Truth Magazine

By Earl Robertson

It is almost unbelievable what bitterness can do to a good person. We have witnessed over and over again capable and good men become bitter in their hearts. As a result, they were no longer used to the accomplishment of good as before and their friends became few. This does not have to be. It makes no difference who the person is, if he allows his heart to become bitter it will affect his whole life and eternal future.

The Israelites were forsaken by the Lord and designated as a people of Gomorrah, and their rulers as of Sodom (Isa. 1:10; 3:9); they not only live like Sodom and Gomorrah (Jer. 23:14), but their sins were greater than that of Sodom (Ezek. 16:46ff). Moses wrote of them saying, “For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter: their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps” (Deut. 32:32, 33). In the figure, the Israelites are represented by the vine and the grapes represent their actions. These people of God produced a fruit of spiritual and moral conduct bitter as worm-wood, as deadly as the poison of dragons and cruel as the venom of a snake! They could not ignore the doctrine of God and at the same time be inviting and influential for good.

In the same figure, Paul says, “Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled” (Heb. 12:15). What “fruit” might be produced must essentially come from the root. With the root being bitter, the fruit also had to be the same. Simon, as a sinner before God, was told that he was “in the gall of bitterness” (Acts 8:23). Husbands are admonished to love their wives and “be not bitter against them” (Eph. 4:31).

Bitterness destroys oneself, others, and the Lord’s cause. James says, “But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth” (3:14). Watch one when his heart becomes bitter: the closest friends he has, who have never done anything but good for him, is suddenly misjudged and condemned. Even the truth of God is lied against. But would the bitter one recognize and acknowledge such to be true? “Keep thy heart with all diligence” (Prov. 4:23).

Truth Magazine XXIV: 47, p. 757
November 27, 1980

By Mike Willis

During the years of the controversy over church support of benevolent institutions, a good many brethren have the good sense to perceive that the issue of church support of benevolent institutions was but the tip of the iceberg of church involvement in all aspects of the social gospel. Throughout their debates, they emphasized that church support of hospitals, colleges, old folks homes, boys schools, and any number of other things which might arbitrarily be classified as “good works” were just as authorized as church support of benevolent institutions.

Despite these warnings, our liberal brethren made their choice to go down the road toward the social gospel, all of the time denying that these conclusions to their premises were logical and inevitable. History has confirmed that church support of human institutions was the means of introducing the liberal churches of Christ into the social gospel. Now, many are openly advocating church sponsored hospitals.

Evidences of Church Supported Hospitals

To demonstrate that the call for church supported hospitals is not the figment of my imagination, please consider these following evidences:

1. “Medical Missions Increasing.” This was the name of an article which appeared in the 29 May 1979 issue of Christian Chronicle. It reported,

Christian medical professionals and students from around the world will gather in Atlanta October 19 and 20 for the annual Medical Evangelism Seminar, hosted by the Decatur Church of Christ and Medical Outreach, Inc. . . .

The Decatur congregation has long been active in medical mission work. But, in the last three years, members of the congregation have organized to focus on solutions to the personnel problems that have hampered mission clinics and hospitals in the past.

This article plainly admits that presently there are existing church supported mission clinics and hospitals.

2. Gospel Herald. The August 1980 issue of Gospel Herald carried the speech delivered by Maurice Hood, M.D. to the Medical Evangelism Seminar in Atlanta. Here is what Hood said:

The medical missionary is, in our brotherhood, almost an anomaly. There have been so few and they are so poorly supported that our work has been almost only a gesture . . . . To phrase it another way, in Nigeria alone there have been literally hundreds of missionary hospitals, while we have only one, and there is only one in all of East Africa . . . .

It is important to realize that the gospel is total and must apply to broken bodies as well as broken spirits. Some have wanted to use our ministering as a lure in order to be able to preach to a captive audience or to make medical care dependent on the willingness to listen to Biblical teaching. I fail to see that we can expect the African or Indian to resent this any less than any of us might. Medical benevolence should stand on its own merits.

