Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

One of the favorite ploys of brethren who are wandering off into the wastelands of liberalism is to cry, “Brother Somebody teaches the same thing I do, but no one challenges him. This proves that those who oppose me are sectarian in their opposition and are just out to `nail’ me in a personal way.” Early,, in 1977, we wrote Edward Fudge about his repeated u$~of Romans 5:19 (b) – “by the obedience of one shall !many be made righteous” – in his literature attempting to ‘prove that the perfect obedience of Jesus is imputed to Christians. Part (1) of this passage says, “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners . . . .” Paul sets up a parallel: (1) Adam’s one act of sin introduced death, not the imputation of his personal disobedience to others. (2) Christ’s one act of obedience in death on the cross introduced righteousness, not the Imputation of His personal obedience rendered during the whole of His life – the so-called ~”doing” in addition to the “dying” to the account of other men.

As to 5:19 (b), Ed said that by imputation “the consequences of His perfect obedience are graciously given us, ” but he offered not one comment on part (a). He did say that my questions reminded him of a “sectarianized” and “closed-system religion!’ in which “there is always a self consistent answer . . . .” Methinks that translates that he cannot find any way out of his inconsistency on 5:19 since he is unwilling to affirm thoroughgoing Calvinism. If part (b) is the imputation of Christ’s personal obedience to others, then part (a) must be the imputation of Adam’s personal disobedience to others.

Not to be defeated so easily by sectarianized, closed system, self-consistent religion, Ed ended his letter by claiming that his views on “the security of the true believer” were stated very well by Leslie Diestelkamp’s writings. Anyone who has read much of Fudge’s and Diestelkamp’s writings will be as surprised as we were at this claim, except for the fact that this is a common ploy of false teachers. Ed was hoping to use as a cover for the rank error propagated by the new unity movement the slight differences in the way brother Diestelkamp and some others of us express the believer’s security. Ed conveniently overlooked the overriding consideration that not a particle of difference exists between Diestelkamp and others of us in final applications and practical conclusion! Ed’s claim compares to a Pentecostal Holiness preacher claiming that differences among brethren in expression or explanation of the Spirit’s indwelling Christians today proves that some of us are Pentecostal holy rollers.

To show Ed how grossly Diestelkamp’s writings must be twisted to say that they “state the case well” for the new unity concept of security, we asked brother Diestelkamp to answer the following questions. We then sent Ed the answers which reflect Diestelkamp’s final applications and practical conclusions.

1. Does Romans 5:19 teach that the “doing” (i.e., the life or righteous acts of Christ as-distinct from his “dying” or death) of Christ is put to our account or imputed to us or transferred to us in some way? His answer: “No. “

2. Does the Bible teach that gospel is one thing (facts about the life and death of Christ – plus, perhaps, such commands as faith, repentance, and baptism) while doctrine is another (involving such things as the proper relationship of the church to Christ in worship, mission, organization, etc.)? His answer: “No. “

3. On account of Bible teaching on the security of the believer, can we be assured that we share unity and spiritual life in Christ with instrumental, institutional, and social-gospel brethren? His answer: “No. “

4. On account of the security of the believer, should we (can we scripturally) call on Christian Church preachers to lead prayers in the assembly? His answer: “No. “

5. On account of the security of the believer, could you write 34 articles for the Firm Foundation without specifying the sinfulness of the various institutional, centralized, and social-gospel practices constantly promoted therein? His answer: “No. “

Having cleared Ed’s ploy off the boards, we returned to attempting to discuss Romans 5:19 with him. Illustrating with charts, we showed that Ed was making the consequences of Adam’s disobedience and Christ’s obedience an imputation of their actions to other people, which is thoroughgoing Calvinism. But the Holy Spirit is showing that sin and death entered our world through Adam and that our hope for justification and life entered through Christ.

