Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

Is This Liberalism?

In our 3 May 1979 column we reprinted Donald Townsely’s fine piece on the Difference Between “Liberal” and “Conservative” Churches of Christ. He specified ten differences pertaining to the church’s mission and organization, all of which reflect the deeper difference in concept of Bible authority. In all matters of mission, organization, worship, discipline, and doctrine, conservative churches strictly adhere to the New Testament rule of faith and practice. New Testament teaching in all of these matters is derived from direct statements or commands, approved examples of apostolic practice, and necessary implication from specific passages. In contrast, liberal churches are loose constructionists in the field of Bible authority. They practice many things for which no statement or command, no example, and no implication from Scripture can be produced.

Someone has handed me a copy of the 1 August 1979 Old Paths Advocate of Lebanon, Missouri. Under the heading “Who Are the Real Liberals and Conservatives?” the writer Billy Dickinson asserts, “Bro. Halbrook, of course, and those associated with him have accepted both the modern Sunday School with its women teachers and the individual communion cups, even though they do so without scriptural authority.” He finds himself nearly but not quite amused, reprints Townsley’s article, and adds to the list of liberal practices, classes and cups.

We had pointed out that additional organizations taking donations from churches, or churches which act as centralizing agencies for other churches, are violations, of the simple New Testament picture of local church autonomy. In the Bible, each church carried out its own work under the oversight of its own elders (Acts 14:23; 20:28; Tit. 1:5; 1 Pet. 5:2). The Bible classes in which we participate are the work of each church, under the constant oversight of the local elders – including literature, subject matter, teachers, and every other significant detail! Brethren, is this liberalism?

Liberal churches have gone beyond the spiritual teaching mission of the church to include social, secular, and recreational programs (contrary to such passages as 1 Tim. 3:15-16). But our Bible classes offer the spiritual teaching of the gospel, nothing more, nothing less! Is this liberalism? Is it liberalism because women of greater maturity are permitted to instruct other women or little children, but never men (Tit. 2:4; 1 Tim. 2:12)?

Churches which put on plays, contests, and choral performances are going down the liberal road in worship. They pervert the simple New Testament pattern of worship: songs, prayer, gospel teaching, with the Lord’s Supper and collection on the first day of the week (Acts 2:42; 20:7; Eph. 5:19; 1 Cor. 10:16; 16:1-2). In partaking the Lord’s Supper, we eat but one loaf – the loaf of unleavened bread – “the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” We drink but one cup the cup of the fruit of the vine – “the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?” Is liberalism determined by the shape, the size, the color, the material used in making, or the number of containers? Are we liberal for using several small plates and vessels, rather than one large platter and bottle or pitcher? Some folks of the one-container persuasion send separate containers down opposite aisles. Is this liberalism, too? Some pour from one large pitcher or cup into three or four smaller receptacles for large audiences. When does it become liberalism – at 10, 20, 30 or 40 containers? How about enough containers for every two people to empty one? If that is acceptable, perhaps the line of liberalism is drawn when a person shares in the Supper by receiving his portion of the common loaf or cup in an amount which he can consume.

May we pass around a large bottle or pitcher from which each person can dip or pour in using his own smaller container? Those who split hairs can usually split the split hairs just as well. Have at it, Advocate advocates.

When our feelings about the receptacles incidental to sharing the Supper become so strong as to constitute law and gospel, idolatry is the result. The Pantheon of false doctrine includes both liberalistic and legalistic exaltation of human opinion.

Truth Magazine XXIV: 14, p. 226
April 3, 1980

By Irvin Himmel

In about the year 612 B.C., Nabopolassar, king of Babylon assisted by his son, Nebuchadnezzar, broke the power of Assyria by destroying Nineveh. Out of the ruins of the Assyrian empire emerged the Babylonian empire. Nebuchadnezzar launched a series of three major thrusts against Judah, a weak and wicked nation, between 606 and 586 B.C.

