not absurd that a Christian preacher should argue that the Jerusalem church, by agreement and without the aid of direct inspiration, should settle a great question for all churches for all time. But the other apostles approved Paul’s course, and indicated their approval by giving to Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.

When Paul and his company reached Jerusalem, “they were received of the church and the apostles and the elders, and they rehearsed all things that God had done with them” (verse 4). It seems that they did not mention the question of circumcision, leaving that for the Judaizers to bring up. “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses” (verse 5). After the Pharisees had stated their position, the assembly, so it seems, adjourned. Perhaps so much time had been consumed that they had no time at this meeting to go further into the matter. Another meeting was held. “And the apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this matter” (Verse 6). At both meetings the church was present. (See verses 4, 22.) “There was, however, between these two public meetings a private mating of Paul and Barnabas with the three apostles who were then in the city” (see Gal. 2:1-10). Paul sought this interview with the old apostles that he might know, before proceeding further, how they stood on the question; for he knew that if he found them on the side of the Pharisees, their influence would outweigh his, and his life work would be destroyed by his converts among the Gentiles being brought under the bondage of the law, and his work would be in vain. But the other apostles approved Paul’s course, and indicated their approval by giving to Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship. Concerning this, McGarvey remarks: “With this information as to the perfect understanding and agreement between the inspired apostles before us, we can plainly see that the second public meeting of the whole church was called, not for the purpose of bringing about an agreement between the apostles, but for the purpose of enabling the apostles to bring the whole church into agreement with themselves. In this light we must study the proceedings, or we shall totally misconstrue them.”

In this second meeting the Judaizers were allowed to fully argue their case before any reply was made. “Then, when they had completely emptied themselves, the apostles, one by one, and in a succession apparently prearranged, gave utterance to the facts and judgments which compelled assent.” The speeches of these inspired men overcame all opposition, so that the whole church concurred in selecting men to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. A document was prepared, which these men carried with them and which is referred to in Acts 16:4 as the “decrees which had been ordained by the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem.” It is absurd in the extreme to think Luke would have referred to this document as “decrees” had it embodied only the conclusions of a body of uninspired men; neither, in that case, could he have said that these “decrees” had been ordained by the apostles and elders. Besides, if these “decrees were only the uninspired conclusions of the church at Jerusalem, what right did they have to impose them on other churches, and why should other churches be under obligations to regard them? McGarvey says of this document; ‘It makes a for-mal claim of inspiration by the words, “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us.” No uninspired men could dare to use such language; and this circumstance differentiates it from all the decrees and deliverances from that day to this . . . Furthermore, it decided, on the authority of inspired men who directed its decision, a question of doctrine affecting the salvation of souls; and this no set of men except the apostles have ever had the right to do. In no sense, then, can its action be pleaded as a precedent for the existence of any ecclesiastical court whatever outside of the individual congregation, or for the purpose of settling by authority any question of doctrine.”

“It seemed good that the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.” What right did the Jerusalem church as a body of uninspired men have to lay any burdens upon any other church? They did not do it. The document sent out was inspired by the Holy Spirit; in such, it was binding on all churches in all countries and for all time. (From Whiteside’s Doctrinal Discourses [Denton, TX: Inys Whiteside, 1955, reprint 19771, pp. 29-34.)

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 15, pp. 460-461
August 4, 1983

By Ron Halbrook

In Luke 16:1-12, Jesus told a parable about a master and his steward. Accused of unfaithfulness in using his mater’s goods and warned of judgment, the steward “called every one of his lord’s debtors.” Making settlements with them, he collected all the debts and was com-mended for his wisdom. Jesus’ lesson concerned the wise and unwise use of blessings and opportunities. Particular-ly, he charges certain ones in the audience, “Ye have not been faithful” in using material wealth; “who will commit to your trust the true riches?” He added this stinging rebuke, “Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (v. 13).

