Truth Magazine

By Tom Roberts

Scenario 1: A noted preacher steps into the pulpit. His presence has been advertised far and near and an appreciative audience has gathered to hear this man proclaim a message. He is advanced in years, has spent many years in preaching and, when he speaks, people listen. He has been called an orator, lecturer, author, world traveler, gospel preacher, etc. Many in the audience, in anticipation of a “meaty” message, have brought a tape-recorder to preserve his words for the future.

Imagine the consternation of those who are gathered when this mighty man speaks his first words and they are, “Put up your tape recorders. I will not have any of my sermons recorded any more. If you had had as much trouble with tape recorders as I have, you wouldn’t like them either.” Or words to that effect.

Scenario 2: A group of preachers has gathered to study a subject that has been disturbing the peace and harmony of the Lord’s people for some time. Much study and preparation have gone into each presentation and, with honesty and sincerity, brethren have gathered to listen to what the other fellow has to say and to present his own view of the truth. When one of the preachers gets up to “speak his piece,” his first words are: “Turn off the tape recorders. I refuse to speak if any tape recorders are in use.”

Scenario 3: A group of members from a local church has been invited for a private Bible study in the home of one of the members. A preacher from another area has been invited by one of them to study a disturbing problem with this group and the members are anxious because this subject has divided other churches. The preacher who is to lead the study has been known to have had similar studies in other churches where division has occurred following such studies. So in order to accurately record what is being taught, plans are made to tape the study. The visiting preacher gets the attention of the group and announces: “Turn off the tape recorders. We are just here for a private study and we don’t want our `off-the-cuff remarks’ taken out of context. We will not allow tape recorders and if anyone insists, we will just dismiss the study.”

Each of the “scenarios” really happened! These are not fictional ideas and the participants are not actors. In each of the cases (and they could be multiplied), actual men made these demands of those present and all the tape recorders had to be turned off before events proceeded any farther. Scenario 1 refers to Foy E. Wallace, Jr., at Denton, Texas. Scenario 2 refers to Arnold Hardin here at West Side’s building during a study of grace and related matters. Scenario 3 has been duplicated around the country by many preachers who have been advocating the “New Unity Movement” and has happened right in our own area. It’s not at all unusual these days.

Why is it that certain people avoid those dreaded tape recorders like the plague? Because they accurately, exactly and precisely record every word that is spoken!

Foy E. Wallace has had to eat his words against institutionalism because of reprinted articles and tape-recorded sermons. Arnold Hardin and others have had their error exposed because of the accuracy of tapes. It is all there in the little strip of plastic – every syllable, every tone, every emphasis, every scripture and every phrase, with every argument intact.

Of course, the objection raised by those who fear the tape recorder is that someone will take a passage out of context; that someone will misrepresent a position that the speaker advocates. Friends, if I planned to study with someone who might take something out of context or misrepresent me, I would insist on taping the entire proceeding! Then, if someone accused me of saying or teaching something that I did not say or teach, all I would have to do is reproduce the exact text. This would expose the accuser and settle the matter at once.

The truth of the matter is that brethren are going around the country preaching unsettling doctrine. They are teaching error and want to cover as much territory as possible without having to give account for their words where they cannot be misrepresented. It is extremely easy for one to speak where no tape recorders are present, and then, when faced with one’s error, simply say, “Oh, but you misunderstood me.” Or, “That isn’t what I said.” And who can prove otherwise, since we have no method of proof other than faulty memory? If I wanted to depart from the truth, I would not allow tape recorders either! If I wanted to insert myself slyly into a group of people and teach them differently than they have been taught in the past, I would not speak in front of a tape recorder! In the words of Bruce Edwards and Edward Fudge (A Journey Toward Jesus), new ideas must be carefully presented. When Bruce Edwards asked, “How do you make your points such that no one causes a stir – begins a controversy – over your teaching?”, brother Fudge replied, among other points, ” . . . (3) as you have opportunity where the person seems receptive and open . . .” “When you deal with a passage or topic, therefore which touches on the things you feel the brethren need to learn, work it in or bring it out, without making a big to-do over it, simply sowing seed for perceptive minds to think about at their own speed . . . why upset them unnecessarily by rushing things” (pp. 44. 46).