The last three kings of Judah were Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin (Coniah), and Zedekiah. It was in the reign of Jehoiakim that Nebuchadnezzar brought Judah under Babylonian rule and succeeded Nabopolassar as Babylon’s king. Nebuchadnezzar carried some of the nobles of Judah into captivity, including the rebellious Jehoiakim. During the reign of Coniah, the city of Jerusalem was besieged, the temple stripped of its valuables, and about 11,000 captives were taken by the Babylonians, and among the captives were the king and his house. In the time of Zedekiah, the temple was burned, Jerusalem destroyed, and most of the remainder of the people taken captive.

Jeremiah the prophet lived during all these historic events. He stayed in Judah with some of the very poor people who were allowed to remain. He saw the once proud city of Jerusalem reduced to ashes. He witnessed the downfall of a nation that forgot God.

In the book of Lamentations, Jeremiah shows deep emotions as he describes the desolation of Jerusalem. “How doth the city sit solitary!” is his opening remark. He compares the city to a widow. “She weepeth sore in the night, and her tears are on her cheeks.” He acknowledges that “Jerusalem hath grievously sinned . . . Her filthiness is in her skirts.”

Depicting the sad and empty condition of what had beers Judah’s capital, the prophet laments the total indifference shown by passers-by. The merchants who came near the ruins showed no sympathy. The shepherds whose tents were pitched in that vicinity were calloused toward the barrenness of the site. Jerusalem had fallen because its own inhabitants had been indifferent toward their sins. It is highly probable that many of the Jews did not care that God had brought Judah to its knees.

“Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by?” (1:12). The prophet is grieved that others do not share his grief. Sorrow craves sympathy. Is there no concern that Jerusalem is desolate? Is there no warning for others who ignore God’s will? Is there no feeling of emptiness that a once thriving city has been completely emptied?

The Application

Jeremiah’s question can be applied appropriately to many things today.

1. The death of Jesus. Our Lord suffered terrible agony on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins. He bled and died that we might be reconciled to God. Is this nothing to you, all ye that pass by?

2. The wickedness of the world. Sin abounds. Our modern cities are getting more and more like ancient Sodom and Gomorrah. The moral climate of America is steadily worsening. Immoral people are pushing their filth into the open like someone who dumps his garbage on his neighbor’s lawn. Is this wickedness nothing to you, all ye that pass by?

3. The lost condition of people out of Christ. We are promised no redemption from our sins apart from Jesus Christ. Multiplied thousands of people, old and young alike, have not obeyed the gospel. Many who are Christians make little or no effort to reach the lost with the gospel. Is this wretched condition of the lost nothing to you, all ye that pass by?

4. Digression in the church. Many congregations are no longer walking in the old paths. Brethren are following the denominations rather than the Lord of glory. Liberalism, worldliness, and lack of respect for the authority of the New Testament should make the God-fearing weep. Is all this digression nothing to you, all ye that pass by?

5. Divisions and factions. Some churches of Christ are hindered by schisms and splits. In many cases, preachers are at fault. Sometimes preachers set themselves above all others in the church, including the elders. They will force their way on the brethren or force a division. Is this spirit of factionalism nothing to you, all ye that pass by?

6. Broken homes. We live in an age when the sanctity of marriage is violated. Even among members of the body of Christ, divorces are becoming frequent. Husbands desert their wives; wives cheat on their husbands. Out of these broken homes come frustrated, emotionally disturbed, and confused children Is this breaking up of families nothing to you, all ye that pass by?

7. Indifference among God’s people. Many who say they are Christians are pleased to give the Lord no more than one hour per week of their time. Some are unconcerned about saving their own sons and daughters from worldly influences. Many will not really study the Bible. Some act as if they do not care whether the cause of Christ lives or dies. Is this indifference nothing to you, all ye that pass by?

Let us soberly reflect on the question of Lam. 1:12 and ask ourselves if we may not be rather like the people in Jeremiah’s time. Does this line of thought mean nothing to you, all ye that pass by?

Truth Magazine XXIV: 13, p. 219
March 27, 1980

By Bobby Witherington

The purpose of this article is not to point out at what age one becomes accountable and thus a fit subject for gospel obedience. With reference to this question, it is my conviction that the “age of accountability” is an intellectual age, and is not based upon a person’s previous calendar years per se’. Children, like adults, manifest great variation in their ability to grasp facts and to make intelligent decisions based upon a proper evaluation of those facts. So it is really impossible for one to sit in an editorial chair and issue a definite, no-mistake statement that a child becomes accountable to God and thus guilty of sin at such and such age.

