Truth Magazine

By Bob Waldron

In the third temptation of Jesus, recorded in Matthew 4, “the devil taketh Him unto an exceeding high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and he said unto Him, `All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me’ ” (Matt. 4:8, 9). Satan sought to get Jesus to worship him. If ever the bald-faced audacity of Satan was ever manifested, it was then. The very idea of supreme Deity worshiping Satan is mind boggling. If Jesus had seen fit to fall down and worship Satan, then surely we who are far less in power could do no less than to follow His example. As I said, the consequences of such an action would have shaken the foundations of reason itself.

What was the appeal of this temptation? God had promised Jesus the “obedience of the peoples” (Gen. 49:10); “the nations for throe inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession” (Psa. 2:8). For Jesus to follow God’s way to the throne on the “holy hill of Zion” led to the cross. It was the hard way, the sacrificial way. Satan’s way was easy. All Jesus had to do was to fall down and worship him. If He had done that, being who He was, Deity would have been divided. Deity would have submitted to an inferior being’s power. The scheme of redemption would have been completely thwarted.

Jesus answered Satan, “Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, ‘Thou shaft worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shaft thou serve”‘ (Matt. 4:10). For the third time Jesus quoted from Deuteronomy (6:13). Moses warned the people that when they went into the land, they were not to follow after the idols. One may make a god out of anything. Satan wanted to exchange himself for God and let Jesus worship him, but Jesus refused. “Thou shaft worship the Lord thy God and Him only shaft thou serve.”

It will be profitable to look at a few reasons why Jesus was perfect. They are exemplified in the temptation accounts. We blame sin on our human bodies, but Jesus had a human body and did not sin. Sin comes from the heart. It is the heart which allows the desires of the body to become lust. Surely the divine nature of Jesus is the ultimate explanation of His complete, lifelong perfection. There are, however, two things which we may study with great benefit. One reason why Jesus never sinned is that He was not ignorant. He knew everything that was right. Many times we sin because we do not know. We have not studied and learned. The more we know of God’s way the better we wilt be able to walk in it. Another reason why Jesus never singed is that He always did what He knew was right. How often do we get to the end of a day and say, “I should have done this or that,” and did not do it? We can improve our service to God without learning anything else if we will immediately begin to do more of what we already know we should do. We can then further improve by studying the scriptures more diligently. Let us be imitators of Christ and “resist the devil and he will flee from you” (Jas. 4:7).

Truth Magazine XXIII: 33, p. 533
August 23, 1979

By Mike Willis

Every Christian is faced with the problem of how to handle his day-to-day sins with reference to his hope for an eternal home in heaven. If sin separates a man from God (Isa. 59:1-2), the individual must cope with the possibility of losing the salvation which he has obtained through Jesus Christ. Last week, we discussed one possible method of handling the problem of day-to-day sin, namely that which is used by Calvinists. The Calvinists appeal to the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ to the believer’s account to reach their belief in the impossibility of apostasy. This is their method of handling the problem of day-to-day sin. I did not engage in a refutation of this belief last week because I have previously reviewed the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ and, furthermore, most brethren are well equipped to handle the subject of the impossibility of apostasy.

Not all denominations, however, handle the problem of day-to-day sin in the same manner as do the Calvinsits. Others handle the problem with a “second act of grace” otherwise known as the sanctification doctrine. Let us define this doctrine in more detail.

A Second Work of Grace

Perhaps a word should be said about the philosophy of this second work of grace (otherwise known as perfectionism). The underlying principle of perfectionism is that of natural depravity and the impotence of the individual to help himself, morally and spiritually.

Man is “a mass of corrupts and his salvation must come from outside himself. In attaii that ideal three steps are usually recognized. Justification secures remission of sins; it is divine forgiveness, conditioned on repentance in evangelical thinking, and does little or nothing to man’s nature. Regeneration is an inner work, usually accompanying but distinct from justification, which purifies the life and purges it of the original taint. But there still remains “sin in the regenerate”; men are still tempted, evil desires remain, and depravity still manifests itself. So there must be sanctification which completes the work of regeneration and frees man entirety from inbred sin (Elmer- T. Clark, The Small Sects In America, p. 52).