We invited Ed to deal with the difficulty imposed by the imputation theory, or to give it up. He did neither. If brother Diestelkamp is teaching the peculiar tenets and making the peculiar applications characteristic of the new unity movement, we promise to eat our ten-gallon hat and this issue of Truth Magazine for dessert. All of us believe that truth is truth no matter who teaches it, but the next time you hear some false teacher cry, “Brother Somebody teaches just as I do,” do not jump to any conclusions or eat any hats before you check a little farther!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 31, pp. 502-503
August 7, 1980

By Leslie Diestelkamp

In Truth Magazine issues for March 27, April 3, 10, 17, 1980, I had articles discussing grace from a positive point of view. The following three responses have come to my attention: (1) Some brethren of unquestioned reputation have commended the articles without reservation, either in conversation with me or in letters. Some have expressed the idea that such positive material was long over-due. (2) One faithful brother and friend of many years took exception to the last article (on the matter of continuous salvation and consideration of sins of ignorance). (3) Brother Arnold Hardin of Dallas, Texas, has reproduced some of my material in his bulletin, The Persuader, expressing complete agreement with it. In this regard I am conscience bound to commend as follows:

Happy Agreements

When I write that which I believe is truth, I am happy to have it reproduced anywhere so long as it is not mis-quoted or taken out of context. For instance, if I write on morality and some denominationalist copies it, I am glad. If I write on the inspiration of the written Word and it is copied by sectarians, I rejoiced. If I write on the authority of Christ and brother North would publish it in the Gospel Advocate (please do not hold your breath until he does this), I would stand up and clap! So, having written some things that I believe are important on the subject of grace, I am happy to see that brother Hardin agrees.

If other editors would publish what I write on morals, authority or inspiration, no one would expect me to respond by pointing out every disagreement I have with such editors on other matters not discussed in that which they reproduce of my material. So it should seem unnecessary that 1 respond now by pointing out every item in which I disagree with Brother Hardin. However, in view of the fact that he proclaims that what I wrote was what he had been writing, some may think that means what I wrote agrees with everything brother Hardin writes related to salvation by grace. Such is definitely not true, and I must stipulate somewhat as follows:

Unhappy Disagreements

I understand that Brother Hardin has been writing on this subject for several years. But I do not ordinarily receive his bulletin and was only aware of his teaching as I have seen excerpts of it in other publications. Just the last few days someone has favored (?) me with a large quantity of his bulletins and after some scanning of them I must point out these matters:

1. Brother Hardin teaches that we are saved by the “doing and dying” of Jesus. I agree wholeheartedly that the life Jesus lived – sinlessly – was essential to our redemption. Only a sinless sacrifice was sufficient. Only by His sinlessness did He become the adequate price for our pardon (Heb. 9:14). But Brother Hardin teaches that the sinlessness of Christ is “imputed” to us – that God credits true believers with the perfection of Jesus. This I do not believe at all. I find nothing in the scripture to justify such belief and I have found nothing in brother Hardin’s material that proves it. In fact, his efforts in teaching this doctrine contain. little effort at proof but a great deal of assertion.

2. The above doctrine actually involves the idea that when the Christian sins, God “looks the other way” and does not impute sin to us, but rather imputes to us the sinlessness of Christ. This is indeed a dangerous and destructive doctrine, providing a false security, and that discourages repentance. Why quit sin if God does not count it against me? Why be anxious about sin if God counts me sinless because of the “doing” of Jesus? The Bible says that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). The Holy Spirit does teach us that we can receive forgiveness of sin (Rom. 3:24, 25; 1 Jn. 1:7) and when he has forgiven He will have forgotten and will not charge us again regarding the same sin (see Heb. 10:17, 18; Rom. 4:7, 8). God will forgive the sins of the Christian who “walks in the light” B. and He will never charge those forgiven sins against us.

3. Brother Hardin quotes another author who says that we are not under law but under grace (see Rom. 6:14). But the impression may be left that we are not under any law at all. Rather, we are indeed not under a law of human works, accomplishing merit on our part, but we are under the law of faith – the law of Christ (see 1 Cor. 9:21). He says, “Law (merit) and grace do indeed exclude one another.” Yes, merit and grace exclude one another, but law and grace do not, if it is the law of Christ, which is truly the instrument of God’s grace.

