Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

In two previous articles, I have surveyed the manner in which denominationalists have handled the problem of daily sins. The Wesleyans hold to the doctrine of perfection; they believe that a second work of grace occurs which makes it possible for a Christian to live above sin. Hence, they deny that a Christian has .any sins after he receives sanctification. The Calvinist handles the problem of day-by-day sins through the imputation of the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ to the believer’s account. He believes that God sees the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ instead of the imperfect obedience of the believer. Consequently, the believer is secure from apostasy because of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ to his account. Both of these methods of handling the problem of day-by-day sin have been rejected as unscriptural. Although they are attractive in that they give the believer a certain amount of security from apostatizing, they are unscriptural concepts.

In this article, I would like to consider another method of handling the problem of sin in the life of the Christian. Although a few among us have handled the problem of day-by-day sins through the doctrine of imputed righteousness, the greater portion of brethren have rejected this as a false idea. However, some of these brethren are not comfortable with a position which teaches that a Christian is separated from God every time he commits a sin. Consequently, they have accepted a position which I label as “automatic grace.”

The Automatic Grace Position

Let me try to state this position as best as I can. I shall try not to misrepresent the belief of these brethren, although I am positive that those who accept this position could do a better job of explaining it than I can. However, here is my understanding of the position.

The “man of faith” is a man who is generally doing his best to walk within the commandments of God. Nevertheless, the “man of faith” will, on occasions, commit sins. Because this man is generally “walking in the light,” the sins which he commits (in ignorance or through a weakness of the flesh, rather than in open rebellion) are automatically forgiven by Jesus Christ because he is a “man of faith.” The consequence of this position is that such sins can be forgiven without repentance, confession, or prayer.

The ones who have taken this position sometimes describe those who believe that every sin separates one from Christ as “yo-yo Christians” and “jack-in-the-box Christians.” They belittle the idea of one stepping in and out or grace with every sin that he commits.

There are, indeed, certain advantages to holding this position. The security which a believer is given is at the top of the list. This man does not have to go through life worried about having committed some sin in ignorance which has separated him from God. He does not have to worry about some sin which he might have committed in some weakness of the flesh; the grace of God was automatically applied to this individual so that his sins have already been forgiven prior to his confession.

The disadvantages of folding -this position far outweigh whatever advantages might be cited in its favor, in my opinion. Consistency demands that the following positions be taken by those who hold this position, as best as I can tell:

(1) Sins of immorality, as well as doctrine, are automatically forgiven. Those who have accepted this position have used it to teach that a good, honest-hearted person among the liberals or the Christian Church can be saved while working with these groups. However, if the argument is worth anything, it will also apply to a good, honest-hearted person who is either caught up in an ethical violation through ignorance or the weakness of the flesh. For example, suppose that a Christian became involved in a compromising situation which led him to commit adultery. The husband of the adulteress came in, saw what was happening, and killed the Christian committing adultery with his wife. What will be the eternal destiny of that individual? If the argument that God’s grace is automatically extended to the Christian to cover sins of ignorance and weaknesses of the flesh is accepted, the conclusion is that this man is going to be saved! Brethren, I am personally not willing to accept that conclusion. It is direct violation to the Scriptures (Gal. 5:19; 1 Cor. 6:9-10).

(2) The separation from God comes, not at the moment sin is committed, but at the moment the sin is pointed out to the individual. In discussions with those who hold this position of automatic grace, it has become clear to me that separation from God comes at the moment that the individual is informed of his sin and refuses to repent of it. So long as the sin is committed in ignorance, the grace of the Lord is automatically extended to cover it. However, when the person is confronted with his sin, he must decide whether to follow Christ or Satan. If he chooses to follow Satan, he is at that moment separated from Christ. However, notice that his transgression of the law is not what separated him from God; rather, it was his choice to continue knowingly the sin once practiced ignorantly.

Furthermore, some would follow this matter ever further. If the individual sincerely could not see that what he was doing was wrong and still chose the way of Satan rather than that of Christ, he would still stand justified in God’s sight, according to these people. After all, imbecility of intellect cannot separate one from God, they say.