The result of sanctification is the total eradication of sinful desires and deplorable psychological states; the individual is thus enabled to live free Jrom sirs because of this second work of grace.

The second work of grace is secured in only one way. A direct operation of the Holy. Spirit manifested in the believer by a definite emotional response is the only way of obtaining sanctification. In defining “Christian Perfection,” John Wesley stated the following:

1. Christian perfection is the product of faith and means freedom from all sin, both outward and inner, including “evil thoughts and tempers,” though it does not insure against such human frailties as ignorance, mistakes, temptations, and the common infirmities of the flesh.

2. It is not the same as, nor does it ever accompany, justification, but is always subsequent thereto . . .

3. It is always an instantaneous experience, though there may be gradual growth both previous and subsequent thereto . . . (Ibid, p. 55).

Here are some statements from creed books which manifest belief in this doctrine:

We believe that entire sanctification is that act of God, subsequent to regeneration, by which believers are made free from original sin, or depravity, and brought into a state of entire devotement to God, and the holy obedience of love made perfect.

It is wrought by the baptism with the Holy Spirit, and comprehends in one experience the cleansing of the heart from sin and the abiding indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, empowering the believer for fife and service.

Entire sanctification is provided by the blood by Jesus, is wrought instanteously by faith, preceded by entire consecration; and to this work and state of grace the Holy Spirit bears witness (Manual of the Church of the Nazarene, 1944, p. 29).

Sanctification is that renewal of our fallen nature by the Holy Ghost, received through faith in Jesus Christ, whose blood of atonement cleanseth from all sin; whereby we are not only delivered from the guilt of sin, but are washed from its pollution, saved from its power, and are enabled, through grace, to love God with all our hearts and to walk in His Holy commandments blameless (Discipline of the Methodist Church, 1940, p. 48).

McClintock and Strong summarized this doctrine rather concisely in their monumental work; they wrote,

This is, in brief, the doctrine that Jesus Christ is a present Savior from sin; that he is able to keep those that trust in him from falling into any sin whatever; and that if the soul trusted him completely it would be preserved from all deliberate sin, and its unintentional wrong-doing – errors rather than sins – would not be imputed to it. It is true that some of the advocates of this view claim to have so lived in the presence of Christ as to have been for weeks and months unconscious of any sin; but more generally those who hold this view of the present redeeming power of Christ, while they insist that it is possible to live so near to him as to be kept by him “without sin,” also confess that they occasionally fail to keep up a complete and undeviating trust in Christ, and so do, in fact, in some degree, temporarily fail away from that condition in which they maintain it to be their privilege to walk (Vol. -VII, p. 944).

In a telephone conversation with a person who believed in this second work of grace, which conversation was aired on the radio, he stated that he had lived fifteen to twenty years without committing a single sin. Some of the more staunch defenders of this second work of grace would frankly confess that they have not sinned in years. When confronted with sin in the lives of their members, they either try to explain this as not being sin or assert that this individual who obviously is guilty of sin never actually received sanctification. In this, they remind one of the Calvinists who deny that a certain individual who has fallen away from the faith ever was saved in the first place.

Sanctification And Daily Sins

Despite whatever one may think about the truthfulness or falsity of this doctrine, he must admit that this one method presently being used to grapple with the problem of day-by-day sites in a Christian’s life. This approach simply states that a Christian who has been sanctified does not sin anymore. The temptation to sin has been removed from his body; consequently, he does not sin.

The advantage of this position if obvious. It gives an individual a security of salvation. He does not have to worry about being a “yo-yo Christian” who moves in and out of grace every day. Instead, once he has been saved and sanctified, he is forever secure because he simply cannot sin; hence, there is nothing in his life to separate him from God.

