Truth Magazine

By Earl Robertson

Some who have accepted the idea that one saved in Christ can never be lost have used this passage (Heb. 7:25) to support such a contention. The verse says, “Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them:” The fact that Christ continueth ever as a priest, He is able to cave completely and make intercession. The running contrast` in the Hebrew letter of the inability of the sacrificed animals to save with the ability of Christ to save completely is the climaxes at this point. Christ is truly able to save all the same way – those who come to God by Him. One denominational preacher commenting on this verse wrote, “In short, Christ crucified paid for our salvation; Christ risen will surely collect what He paid for.”

Jesus Christ did “taste death for every man” (Heb. 2:9), but is this fact cause to make us conclude that all will be saved? A sinner has the power of choice to reject the blood of Christ, and Christians are warned against counting “the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing” (Heb. 10:29). The fact that Jesus died to save all does not teach universal salvation. The Bible plainly says “many” will be lost (Matt. 7:13, 14). Well, if Christ died for all, but many of the all will be lost; universalism is not true. So, what does the preacher mean “Christ risen will surely collect what He paid for”? It is an abortive attempt to make the word of God teach that once one is saved he can never be lost.

Though Christ died to save all, He imposes that His gospel be preached unto all (Mk. 16:15., 16) because all have sinned (Rom. 3:23). This gospel he sealed through His death and by it we are sanctified (Heb. 10:10). This gospel is God’s power to save the ones who believe it (Rom. 1:16, 17). Those who believe and obey this gospel (Rom. 1:16; 2 Thess. 1:7-9) are saved and the Lord adds them to His church (Acts 2:38-47). Jesus called this the new birth and entrance into the kingdom, saying, “Except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). But Jesus said some in the kingdom would be gathered out of the kingdom and cast into fire (Matt. 13:41, 42). Only the born again are in the kingdom, but some will be gathered out and burned!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 15, p. 250
April 10, 1980

By Ron Halbrook

Though it has not been called to our attention, we ourselves have just noticed an inadvertent misquotation from Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon which occurred during the recent Holcomb-Warnock) debate (see review in 6 & 13 March 1980 Truth Magazine). While pressing for the artificial covering on 4 December 1979, Holcomb presented a chart on 1 Corinthians 11:14 attempting to –show that “nature” (phusis) always means a “natural ‘instinct” which is “in us when we’re born.” Warnock protested that such an argument overlooks the diversity of applications for the broad term “nature” and leads to Calvinist views of such passages as Ephesians 2:3. The scholars testify to the breadth of meaning by listing several definitions and by expressing their judgment as to which passages fall under which of several definitions.

To show that Holcomb’s use of the scholars ignored this diversity, Warnock referred to Thayer’s list of four definitions. Explaining that “the word phusis doesn’t always mean the same thing,” Warnock quoted Thayer as saying, “what is learned by instruction and accomplished by training or prescribed by law . . . the native sense of propriety” (taken from tape; see also 6 March Truth, p. 11). The book was handed to him to read with those words hurriedly underlined in ink to help him find his place quickly, which may explain how he omitted the first words of the quotation. Adding the words which had not been underlined, the quotation reads:

nature, i.e., natural sense, native conviction or knowledge, as opp. to what is learned by instruction and accomplished by training or prescribed by law . . . the native sense of propriety (Thayer, p. 660).

We are sorry for the error and glad to get this correction before the public on our own initiative.

Please observe that (1) this correction does not materially affect our argument. Recognized scholars including Thayer show that “nature” is a broad term with several applications, and the scholars must exercise judgment as to its exact application in any given passage. For instance, Edward Robinson’s Greek English Lexicon uses the same words as Thayer – “native sense of propriety” – as follows: “a natural feeling of decorum, a native sense of propriety, e.g., in respect to national customs in which one is born and brought up; 1 Cor. 11:14” (p. 771). (2) We all need to exercise mutual acceptance and forbearance with mutual respect while we continue to study such questions from time to time. The caution flag must be waved before brethren who are so dogmatically sure about these matters of personal conscience that they call for discipline and division. (3) Publication of this correction on our own initiative proves that debates can be conducted while keeping the interests of truth and accuracy preeminent. Just as advanced copies of the original review were sent to Holcomb, so is a copy of this correction. Debaters need not aim to “score” on each other “by hook or crook” and we do not intend to ever be guilty of such skulduggery. Let us all keep open minds and open Bibles with respect for debate as a tool of open, honorable discussion!

(Garry Halcomb says the no-class Fox Glove church in Nashville, Tennessee, where he was preaching during the debate, is not also one-cup. The report of Gary’s having taken the no-class position was correct.)

Truth Magazine XXIV: 15, p. 249
April 10, 1980

 

By Daniel H. King

Some of the most dedicated Christians that I have known have been members of our Armed Forces. Being part of the military community they are trained to follow orders, remain at combat readiness at all times, make whatever sacrifices needful (including separation from home and family, even loss of life and limb), and place duty and honor, courage and country before all other worldly things. My work with congregations made up of military personnel has shown them to be (generally speaking, of course) just as sacrificial and dutiful in the cause of Christ, and often even more so, than in their service to their homeland. This observation is made not to extol the virtues of militarism or unduly compliment one segment of the brotherhood but for the sole purpose of taking note of the underlying cause of Paul’s selection of one of his great metaphors: that of the Christian as soldier.

