Truth Magazine

By Lewis Willis

On Monday 2/7/83, Jim Bakker told a PTL studio audience at Heritage U.S.A. that he would not respond to reports currently circulating about his ministry. He said, “We can choose to accent the positive or we can choose to live like buzzards on dead flesh.” Jim, what occasions such colorful and dramatic eloquence? The answer is, Jim is in trouble again. In fact, it seems that most of the television evangelists are in trouble. Their absurd fund-raising schemes are getting considerable media coverage. The press is beginning to unmask these religious “Supermen” and folks are really going to be surprised when the real character of these unscrupulous con men is exposed. I seldom agree with the national press corporation but I applaud their efforts in this area and I would like to help them in the accomplishment of their mission as much as I can.

Why does Bakker want to accent the positive instead of living like a buzzard on dead flesh? The Akron Beacon Journal, 2/10/83, reported that the PTL Club has spent more than $440,000 (almost half a million dollars) since last October to gratify the materialistic whims of Bakker and his family. All of these expenditures occurred amid reports of a financial crisis at his ministry. On August 18, 1982, “Bakker took more than 5 minutes of air time to read a list of PTL’s overdue accounts.” With the sympathies of his audience sufficiently aroused, he made another of his daily appeals, begging his audience to send money.

According to the article, only 10 weeks prior to this, a PTL employee purchased a $375,000 oceanfront condominium “primarily for use by PTL president Jim Bakker, his wife, Tammy, and their two children.” The Highland Beach, Florida condo was purchased so the Bakker’s could “have a place in Florida where they could go and rest for a while. They go down there to get away from the hustle and bustle.” Millions of dollars have been spent to create “the hustle and bustle” from which they must now get away. What is another $375,000 of his listeners’ money to him anyway? Of course, I wonder what is wrong with the Holiday Inn? Four people could stay at a motel a bunch of nights for $375,000. Of course, the Holiday Inn won’t have $22,000 worth of floor-to-ceiling mirrors in the living room, dining room, master bedroom and hallways. Nor will the motel have an $8,000 parking place for his use! His new condo has both!

But that is not all! Bakker’s insatiable appetite for worldly things was not yet satisfied. PTL ordered $27,000 worth of equipment for Jim and Tammy to have new dressing rooms at Heritage U.S.A. “The adjoining dressing rooms, are to have 24-karat gold-plated plumbing fixtures . . . . The rooms are to feature an $11,678 sauna.” (Attention Brown Street Elders: Get with the program, fellas, and take care of the local preacher like you ought to be taking care of him.)

Bakker was still not satisfied! He wanted more. So, he and 10 others toured Europe and Israel at PTL expense. They flew from New York to London by Concord jet at a cost of $1,906 per person. He stayed in the presidential suite of Jerusalem’s King David Hotel where Anwar Sadat stayed during his peace mission to Israel. The cost: only $530 a night!

A representative of Mass Glass which installed the mirrors in the condominium, said Bakker’s agent “spent as if money were no object.” Even so, Bakker said, “We intend to be good stewards with God’s money.” Jim, the word is “spenders,” not “stewards.” I understand why he wants to “accent the positive.” Indeed, “live like buzzards on dead flesh”? Yes, sir, someone’s living like a “buzzard,” and he’s on the air in 200 major U.S. markets, plucking his listening audience out of millions of dollars, a good portion of which is being used to enable that “buzzard” to live like a king.