The disadvantages of this position should be obvious to anyone who has his eyes open and knows his Bible. The very first disadvantage should be obvious to anyone, with or without a Bible. That is, that it is not in harmony with experience. With our eyes and ears, we have witnessed quite the contrary; we have seen men who had been saved by the grace of God become involved in transgressions. We have seen men who were dedicated to the service of God for years become enmeshed in some sin. This has happened on a sufficient number of occasions that it simply cannot be dismissed by saying that such individuals were never saved in the first place. Hence, this first objection is that this doctrine of sanctification is contrary to experience.

The second, and more important, objection is that this doctrine is contrary to the Scriptures. The New Testament Scriptures demonstrate that those who have been saved by the blood of Christ can continue to commit sins from time to time. The following. passages, addressed to Christians, demonstrate this fact:

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us: My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous (1 Jn. 1:8-2:1).

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. My brethren, . . . Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: but every man is tempted., when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death (Jas. 1:1-2, 13-15).

Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall (1 Cor. 10:12).

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).

These passages show conclusively that Christians can continue to sin after being saved; they continue to have temptations; they must be careful lest they fall away from Jesus Christ and, consequently, lose their salvation.

Thirdly, this doctrine is contrary to what the Scriptures teach regarding sanctification. Sanctification is not a “second work of grace” which occcurs instantaneously making man above the temptation to sin. Sanctification has a two-fold meaning in the Scriptures: (1) It refers to that which occurs in salvation whereby one becomes setapart to God (1 Cor. 6:11; 1:2). These are not sinless persons but set-apart persons. (2) It refers to that continuing process of growth in Christian living whereby one is constantly laying aside sinful acts and deeds in an attempt to replace them with fruits of the Spirit, as the following: Jn. 17:17; 1 Thess. 4:1-7.

Conclusion

This second method of dealing with the sins which occur day-by-day in one’s life is rejected. The denial of the possibility for the presence of sins in the Christian’s life is antiscriptural. It is in direct conflict with what we learn about the Christian’s life in the Scriptures. Hence, this method of handling day-by-day sins must be rejected. (Continued next week.)

Truth Magazine XXIII: 33, pp. 531-533
August 23, 1979

By Norman E. Fultz

Now whoever thought of stubbornness as a sin? “Preacher, where did you ever come up with that idea?”, you may be asking. Well, basically from one Old Testament passage which we will consider later:

The word “stubborn” takes on a vividness when broken down. The root “stub” can be defined as “the stump of a tree, the short blunt part of anything after the large part has been broken off or used up.” Picture the stiffness, rigidity or hardness of the stub of a weed which the mower has clipped near the ground. Contrast that stiffness with the former flexibility of the weed as it would sway gracefully in the wind. The idea of “stubborn” thus becomes “fixed, resolute, or unyielding; especially, obstinate . . . difficult to handle, manage or treat; refractory” (Webster).

The word “stubborn” appears five times and the word “stubbornness” twice in the King James version of the Bible. A study of the passages can teach us a great deal about the – shall we call it a malady, an attitude?

1 The Bible uses of the term show it identified with an attitude of rebellion. In Deut. 9:27, Moses pled for God to remember Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and “look not unto the stubbornness of this people, nor to their wickedness, nor to their sin.” Read the entire ninth chapter, and note: “ye have been rebellious” (vs. 7, 24) and, “thou are (it is) a stiffnecked people” (vs. 6, 13). The Psalmist (78:8) called Israel “a stubborn and rebellious generation” because their heart was not set on God’s service. That same relation between stubbornness and rebellion is seen in the case of the uncontrollable son (Deut. 21:18-20).

In Judges 2:19, it is connected with self-seeking – “they ceased not from their own doings, nor from their stubborn way.” A lack of faithfulness in marriage and playing the part of a harlot led Solomon to call the evil woman of Proverbs (7:6-23) “loud and stubborn.”

But the example of King Saul (1 Sam. 15) is verily a study of stubbornness. Samuel calls Saul’s behavior “rebellion” and shows it to be- the result of “stubbornness.” Read the chapter and let’s consider Saul’s problem.