The question, “when does one become guilty of sin,” insofar as this article is concerned, pertains to an intelligent, accountable individual. Some say “ignorance is bliss,” and contend that a person is guilty of sin only if he is aware of his transgressions. The logical conclusion to this would be to believe that man would be universally saved if he remained Universally ignorant of the existence of God and the requirements of His will. Others, however, contend that a person becomes guilty of sin when he transgresses the law of God (cf. 1 John 3:4). Obviously both divergent positions can not possibly be right – regardless of how strongly one may believe that it does not make any difference what a person sincerely believes.

In the 4th chapter of Leviticus there are four references to sins committed “through ignorance.” Herein the inspired writer mentioned four different people and/or groups of people and their sins committed “through ignorance.” “If a SOUL shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord . . .” (v. 2). “And if the WHOLE CONGREGATION of Israel sin through ignorance . . .: (v. 13). “When a RULER hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance . . .” (v. 22). “And if any of the COMMON PEOPLE (note: the marginal reference says, “people of the land,” b.w.) sin through ignorance . . .” (v. 27). Hence, it is evident that ignorance of God’s law did not prevent a violation of that law from being classified as SIN. Moreover, in three of these instances (vs. 13, 22, 27), the word “GUILTY” is used to describe the person or persons who sinned “through ignorance.” And in each instance God specified the offerings He required of those who became “guilty” because of having sinned “through ignorance” -offerings that were to be made when such sins became “known” (cf. v. 14) to those thus “guilty.” These facts necessitate that we draw two necessary conclusions: (1) A person can sin “through ignorance.” (2) When a person sins, whether, “through ignorance,” or presumptuously, he is “guilty” of sin, and must suffer the penalty that sin imposes (cf. Rom. 6:23) unless he, through compliance with God’s law, receives forgiveness.

With reference to WHEN one becomes guilty of sin, it is the same in the New Testament; namely, “sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). The fact that the sinner may not know the “law” does not remove the guilt; it only lessens the likelihood of his seeking and obtaining forgiveness through compliance with the terms of the gospel of the grace of God. This sad fact is borne out in Matthew 25:41-45. Herein we note that certain ones, placed as “goats” on the Lord’s “left hand,” were condemned because of having committed sins (of omission), but of which they were ignorant – but that does not change the fact that the Lord said of such persons, “these shall go away into everlasting punishment” (Matt. 25:46).

Bear in mind that a person is not guilty of sin because he is ignorant; he is guilty because he transgressed God’s law (I John 3:4). His ignorance is not that which separates him from God; rather this separation takes place because of his sin (cf. Isa. 59:1, 2). This is why the ignorant should not remain ignorant – and why those who know the will of God should TEACH others. A person, lost in the forest, does not rejoice because he does not know how to get out, nor does a person, trapped in a burning building, rejoice because he does not know an escape route. A person in sin is guilty; he is lost – his ignorance is not bliss; instead it serves to keep him lost and trapped in a state of guilt and doomed to eternal perdition.

In view of the fact that an accountable person’s guilt is determined by his transgression of God’s law, and is not nullified by his ignorance of the law; we exclaim, HOW IGNORANT IT IS FOR THE IGNORANT TO BRAG ABOUT THEIR IGNORANCE!

Truth Magazine XXIV: 13, p. 218
March 27, 1980

By Leslie Diestelkamp

Among my dearly beloved brethren in Christ, the New Testament doctrine of salvation by grace needs a defense today just as baptism for remission of sins needs defense among the people of the denominational world. Yet, though most gospel preachers with whom I talk agree completely with the things I shall write in this series of articles, seldom do we hear a sermon on these matters and almost never do we read essays in the papers about it.

Now it is true that we read a great deal about grace, but 98% of it is intended to show the abuses of Bible teaching and to expose certain Calvinistic doctrines. Those of us who believe strongly the things I am about to write may have been hesitant to write – to “go public” – lest we be falsely branded as Calvinists and also lest what we write be misused by those who do indeed advocate false concepts about grace.