4. Brother Hardin writes scores of pages about imputed righteousness. In one breath he says that the imputation of righteousness is “nothing but salvation given as a gift.” With this I agree. But then in another breath he says that it is the imputation (crediting) to us the perfect life that Jesus lived on earth., That I do not believe, nor did he produce a sentence of proof. Let us briefly study righteousness:

A. Primarily righteousness means being right. Vine says it is the character or quality of being right. God is righteous in that He is always right, wise, just, fair and faithful. Jesus, while He had the human body, was righteous because He never sinned; He always did that which is right. Mankind is never thus righteous – he is not always right. He cannot merit God’s favor. God cannot impute righteousness to him because of merit on man’s part.

B. But by His amazing grace, by which He provided a ransom price for our redemption, and thus through the shed blood of Jesus God forgives the sins of those who come to Him in obedient faith (Eph. 1:7; Rom. 6:17, 18). Paul calls this action on man’s part, “obedience unto righteousness” (Rom. 6:16). In other words, when our faith brings us to obedience, God forgives our sins and credits us with righteousness, not by merit at all, for when we have obeyed we have earned nothing and God is still obligated to us none at all. He pardons us by grace and counts that quality of guiltlessness as real righteousness.

Miscellaneous Matters

Brother Hardin says that Rom. 10:4 which says that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness . . .”, means that Christ ended the old law. But rather, I believe it means Christ is the objective, the goal of the old law – to bring righteousness by the grace of God to forgiven sinners. Brother Hardin says that our sins were reckoned to Christ -they were reckoned as His (see 2 Cor. 5:21). Macknight translates the verse: “For him that knew no sin, He bath made a sin offering for us, that we might become the righteousness of God through him.” If I understand that verse it does not mean that Christ was counted as guilty in bearing our sins, but He was counted as a sin offering for our sins and was adequate for such because of His sinlessness. Thus He became the “price paid,” indeed “Paid in full” for our salvation.

I have no ill-will whatever for brother Hardin, whom I do not know personally. I regard him as a dearly beloved brother in Christ, but I fear he has allowed himself to be caught up in an obsessive defense of many speculative and dangerous concepts that are only remotely related to the true “gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24).

I plead with all gospel preachers to teach more on the true grace of God for it is absolutely essential that all people realize the futility of merit and the necessity of grace as the source of the salvation (righteousness) they seek.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 31, pp. 500-501
August 7, 1980

By Mike Willis

From time to time, new involvements demand different uses of one’s time. This is not to say that one’s devotion to the Lord is thereby minimized; it only explains why some changes must be made. Several weeks ago, Larry Hafley informed me that he would no longer be able to do the work required to write our question-answer column for Truth Magazine. At that time, I began to search for a new writer for this column.

For the sake of clarity, let me emphasize that I had no dissatisfaction with the quality of Larry Hafley’s work. Through the years, he has done an excellent job of hand ling the question-answer column. Furthermore, because he has decided that he must give up the question-answer column does not mean that he will quit writing for Truth Magazine as a staff writer. Larry is a prolific writer; not only is there abundance in the number of articles which he writes, he also turns out quality material. We expect his labors in this area to continue and expect to publish many more good articles from his pen in Truth Magazine. To my knowledge, I have never known of one of his articles to have been returned because of poor attitude or poor research. That is quite a compliment to any writer!

As I began to search for someone to take Larry’s place, many different men were recommended or considered. Repeatedly, the name of Hoyt H. Houchen was mentioned as a qualified man to handle such a column. He is highly respected all over this nation for his work’s sake. Hence, we proudly announce the addition of him to our staff.

Biographical Sketch

Hoyt H. Houchens was born in Cordell, Oklahoma, December 28, 1918. In 1921, the family moved to Calexico, California and resided there a few months before moving to Ontario, California, where he attended elementary schools, and graduated from Chaffey High School in 1937. He was baptized into Christ by S.E. Witty, April 21, 1929. He preached his first sermon in August of 1936 and did part-time preaching at Ontario during his senior year in high school.