On Another Front

Meanwhile, television fans, did you hear what has happened on the south-40 where Rex Humbard does his number on his audience? This local dignitary continues to have his financial problems and his trouble with the press. On Tuesday, 2/8/83, The Akron Beacon Journal gave a financial update on Rex and his boys. The Humbard ministry “has had on-and-off financial woes for more than 10 years.” In 1972 an Ohio court ruled that his foundation illegally sold $12.5 million in securities. This debt was repaid by donations from his followers, “flowing in at the weekly rate of $160,000.” In 1979 he reported his ministry was $3.2 million in debt. His followers responded with $4 million. In a 1979 sermon, he said, “I’m facing a financial lion – bills that are trying to devour this ministry. Like Daniel, I need a miracle of deliverance. I don’t have the money to pay these bills.” Before concern and depression overcome you, “property records” indicate that “less than a year later” ole Rex bought him a $290,000 house and his son Donald purchased a $190,000 house. Poor guys! The BJ reports that since that time “the Humbard ministry has amassed another $2 million in debts.” However, “in that time, he and Rex Jr. have bought an additional $800,000 in property, county property records show.” Rex’s $290,000 house wasn’t good enough, so he went out and bought him a $450,000 house. He kept Rex Jr. in subjection, allowing him to purchase a new house, but only at a cost of $350,000. Poor kid! The article summarizes these materialistic exploits, saying, “While Humbard’s Worldwide Outreach Ministry has solicited money from the public. to solve financial problems, Humbard and his two sons, Rex Jr., 39, and Donald, 35, have purchased $1.4 million in property in the exclusive Quail Ridge Country Club community, Palm Beach County property records show.”

How do three men accumulate such a fortune? Humbard said he used his salary to purchase real estate from which he drew a profit, “leveraging our investments whenever the market permits.” He said, “If a person is able to go out and use the brains God gave him to make more money from his salary and live in a better place, I say that’s great.” To indicate what a nice guy he is, the salaries of the family “are determined through FPC&C, a Chicago consultant firm.” Apparently, the intent in using a consulting firm to set salaries is to elimination opposition. However, there is one similarity between Humbard’s ministry and the consulting firm – they both are spending somebody else’s money. And, they are g-e-n-e-r-o-u-s! If you don’t believe me, ask the city of Cleveland what they think of the number the consultants did on that city regarding their school system. The only undetermined factor here is just how large a salary do these men draw? “The Humbard’s would not reveal their salaries.” I can understand that. If in 10 years I had drawn enough salary to amass $1.4 million in property, I think I’d try to keep the amount of my salary secret as well. Just accent the positive and refuse “to live like buzzards on dead flesh.” Just keep begging and crying to your listening audience and stick it to `em! The dummies won’t know and Rex ain’t tellin’.

Don’t Forget Oral!

Meanwhile, out West, in the blue Oklahoma television sky, called the City of Faith, Oral Roberts continues to draw his much deserved attention. From all over the country, newspapers continue to report his “conversation” with God. You know the one I mean – the one where God has selected him to find a cure for cancer and told him to collect $240 from every gullible listener who believes his lie. The following cartoon by Bob Taylor of the Dallas Times Herald, appeared in the Dover, Ohio Times, 1/30/83. Obviously, as long as the Lord has friends like Oral Roberts, He doesn’t need any enemies.

I wrote to Oral, 1/25/83, calling his attention to the fact that there was a lot of skepticism about whether he had actually talked with God. I suggested that since he was building 110 floors of technical facilities, that he should submit himself to a technical test – a lie-detector test which would establish, beyond all dispute, that he was telling the truth. He honored me with the following personal letter. Please note his observance of the passover regarding that suggestion.

Dear Brother Willis,

I appreciate your writing and sharing your concerns with me concerning the publicity we have recently received.

Brother Willis, opposition is nothing new to us. We’ve had it throughout our whole ministry. And I have learned long ago God does not want me to strike back. I have always tried to keep my mind totally on the tasks God gives me to do. And I cannot do that if I involve myself in debates and denials about the negative publicity we receive.

I believe the work we do speaks for itself, Brother Willis, and must trust the Holy Spirit to show people what is and is not true. I further believe the work of this ministry will continue beyond my lifetime – and yours. I believe it will stretch into every generation to come. And by that time, any words written or spoken against us today will have no influence. Indeed, they will have no remembrance.

We are what we are in God and no distorted publication or media report can change it. Yes, we are human, but God knows our record and “no weapon formed against us will prosper” (Isaiah 54:17). We have that assurance.

Do keep us in your prayers. Satan is throwing everything against us he can find. And I believe its because he knows that God is getting ready to do something for the healing of mankind through ORU and the City of Faith that he must try anything to stop it. And if it were not for God, he could. But we are doing what God has commanded us to do so we just have to pray, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

Thank you again for your concern and for taking the time to write. May God richly bless your life.