A lot more could be said about teaching methods but space won’t permit. Suffice it to say that a preacher who refuses to be taped automatically arouses my suspicion. After all, a preacher should preach so as to be understood. He should welcome any method which encourages that. His message should be laced with scriptures and his points clear and in harmony with truth. If we disagree, let us step up to the issue and clarify our points of disagreement so that we may approach them with Bible in hand and learn the truth. After all, God has His own “tape recorder” and we will meet our own words at the Judgment where we shall give an account for every word. Charge “misrepresentation” against the brethren if you will, but you won’t charge God with it. Choose your words carefully, brother, because God won’t turn His recorder off!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 35, pp. 568-569
September 6, 1979

By Donald P. Ames

Someone once said, “Don’t believe everything you hear, and only half of what you see.” The wisdom of that statement was certainly evident if you just casually glanced at the UPI release from Berkeley, California entitled “Dead Sea Scroll God’s Word: Expert” (as reported in the Chicago Sun Times, Feb. 20, 1979).

The “expert” was Prof. Jacob Milgrom, who helped Yigael Yadin (the Israeli scholar) unroll, restore and decipher a new 28 foot (19 page) scroll from the Dead Sea area. The scroll (called the Temple Scroll because so much of it deals with the reconstruction of the temple in Jerusalem), is the last of 8 scrolls found in a cave near the Dead Sea by a Bedouin youth in 1947, and although it has not yet been translated into English, “In my opinion, it is probably the most important scroll,” says Prof. Milgrom. This particular scroll was not made public when the others were, apparently because the Arab dealer who was involved in the purchase of the earlier documents saw it had value and hid it in a shoe box under the floor of his shop, but was uncovered during the Arab war of 1967 after the Jews had captured the territory.

Prof. Milgrom goes on to say that the Temple Scroll “throws new light on the origins of many Christians doctrines,” and that it discloses remarkable new evidence about the origin of Christian teachings on sex, marriage and divorce. He says, “We see for the first time that the views of marriage and divorce, which were expressed in certain tendencies within the Gospels of the New Testament, can be traced to teachings of this sect, which antedates the time of Jesus by at least a century and a half.”

But is this actual proof from an expert, or merely the prejudicial conclusions of an unbeliever who rejects Christ and the N.T. in the first place? The article affirms, “Most Biblical scholars believe Qumran was part of the Essene faction in Judaism, and much study of the earlier scrolls has been devoted to linking this faction with the first Christians” (emp. mine – DPA). Thus, they are not too objective in their research, but first formed a hypothesis or conclusion and then tried to form the facts to fit that conclusion. Milgrom “believes the eighth scroll supports this connection.” Again we ask, “Because of the evidence or merely because he wants to believe it?” We shall see.

The Qumran community was occupied from the middle of the second century B.C. until the time of the Roman invasion in 67-70 A.D. by the Essenes – a “fringe sect within Judaism,” which felt society was so polluted with evil they would have nothing more to do with it and so withdrew themselves. This attitude is quite a contrast with the teachings and actions of Jesus, who was accused of being a “friend of tax-gatherers and sinners” (Matt. 11:19 NASB). Or contrast it with Paul’s teaching on withdrawing from Christians living in adultery, when he said, “I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world” (1 Cor. 5:10). Yet this is precisely what the Essenes – that “fringe sect within Judaism” – sought to do. (The label of a “fringe sect within Judaism” is by implication also tacked on to Christianity by Prof. Milgrom in such reasoning.)

But what links does Prof. Milgrom feel prove Christianity originated with this “fringe sect”? He provides three: (1) “There is this strong bond between Christianity and Qumran . . . similar teachings.” Of course-this proves nothing, as the Essene sect broke away from Judaism, hence it would naturally carry many similar teachings from Judaism with it. Since the Jews were God’s people in the O.T., and recipients of His revelations, His teachings were valid then, and so recognized by Christ, the apostles, and even the Essenes. Even Prof. Milgrom is forced to admit on this point, “That could be incidental or coincidental or come through a third source.” Hence, it is pure supposition, and proves absolutely nothing about the origin of Christianity.

The second reason offered is, “We also know through the New Testament that Jesus’ teacher was John the Baptist, who lived in the shadow of Qumran.” We also know from this that Prof. Milgrom has very little knowledge of the N.T.! There is nothing at all in the N.T. that even hints that John the Baptist was the teacher of Jesus. In fact, Jesus has His disciples, and John had his (John 4:1); and John even sent to Him for instruction John 7:18-23). John further disavows any advance knowledge of the person he was preparing the way for (John 1:29-34); hence it is extremely unlikely he was teaching Jesus for this mission. As for the fact John “lived in the shadow of Qumran,” so what? So did every other Jew that lived in the Dead Sea area! The professor assumes therefore John was a member of the Qumran community, assumes John taught Jesus this sect’s doctrines, and concludes this proves Jesus was a member of the Qumran community. No such connection exists, and I deny all of it.