(3) The attitude and intention are accepted in place of obedience. With this position, the “man of faith” who is involved in sin is acceptable before God because his general desire to please God is accepted in place of his act of disobedience. The man, for example, who is sincere and honest but who is using mechanical instruments of music in worship is accepted before God in spite of his sin because he is a “man of faith.” At this point, the many passages which show that sincerity does not replace obedience need to be studied (Acts 26:9; 1 Sam. 15:22-23; 1 Kgs. 13; etc.).

(4) It removes the urgency of gospel preaching. I must frankly confess that if I believed this idea of “automatic grace,” I would be less motivated to reach those involved in sin to call them to repentence. When I am convinced that an individual is going to lose his soul because of the sin which he is practicing, I am going to be rather urgent about taking a message to a man who is involved in sin but, nevertheless, saved.

(5) It virtually assumes that truth and error are indistinguishable. In conversation with some of those who take this position of “automatic grace,” I have asked them whether or not their sincere “man of faith” could worship with a Christian Church with all of its sinful practices for 25-30 years without being able to detect that something was different between it and the New Testament church. They have stated that they could imagine that this could happen. Frankly, I have never doubted that some in the Christian Church and among the liberals were sincere and honest people. Nevertheless, I believe that they are involved in sin and separated from God.

To think that a “man of faith” who studies his Bible regularly could not recognize anything sinful in these bodies during a course of a lifetime virtually makes one take the position that truth and error are indistinguishable. If they were easily distinguishable, this man would see the error of his ways, repent of them, and forsake the apostate body of which he was a member. Yet, these brethren think that he can be saved while still belonging to such organizations.

Furthermore, this position is going to have to grapple with the problem of how a holy God can ignore transgressions in His people. If I extend the right hand of fellowship to one who is walking outside the doctrine of Christ, I am guilty of participating in that sin (2 John 9-11). If the holy God of heaven maintains fellowship with those who are walking in sin, is He not tainted thereby? If not, why not?

The suggestion has been made that God has made provisions for forgiving His people and, therefore, can fellowship sinners without being tainted by their sin because they are forgiven. Admittedly, this is true. This grace is extended to mankind in the gospel. It is granted to the alien sinner upon the conditions that he believe, repent, confess faith in Christ, and be baptized; it is granted to the erring child of God on the conditions that he repent and pray. However, does God’s grace make provisions for forgiving the man who defends a sinful practice, refuses to repent of it, and continues in that sin, as is the case with those who use mechanical instruments of music in worship, support human institutions from the church treasury, distort church government with the sponsoring church arrangement, pervert the mission of the church, and other such sinful practices? Where is the Scripture that indicates that He grants forgiveness to such men? If there is no Scripture to indicate that they stand forgiven, they are yet in their sins. If they are yet in their sins and God maintains fellowship with them, God’s holiness has been tainted by fellowshipping those who are in sin.

Conclusion

Before concluding this treatment of the automatic grace position which is held by some brethren among us, I need to add that a good number of brethren who accept this automatic grace concept are men of strong conviction. They would no more think of fellowshipping brethren among the liberals than they would those in the Catholic Church. The stance which they have taken against institutionalism is well-known; their faithfulness is appreciated and respected.

However, I think that in this respect these brethren have accepted a position not very well thought out. These brethren would generaly repudiate every disadvantage which I. have listed to the position of automatic grace, although I do not personally know what logical or biblical argument they could make against these conclusions, given that one accepts their premises. Hence, I would like to appeal for brethren to study this position with me. Let us reason together. (Continued next week.)

Truth Magazine XXIII: 34, pp. 547-549
August 31, 1979

By Daniel H. King

The system of government which we enjoy in the U.S. is a “constitutional” one, that is to say, those who govern us do not possess absolute power. Their ability to act is restricted by enforceable rules of law found in the document known as our consitution. Although our forefathers rejected the control of their land and individual lives by a foreign tyrant, still they recognized the basic need for a well-ordered and just society. However, none of the other alternatives available to them was attractive: dictatorship, totalitarianism or anarchy. The former two would have amounted to more of what they had endured under the English monarchy, total domination by a man or group of men who considered only their own selfish interests and gave little thought to the concerns of those governed. The latter would have meant chaos. No system could long endure without the aid of legal boundaries to check the lawless actions of people who have no care for the common good. It would shortly have been vanquished through its own endemic weaknesses and replaced by something different. A dictatorship or totalitarian system might persist, perhaps even for an extended period, but only by force of arms; and the hearts of the people would surely long for something better.