In the fall of 1937, he enrolled in George Pepperdine College (now Pepperdine University) and graduated from that institution in 1941 with a B.A. degree. He was a member of the first four year graduating class. He met Doris Ruth Wilson of Jacksonville, Florida, while she was also a student at Pepperdine. They were married on July 9, 1940. To this union were born three sons: Ron, Dennis, and Larry, all graduates of Florida College. Ron, an audiologist in Fort Worth, Texas, married Sammie Carter (niece of Granville and Leonard Tyler); Dennis, who is employed in fabrication work in Denver, married Karen Duncan whose father was an elder at the Tenth St. Church in Columbus, Indiana, for several years; and Larry married Linda Buck whose father serves as an elder in Sepulveda, California. All three of the boys preach when called upon, but Larry is preaching full-time, presently preaching for the church in Tustin, California. The Houchens have seven grandchildren.

Hoyt Houchens has done considerable writing through the years and formerly served as a staff writer for the Gospel Guardian and Vanguard. He is the author of, a compilation of sermon outlines, Sermons Inside and Out, published in 1954 but now out of print. He has compiled several Bible courses which he hopes to publish sometime in the future.

He has had a few debates. In 1950, while preaching at Central in Amarillo, Texas, he met Ray Tatum (Fundamental Baptist) in a debate which was held in the Municipal Auditorium in Amarillo and was attended by about 1800 people on the last night. This debate is published in book form but is also out of print.

His father resides in Ontario, California, where he had served as an elder for some forty years. Hoyt Houches preaches for the Boston St. church in Aurora, Colorado, and is now in his twelfth year of work with this church. He also serves as one of the elders. He preaches in about eight meetings per year throughout the nation.

A Regular Column

The question-answer column in Truth Magazine is designed to be a regular column. We would hope that a question-answer column could be carried in every other issue of Truth Magazine. That depends upon you, however. Consequently, let me encourage you to send your Bible question to brother Hoyt Houchen, 1838 S. Fairplay St., Aurora, CO 80012. We hope that our reading audience will use this column to contribute to the greater success of Truth Magazine.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 31, p. 499
August 7, 1980

By Hoyt H. Houchen

Servants of the Lord are frequently called upon to perform some task in addition to their regular routine of activity. While all should be willing to serve in every way possible, we may face some requests with more reluctance than others. This is not because we do not wish to serve, but because the requests need to be evaluated carefully. To perform the assignment efficiently we must decide whether we have the time to do it, if we are qualified to do the work, and if we are willing to meet its responsibilities.

When Mike Willis contacted me by telephone a few weeks ago and asked if I would do the question and answer column for Truth Magazine (explaining that Larry Hafley, who had been editing the column, would not have the time to devote to it because of other activities), I was reluctant to accept the job due to the considerations above. I asked for a few days to think it over since the request came as a complete surprise for me. Those afore mentioned considerations, with others, were turned over and over in my mind. After due consideration, and still entertaining some doubts, I responded to Mike Willis by telephone and accepted his request. I appreciate the confidence that he and others have placed in me, and I can only say that I shall humbly and prayerfully do my best – not only to answer the questions submitted to me as adequately as possible but to maintain the quality and dignity of Truth Magazine.

A column of this kind requires much time and thought. It is undertaken in addition to my local work which requires hours of study, preaching, and teaching Bible classes, gospel meetings, writing for various journals and serving the local church as an elder. But others are just as busy and perhaps some are busier. So, if I can contribute something more to the Lord’s work I am willing and glad to do so.

The fine work done by Larry Hafley in this column is appreciated. I ask that you please present your questions clearly and to the point and I shall try to answer them in like manner. I make no claim to know all the answers and I am not embarrassed in the least to say, “I do not know.”

I do not expect all the readers of the column to agree with all of my answers. Many questions are controversial, some have “gray” areas and cannot be answered with a definite “yes” or “no.” Some questions I shall not be able to answer and some I shall only be able to throw some light upon, possibly not always completely satisfying the querist. Whatever views I express shall be my personal convictions based upon what I believe the Bible teaches.

This is a new role for me, but I shall try to deal with all questions, exercising the proper attitude and in a way that will be acceptable to the one God whom we serve.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 31, p. 498
August 7, 1980