He had “grown up” in his own estimation – no longer little in his own sight (v. 17). Quite a change had come over him since the time of his anointing (9:21). On another occasion, he had “done foolishly” and “not kept the commandment of the Lord” (1 Sam. 13:8-13). Peace offerings were to be offered at the door of the tabernacle (Lev. 17:1-6). Saul’s power had gone to his head. How often in our day do we see those who cannot become prosperous or powerful without losing their humility and submissiveness?

Saul elevated his-own thoughts over God’s instruction. God said, “utterly destroy.” Saul thought the best of the spoil should be saved (v. 19) and the vile and,- refuse destroyed (v. 9). What he thought to be good was in fact evil; because it was disobedience: He had riot learned that God’s thoughts and man’s thoughts are- often greatly divergent ,Isa. 53:8-9). What of those today who seek to improve upon what God has revealed regarding worship or .the organization and work of the church?

The king sought to justify himself and blame others for his disobedience (v. 20-21). He had understood his mission, for he admitted the spoil “should have been destroyed.”He blamed the people and tried to rationalize their motive -they only did it “to sacrifice to the Lord thy God.” But he learned that partial obedience is disobedience (v. 11, 22) and that he, himself, was guilty.

Samuel’s rebuke of Saul is stern and pointed. “Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord?” God does not require obedience to one commandment to the point of another being violated. God required sacrifices, but not of the Amalekite spoils – it was to be destroyed. God requires Christians to give (1 Cor. 16:2; 2 Cor. 8-9), but not to the point that they engage in dishonest effort in order to give, or to give more. “It is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not” (2 Cor. 8:12). Basically, what Samuel is saying to Saul is that God grades “A” for obedience – “to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams” (cf. Ex. 19:5; Hos. 6:6). Samuel likens Saul’s rebellion unto witchcraft or divination, a practice definitely prohibited in Israel (Deut. 18:10). His “stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry,” also disdainful to God (Ex. 20:3-5).

The results of Saul’s stubbornness are far-reaching. The kingdom is taken from him; and Samuel, the seer, departs permanently from him (v. 23, 35). The light he refused is darkened, and the voice he rejected is silenced. Even though Saul confessed his sin and worshiped God (v. 24-31), the effects of his sin were permanent – “The Lord hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day . . . the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent” (v. 27, 29). Many moderns need also to learn the devastating and far reaching effects of their sin, and that though sin may be repented of, the effects may remain. As an instance, the alcoholic who gets “on the wagon” may have permanently impaired his health and wrecked his family.

Now, if it be argued that stubbornness is itself not a sin, only that attitude which may lead to sin, I answer – “a mere technicality!” Look at its company: rebellion, self exaltation, lack of submissiveness, witchcraft, idolatry and iniquity.

The child of God must guard against stubbornness in his own life in all his relationships, and the Christian parent is challenged to do all within his power to keep his child from developing a stubborn will.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 33, p. 530
August 23, 1979

By Dan Walters

Acts 8:4 tells us that after the great persecution against the Christians at Jerusalem, “they that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word.” The New Testament does not make a distinction between “teaching” and “preaching” or between private and public proclamation of the Word. In Acts 8:35, we find that Philip preached unto the eunuch; one man preached to one man. When the word is used in this sense, every Christian must be considered a preacher of the Word. If we allow any of our traditions to detract from the importance of this individual responsibility, we will have “made the commandment of God of none effect” (Matt. 15:6).

Both liberals and conservatives in the church are today concerned about the fact that we are falling behind other religious groups in numbers of conversions. We might have something to learn from two of these groups: the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons. They both teach false doctrines far removed from the teachings of the Apostles, yet they are experiencing rapid growth. Is false doctrine more attractive than truth? Speaking from a totally detached standpoint, I would rather try to convince someone of the truth of the doctrine that we teach than of the doctrine taught by either of these groups. It should be an easier job. The truth is simpler, more logical, and easier to grasp. It can be established from Bible testimony alone, without the need to acquaint people with other “inspired” literature. Could it be that members of these groups are doing something right, in spite of their overall error? Could their success be due to the fact that they are going everywhere preaching their doctrine, instead of relying on a professional ministry?