What Jesus taught about materialism offended the money-loving Pharisees; they, therefore, scoffed at Him (Lk. 16:14ff). They well knew the Law and taught it to others. But while parading as patterns of righteousness, they prepared in their hearts every devious means of circumventing the law. Jesus told them,

The law and the prophets were until John: from that time the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached, and every man entirety violently into it. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the law to fall.

The law was temporary; Jesus has come to fulfill it. But He assures these clever Pharisees that their every violation of Moses’ Law will be punished. The Law will be fulfilled by Jesus. But it cannot be circumvented by these self-sufficient, money-loving men who trust in their material advantages.

Men were pressing to enter the kingdom. In fact, instead of waiting until the gates were properly opened, many were pressing violently to enter immediately! “The people were full of preconceived ideas with regard to the kingdom, and each one sought to hasten and enjoy its pleasures as one who impatiently seizes upon a bud and seeks with his fingers to force it to bloom” (J.W. McGarvey and P.Y. Pendleton, The Fourfold Gospel, p. 284). But Jesus stings the Pharisees again, showing that in no case shall they enter “the kingdom of God.”

“Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery” (v. 18).

“See,” he said, “the new state of things which I am now teaching, instead of loosening the cords with which the old Law regulated human society, will rather tighten them. Instead of a laxer code being substituted, I am preaching a yet severe one. My law of divorce is a severer one than that written down by Moses” (H.D.M. Spencer, St. Luke, Vol. II, p. 65 in Vol. 16 of The Pulpit Commentary).

These Pharisees trusted in their material advantages, devoured widows houses, and extorted from the poor. They were in both blood and spirit “the children of them which killed the prophets” (Matt. 23). The sanctity of marriage and protection of women provided for by the Law were not exempt from their twists and turns!. Jesus chooses to use a law of His kingdom with the same skill He used in choosing a parable of His kingdom – making sure His audience gets the point. If they flagrantly violated the Law of Moses on marriage, how certainly they could never submit themselves to the Law of Christ.

Whereas they looked for loopholes in the Law of Moses, they will find the law of Christ will strangle them; for, it is even stricter, higher and holier! The Pharisees were of-fended by the suggestion of the parable that they with all their wealth could not enter “the kingdom of God.” Instead of bowing to their offended pride, Jesus merely strengthens the point by laying out His law on marriage. They who trust in their material advantages, self-sufficiency, and ability to circumvent Moses’ Law can never, never enter Messiah’s kingdom.

We may wonder why Jesus stated the rule but not the exception elsewhere given (cf. Matt. 5:31-32; 19:9). Perhaps Jesus omitted it simply because it had no purpose on this occasion, i.e., the rule with or without the exception was an insurmountable obstacle to the Pharisees. They could have none of this, for they could not abide even in Moses’ Law. The more likely explanation is the abbreviated character of the record (and thus the advantage of four records, which repeatedly appears). “Probably … here, as in many parts of the Gospel, we only have just a bare sketch, or precis, of what the Lord said; hence its fragmentary character” (Spencer, p. 64).

Convict, Not Conform To, the World

Material security often blinds the minds of people, including God’s people (Amos 6:1ff). Men who trust in their material security and refuse to obey the Law of Christ can-not enter into “the kingdom of God.” Neither can those who are in the kingdom remain in it if they trust in material things and set aside the Law of Christ. We must teach the Law of Christ to the world in order to convict men of sin (Jn. 16:7ff). What law is violated more than God’s law on marriage, divorce, and remarriage in this dark world of sin? Instead of conforming to this darkness, let God’s people “shine as lights in the world; holding forth the word of life” (Phil. 2:15-16).

When we conform to the world instead of convicting the world, we are engulfed in darkness! Sadly, more and more of God’s people are being engulfed in this darkness – like the Pharisees of old, trusting in material security, playing loose and easy with God’s word. It would not work then, it will not work now!

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 15, p. 459
August 4, 1983