This is an outright defense of church supported medical missions – church supported hospitals and doctors.

3. Greenwood Park Church in Bowling Green, Kentucky. The bulletin published by Wesley Jones and Bill Brumit reflects the thinking of some of those liberals who are on the vanguard of the social gospel movement. The 10 September 1980 bulletin which is published by this church and called Messenger reported the plans for work in Las Cruces. It stated the following plans:

In conjunction with this we hope to start a program of “preventive medicine.” The curative program of our medical clinic is well under way, but to make any impact in the health of the community, programs of nutrition, inoculation, and sanitation must be introduced. In the next few years we are hoping to expand the clinic to the point where we can provide inpatient care and a training program for medical and evangelistic personnel who wish to learn how to work in underdeveloped communities.

The work of this church includes, not only church supported hospitals and clinics, but church supported nutrition, inoculation and sanitation programs! This is the total acceptance of the social gospel.

This program was defended in the 3 September 1980 issue of the Messenger S. Sherman wrote as follows:

Christianity ministers to the needs of the “whole man.” It is able to take a broken human being who is separated from his creator, separated from his family, separated from himself, and separated physically, and bring him together in a healthy, happy being. If Christianity is not able to do this, then it is not serving in the manner that its founder set for it. If the church is geared to no more than a “spiritual” ministry, it has already utterly failed. The healing of Christ must, through the work of His servants, enter all realms of human life that Satan has enslaved, and declare that this part of man is no- longer Satan’s dominion.

The medical mission work of the church is more than “just a means to reach lost souls.” It is a ministry of a healing Savior to a diseased world. If we believe that all good things come from God, is it not our responsibility to see that these good things are brought to bear on aspects of Satan-dominated life? Or do we believe any more that sin, disease, and poverty are the dominions of Satan? Because they are, we as Christians must use every means available to sever Satan’s hold on human lives. Medical doctors, nurses, social workers and mailmen are just as effective in fighting a Satan dominated world as any “minister” if they lead Christ dominated lives. They can bring the knowledge of a healing Savior into areas where only they can go.

This is the philosophy behind the mission work in Las Cruces. People who have many different talents are working together as a body of Christ, through the support of you and people like you, to bring the knowledge of a healing Savior to a small community in Guatemala. This knowledge includes medicine, programs of disease prevention, and congregations of “healthy” humans who are ready to advance the kingdom of God even more.

The bulletin reproduced this sentence in bold, large type: “If the church is geared to no more than a `spiritual’ ministry, it has already utterly failed.” I cannot avoid commenting that every church in the New Testament was a failure by Sherman’s own criterion. None of them ever built a hospital, taught nutrition classes, worked to improve the city’s sanitation system, or any of the other works which this church in undertaking in Las Cruces.

The Liberals Were Warned

Our liberal brethren cannot say that church support of medical missions came unexpectedly. In practically every debate on church support of benevolent institutions which has occurred, a chart similar to the one presented in the Willis-Inman Debate (p. 145) has been used. (See below)

Usually our institutional brethren have given charts such as this one a royal ignoring. However, the logic of this chart was unable to be refuted; the liberal’s children saw the conclusion of this chart and have built church supported hospitals, church supported old folks homes, church supported reform schools, church supported colleges, and who knows what else will follow!

James 1:27

If this Scripture authorizes Church of Christ to build and maintain benevolent institutions, then such a conclusion

would also authorize the following:

Jas. 1:27 Visit the Fatherless Church Orphanages

Jas. 1:27 Visit the Widows Church Widowage

Heb. 13:2 Entertain Strangers Church Motels

Mt. 25:36 Clothe Naked Church Haberdasheries

Mt. 25:36 Visit The Sick Church Hospitals

Mt. 25:35 Feed The Hungry Church Cafeterias

Mt. 25:36 Visit Prisoners Church Jails

1 Cor. 16:1-2 Put Money In Treasury Church Banks

Mt. 28:19-20 Teach All Nations Church Colleges

Silence From Debaters

Those who stepped forward to defend the church support of benevolent institutions have been conspicuously silent with reference to recent developments to get the church involved in supporting hospitals and doctors. What has Guy N. Woods written about the matter? Have W.L. Totty, Alan Highers, Roy Deaver, Clifton Inman, E.R. Harper, Ira Y. Rice, Jr., Thomas Warren, Reuel Lemmons, Ray Hawk, and others who have defended the church support of orphan homes said anything about church support of hospitals? If so, I have not seen it! I take about 100 bulletins per week and over 45 periodicals monthly but I have not seen anything from any of our “conservative” liberal brethren regarding church support of hospitals.

I am predicting that we will not be able to read anything logical from the pens of such men. These men have argued in debate that “whatever the individual can do, the church can do.” The individual can obviously provide medical assistance and make donations to hospitals; hence, these brethren are logically compelled to admit that church support of hospitals is approved of God! They have no ammunition left with which to fight. Hence, the liberals are destined logically to accept every tenet of the social gospel.

There Is A Pattern

The fact remains, however, that God has revealed the program of work which the church is supposed to perform. Let it be remembered: Either God has revealed the pattern for the mission or work of the church, in which case the church is obligated to restrict its work to the mission revealed in the Scriptures, or God has not revealed a pattern for the mission or work of the church, in which case the church can be involved in any work it so desires. Where there is no law, there can be no transgression; hence, if there is no pattern revealed, any work stands just as approved by God as any other work.

We believe that God has revealed the mission of the church. The only programs of work in which any church was involved, as revealed in the Scriptures, were as follows: (1) Evangelism (2 Cor. 11:8; Phil. 4:15); (2) Relieving the benevolent needs of its own members (Acts 4:32-37; 11:27-30; Rom. 15:25-26; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8-9); and (3) Edification (Acts 2:42). For the church to be involved in works which are not authorized under these headings is unscriptural. Church support of hospitals and colleges, do not fall under the heading of the church relieving the physical needs of its own members. To date, no one has been able to demonstrate that the church has a responsibility to relieve the physical needs of the entire world. Until this is shown beyond the shadow of doubt, church support of hospitals and orphan homes stands unauthorized by the word of God and in the same category as is the perversion of the worship by the introduction of instruments of music.

Seek The Old Paths

The continued advancement in the paths of digression by our liberal brethren reminds us of what happened in the days of Jeremiah. As the people apostatized, Jeremiah called them back to the “old paths.” He said, “Thus said the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein” (Jer. 6:16). This is exactly the same attitude as is being portrayed by our liberal brethren as they move further and further away from the old paths in order to walk with denominationalism.

I am confident, however, that there are a few brethren among them who are discontent with what they see in the liberal churches. Brethren, there is an alternative. Every man has the opportunity to pull out and establish a group of saints who will cling to the revelation of God’s word and stand opposed to these modern innovations. (Perhaps there are others in your area already taking such a stand. If you will contact me, I will try to put you in contact with each other.) We would like to encourage those who will listen to stand opposed to churches being involved in activities for which no Scripture can be given. Do not hestitate to ask your elders for Bible authority for churches to be contributing to the support of hospitals, colleges, orphan homes, etc. Do not allow these men to put off answering your questions; so long as you are contributing, you have every right to find out how the money is being spent.