Undeniably, there are several lessons to be gained in the spiritual realm from these observations gleanded out of centuries of human experience with the science of government. We are aware of the fact that no analogy is perfect, and freely admit that this is no exception. Still the Master Teacher did not hesitate to make such imperfect comparisons, as his parables plainly show. It is therefore certain that we do so with excellent precedent.

First, let it be plainly said that the realm of the spirit is absolute monarchy. Though men impertinently long for, and betimes intrude a democratic mode into the place God’s government, yet it must be realized that He is a ruler without peer. In the time of God’s dealings with Israel he declared Himself their king: “I am the Lord, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King” (Isa. 43:15). The everpresent difficulty with human monarchs is that their judgments tend to be capricious, sometimes illconsidered, and often purely selfish. The frailties which characterize the state of man are inevitably at fault. Not so with the divine King: “The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart . . . The ordinances of the Lord are true, and righteous altogether” (Psa. 19:8-9).

Under both systems one fact remains consistently true: since God is the ultimate author of this legal apparatus, it requires no conventions to update it and allows for no amendments to clarify, fortify or amplify it. Under Moses it was put in this way: “You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you take away from it, so that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2). Similarly, the New Testament closes with the warning, “I testify to every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:18, 19).

These texts stand like sentinels who keep their vigilant watch over the book that we today know as the Bible. But how much more it is than a mere book! Since we have between its covers the documents of God’s “consitutional monarchy” we are forced to investigate its pages to know about the divine government. It has its opponents on every hand: pretenders to the throne of Jesus; spiritual anarchists, who deny all divine law; democratizers, who would make the will of the masses the will of God; traditionalists who equate human practice and celestial decree; libertines, who raise their own thoughts to a rank above the thoughts of divinity; innovators, who replace the inventions of God with their own devices; critics, who offer words of negation but have nothing positive or fruitful to venture; and the list goes on.

From the systems that govern earthly societies we can learn one final thing: it does not go well with those who care little for law. They may evade its enforcers for a time but eventually they will be called to task. So might it also be said of God’s government: “And I saw a great white throne and him that sat upon it . . . And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne; and books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of the things which were written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire” (Rev. 20:11-15).

How much better it would be to obey God now than to travel life’s road impenitent and uncaring, forced at last to heed one final command: “Depart from me, ye cursed . . .” (Matt. 25:41).

Truth Magazine XXIII: 34, p. 546
August 31, 1979

By Daniel H. King

A genuinely touching scene is depicted by John in the twentieth chapter of his gospel: that of the grief-stricken Mary Magdalene at the empty tomb. It had not been her most immediate impulse upon arrival at the vacated crypt, to suppose that Jesus was resurrected. Instead, she guessed that either the Jews or the Romans or the two parties in conjunction had carried away the corpse of her Master. In answer to the question “Why are you weeping?” she replied, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him” (vs. 13). In this reply and in succeeding verses, she evidenced considerable concern for the Lord. Though she thought Him dead, yet she would not have His body desecrated.

Mary’s sad plight ought to give rise to consideration on our part of a like situation. How much more saddened should we be; how much greater should be our alarm, at the fact that Jesus has today been “taken away” so that He cannot be located? At Christmas time every year, we hear a lot about the problem of Christ being “taken out of Christmas”. For my own part, I have never yet figured out how He could be removed from something in which He has never been scripturally or logically involved. I must admit that I have very little concern for Christ’s absence from Christmas. However, there are, some places where He belongs — but is not anywhere to be found. Consider a few of them:

Christ Has Been Taken Out of the Church

Jesus, not John the Baptist or any other, established the church (Matt. 16:18). Therefore, the name of Jesus at first was inseparably connected with that of the church: “the churches of Christ salute you” (Rom. 16:16).