Sincerely,

(Signed) Oral Roberts

This wonderful “servant of God” continues to be assaulted by Satan. However, his noble spirit enables him to lovingly respond, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” I wonder who he really thinks he’s kidding! In a letter to the editor (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 1/24/83), a reader, Jennie Shantery, observed about Roberts’ latest fund-raiser, “be realistic – Roberts is also a businessman.” To which I add, A-M-E-N!

Now Let’s Hear From The Great Jerry Falwell!!

Falwell was interviewed on The Cable News Network program, TAKE TWO, 1/31/83. Remember, he is the fellow who fleeced his listeners out of $19 million recently. Interestingly, he was asked what he thought of the so-called faith healers on T.V. He responded, “Some of them, such as Ernest Angely and others are shysters.” That’s about as close to “the pot calling the kettle black” as I have ever seen. Falwell thinks Angely and the others are shysters. They probably think Falwell is a shyster. In the great “Who Is A Shyster Debate?” I uncharacteristically, agree with both sides.

Conclusion

The unrestrained greed of these men is bad enough. And, when one considers they are all false teachers, it gets even worse. The Name and Cause of the Lord is submitted to great ridicule by these imposters. The harm is immeasurable. Paul said concerning such: “Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake” (Tit. 1:11). I will go to great lengths in speaking in opposition to such men. The world must know that the Brown Street Church finds them as abhorrent as it does.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 10, pp. 298-300
May 19, 1983

By Dudley Ross Spears

Our millennial and dispensational friends claim to take the Bible literally. They believe that Jesus will come back a second time with the saints from an imaginary “rapture” and will raise the righteous dead. Then Jesus will establish the millennial kingdom and peace and happiness supreme will reign. They imagine lions playing with lambs and children playing with deadly snakes, etc. They also imagine a beautiful body for the saints. Hal Lindsay wrote, “If you’re not too satisfied with the face or body you now have, you will have a glorious new body” (Late Great Planet Earth, p. 130).

A problem arises when one reads the words of Christ and compares them with the above ideas. Jesus said it is better to enter “into life maimed or halt rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into the eternal fire” (Matt. 18:8). He also said, “It is good for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into the hell of fire” (vs. 9). If one takes the Bible literally, one would be forced to actually amputate an offending hand and pluck out an offending eye. But this is done so one can enter into life. The millennialists are forced to equate the “life” here with the “millennial kingdom,” or else give up their order of events in the return of Christ. Do they believe we will have a glorious body, or do they believe that some may be maimed?

The truth is that one cannot take the words of Christ literally here in Matthew 18 any more than he can take the words of Paul literally in Galatians 5:24. Paul said that those who are Christ’s have “crucified the flesh.” Paul also said that our members should be killed (Col. 3:5; Rom. 8:13). Do the millennialists take this literally? I trow not. But they have the puzzle to solve as to how we can have a glorified body that is perfect in every respect and yet some will enter into life maimed because of their dedication to following Christ. How will they solve it? But another thing shows that Jesus did not mean for us to literally pluck out just one eye. John tells us that both eyes are involved in lust (1 John 2:16). How could one literally pluck out one literal eye and remove the problem of lust or offense?

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 10, p. 297
May 19, 1983

By Hoyt Houchen

Question: In Matthew 2:16 the King James translators state that Herod slew all the children in the Bethlehem area. Some of the other translations state “male” children. Is there a discrepancy here?

Reply: The consensus of scholarship translates Matthew 2:16 “male” children. I believe this is the correct translation in view of the masculine article in the Greek tous paidas. A.T. Robertson interestingly makes the following comment on the verse: “Herod did not know, of course, how old the child was, but he took no chances and included all the little boys (tous paidas), masculine article” (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 20). Berry’s Interlinear Greek-English New Testament translates tous paidas “the boys” (p. 4). J.W. McGarvey makes a significant comment on Matthew 2:16. “The Greek word rendered children (tous paidas) is masculine, and means male children. As it was a male child that he was seeking to destroy, he could have no reason for destroying the female infants” (Commentary on Matthew, p. 29). J.A. Alexander also attests to the masculine meaning. “Children, i.e. male children (Geneva), men children (Rheims), the sense being limited to one sex by the masculine adjective and article (pantas tous) and by the usage of the Greek noun (paidas), which is the nearest equivalent to our word boy, and like it, sometimes used for son and servant” (Commentary on Matthew, p. 38). Commenting on “all the children” (KJV), John A. Broadus states: “Properly all the male children, as in Rev. Ver., the original marking the gender” (Commentary on Matthew, p. 23).