The plea for book, chapter, and verse preaching is still needed. Saints who are committed to doing Bible things in a Bible way and calling Bible things by Bible names are forced to stand opposed to church support of colleges, orphan homes, and hospitals inasmuch as no command, example, or necessary inference can be given authorizing these works. Where are you standing?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 47, pp. 755-757
November 27, 1980

By Ron Halbrook

For the truth’s sake, we must take time to be holy. First, we must take the time, if we are to get it at all. Job lamented, “Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble. He cometh forth like a flower, arid is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not” (14:1-2). Moses contrasted God who is “from everlasting to everlasting” with man: “We spend our years as a tale that is told . . . for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.” Rather than taking life for granted, we must “number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom” (Ps. 90). David prayed, “Lord, make me to know mine end, and the measure of my days, what it is; that I may know how frail I am” (Ps. 39:4). Is there time enough yet to be holy? The attitude which boasts of the days to come will destroy us “ye know not what shall be on the morrow” (Jas. 4:14). Is there no time left to be holy each day, after we agonize for material things? The mind which is over anxious for these things and finds in them the treasures of life, is a mind at war with God. No amount of time would be sufficient for the person who will not take the time to serve God.

We must take time. We cannot count on the holiness of good parents, a good mate, or good children to save us. Each individual must come to God by faith, to render the service due God and befitting from His creature. “The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him” (Ezek. 18:20). Each one of us must take time to devote the heart unto God. In a busy royal court, even with the threat of punishment, young Daniel made time to get “upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God” (Dan. 6:10). Time spent in sin is worse than wasted, but in serving God we are “redeeming the time” (Eph. 5:16). It takes time to join the saints in public worship and to teach sinners the Good News in Christ, but how could we ever use our time any better?

What does it mean to be “holy”? It simply means to be set apart from the world of sin unto the service of God. The church of God is composed of “them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints” (1 Cor. 1:2). In Christ men are made into “an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ . . . . ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:5, 9). How does God choose us to be holy, set apart, sanctified? “Through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess. 2:13-14). The gospel is calling us to receive the forgiveness of all our sins so that we will be holy in God’s sight, and so that we can then walk in holiness (1 Thess. 4:1-7). By faith, we must repent of every sin, confess the name of Christ, and be “buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). Then, in the words of the song,

Take time to be holy, speak oft with thy Lord;

Abide in Him always, and feed on His Word.

Make friends of God’s children; help those who are weak,

Forgetting in nothing His blessings to seek.

Take time to be holy, the world rushes on;

Spend much time in secret with Jesus alone.

Abiding in Jesus, like Him thou shalt be;

Thy friends in thy conduct His likeness shall see.

Take time to be holy, be calm in thy soul;

Each tho’t and each motive beneath His control.

Thus led by His Spirit to fountains of love,

Thou soon shall be fitted for service above.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 47, p. 754
November 27, 1980

By Marshall E. Patton

In Rom. 4:8-11, Paul teaches that righteousness was imputed to Abraham on the grounds of his faith without circumcision. He then affirms that righteousness is imputed to us on the same basis. The Bible, therefore, teaches the doctrine of “imputed righteousness.” Unfortunately, however, some do not understand the difference between the truth on this subject and the erroneous views of Calvinism. The Bible teaches the doctrine of “foreordination and predestination,” but not according to the Calvinistic concept. So it is with the subject under study.

The failure of some to understand this difference has resulted in severe consequences. Some brethren have accepted false doctrine, churches have been divided, brethren once bound close by fraternal ties have been alienated, and not the least of which has been sin on the part of some, unrepented of, unforgiven, even approved in some in= stances -and all of this justified under the concept of the righteousness of Christ being imputed to the individuals involved. Brethren, it is time to stop, look, and listen! The price we are paying otherwise is too great.

Clarifying The Issue

The word translated “impute,” according to Greek lexicographers, as well as the English word “impute,” according to Webster, admits of two definitions: (1) Attributing what belongs to another – “attributing vicariously” (Web.). With respect to righteousness, this is Calvinism: “For we are said to be justified through faith, not in the sense, however, that we receive within us any righteousness, but because the righteousness of Christ is credited to us, entirely as if it were really ours, while our iniquity is not charged to us . . .” (John Calvin, Instruction in Faith, The Westminster Press, 1949, pp. 40, 41). Thus, Calvinism affirms that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner, so that God no longer sees his sin, but only the righteousness of Christ instead. (2) “To reckon, regard, consider” (Web.). With respect to righteousness, in this latter sense, one is reckoned, regarded, or considered righteous because of what he is because he is righteous. The Bible teaches the latter, not the former.