Some of these people seem to be practicing what we preach. We have always condemned a separation of clergy and laity, a pastor system, and preacher professionalism. Yet when taking a realistic look at ourselves it must be admitted that we have adopted many elements of the denominational system as it relates to preaching. Young men in the Mormon church are expected to spend two years in evangelistic work, regardless of the career they expect to choose later. I have talked to some of these young men, and it is my opinion that they know just about as much about Mormon doctrine as the average young gospel preacher knows about the New Testament. Yet they are not “preachers” as we think of the term; they will become lawyers, doctors, farmers, carpenters, writers, salesmen, etc. Go into any church of Christ and take a sampling of our young men, aged 18-20, and compare what they know about the truth to what the young Mormon missionaries know about their faith. If you do this in a representative congregation, I have no doubt that you will be severely disappointed. As a rule, the only ones to measure up will be those young men who are planning to preach as an occupation.

Most of those members who spread the doctrine of Russellism and Mormonism are not paid to do so; they support themselves at secular jobs. Most of the time the members contribute their time and effort to build the meeting houses where they worship. They are expected to have a profound knowledge of their respective religions. And they do not quit preaching because of lack of support; they expect no support. Are these people superior in moral fiber to Christians? If not, the answer must be that they really believe that their members have an equal obligation to preach.

When we use the word “preacher” in its modern sense, it is true that not all Christians can or should be preachers. Women are forbidden to be public proclaimers and some men do not possess the ability to speak effectively. But even in this area we may have restricted the “ministry” too much. Consider those occupations in which it is necessary for a man to be able to speak publically. We have in the church lawyers, sales promoters, school teachers, public officials, entertainers, etc. What is the excuse if these men cannot teach a Bible class or deliver a simple lesson from the pulpit? They cannot plead lack of ability. After having been in the church for ten years, they cannot plead ignorance of the Bible without admitting the sin of neglect. Is it possible that they have never developed themselves simply because they have not been expected to do so? Because we do not think of them as “preachers”?

We all ought to be thankful for those faithful men who have devoted their lives to preaching the gospel. But the rest of us cannot afford to allow them to bear the burden alone. We must discard the denominational notion that if a man makes his money by operating computers, that means he is not really a preacher. One proof that there is a problem is a fact brought out recently in Truth Magazine by Brother Wallace Little. He says that many preachers in the Philippines have come to regard preaching as a “job,” and if their support is lessened or cut off, they have lost their “job.” Where did they learn to think of preaching in these terms? Is it possible that they have learned it from us?

What should be done to correct this tendency? Our young people should be taught that they are personally responsible for spreading the gospel and edifying their brothers and sisters in Christ. They must understand that his is not a job that is already filled merely because the church has decided to support a certain man to do evangelistic work. Our young men must be taught that they are already preachers, whatever occupation they may go into, and that the extent of their preaching depends upon their individual ability and opportunity. That means that if a young man has no mental or physical handicaps, he should start preparing himself during his early teens to take a leading part in the work of the church, and to be able to deliver a public lesson from the Bible whenever he is called upon.

We have noticed that a number of liberal congregations have styled themselves as brotherhood “preacher training schools.” Faithful churches should go them one better. Every church of any size should become a preacher training school for all of its male members who can reasonably be expected to profit thereby. That will mean a sacrifice for some “full-time” preachers who might feel that they have a monopoly on the pulpit and for those members who insist on being entertained every service by an eloquent speaker. While the local pulpit is being filled by other members, the supported preacher can be out working in new fields or helping some struggling new church in the area.

If such suggestions were carried out, it just might be that we would see fewer signs in front of churches saying, “So and so, Minister.” It would be understood that we are all ministers and the church with just one minister is in a sad condition.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 32, pp. 524-525
August 16, 1979