Broadus, the author just quoted, throws some important light on why the King James Version has “all children” instead of “male children.” The following is his footnote on the verse: “It is properly rendered in the Syriac and the Vulgate, in the Geneva and the Rheims, and by Beza. But Wyclif, through translating the Vulgate, has simply `children,’ and so Tyndale and Cranmer, and also Luther; and Common Version followed these. It must have been supposed that the masculine expression was meant to comprehend both sexes; but such a use can never be assumed unless the connection requires it” (Ibid., p. 23). Others who testify to the masculine rendering are R.C. H. Lenski (Matthew, p. 80) and A. Lukyn Williams in The Pulpit Commentary (Matthew, p. 35). Williams also notes that in the Revised Version it is male children (tous paidas, not to tekna) [Ibid., p. 35]. These are but a few who support the masculine translation in Matthew 2:16. Others could be cited.

In view of the evidence considered, there is no justification for making a difference between Pharaoh only slaughtering “male children” and Herod “all children” (KJV) as some have supposed. In both instances it was male children concluded. upon the basis of the Greek phrase tous paidas, and in consideration of the fact that Herod was seeking to destroy male infants, not female infants, as J.W. McGarvey has pointed out.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 10, p. 297
May 19, 1983

By Mark Nitz

I appreciate the opportunity to state what I believe concerning these important matters. This article is not intended to be a point-by-point response to the material by brother Willis. Though he questions my motives and integrity as a Christian, I will not question his. I write this article with a calm, deliberate spirit; simply to set forth clearly what I believe to be the truth. I represent no one but myself, nor have I joined any “movement.” I am simply one man in Christ giving his understanding of these important issues. I realize full well the consequences of my venturing upon such an effort (Jas. 3:1) and, therefore, proceed with great caution, realizing I must one day give an account to our maker for my life and teaching (1 Cor. 4:1-5; 2 Cor. 5:10). Please consider what I say in light of God’s word.

With the wealth of material already written on these subjects by men of more ability than myself, it is doubtful that I can shed new light on these issues. However, I have observed that much of what is written, as is often the case, seems to advocate extreme positions. Some offer assurance and comfort to those yet outside Christ. Some leave the impression that obedience has no part in one’s salvation. Others leave even the Christian who makes a sincere effort to please God at all times, without hope and assurance, uncertain as to his relationship with God. Some seem to advocate that the Christian must discern all the errors of his life and specifically repent and confess them before forgiveness can be had, leaving the child of God (especially the babe in Christ) in a state of despair. I believe the truth lies between these extremes. It involves no compromise of truth, yet gives the joy and peace of mind the Lord intended as one searches for and meticulously practices God’s will.

“Salvation By Grace Through Faith”

I do believe in salvation by grace, through faith, at baptism and for good works – a summary of Ephesians 2:8-10 and Colossians 2:11-13. Through faith in the sacrifice of Christ, God can declare one who is a sinner to be righteous. God does so by forgiving him of his sins (Rom. 4:7-8; Heb. 8:12). I do not believe that the perfect deeds of Christ’s life are imputed to the believer, but that He bore the punishment for our sins, paying the debt that we owed.

Therefore, just as Abraham’s faith was accounted to him for righteousness (Rom. 4:1-5; Gal. 3:6), those who put their trust in Christ may also be counted righteous (Rom. 4:23-25). This eliminates any ground for boasting on man’s part (Rom. 3:27). This means that “eternal life in Christ Jesus” is a “free gift of God,” not wages earned for a job well done (Rom. 6:23).