With the proliferation of modern Protestantism, though, along with the constant fracturing and fragmenting of those bodies that compose it, there had been a constantly growing list of churches and therefore an incessantly changing list of names for those associations. Specific doctrines are attached to many churches as names, since that is the special feature of the group: “presbyterian,” “methodist,” “baptist,” “paedo-baptist,” “congregationalist,” etc. Sometimes the names of men are taken up and borne by those who profess the dogmatic stance of their standard-bearer and mentor: “Lutheran”, “Wesleyan”, etc.

How exceedingly odd it is that some call themselves after the name of the best man (Jn. 3:29) while they claim to be the wife of the bridegroom! Baptists have always found themselves in this awful predicament. The Bible teaches that the church is the pure and lovely bride of Christ (Eph. 5:32; Rev. 22:17). Would you feel comfortable with your wife’s taking the name of your best man? I should think that you would object with all due haste and intensity! You would likely suggest that there was an overabundance of emotional attachment to one for whom such was improper. Also you would probably claim with good reason that your bride was showing insufficient love for you and little concern for your wishes.

At times, the sacred name of the Savior has been attached to spiritual harlots who have no right whatever to wear it. The sign that hung in the front of the place of “worship” for the cult-leader- Jim Jones and his flock read “The People’s Temple of the Disciples of Christ.” What a blasphemous affront to that holy name! And most people can readily see this point when it is made in connection with People’s Temple. But its application is far broader than just this cultic and communistic group. It extends to all those religious affiliations and communions that wear His name, yet exist in virtual whoredom, showing no care for His will as found in His Word, prostituting their mission in this world, and extending to dying men everything except the bread of life. Israel played the harlot in days of old (Jer. 3i6~10) and dealt treacherously with God, her husband (Jer.4:20). Her bitter defeat and exile and the flames that ~ consumed Jerusalem and all of her cities should serve as a reminder that God is not soft or indifferent toward spiritual infidelity. Rather, He pursues the offender with relentless zeal both in this world and the next. Therefore, “Return O backsliding children, saith the Lord” (Jer. 3:14).

Our point is further proven by the observation that the name of Christ has been removed from those who claim to be Christians. They likewise allude to themselves with every conceivable designation aside from the simple name “Christian” which was appointed by the Lord’s apostles and prophets as the name they should wear (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16; 1 Cor. 1:12-16). Only the appellation chosen and subsequently affixed to His people by Jehovah Himself can possibly be acceptable to Him. Let me illustrate: If you were the head of a .large business enterprise, conceived and begun by you; and you found it necessary to go abroad to tend to other pressing matters after having appropriately titled your project; would you be pleased to return and discover that the board of directors had decided to change the designation you had selected and appointed for use? You would doubtless be infuriated! After all, you were the one who started the whole thing and the directors were supposed to be amenable to your wishes, not vice versa. The action they took in so radically and presumptiously rejecting your ruling would be tantamount to a rejection of yourself as originator and president of the company. The outright firing of the board of directors would be the thing that would follow. This analogy points out an important thing: God has chosen appropriate designations for Christians as individuals and for churches as collectivities. The replacement of those titles with names which better suit the wearers than the one appointed amount to an insult of the highest order and magnitude against the Lord who conceived us and designated us as He did.

There is one further thought that comes to mind along this line. The name or authority of Christ has been taken away from Jesus, and so He has been removed from the faith and practice of a majority of people. All that we are to do should be done in the name, that is, by the authority of Christ (Col. 3:17). Yet, He has been supplanted from His rightful place of authority in a variety of ways, Creeds, disciplines, missals, councils, synods, presbyteries,-and a whole host of other human devices have been concocted by fruitful imaginations. And the result has been more than a mere weathering away of divine authority. Rather, the outcome is a veritable disappearance of respect for the Bible as God’s law with a concomitant growth of concern for human judgment and public opinion. “Man is the measure of all things!”

