Truth Magazine

By Ron Halbrook

Hope is desire plus expectation. Webster says, “Desire accompanied by expectation of or belief in fulfillment.” In Philippi, some base men used a “damsel possessed with a spirit of divination” as a means to wealth “by soothsaying.” . When Paul healed her, these men were enraged because “the hope of their gains was gone . . .” (Acts 16:16ff). This girl did not represent mere desire of sordid gain to them. Their desire was made confident expectation through her. When the elderly Abraham “against hope believed in hope” for a child, he had no earthly reason to think his long-standing desire could be fulfilled. Against earthly odds, he laid hold of the heavenly promise. Believing that what God “had promised, he was able also to perform,” Abraham added confident expectation to earnest desire (Rom. 4).

The Hope Revealed In Scripture

The “joyful and confident expectation of eternal salvation” is hope (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon). God promised Abraham that He would bring a Savior out of a prepared nation in a prepared land, to bless “all families of the earth.” After many centuries of revelation and preparation, God fulfilled his promise in the person of Jesus Christ (Gen. 12:1-3; Gal. 3). When Paul was called in question for his preaching, he said, “And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers” (Acts 26:6). God’s promise was not a matter of human speculation but of divine revelation. “The God of hope” causes us to “abound in hope” through the gospel of Christ, blessing Jew and Gentile alike (Rom. 15:12-13). Our hope in Christ is not a feeble wish, a perchance, a maybe. It is “joyful and confident expectation” based on divine revelation.

Hope in Christ is not a speculation or theory about what God “might” do or “could” do. Rather, it is what He promises to do of a certainty. This hope is extended on a conditional basis. We receive its certainty and confidence when faith moves us to obey the gospel (Rom. 1:16; 10:16). “The God of hope” promises to make hope a reality for each of us when “we are buried with” Christ “in baptism” (Rom. 15:13; 6:4). A small band at Ephesus sincerely followed “John’s baptism” during the gospel age; when they learned that Christ had come, and believed on him, “they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:1-5). This made them members of “one body’,” by “one Spirit.” They knew but “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God . . .” (Eph. 4:4-6). The one hope is our’s when we rise from the waters of baptism, but we must “continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel . . .” Truly, “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col. 2:12; 1:23, 27).

The “Lord Jesus Christ . . . is our hope” because he is its author, object, and foundation (1 Tim. 1:1). Hope in him is not based on speculation, but on divine revelation. “For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel” (Col. 1:5). This “grace of God” is a revealed message, “teaching us” His will, giving the “hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began” (Tit. 2:11ff; 1:2). The “lively hope” of final salvation in heaven stands on “a reason of the hope” (1 Pet. 1:3-5; 3:15). Hope’s reason is a man-and-plan, a revelation personal-and-propositional. It stands on specific, objective, unerring, infallible, divine truth.

Opinion, Theory, and Speculation Are Not Hope

In answer to a question from Lunenburg, Virginia, Alexander Campbell said those “sprinkled in infancy” who continued in sincere “mistakes of the understanding” belong to “Christ and the well-grounded hope of heaven.” This brought many loud protests from brethren who suffered denominational taunts such as, “Then we are as safe as you.” In two responses, Campbell admitted giving “only the fallible inference or opinion of mail,” not “strictest biblical import,” and he stressed “opinion” 34 times (Millennial Harbinger, Sept., Nev., Dec. 1837). E.G. Sewell later observed, “For an opinion can never save a soul, while the utterance of them may mislead some one. It was a mistake in Brother Campbell to utter such an opinion” (Gospel Advocate, Feb. 23, 1893, p. 121). Below, another such opinion is expressed:

Is There Hope? It seems quite often that questions surface regarding the status of those outside Churches of Christ – whether or not there is “any hope” for those sincere people who are attempting to follow Christ and the Bible but find themselves in denominations and the like. I think it is pretty well regarded as a charitable statement to say something lie, “If God wants to save those people come judgement day, that is His business; as for me, I can offer such people no hope whatsoever that they might be saved . . .”

“I can offer . . . no hope.” Yes, that’s certainly true – “we” cannot offer anybody anything, let alone “hope.” The province of salvation is totally in the hands of God who made us and gave us this world to serve Him in. So it is not and never has been a question of what “we” can offer or explain or promise to those we consider “outside” the boundaries of the kingdom. Neither is speculation our role to play – the solutions and conclusions you and I can concoct have no binding force on God or eternity. But what we cannot offer because we have no authority to do so, God can, for He is God.