Faith and Good Works

Who can deny that faith and good works go hand in hand? One who refuses to obey does not believe and, therefore, cannot remain justified (Jas. 2:14-26). However, the good works for which we have been “created in Christ Jesus” are not to be viewed as earning something we do not already have. They are not adding to the price already paid for our redemption – that is, the blood of Christ (1 Cor. 6:20; 1 Pet. 1:18-19). They are the fruit of faith or what Paul calls “obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5; 16:26). One’s faith prompts him to meticulously obey the law of God, not only observing the “weightier matters of the law” but not leaving the other undone (Mt. 23:23-24). Strict observance of law is not legalism. Legalism is making salvation dependent on law and one’s ability to keep it. Legalism is trusting in one’s own performance for salvation. When one begins thinking he is saved because he is right about all questions and issues, his hope is on shaky ground. The “man of faith” who has the “mind of the spirit” strives for perfection, all the while remaining humble, cognizant of his own short comings and, therefore, depending wholly upon the grace of God. He therefore sings with assurance, “Just as I am without one plea, but that thy blood was shed for me” and “In my hand no price I bring, simply to thy cross I cling.” Men of faith realize that after they have done all they are still “unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do” (Lk. 17:10).

Therefore we conclude that good works are important, yea essential for salvation in Christ (cf. “I by my works will show thee my faith” – Jas. 2:18). Yet, we do not depend on our keeping of them for salvation for we always “fall short of the glory of God,” causing us all the more to trust in the cross of Christ and seek forgiveness through the means He provided.

Repentance And The Christian Walk

After becoming a Christian, “In many things we all stumble” (Jas. 3:2) and “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1 Jn. 1:8). Yet we can stand justified through the forgiveness of our sins by continued faith in Christ. This faith will cause one to repent, confess, and pray for forgiveness as Christ commands (Acts 8:22; 1 Jn. 1:9). This repentance does not demand a perfect knowledge of God’s law (else how could I grow – 2 Pet. 3:18) or the perfect ability to discern one’s errors (“Who can discern his errors?” – Psa. 19:12). One should confess specifically the sins he is aware of. However, through lack of perfect knowledge and discernment he will not be able to identify all sin in his life. Can these sins of ignorance be forgiven? Are we hopelessly lost, being incapable of perfection and unable to identify all sin in our life? Can we not say as David, “Cleanse thou me from secret faults” (Psa. 19:12) or as the publican, “God be merciful to me a sinner” (Lk. 18:13)? The Lord said, “This man went down to his house justified.” I see no reason why the twentieth century Christian cannot pray the same prayer and receive the same forgiveness.

While I believe all sin committed by the child of God leads toward death (separation from God), I do not believe God automatically and immediately cuts off the Christian the moment he sins. Death occurs when sin is “full-grown” – the time of which only God can judge infallibly (Jas. 1:15; Rom. 6:23). There is sin which does not bring death (1 Jn. 5:16-17); that is, sin of which one is willing to repent. The position that some espouse demands that the instant the Christian sins he is “severed from Christ” (Gal. 5:4), “fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4), in a state of condemnation (Rom. 8:1), and his name is removed from the “book of life” (Rev..20:15). Some believe that the moment the Christian sins -whether willfully or ignorantly; by commission or omission – he ceases to walk in the light and is, therefore, lost until he recognizes and specifically acknowledges such sin, repents, confesses to God and prays for forgiveness. I believe brother Roy Cogdill stated the truth very clearly in his debate with D.N. Jackson: “It is pertinent to notice that he did not say that we are cut off the instant we commit those sins but that we will be cut off if our attitude is such that we cease to acknowledge our sins and cease to pray to God for forgiveness” (as quoted by Eugene Britnell, The Sower, Vol. 27, No. 1 [January 1982], p. 4).

Some would have us believe that the “man of faith” who has the “mind of the Spirit” and who “presses on” toward perfection, yet sins through ignorance, is in the same condition as the alien sinner. Actually with this position he is in a worse condition for, in keeping with their theory, since he is ignorant of his sin he is unable to specifically confess and repent of it in order to be forgiven. No wonder so many live daily with fear and doubt as to their relationship with God. With this position, assurance (which is promised to the faithful child of God – 1 Jn. 5:13) could only be attained when one reaches the state of perfect knowledge (both of God’s law and one’s own life) – a position some are already teaching.

Of course, the man of faith presses on toward perfection (Phil. 3:12-16), following the example of Christ (1 Pet. 2:21-22). He gives himself whole-heartedly and without reservation to the Lord, earnestly striving to do all He commands. His faith prompts a meticulous study and application of the Scripture to every aspect of the Christian life, but not with the horrifying fear that would accompany the concept of being justified by works. Rather, he has a peace of mind and joy of heart as he studies carefully and open-mindedly, being always penitent and adjusting his life to walk in the light, realizing that the faith that prompts this kind of obedience to God is the basis of forgiveness. Such a one is saved, not because God unjustly overlooks his sins, but because of the forgiveness of those sins through Jesus Christ.

