Truth Magazine

By Pat Higgins

Human nature being what it is, it is depressing to admit that we have been less than successful at anything. It is even more depressing when that failure reflects our influence, or lack of influence, on someone who is important to us. We would like to believe that when we teach someone the gospel, he will stay “taught” and faithful; when we make a friend, a good and true friend he will always be; when we raise a child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, there is nothing that can destroy the faith of that child.

When the one taught drifts away from the truth, the friend turns against us, or the child is lured away by the pleasures of the world, we are filled with doubts and self-recrimination. It had to be something we did, or did not do. Somehow we failed. Our self-esteem suffers and we blame ourselves for failure in others, especially those close to us. It is important to learn that failure in others is not necessarily the result of a failure on our part.

It is noteworthy that when Simon the sorcerer strayed from the pathway of right, the Apostle Peter did not bemoan the fact that he had done a poor job of teaching Simon. He did not blame himself for Simon’s weakness. He told Simon to repent of his wickedness (Acts 8).

At one time Peter, a friend of Jesus, turned his back on the Lord, denying Him. Jesus did not assume the blame for Peter’s conduct; He had grounded and loved Peter no less than the other disciples. Jesus’ concern was for Peter to be converted and turn from his erring ways (Lk. 22:32-62).

When the prodigal son left his home and “wasted his substance with riotous living,” it was he who sinned. There is no indication the father had been too strict or too lenient, thereby causing the son to waste his life (Lk. 15:11-32).

Aside from the deep sorrow that comes from seeing a child of God fall, we must not allow ourselves to be overwhelmed with self-imposed guilt. Let us not lose sight of the fact that the same influence has a different effect on different persons. Remember, it is the same sun that hardens the clay and melts the wax. Likewise, there are those who will not receive truth, who refuse discipline, and who rebel against authority.

Our duty is to unwaveringly present and uphold the truth “in season, out of season” (when it it easy, when it is difficult; when they accept it, when they do not). We must understand the basic reason for a Christian turning from the truth is that he “. . . will not endure sound doctrine” (2 Tim: 4:2, 3). Recognizing “sound doctrine” as that which causes the turning away, our personal pain should be eased and our self-esteem should be strengthened, knowing we have but fulfilled our obligation to the God of heaven.

We simply cannot bear the burden for those who react adversarial in the face of truth, discipline and authority which has been administered with love.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 27, p. 438
July 12, 1979

By Larry Ray Hafley

In this segment of our series we are shooting down a Hawk. Dove season is closed. We have no foul intentions. Brother Ray Hawk recently wrote a brother and asked several questions to which we wish to respond. Where did we get the letter? Let us just say that a little bird brought it to our attention – hope that we will not ruffle any feathers.

Brother Hawk’s Questions

“Since you now stand where you do because you may read it in the scriptures, I wonder if you would do something for me? Would you give me details with scripture showing how the church can oversee, provide, and arrange for the benevolent needs of a 10 year old Christian that is the church’s responsibility? I would like to know who the father and mother of that child would be if the church is responsible. Please supply book, chapter, and verse. Could the church arrange, provide, and oversee the home life and rearing of that child? If yes, book, chapter, and verse. If not, what organization rears the child? Again, book, chapter, and verse. If the child is overseen, provided for by the church, and all arrangements are made by the elders, book, chapter, and verse for the child’s birthday parties, gifts, and recreational needs. I keep finding brethren who say the church may help Christian orphans, but no one who wants to show how it may be done. Will you?

“I wonder if you will show me book, chapter, and verse where a church ever paid a preacher from the treasury of the local congregation to be located with them? I can find where Paul robbed other churches, but this was in mission work at Corinth to preach and baptize people to start a congregation. If Gal. 6:10 is individual, wouldn’t Gal. 6:6 also be individual with reference to paying the local/located preacher? If not, why not? 1 have heard brethren say there is one way of giving but two ways of dispersing funds from the treasury: in evangelism the church sends to the preacher and in benevolence one church may send to another church. Is there a clear cut passage which shows one church from its treasury sending money to another church in matters of benevolence? If so, where is it? If you can help me with these matters I would appreciate it since I dislike seeing the body of Christ divided over these matters.”