Is there any hope? We serve the God of hope. Jeremiah spoke, “Art thou not he, O Lord our God? We set our hope on thee, for thou doest all these things” (Jer. 14:22). This is the God who “while we were yet sinners” sent Christ who “died for us” (Rom. 5:8). Is there hope? There is always hope! We do not serve a wicked tyrant God, but a merciful, loving, tender One who lives to love and gives that we might live. If we were talking about some other deity, some humanly devised God we might with assurance say, “no hope . . .” But praise God we are not. Hope is the one thing that always remains despite all the human calculations and machinations. God is faithful and just – he is not petty and selfish like we are (Matt. 20:1-18).

To hold out hope for those outside our confines is not to cheapen the gospel, compromise the faith or turn grace into license. Rather, it is to acknowledge the God “who is greater than our hearts” (1 Jn. 3:20).(1)

The author says our speculations, conclusions, or opinions ought not to be presented as the revealed will of God, yet says “to hold out hope” to “sincere people . . . in denominations and the like” is proper. None of his passages touch the subject. Shall we hold out this hope as the one hope revealed in Scripture? Or is it not a feeble wish, perchance, or maybe, based on the author’s speculative opinion? Such grounds may apply equally to sincere Protestants, cultists (Mormon, Christian Scientist, Jehovah’s Witness), Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jews, humanitarians, heathens, and agnostics. Nothing, is gained but great risk is taken by opening the door to such fallible speculation. Let us urgently proclaim the one hope – joyful, confident expectation based on God’s infallible Word.

Endnote:

1. Complete text of articles by Bruce Edwards, Jr. in his Cross References, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Sept. 1977). Along the same line, an Alabama preacher told Jimmy Thomas that as to the question of whether baptism is essential to forgiveness, “We cannot put a clock on God’s grace.” Some of the Georgia preachers in the new unity movement, including Johnny Trotter, have publicly declared their “private” faith: people baptized with the denominational concept (baptized to demonstrate the salvation already received an outward sign of an inward grace) are in the grace of God and the body of Christ. This old theory of “Christians in every denomination” extends hope to people on the unbiblical basis of human speculation!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 30, pp. 485-486
August 2, 1979

By Mike Willis

I started saving a clipping or two the other day in which brethren were working hand-in-hand with denominationalists. Before a month passed, the number of clippings which I .had set aside for comment in “Quips and Quotes” had outgrown the column: Hence, I would like to relate some of these instances to our readers through this column.

The Lord’s people have been opposed to denominationalism ever since denominationalism began. The Bible condemns denominationalism. The wearing of human names is directly contrary to 1 Cor. 1:10-13; the baptism of denominationalism is generally performed on the wrong subject for the wrong purpose and by the wrong action; the doctrines of denominationalism are in conflict with each other; the organization of denominations is contrary to the simple organization of the New Testament church; the worship of denominations violates the pattern of New Testament worship in respect to virtually every act of worship. Hence, brethren have been seeking to get men to depart from denominationalism and become simple New Testament Christians. Literally thousands have heard and accepted the plea to become a Christian without becoming a part of any human denomination.

It is sad to notice with the passing of the years that those who have accepted the liberal position with reference to church supported recreation, church support of human institutions .(colleges, benevolent organizations, etc.), and the sponsoring church arrangement have gradually begun to accept denominationalism. That you might not think that I speak falsehoods, consider the following items of evidence:

Item 1: From the bulletin of the Eastland church of Christ (700 Gallatin Road, Nashville, Tennessee 37206), the following item was reproduced and reviewed by its editor Howard See: “Gallatin Church of Christ will hold a four day series of gospel meetings, beginning Sunday, with Wayne Smith, minister of Southland Christian Church, Lexington, Ky., as the speaker.”

From this announcement in this local newspaper, one could almost get the impression that the local Church of Christ and Christian Church were in complete fellowship with one another.

Item 2: The Mid-America Evangelism Workshop which was held in Indianapolis June 7-9 featured Marvin Phillips as one of its speakers. The bulletin published by the Shelbyville Road Church of Christ where W.L. Totty preaches reported that Brother Phillips “spoke on the 5th annual Canton Christian Conference, March, 1977, and the tapes clearly show he was in fellowship with them. He was telling them how they could grow, rather than pointing out their departure from the truth.” Another speaker for this workshop is Alan Bryan. Regarding him, the author stated, “He organized no less than a missionary society in Florence, Alabama, January, 1977.”

From the looks of the bulletin presently being edited by W.L. Totty, one could get the impression that he has turned “anti.” You do remember W.L. Totty, don’t you? He was the fiery debater employed by the liberals to do warfare against us “anti’s.” But liberalism has gone to seed and its harvest is not attractive to Brother Totty. He just wanted a little liberalism. Unfortunately, he is learning that there is no such thing as a little liberalism.