What is the responsibility and condition of one who presses on and yet falls far short of perfection? Is he lost until he reaches the level of knowledge whereby he can identify all sin in his life? Must he have everything figured out before he has any assurance of salvation? To the Christian Paul says, “Only whereunto we have attained, by that same rule let us walk” (Phil. 3:16). The New English Bible translates this, “Only let our conduct be consistent with the level we have already reached.” God does not expect the impossible out of us. He tells us to grow, study and mature, all the while keeping the “mind of the Spirit.” One “walks in the light” by his walking “whereunto he has attained,” thus being conditionally cleansed from all sin by the blood of Christ. If he did not walk according to the level he had reached he would have ceased walking in the light, thus breaking fellowship with God (1 Jn. 1:6-9). This does not minimize points of doctrine. Neither does it lead to doing as did the Pharisees in making some commandments “great” and others “least” and by our distinction emphasize some and disregard or minimize others. Instead, such an understanding should cause one to study and carefully apply completely, for walking by faith demands it.

Fellowship Among Those In Christ

Fellowship (“joint participation”) may be viewed from two standpoints. One may be said to have fellowship with every brother on the face of the earth in receiving the blessing of Christ, having common an acceptable relationship with God. However, in another sense fellowship involves doing things together and in this sense restrictions will come. It is an error to assume that because we may have fellowship with all Christians in the first sense that we unreservedly have fellowship with all Christians in the latter sense. We must refuse to jointly participate with anyone in anything we believe to be wrong. We must never do anything that violates our conscience for to do so constitutes sin (Rom. 14:23). Since membership in a local church involves participation in collective activities, one could only hold membership where the collective activities are things he could do with full assurance they are right.

All truth, even that derived by means of New Testament examples and necessary inferences, must be followed meticulously. Since I believe it is wrong for the church to support human institutions and to sing praises to God with an instrument (1 Jn. 3:4), I could not be a member where either of these practices were engaged in. However, I do not categorically say that all in such churches are going to hell. I am not the lawgiver and judge. It is not my place to decide the eternal destiny of people. My obligation is to be a doer and teacher of the law of Christ, not the judge (Jas. 4:11-12; 1 Cor. 9:21). I will leave that to the only one who can do it infallibly, to the only One Who knows the hidden things and the hearts of men – God Himself. I preach specifically and pointedly that the aforementioned practices are wrong, being without authority. I believe unforgiven sin will cause people to be lost. However, I believe it is possible that some in these churches are asking for and receiving forgiveness of these sins. If one is truly in Christ and is striving to please the Lord in all things (and I recognize that the number in these churches may be diminishing), he receives the same benefits of Christ’s blood as do all Christians.

When one becomes a Christian, he may be involved in many things that need correcting (cf. dressing immodestly, dancing, mixed swimming, smoking, membership in a Masonic lodge, religious observance of Christmas, etc.). I do not necessarily judge that the babe in Christ who has not yet studied the applicable verses is bound for hell. He has the responsibility to study, to grow in knowledge, and to learn, walking “whereunto he has attained.” As he does this he must be penitent toward all sin, including that of which he is unaware. God does not simply overlook his sins but as he walks by faith, penitently asking forgiveness, God promises forgiveness. Of course, this does not apply to those who do not “press on,” those who sin willfully or those who are not studying to permit opportunity to learn. One who has stopped growing or is not walking consistent with the level he has already reached is not the true man of faith and, therefore, has no basis for forgiveness.

Please note that while I do not judge these individuals as going to hell, I do not judge them to be going to heaven. Only God can judge such matters. I am simply saying that I believe all of us are in the category of having imperfect knowledge and, therefore, at times sin, being ignorant of so doing. We are all in the category of Paul, “Delighting in the law of God after the inward man; but seeing a different law in our members, warring against the law of the mind.” We can rejoice with Paul as he says, “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 7:25). If confessing the sins we are aware of, coupled with a general repentance of the things we are not aware of (such as in Acts 2:38 and Lk. 18:13) and always keeping a penitent heart (Psa. 51:16-17), will not meet the requirements of repentance, who then can be saved and how?