The last reason offered is “The Gospels tell us that Jesus spent three years in the wilderness. Where else but with like-minded people in Qumran?” Again, he assumes the point to be proven (Jesus was at Qumran), and then forces his pre-conceived conclusion on his listeners. Some proof! But his lack of Bible knowledge is again evident. The Bible nowhere affirms that Jesus spent 3 years in the wilderness. It does say He spent 40 days in the wilderness. being tempted by Satan (Matt. 4). It does say John the Baptist was preaching in the wilderness (Matt. 3:1). It does say Paul was 3 years before returning to Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18). But it does not affirm Jesus spent 3 years in the wilderness, nor that He had anything to do with the Qumran community. Prof. Milgrom has built his whole case on false and flimsy assumptions, and then leaped over the facts to a false conclusion.

Interestingly enough, some of the “new truths” revealed about this “fringe sect” were that the scroll claimed to have God speaking directly, which Prof. Milgrom is quick to assert means, “This puts the scroll in a special category. You are dealing with revelation. His authorized word.” I wonder why he cannot be as ready to accept what God’s word does say in the N.T.? False gospels existed before and after the time of Christ (including such recent claims as Mormonism as well). Why are we to conclude this one is different and genuine? Some of the “great revelations” made known by this scroll are that it supports celibacy by banning sex anywhere in Jerusalem, and anyone who lived within the shadow of the temple must live a single life permanently. It forbid divorce or polygamy at all during the life of either partner. It laid our plans for rebuilding the temple at Jerusalem “when the sect was restored to power after an expected catastrophic war” and it “gives totally new laws as well as interpretations to old laws.” Furthermore, it “also banned toilets throughout Jerusalem and even prohibits defecation on the Sabbath – anywhere.” Now, does that sound like God’s revelation? Hardly! It neither harmonizes with nor supports what God has revealed in either the O.T. nor the N.T.

The article concluded, “Milgrom said questions about the meaning of the Temple Scroll will occupy biblical scholars for decades.” This is no doubt true – especially with the fanciful reasoning he is seeking to employ. But the cap of it all came in the very last statement: “He said attempts to link Jesus with the community at Qumran present `a paradoxical problem because although the similarities between early Christian teachings and the sect are now more obvious, so are the differences”‘ (Emp. mine – DPA). Yes, paradoxical is right. It is pretty hard to cling to a pet theory one has formulated before gathering the facts when the facts revealed keep knocking it back down. This is precisely what Prof. Milgrom is learning. His link between Christ and the Qumran community has been shattered – it does not exist, it never existed, and new evidence is demolishing the theory completely. Be not deceived.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 35, pp. 566-567
September 6, 1979

By Earl Robertson

Having shown in Romans seven that the law of Moses could not save a man Paul begins, with chapter eight, saying, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Earlier he had shown that in his infancy, he was alive unto God. He says, “For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died” (Rom. 7:9). Now, under the gospel of Christ, there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ. Under the law, this was not true; all had sinned and were all under condemnation. The law could not save, but rather condemned and made people know that sin is sin (Rom. 7:13; 8:3). Being conscious of this condemnation and helplessness, Paul, the Jew, cried out, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” The light for deliverance shone upon him and he exclaimed, “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 7:24, 25).

Let us not think this freedom from former condemnation exempts one from personal responsibility to God. It does not! One must walk after the Spirit. It is often preached, “Once freed (saved), always freed (saved),” but the Bible does not teach it. The Bible says there is no condemnation to one who is in Christ who walks not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. One cannot indulge in the things of the flesh without condemnation. All the preachers who teach to the contrary to this divine statement cannot change it. Let them not lead you to hell with their error.