“Fight the good fight of faith . . .” (1 Tim. 6:12) is a charge issued to those who are engaged in conflict, spiritual in nature, but conflict nevertheless, no less deadly than that fought in the carnal sphere. “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against the spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God . . .” (Eph. 6:12-13): and, “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds” (2 Cor. 10:3, 4).

Those who take upon themselves the work of soldiering recognize hardship as a component of the soldier’s life. Total dedication is an absolute essential also: “Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him as a soldier” (2 Tim. 2:3-4).

But there are soldiers and there are soldiers. As Thomas Paine forcefully pointed out in the springtime of our own land of liberty: “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country” (The Crisis, 1776). A crisis of one type or another is usually the means by which we may distinguish the true patriot and soldier from the “summer soldier and the sunshine patriot” as well as the mercenary warrior. Our own recent crisis in Viet Nam revealed the half-hearted commitment to liberty (stimulated by socialistic and liberalistic trends of thought and philosophy) which characterized a large segment of the youth of the sixties.

This is a dramatic demonstration of the point with which we currently concern ourselves: crises bring out the best or the worst in us. Oh, it is there all the time, either lurking in the deepest recesses of our minds or cradled in our heart of hearts. Timidity or heroism, disreputation or honor, self-love or sacrifice, cowardice or conscience – and the crisis of a moment, the “zero hour” of conflict and battle, or even the threat of it will betimes act as the necessary stimulus which betokens who we really are and where we really stand, or even whether we stand at all.

In the church, the crisis of issues quite often lets us in on who the real troopers are. It also identifies the summer soldiers. When the missionary society and instrumental music questions threw the church into the awesome and traumatic ordeal of division, those who were willing to fight the progress of digression were few and far between. But they faced more than mere loneliness for the struggle was carried on at great cost to themselves and their families and to all who were sympathetic to the cause. No one would have loved peace more than them, but if they had quietly sat by and watched the church go back into denominationalism we would have little honored their memory. And the God who told them to “buy the truth and sell it not” would have had little pleasure in such compromising ways either.

A comparable situation has arisen in the more recent problems over institutionalism, centralization, and liberalism. In many cases, men have held fast to biblical precedent and the New Testament pattern for the church and its work at great personal cost and sacrifice, while others who today hold seats of authority and prestige in those very institutions and agencies often flip-flopped in order to “swim with the current” on these issues: Foy E. Wallace, Jr., Guy N. Woods, Bill Humble, Earl West, Harold Hazelip, to mention but a few. The quotations of Guy N. Woods still come back to haunt him from his Annual Lesson Commentary and other sources. Moreover, his recent silence on points of conflict with Ira North, editor of the Gospel Advocate point out this willingness to hush up in order not to rock the boat. It would be very difficult for us to believe that he does not oppose many things that are currently happening across the brotherhood, knowing his past positions. Earl West’s tract on Church Cooperation remains today as sound as it was when he preached the sermon that was its basis – even though the same could not be said of brother West. Bill Humble’s thesis written at the University of Iowa on the problem of cooperatives in the early restoration movement is a sufficient rejoinder to the position he now occupies on the cooperation issue. On and on we could go. Preachers who worked in those days tell of the numerous men who talked a good fight and whispered a good stand but then felt the breeze to see which way the wind was blowing. Upon finding out that it was not blowing their way they adjusted their convictions and their preaching to fit the flow of brotherhood opinion.

What has all of this to do with the present and the future? Just this: every new generation seems to face a new set of issues or problems. Some depart from the faith and some faithfully enter the struggle armed with the Sword of the Spirit, ready to suffer whatever may be their lot. They know that the scars of war will be deep and painful. They know that the contest itself will be dreadful and nightmarish. They shudder and march on in resignation. Yesterday’s friends will be today’s foes. Comrade-at-arms will lose their courage and flee the lines of battle leaving them to fight alone. Worse yet, traitors will try to cover their flight from truth by switching sides. When the engagement is over the soldier, wounded and bleeding, will stumble home only to meet barbs of criticism from his supposed friends and fellow-countrymen. They did no fighting. They never even went near the battle zone. But they know best how the war should have been conducted. Armchair generals they are; and still no stroke from the declared enemy could smart like theirs do. Later generations may applaud and call one a hero. For now he will be labeled a brute and a barbarian.

Yet such is a soldier’s life, whether he fights in the forces that protect the native land or in the legions of the Lord. He does not fight to please the crowds or satisfy the public or on account of his thirst for blood or even as a “soldier of fortune” but because right is on his side and he is on the right side. The great general Douglas MacArthur once said, “No one loves peace more than a soldier.” I suspect he is right, for none knows the real horror of war save the man with experience on the front. However, peace is too expensive when right and justice and truth are the price.