A Parallel Paragraph

Let us construct a parallel to Brother Hawk’s opening paragraph: Since you now stand where you do because you may read it in the scriptures, I wonder if you would do something for me? Would you give me details with scripture showing how a benevolent society can oversee, provide and arrange for the benevolent needs of a 70 year old Christian, a woman, that is the church’s responsibility? I would like to know who the husband of that woman would be if the church is responsible. Please supply book, chapter, and verse. Could the benevolent society provide the headship and the domestic duties for the care of that woman? If yes, book, chapter, and verse. If not, what organization cares for that woman? Again, book, chapter, and verse. If the woman is overseen, provided headship by the benevolent society, and all arrangements are made by the board of directors, book, chapter and verse for the woman’s birthday parties, gifts, and recreational needs. I keep finding brethren who say the benevolent society may help Christian widows, but no one who wants to show how it may be done. Will you?

Hawk’s Dislocated Comments On Located Preacher Support

Brother Hawk asks about support of a located preacher. Surely, he believes all things require scriptural authority; he doubtless accepts wages from a local church to be located with them; so, we probably use the same passage he uses.

If Galatians 6:10 is to the church, would not Gal. 6:7-9 also be to the church with respect to sowing, reaping and judgment? Would that exclude individual accountability? Further, if Gal. 6:6 eliminates the church’s right to support the preacher and puts it all on individuals, as Brother Hawk seems to intimate, then if Gal. 6:10 is to the church, that eliminates the individual from doing good to all men and to the household of faith. “If not, why not?” When Brother Hawk explains that, he will have his answer. But whatever the outcome about the individual or the church in Gal. 6:10, there is still no place for a human organization to do the work God assigned to the church.

“Clear Cut” Passages

Speaking of “clear cut” passages, perhaps there are some that will answer the following questions: “Is there a clear cut passage which shows one church from its treasury sending money to another church in matters of evangelism? If so, where is it?” And another: “Is there a clear cut passage which shows one church from its treasury sending money to a benevolent society in matters of benevolence? If so, where is it?” Remember, we need some “clear cut” passages.

One Way Of Giving; Two Ways Of Dispersing

“I have heard brethren say there is one way of giving but two ways of dispersing funds from the treasury: in evangelism the church may not send to a missionary society, but in benevolence a church may send to a benevolent society. Is there a clear cut passage which shows one church from its treasury sending money to a benevolent society in matters of benevolence? If so, where is it? If you can help me with these matters I would appreciate it since I dislike seeing the body of Christ divided over these matters.”

Conclusion

Most of Brother Hawk’s confusion is centered in two areas. First, he evidences a lack of understanding of generic and specific authority. Second, he fails to see that the controversy is primarily over who, the church or a benevolent society, is to do the work of caring for certain needy ones. It is not a matter of “how.” Therefore, a discussion involving these two vital points is in order. Truth Magazine will be happy to publish such a study provided that a magazine published by Brother Hawk’s persuasion will also publish the same study. Finally, I am sure that someone could be found to come to Jackson, Tennessee, where Brother Hawk preaches, and have an oral debate on these issues. But do not hold your breath. There is no church in Jackson, Tennessee that will endorse Brother Hawk in such a study as I have proposed. What a pity, especially since both Brother Hawk and myself “dislike seeing the body of Christ divided over these matters.”

Truth Magazine XXIII: 27, pp. 437-438
July 12, 1979

By Mike Willis

In our previous articles, we have shown (1) man’s need for salvation because of his sinful condition (he is dead in trespasses and sins), and (2) God’s grace in sending His Son Jesus Christ to die for the sins of mankind. Let us move forward in our study of salvation by grace through faith by noticing the conditional nature of man’s salvation.

Conditions Do Not Nullify Grace

The Calvinists teach that salvation is not of grace if there is so much as one condition which must be performed by man in order to receive that salvation. Hence, they teach that man is saved by God unconditionally. We are charged with teaching “salvation by works” when we teach that man is saved conditionally.

However, “conditional salvation” is not “salvation by works.” Salvation by works is a biblical phrase used to refer to a type of salvation which comes through perfect obedience to God’s law. When one perfectly obeys the law of God (this can only be discussed hypothetically since only Jesus Christ ever perfectly obeyed the law of God), his salvation is earned; he has whereof to boast. In the event that salvation is earned, God grants salvation because of the perfect character of the persons who worked to earn his salvation.