Further, Paul says, “But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway” (1 Cor. 9:27). Why would Paul have to bring his body into subjection and one today not have to? Christ is wonderful and all of God’s blessings to man are through Him, but men who live after the flesh or even seek justification by the law fall from grace and Christ profits them nothing. “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4). Freedom is in Christ; but this freedom demands that the free respect the truth of God in their lives.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 35, p. 565
September 6, 1979

By Mike Willis

In the past few editorials, I have sought to discuss the various means which have been used by denominationalists and brethren in the past to deal with the problem of day-by-day sins in the life of a Christian. I have discussed the Wesleyan method of dealing with sin through the “second work of grace” doctrine of sanctification which leads to perfectionism. I also discussed the Calvinist approach to day-by-day sins through the imputation of the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ to the believer’s account whereby the possibility of apostasy is removed. Then, last week, I discussed the concept held by some brethren that sin is somehow automatically forgiven without the believer having to meet the conditions of repentance, confession, and prayer. I have personally rejected each of these concepts.

However, I need to present another alternative for dealing with the problem of day-by-day sins. The presentation of a number of negatives is useless if I have nothing better to offer in its place. I think that what I am going to present is the biblical concept of how to deal with the problem of sin in the believer’s life. I invite your study of this position.

Conditional Forgiveness

If I understand the teaching of the Bible, we must begin with the admission that sin separates from God (Isa. 59:1-2). The nature of sin is such that it always separates from God; there are no such things as venial and mortal sins; there is just sin, and sin always separates from God.

Furthermore, the number of times that a sin is committed is not important. One sin separates a man from God just as certainly as does one hundred sins. One sin separated Adam and Eve from God (Gen. 3); one sin separated Simon the sorcerer from God (Acts 8:13-25); one sin separated Ananias and Sapphira from God (Acts 5:1-11). Hence, one sin separates a person from God!

The sins which a Christian commits can be forgiven by the grace of God. The Bible does not teach that once a man becomes a Christian, he must live a perfect life in order to be saved. Rather, God has provided forgiveness to the erring Christian just as He has provided forgiveness for the alien sinner. All of the charges that God requires perfection are absolutely false so long as a man asserts that one’s standing before God is conditional upon forgiveness.

However, the forgiveness which God grants to man is either conditional or unconditional. There is no debate among Christians regarding whether or not the alien sinner’s forgiveness is given conditionally or unconditionally. We are agreed that the alien sinner is not forgiven until he believes the gospel, repents of his sins, confesses his faith in Christ, and is buried with Christ in baptism. I simply maintain that the same is true with reference to the erring child of God; his sins are not forgiven until he repents of them, confesses them to God, and prays for forgiveness. This seems to be the clear teaching of Scripture as the following verses show:

Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee (Acts 8:22).

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 Jn. 1:9).

Notice that these verses condition the forgiveness of sins committed by a Christian upon repentance, confession, and prayer. Hence, the Christian is not forgiven automatically; he is forgiven conditionally.

This understanding of a Christian’s day-to-day sins has certain supposed disadvantages. It certainly gives the Christian no absolute or immutable assurance that he will die inside the grace of God. His relationship with God at any moment in time might be severed by sin; hence, he must constantly strive to be obedient to the gospel of Jesus Christ throughout his life. He can never rest in the contentment of self-satisfaction of apathy. This is not to say that the Christian can never know at any given moment in time whether he will be saved or not; the child of God can know what his condition is at any given moment in time through a measuring of himself by the revealed word of God.)

Another disadvantage of this position is the acknowledgment that one sin can separate a person from God. I have been pressed with the illustration that a man who had served the Lord for sixty years but becomes involved in a sin and dies in the commission of that sin is lost in spite of his years of service to the Lord. I must confess that my position leads me to that conclusion, although I personally could wish that the consequences of sin were not so severe. In reply to this illustration, let me make the following comments: (a) This is exactly the same position that I am in when I make baptism an essential to initial salvation. I have had to face Baptists for years who imagined a situation of a penitent believer who failed to meet the condition of baptism for salvation. They wanted to know if such a man would be lost. My reply has been that I cannot offer such a man any hope of salvation from the pages of God’s word; that is exactly the reply that I must make with reference to this erring child of God. (b) Although brethren have historically handled this problem by stating that God would allow such a person time to repent and pray or not allow him to die in such a condition, I cannot prove this from the Bible. (c) This seems to be the plain statement of Scripture as the following text demonstrates:

But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die (Ezek. 18:24).

This text demonstrates that when a righteous man (regardless of how long he had been righteous) departs from righteousness and walks in wickedness that he-is condemned by God.