For generations faithful preachers have defended the necessity of baptism because we loved lost souls and we knew such souls continue in a lost condition until they surrender in full obedience. Today I also defend the importance of grace in God’s scheme of redemption because I fear some of my brethren may be putting too much trust in human merit and may, therefore, fall short of God’s grace.

First Century Grace

Within twenty-five years after the crucifixion, Paul was guided by the Holy Spirit to make a defense of grace even among “the saints . . . and to the faithful in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 1:1, 2). In that letter, Paul urged the brethren to remember that they had been dead in sin, that Gad loved them even then, that God had quickened them – made them alive in Christ, and that all of this was of grace (Eph. 2:1-5). Paul even warned them not to trust in works of human merit – works that would allow them to boast and he urged them to recognize that it was altogether of grace that God had admitted them, as Gentiles, into the fold of the redeemed (Eph. 2:8, 9; 3:1-6).

Likewise we, as American Christians, must be constant ly urged to remember that we are not God’s people because we are better than others, but rather that, being as totally lost as the most wretched heathen, we may be saved by grace just as he may be. The moment that we assume our need of grace is less than the need of the pagan, we may be endangering our souls in some reliance upon merit. There endangering not a single condition of salvation that is applicable to the heathen that does not also apply with equal strength to us. The pagan and we are all unworthy – and we are as unworthy as he (Rom. 3:23). And grace is the cure. Let us be unafraid to say that “only by grace are we saved.”

Only By Grace

No doubt many brethren will be shocked when they read the title of this section. Some may immediately say, “Leslie has joined the Calvinists.” But I assure you that my purpose is not to be sensational nor to create criticism. Rather, I just want to get my point across so that it will be remembered. What is the point I want to impress? I want all of us to clearly see that there is no way we can have salvation from sins now and eternal salvation in heaven except by God’s amazing grace!

But lest some misunderstand, please notice that I do not say we are saved by “grace alone” or “grace only.” There is a great difference between “only by grace” and “by grace only.” To illustrate: we may certainly say that we only live by breathing. When we fail to breathe, we die. However, one certainly does not live by breathing only. He must eat and drink. And if we can understand the illustration, then we can surely understand that we may only be saved by God’s unmerited favor – that without that grace we would all be forever hopelessly lost.

No Other Means

When we have sinned, we have left ourselves in a condition of absolute helplessness as far as human merit is concerned. We cannot run away from our guilt: “Be sure, your sins will find you out” (Num. 32:23). Likewise, and for sure, we cannot work our way out of the problem (Rom. 3:20 – “By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified.”). And we cannot wash away our sins through human means. “Without shedding of blood is no remission” (Heb. 9:22).

No other human being can wash us for they have no cleanser that is sufficient. All the powers that be are incapable in our behalf. Governments, armies and even religious systems lack any cleansing power. We are totally dependent upon God’s grace (Eph. 2:8).

Why do I write these things to my brethren? I will tell you why: (1) I do not want to be lost and I do not want others to be lost. Yet, if we fail to recognize our helplessness, we may certainly fail to avail ourselves of saving grace. (2) I fear that many children of God may be lost eternally because they tried to work their way out of sinful guilt. It is indeed necessary to turn from sinfulness in repentance, but forgiveness comes to the Christian who acknowledges his sins to God (1 Jn. 1:7-9). (3) Some may become discouraged and quit trying because they see that they are failing in perfection. But when we really understand grace, we can be of good courage “and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel” (Col. 1:23).

If God would have Oven Abraham, Noah, David and Daniel, all of them thus sacrificed would not have purchased redemption for even one sinner. And if God would have demanded that we give ourselves as a burnt offering, we would still be unforgiven. If God would have demanded that we work ourselves to death or that we pay every cent we ever have or that we bathe ourselves every hour of every day, and though we would have been obligated to do what God said, all of this would not have been a sufficient sacrifice for our salvation. “For by grace are ye saved” (Eph. 2:5). Next: “Unconditional Grace.”

Truth Magazine XXIV: 13, pp. 216-217
March 27, 1980