Righteousness simply means without guilt, and it is a gift from God to the sinner upon the condition of an obedient faith (Rom. 5:17-21; 6:23). Righteousness, therefore, is imputed to us upon the same basis that it was imputed to Abraham, as our text affirms. It should be understood, however, that these conditions are not meritorious. Righteousness is imputed upon the basis of works of faith – not works of merit. Perhaps a failure to understand this accounts for some accepting the erroneous view of “imputed righteousness.” Limited space, however, precludes a discussion of this point of difference just now.

Examples

I have before me an issue of The Ensign. Fair, (Vol. IV, No. 4) published monthly by the Ensign Fair Publications of Huntsville, Alabama, “and supported by Churches of Christ and individuals.” In an article therein entitled “The Imputation of Righteousness” by the editor, R.L. Kilpatrick, we read:

The grounds for our righteousness is the righteousness of Jesus Himself bestowed on us through our faith in him, which puts us IN HIM, i.e., his righteous body. This is God’s righteousness IMPUTED to all those belonging to the spiritual body of Christ, the church. His righteousness is our righteousness. We become HIS perfection when we are baptized into his body (Rom. 6:3, 4; 1 Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:26, 27). He is head of the body (Col. 1:18) and stands before God as RIGHTEOUS. We, in Him, occupy the same standing before God as does Jesus because his death on the cross perpetually atones for our sins (1 Jn. 2:2).

. . . The same manner in which righteousness is imputed to the Christian race, guilt is likewise imputed to the fleshly race. As we say that a person “in-and-of-himself” is not necessarily righteous, we may also say that a person in and of himself may not necessarily be guilty, as respecting Adam’s transgression. Those who have not reached an accountable age are not personally guilty of violating any of God’s positive precepts. The imputation of Adam’s guilt is an impersonal matter, and the justice of God is maintained in any event. Since the imputation of righteousness upon sinners fits somehow within the framework of justice, neither is it a violation of Divine nature for God to impose guilt upon all who are born in the flesh, whether or not they may have violated divine law. It is simply a matter of God exercising his sovereign right to bestow grace upon whomsoever he chooses (Ex. 33:19) (See also Rom. 9:14-23) . . . .

The infant who dies before reaching the age of accountability, even though under the imputation of guilt, will not come into judgment to account for such guilt. In physical death, all that was inherited from Adam, the Adamic nature, is put off. This leaves the spirit, the soul, of the infant blameless because the soul is not guilty of violating law. In this state, minus the Adamic nature, the innocent possess true righteousness.

John Calvin himself could not do a better job of affirming the false doctrine which he espoused. Yet, brethren are preaching it, and churches are supporting it.

From the 20th Century Christian (Vol. 38, No. 6) in the resignation article by M. Norvel Young, former editor for 30 yeas, we read: “We have opposed sectarianism and eschewed both the extremes of pharisaical legalism and modernistic liberalism. We have discouraged a judgmental spirit and encouraged a humble dependence on the righteousness of Christ, rather than self-righteousness.” I can now understand why he started on the road that brought him to the tragic end that is now his. When one concludes that God sees in his life only the righteousness of Christ instead of sins in his life whether they be through “weakness of the flesh” or “sins of ignorance,” the consequences cannot but be severe.

Conclusion

The Bible no where teaches that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the individual. No where! Rather, the Scriptures teach that righteousness is a gift from God, not upon the basis of meritorious works, for then salvation would be of debt and not of grace (Rom. 4:4), but upon the basis of obedience to conditions whereby faith is perfected (Rom. 4:3; Jas. 2:21-24). God imputes sin to a man when he sins and because he sins. God imputes righteousness to a man when he submits to the righteousness of God because he is then righteous in God’s sight. “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous” (1 Jn. 3:7).

Truth Magazine XXIV: 47, pp. 753, 763
November 27, 1980