Christ Has Been Taken Out of the Pulpit

Men-pleasing preachers have always posed a problem. The prophets perpetually worried over prophetic leadership that represented only a “rubber stamp” of political leaders and offered no moral guidance above affirmation of the status quo. With a storm gathering on the northern horizon that spelled doom for Judah, they preached “Peace, peace” when there was no peace (Jer. 6:14). The sword entered the body and was reaching for the vitals (Jer. 4:10). Yet they proclaimed that all was well.

In our own day, we are plaqued by men who wink at every sort of evil, who will not cry out against any thing. These men are not the sons of the prophets; they do not represent the legacy of Paul or Peter or Stephen; their chief lent is to foster “social Christianity,” clear all of the ‘rns, and generally fulfill the objectives of a watered down form of Marxism. The materialism exemplified by spires that pierce the heavens, ornate and ostentatious furnishings, priceless stained-glass windows, pretentious organs and pianos, etc., never strike such men as a fundamental contradiction of the pomposity which they wear as shamelessly as they do their turned-back.-collars.

The major concern is to “pastor” a large church, hold a prestigious place in the local ministerial alliance, draw a fat salary, and climb the ladder of ecclesiastical politics to the top. Men like Paul would not do for the churches which they serve; he had too little respect for ecclesiastical diplomacy (2 Cor. 13:2; 2:17). The content of his message was “Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:1-5). not good literature or pious poetry, not jokes and lively stories, not platitudes or Shakespeare. The “whole counsel of :God” was his chief consideration (Acts 20:27).

Statisticians reveal to us the reason for much of this. They tell us that the majority of modern denominational -preachers have given up faith in the inspiration of the Bible; most deny the virgin birth, the incarnation, the resurrection, and the miraculous elements of the Bible. Hence, they protest the authority of Scripture and consider Shakespeare just as reliable as a guide for moral excellance. They have taken away my Lord and I know not where to find Him!

Christ Has Been Taken Out of Christian’s Lives

The apostle Paul said that Christ was living in and through him (Gal. 2:20). The key for the child of God as he further points out, is that he ought to live his life while in the flesh by faith. Elsewhere he simply explains that we should walk by faith and not by sight (2 Cor. 5:7). This remark could be generalized to include all of the five senses of the human body, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. The sensory equipment of humankind is insufficient to supply him with understanding in spiritual matters. It requires revelation by the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:11-13).

Absolute honesty may seem inexpedient in the modern era; the good neighbor policy demanded by the Master may appear foolish; good citizenship and moral purity may be viewed as obsolete and out of date; but the God of heaven personified every one of th-use traits and a multitude of other marvelous virtues in the person of Jesus Christ. If those virtues are absent in my life and in yours, then we have taken away the Lord too. And – I don’t know where else to find Him save in the lives of Christians. The world has always considered Him forgotten, except when they see Him in us.

Conclusion

Mary Magdalene was tearful in her concern that the body of the Lord might have been desecrated by his enemies. Are we similarly concerned that the name and authority of the Master has fallen into disrepute at the hands of His supposed friends? If so, there are certainly many things that we can do to express our anxiety:

1. Let His church wear His name without being solicitous that denominations and their advocates have blighted it.

2. Let Christians proudly wear the name that is above every name, that of Christ, without reservation or qualification.

3. Let Christ and Christ only be preached from the pulpits of every land. Moreover, the doctrine found in His word should not in any way be distinguished from His person (I Tim. 6:3; 2 John 9). Preaching the doctrine of Christ is the same as preaching Christ.

4. Let Christians bear the image and impress of the person of Jesus in their everyday lives.

So, God will be glorified and His children will be saved. Otherwise, neither will result.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 33, pp. 538-539
August 23, 1979

By Stephen P. Willis

This name for Satan – as men so think – has no biblical authority whatsoever, although the Bible is commonly given as its source. There is only one mention of a Lucifer in the King James Version, and it does not refer to Satan, but to the king of Babylon. Isa. 14:12 reads: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how are thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” A better translation of Lucifer would be “shining one” or “day star.” (The British still understand this meaning of Lucifer, but it would appear few Americans do.) Verse 16 calls Lucifer a man; verse 4 says that the saying is “against the king of Babylon.” A study of the context often clears misunderstandings.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 33, p. 537
August 23, 1979