Item 3: A friend of mine mailed me a clipping from his local paper in Trenton, Florida. The article was entitled, “Old Fashioned Work Day At Ebenezer Baptist Church.” The article read as follows: “On Saturday, February 3rd, First Baptist Church of Trenton called an old fashion work day at Ebenezer Baptist Church, along with Pine Grove, Bronson Baptist, Sardi’s Baptist and Trenton Church of Christ, Priscilla Baptist and many more friends.” The article contained a picture showing these men,including those from the Church of Christ, erecting a Baptist Church building.

How much preaching do you suppose is being done from the pulpit of the Trenton Church of Christ in which denominationalism is being condemned? If its members are involved in erecting a denominational building, I seriously doubt that they are supporting a man to teach them that the doctrines of the Baptist Church are sinful.

Item 4: The Greggton Guide (4/22/79), the bulletin published by the Greggton Church in Longview, Texas (4400 W. Marshall Ave.), criticized the following activity of liberals in their area. The article was taken from the daily newspaper and reproduced in the bulletin. It was entitled “Good Friday Service Planned By Alliance.” The article read as follows:

The Longview Ministerial Alliance is planning a special Good Friday service in the First Methodist Church, 400 North Fredonia.

The noon service on April 13, will have six participants and the Rev. Bob Parrots, pastor, will introduce the program.

Larry Hall, minister of the Pine Tree Church of Christ will speak. Rev. Kenneth Mann, president of the alliance, will give the invocation.

Music will be under the direction of Dale Thomas of the Gladewater Church of Christ. Associate Minister Roy White of the Pine Tree Church of Christ will read scripture from 1 Corinthians 15 . . .

I would certainly be delighted to have those involved in these activities to explain to me how sinful it is for churches to observe holy days not authorized in the scriptures. I would also like to hear these men tell me whether or not they were in an equal yoke with these denominational preachers when involved in this ministerial alliance.

Item 5: This item comes to us via Contending For The Faith (April 1979), the periodical edited by Ira Y. Rice, Jr. which has been fighting the more liberal among the liberals for several years. This issue of the magazine reproduced the following from the Abilene Reporter-News (March 10, 1979):

Lynn Anderson, minister of Highland Church of Christ, will lead a “Church Growth Seminar” from 8 to 10 p.m. Wednesday at Elmwood West United Methodist Church, 1302 S. Pioneer.

Pastors, church leaders and Council of Ministries members from Brookhollow Christian Church, Grace Lutheran Church, St. James Methodist Church, Westminister Presbyterian Church and Elmwood West Methodist Church will participate in the seminar.

All other interested persons are invited to attend.

Have you wondered why the programs on Herald of Truth have had little doctrinal content lately? I suggest to you that those leading the Herald of Truth missionary society are no longer convinced that denominationalism is sinful; they see no difference in the Church of Christ and denominations. Hence, these programs have become so watered down that they do little, if any, distinctive teaching.

Item 6: The editor of Gospel Advocate was among those who were promoting the erection of an ecumenical interchurch center in Nashville, Tennessee. He finally resigned from participating in this but not because of doctrinal convictions. If I remember correctly, he cited his work load as forcing him to resign from participation in this. Yet, the very fact that he could work hand-in-hand with denominationalists shows us something about his doctrinal convictions.

I cannot list this last item without referring to North’s recent editorial in the Gospel Advocate (May 10, 1979) entitled “Our ‘Anti-Co-operation’ Brethren Should Come Back Home.” In this article, North implied that the “anti’s” were drying up on the vine and that those who are left should return to the old doctrines from which they had departed. Brother North, do you really believe what you wrote? Do you expect me to believe that those of the previous generation believed that it was right to pussyfoot with denominationalists as you brethren are doing today? Do you expect me to believe that those of the previous generation thought that it was right for churches to build facilities for and sponsor recreational events as you brethren are doing? Do you expect me to believe that those of a previous generation believed that it was right for churches to support colleges and orphans home from their congregational treasury? I do not think that you believe that yourself.

Even if a few isolated cases of this could be cited, that would not prove that doing these things was right or wrong. Grace us with an exegesis of the passages that authorize the church’s involvement in the activities in which you believe they may be involved. When we become convinced that the scriptures authorize these practices then we will be engaged in doing them; until then, we shall not. Until you can produce book, chapter, and verse demonstrating that the New Testament authorizes these practices, you resemble the prodigal son chiding his father telling him to come home!

Conclusion

The move to consider the Lord’s church a human denomination is gaining momentum among the liberals. Next week, I shall consider some of the conclusions which must be accepted once a person admits that denominationalism is right. One thing is obvious from these items of interest cited above: there are growing numbers of brethren who regard denominationalism as scriptural inasmuch as they have quit fighting it and begun working to support it.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 30, pp. 483-485
August 2, 1979

By Roy S. Fudge

I have before me an eight page paper .written, by my nephew, Edward Fudge, entitled 4 Gospel Slogans. A few years ago I talked to Edward and told him I was considering writing some articles about his teaching. I wanted to talk with him before I went into print. He has never had time to talk with me when we have been together: After reading this paper, I feel I must write in answer to it.