For the soldier of the cross a whole host of crises could be listed; the crisis of preaching support, of inflation, of hard times, of lack of appreciation; of failure, of closed doors, of indifference, of laziness and lethargy in the church, of too little help, of too few hours in the day, of persecution, of lack of love, of worldliness, and many, many more. Whatever the crisis may be, though it really boils down to this: what kind of a soldier are you? What kind am I? Paine’s immortal words could well be rephrased to fit the case: “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his Master.” Paul wrote, “Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life . . . ” If we fail or flee the contest it will not be the fault of the cause for which we fight or the weapons with which we fight or even the enemy which we fight. The fighter, the soldier will be to blame. The annals of military history are rife with examples of courage, sacrifice and heroism in the waging of carnal combat. Can we afford to do less? Can the Lord’s people afford to offer less than men who usually only squabble over land boundaries?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 15, pp. 247-248
April 10, 1980

By Bina Beasley

For approximately ten years I was a member in good standing of the Cool Springs Baptist Church of Cool Springs, Kentucky. I had become a Baptist about five years before my marriage to W.M. Beasley and remained a Baptist for another five years after our wedding. During a part of my ten years as a Baptist I served as secretary for the Baptist Sunday School. I also served as song leader; I would stand by the organ and lead the singing during worship services.

Most of the Baptists with whom I worked and worshiped were hard working, sincere, good moral individuals. My decision, after much study, to leave the Baptist Church was not the result of hard feelings against Baptist brethren. I left because there were things in the Baptist Church which were not to be found in the New Testament scriptures.

Among those things which I failed to find in the New Testament, but which things were a prominent part of the Baptist religion, were the “mourner’s bench salvation” and voting people into the church. People were exhorted, through Baptist preaching, to come to the mourner’s bench and pray through for salvation (i.e., pray until they could persuade God to save them). According to the New Testament, I have learned that the persuasion was going in the wrong direction. God does not need to be persuaded to save; He gave His Son that He might save sinful men. The beloved apostle Paul wrote, “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Cor. 5:11). When the mourners had “come through,” as they called it the preacher would take (have them tell) their experience. The preacher would then ask something like, “Do you believe that God for Christ’s sake has pardoned your sins and saved you?” Upon receiving an affirmative answer he would further ask, “Do you want to be baptized and join the church?” After another answer of “Yes,” the Baptist preacher would say to the congregation, “You have heard their experience; all in favor of receiving them into the church and giving them full fellowship after baptism, show the right hand.” They taught that a person was saved without being baptized in obedience to Christ’s command (Mark 16:16); but, that same individual had to be baptized to be a member of the Baptist Church. According to Baptist doctrine, as I was taught it for ten years, it is easier to be saved and go to heaven than it is to become a Baptist.

I was taught, believed and would contend with my husband that “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) meant “because of the remission of sins.” I believed, because of Baptist teaching, that one’s sins were remitted (forgiven) and then he was to be baptized. I could not believe, nor does any Baptist that I know teach, that “for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28) means that Christ shed His blood on the cross of Golgotha because of the remission of sins. I do believe, and Baptists ought to believe, that the two (Acts 2:38; Matt. 26:28) mean the same thing: Christ shed His blood “for (in order to, the remission of sins,” and that man is baptized, in obedience to the Christ, “for (in order to) the remission of sins. “

While a member of the Baptist Church I attended business meetings held for both men and women and voted on things pertaining to the work and worship of the Baptist Church. This voting was done, once again, by showing the right hand. I showed my right hand enough while I was a member of the Baptist Church to last me from now on.

Another problem which I had as a Baptist was believing what was taught about not falling from grace (the doctrine of “once saved, always saved,” or the impossibility of apostasy). In a sermon on this subject the local Baptist preacher, J.H. Towe, said, “I could be going down the road with brother Joe Fulton and shoot him down, and it would not touch my salvation.” I knew from studying my New Testament (Rom. 13:9; 1 John 3:15) that this could not be right.

During most of my years as a Baptist I did not know that the Baptist Church had a creed book. I did not know it until my husband asked the Baptist preacher in Cool Springs, Kentucky where he (my husband) could purchase one. The Baptist preacher told my husband to write to the Baptist Book Store in Louisville, Kentucky (we were living in Ohio County, Kentucky at the time) and ask for Pendleton’s Church Manual. He did and they sent one to us.

My conversion to the truth of God’s word was hastened by a Baptist preacher who preached during a revival at the Cool Springs Baptist Church. He preached a lesson showing from the scriptures that the church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:22-33). My husband wrote out a question for the Baptist preacher and asked me to give it to him. My husband told me that Baptist preacher would not answer the question. I thought he would, and said so! The question, “Since the church is the bride of Christ, whose name should the church wear?” was not answered by the Baptist preacher. I now realize that he did not dare answer it. Instead of answering an honest question he said something like, “I came here to save lost souls and not to argue.” I knew from personal experience that questions asked of preachers of the church of Christ were answered because they had a question box by the door of their building. I had put questions in the box during gospel meetings and had always had them answered.

My husband and I were blessed with one daughter. I saw that I did not want her to be reared in the Baptist Church. I finally learned the truth and was baptized into Christ, thus becoming a Christian.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 15, pp. 246-247
April 10, 1980