For the individual, every issue is important. While issues involving the “work and worship of the church” may disrupt fellowship to a greater degree, they are of no more importance than private issues over which a Christian struggles to find the truth. Whether it has to do with membership in a church supporting an institution, singing praises with an instrument, praying with a covering, participating in carnal warfare, smoking, use of the Bible class arrangement, use of individual communion cups, etc., regardless of the issue, the individual must study God’s word and conscientiously apply it to his own life. Walking by faith will not permit him to participate in anything he believes to be wrong. When he sees specific sin in his life, he specifically repents of it. Yet he realizes that there are many other sins he has not yet become aware of and with a penitent heart towards God asks forgiveness toward all.

We must guard against the attitude that would have us cut off all association with all except those who agree with us wholly for we will finally have fellowship with no one. A limited fellowship is possible with many. We should do all possible to keep lines of communication open with brethren. We should cultivate brotherly feelings that will be conducive to opportunities to teach one another where some are undoubtedly wrong. However, we must not gloss over, but rather recognize our differences, and guard against, compromising or minimizing the differences, realizing every point of the teaching of Christ is important.

Concerning Restoration Review And Firm Foundation

I have always been taught that truth is truth regardless of who teaches it. I do not believe we have a “corner” on all truth. I actually read books that have not been published .by the Guardian of Truth Foundation. I have commentaries in my library other than E.M. Zerr published by Cogdill Foundation (this is not to belittle his excellent work; see his outstanding comments on 1 John 1:6-10). When Albert Barnes, the renowned Presbyterian scholar, teaches the truth on some point, I rejoice and accept it, not because he said it, but because the Bible teaches it.

My letter to brother Garrett (an excerpt of which was published) was not intended to identify myself with him, Ketcherside, or any movement they may have started. I realize I could have better expressed myself in portions of it and am sorry for any wrong impressions it has left. I was simply expressing appreciation for some truth they have accurately stated and have helped me to see. I happen to disagree with their ecumenical approach to unity, their “gospel-doctrine” distinction, the implications of the “brother-in-prospect” concept, and the tendency to overlook real differences among brethren. As already stated, I do not accept the Calvinistic view of imputation. I have explained this thoroughly to brother Willis yet he insists that my letter has “identified” me with the “grace-unity movement.”

Concerning my article which appeared in Firm Foundation, having spent much time in researching and writing what I believed to be the truth, I wanted as many people as possible to read it. Am I limited as to whom I may teach? The same article was sent to and printed in “conservative” papers. I would have sent it to the local newspaper or even Christianity Today if I thought they would print it. I will continue, as I am sure is the case with most gospel preachers, teaching the truth through any means available to me. Brethren who read Firm Foundation need to know the truth on faith and works as do “conservative” brethren. Is it not somewhat sectarian or Pharisaical (Lk. 15:1-2) for brother Willis to insist that my teaching be confined to one of “our” papers?

Many faithful brethren have read the article and have found it to express the truth as they have understood it. In any other context I doubt that the article would have attracted such a negative reaction. I am sure that brother Willis means well. However, in his well-intended search for “Neo-Calvinists” he feels he has found the proof of one in my article. Possibly “Calvinism” is in the eye of the beholder.

Conclusion

Brethren, this is but a brief description of what I believe to be the truth one these important questions. I certainly do not claim to have all knowledge and look daily for further enlightenment from God’s word.

Now is not the time for radical and reactionary extremes. The legalistic view of repentance as espoused by some, focusing salvation upon man’s own ability and performance, strikes at the very core of the gospel. On the other hand, some seem to compromise the truth we do have. Love for brethren does not produce compromise. Indifference produces compromise. True love will respect God’s truth and work to another’s good.

Let us keep open minds, teach with longsuffering, reprove, rebuke and exhort. Let us, “Grow in the grace and the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” all the while serving with joy and peace of mind, not trusting in human merit but in the grace and mercy of God. “Blessed is the man who trusteth in the Lord and whose hoe the Lord is” (Jer. 17:7).

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 10, pp. 294-296, 305
May 19, 1983