Perhaps there are other difficulties which do not come to my mind at the present. However, I must admit that there are some things about this position that may draw criticism from some brethren whom I respect. Nevertheless, I am less uncomfortable with stating that (1) an individual who departed from righteousness in his last moments of life will be lost, than I am stating that (2) an individual who dies in the act of committing adultery has the hope of eternal salvation! The first position simply recognizes the terrible severity of all sin, which is repeatedly taught in the Bible, whereas the second position lessens the severity of some sin, extending a kind of hope nowhere clearly revealed in the Scripture. You can take your own choice about which position raises the greater difficulties, I have already made mine. Let us turn now to the advantages of the position which I hold.

(1) It encourages a person to strive for righteousness. The individual is encouraged to study his Bible, pray regularly, repent of his sins, and engage in other such spiritual activities because his eternal salvation depends upon that.

(2) It encourages gospel preaching. Based on the conviction that some brother in Christ is involved in sins which are separating him from God, we are motivated to take the saving message of Christ to him before it is too late.

(3) It treats all sins alike. Moral departures from God’s revelation are lumped in the same category as doctrinal apostasies which involve one in sin. (Notice that not all wrong doctrines result in sin. I might ignorantly teach that Methuselah died at 839 years of age without causing anyone to commit a sin or committing a sin personally. We are talking about doctrinal deviations which result in sin.) The man who is guilty of using instrumental music in worship or supporting church sponsored recreation is treated just like the man who is guilty of lying in that both have transgressed the holy law of God.

(4) It places one’s blessed assurance of salvation directly upon God’s revelation. Whereas the former positions have given the assurance of salvation to men who were walking in darkness (using instrumental music, supporting institutionalism from the church treasury, and other sins), this position offers a genuine assurance of salvation only to the man who is standing squarely upon the promises of God. Just as I can offer no genuine assurance of salvation to the man who received infant “baptism,” I can offer the man who is involved in any sins no revealed assurance of salvation. However, I can offer the man who is standing on the promises of God and trusting in God to save him, every biblical assurance of salvation.

(5) It develops a dependence upon God’s grace. The man who accepts this method of handling his day-to-day sins certainly must depend upon the grace of God to blot out his transgressions when he repents of them and prays for the Lord to forgive them. Although the other systems also manifest a dependence upon God’s grace (a kind of grace not revealed in the Scriptures, but grace nevertheless), the charge has been made that this system makes one depend upon his own works (repentance and prayer) rather than on the grace of God. Such a charge is utterly ridiculous! It confuses the grounds and the conditions of salvation. God’s grace in sending Jesus to die for us is the grounds of salvation; repentance, confession and prayer are merely conditions of salvation with reference to the erring child of God in the same way as faith, repentance, confession, and baptism are conditions of salvation for the alien sinner.

Hence, this method teaches a man to trust the grace of God for salvation. Such an individual recognizes his sins and, therefore, realizes that his condition is utterly hopeless without God’s grace being extended to him. His appeal to God to forgive his sins is a dependence upon God’s grace.

Conclusion

There might be other methqpds used to deal with the problem of day-to-day sin in the life of the believer which I have not mentioned in this review. I can assure you that this oversight was unintentional. I cannot imagine how those who take the Wesleyan and Calvinist approaches to this problem can be considered true to the Book. Yet, I am not ready to dismiss some of those who have accepted this “automatic forgiveness” position (but who show by their life and teaching that they have no intention to compromise with sin, whether moral or doctrinal. The immediate danger has come from some other brethren who utilize automatic grace in their compromising approach to a broader unity – a unity with those involved with instrumental music in worship and other apostasies!) I personally am afraid of the position and these loose implications of it.

Just about everyone who has accepted the grace-unity position of fellowship began with the acceptance of some loose manner of handling day-to-day sins. However, not everyone who has accepted that manner of handling dayto-day sins has walked down the grace-unity path. Many faithful Christians have accepted this position who are just as staunch in their opposition to institutionalism, church sponsored recreation, and other such apostasies as they can be. I think that they are in error on this subject and appeal for them to re-study their position. Yet, this application of New Testament principles in these areas leaves me in no doubt regarding their faithfulness to the Lord. Others who hold this position will probably come out in the same place as some of these brethren just mentioned; however, time has not given them opportunity to demonstrate that. In the meantime, they are making the same arguments as the grace-unity brethren and we do not have the knowledge of what application they are going to make on the fellowship question. Just exactly where they stand is an unanswered question. Again, I plead with them to re-study this important issue.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 35, pp. 563-565
September 6, 1979