He states, “The reformers therefore insisted on – solely by grace – and took their stand with Paul.” The reader is referred to Rom. 4:4; 11:16 in which Paul says nothing about grace only. Paul is here talking of works and grace. He simply states that if one works and merits salvation as a result of his work, it is not grace. James says a man is justified by works (Jas. 2:24). Shall we follow Martin Luther and throw James out of the Bible?

Under “Solely by Faith” it is stated, “Because the work that accomplished salvation and reconciled us to God was done solely in the representative life and death of Jesus, it is a finished work.” “We cannot contribute anything to it. We can do nothing to make it more acceptable than it has already been declared to be by Christ’s resurrection. We can do nothing to make it more certain than it already is seen to be in Christ at God’s right hand. Because it is done, we cannot do it, whether by climbing as high as heaven or stooping as low as hell. We can only confess that Jesus is Lord, and believe that God has raised Him from dead -and be counted righteous and saved. Or we can refuse to believe and continue under judgment.” We see from the above statements that Ed is teaching salvation by faith only, without man doing anything is taught. I heard Roy Osborne a few years ago teach this doctrine. It is not in the Bible and is, therefore, a doctrine of demons. Again, it is stated, “God pronounces the sinner righteous on the principle of faith, and that alone, but the faith that justifies never remains alone! The gospel is not `faith plus works’ (Rom. 3:4, 5) it is not `faith without works’ (Jas. 2:20) It is `faith which works’ (Gal. 5:6).” If “I by my works show you my faith,” is not faith plus works, I cannot understand plain English language.

Again on page four we read, “In the works that accomplished salvation there is no such thing as God’s part and man’s part.” In Acts 2, we see from Peter’s sermon that God had a part in man’s salvation which he had already done and then man was told he must do something in order to be saved. They believed as they were pricked in the heart and cried out “what shall we do?” They were told to repent and-be baptized for the remission of sins. They were -not yet saved although God had done His part and they had believed.

On page seven we read, “Gospel baptism is the response of faith to the good news that in the representative person of Jesus Christ, God has saved us already.” So then you have. it in so many words that man is saved by faith only and that before baptism. Baptism saves us from this crooked generation according to this paper. It does not matter that the Word of God says it is for remission of sins or to wash away sins, that was done when one believes. Will you accept God’s word or the word of. man?

This paper closes with the following statement, “Let us pray that God will grant us grace to believe all that He has promised, obey all He has commanded, arid rejoice in the salvation that He alone has accomplished .through Christ alone, to be received by faith alone as testified in scripture alone.” As a child of God I cannot pray for that which is not in accord with God’s will. as revealed in His word. Salvation comes by nothing alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (Matt. 4:4).

Truth Magazine XXIII: 30, p. 482
August 2, 1979

By Johnie Edwards

The Bible teaches it is Scriptural for a church to own and furnish a preacher a house in which to live as part of his support (2 Cor. 11:8). There are some real problems connected with this arrangement.

(1) “We furnish a house. ” When elders discuss financial arrangements with a preacher, they will tell the preacher how much they intend to pay him in money and then they say, “We also will furnish you a house.” This can be done. But, who furnishes who, what?

(2) The pay. The Bible teaches “that the laborer is worthy of his hire. . .” (Lk. 10:7). When elders decide on the figure to pay a preacher, they deduct the value of the house from what he would normally be paid if he provided his own house.

(3) Who furnishes who, what? Most have the furnishing business turned around. Instead of the church furnishing the preacher a house, the preacher is really furnishing the church a house! I know a church which owns the preacher’s dwelling and has an extra bedroom so the regular preacher can keep a visiting preacher. This is not so bad but the preacher had to buy extra bedroom furnishings for the visiting preacher’s bedroom. I doubt if this is the responsibility of the preacher!

(4) Salary is less. It has been estimated that a preacher who lives in a house owned by the church is usually paid 30% to 40% less than if he provides for his own house.

(5) Buys two houses. If a preacher lives in church owned housing all of his normal preaching life, he will pay for at lest two houses for churches in his lifetime. Who furnishes who, what?

(6) Profit. Oftentimes a church will sell a house, paid for by preachers who live in the house, for a profit. With inflation and the rising cost of living, this can amount to about 12% per year. Have you ever heard of a church who gave this profit to the preacher who really made them the profit?

(7) A suggestion. I have lived in both my own house and church-owned property, and I believe a good way to help provide for preachers (especially when they get older) is to pay them enough so they can buy their own house. They will need it when they get older.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 29, p. 476
July 26, 1979