“Conditional salvation” is not of this nature. Conditional salvation is salvation by grace. The man who receives his salvation conditionally, confesses that there is nothing which he can do to save himself. Furthermore, he confesses that he is a sinner doomed to hell because of his violations of God’s divine law. Hence, such a man has no room to boast in himself; there is no virtue in him meeting the conditions to obtain his salvation. His salvation is grounded, not in the conditions which he performs, but in the blood of Jesus Christ.

I think that we can establish these points more clearly by noticing some examples from the Old Testament of conditional grace.

a. Naaman being healed of leprosy. The record of Naaman being healed of leprosy is found in 2 Kings 5. The divine conditions for his cleansing were given by Elisha, the prophet of God; he said, “Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shah be clean” (v. 10). Finally, Naaman met the conditions and his leprosy was removed. Who would dare to imply that dipping seven times in the muddy Jordan River earned God’s gift of removal of his leprosy? Everyone knows that Naaman did -not earn his cleansing by dipping in the river; rather, these were merely the conditions for receiving God’s gift of grace.

b. The conquest of Jericho (Josh. 6). When the children of Israel approached Jericho, God said, “See, I have given into throe hand Jericho” (v. 2). Yet, the gift was not given unconditionally; the divine conditions were given as follows: “And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days. And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams’ horns: and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, and the priests shall blow with the trumpets. And it shall come to pass, that when they make a long blast with the ram’s horn, and when ye hear the sound of the trumpet, all the people shall shout with a great shout; and the wall of the city shall fall down flat, and the people shall ascend up every man straight before him” (vs. 3-5). Were the walls of Jericho caused to fall by works? Certainly not, for we read elsewhere of the kinds of deeds done by men to tear down the walls of a city. The walls of Jericho fell because God had given Jericho into the hands of Israel; however, this gift of God’s grace was given conditionally.

We could illustrate this same principle by a study of several other conditional gifts of God. However, these suffice to demonstrate that conditional salvation is not salvation by works!

The point which I am making with reference to the remission of the sins of the alien sinner needs to also be stated with reference to the remission of sins of the child of God who has fallen from grace. Some are stating that God’s grace is extended to the fallen child of God automatically (i.e., unconditionally). Because he is in Christ, they say, his sins of ignorance and weaknesses of the flesh are automatically covered. Some state that this occurs through the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believers’ account; others state that the blood is somehow automatically applied to the believer before and without his meeting any conditions for obtaining that remission (such as repentance, confession, and prayer). Furthermore, those who advocate this view charge that one teaches salvation by works if he teaches that a believer must repent, confess, and pray in order to have his sins forgiven.

I think that our readers are able to see that we are fighting doctrinal cousins when we are fighting those who teach initial salvation is given unconditionally and when we are fighting those who teach that the erring child of God is forgiven unconditionally. One notices this point even more clearly when he notices the similarities in the arguments used against conditional salvation by both groups. Here are some of the arguments which are charged by both groups: (1) You teach salvation by works; (2) Works nullify the grace of God; (3) You teach a Pharisaical type of righteousness; and (4) You teach legalism.

Conditional salvation does not nullify grace, whether we are speaking of the conditional forgiveness of sins for the alien sinner or for the erring child of God. Both men stand before God, not upon their own merit of perfect obedience, but upon the basis of forgiveness of sins which is obtained through the precious blood of Christ. Hence, conditional salvation is salvation by grace!

Frankly, I question the honesty of a man who charges that a system of conditional salvation makes salvation dependent upon perfect obedience. Yet, we hear that stated repeatedly. A man who stands before God depending upon the blood of Christ to wash away his sins cannot be honestly charged with teaching a system of perfect obedience. Yet, that charge is hurled at those of us who teach that an erring child of God is forgiven conditionally conditional upon repentance, confession and prayer. They state that you teach perfect obedience. Not true! I teach conditional salvation both for the alien sinner and the erring child of God.

Some try to avert the charge of unconditional grace for the erring child of God by stating that the condition which must be met for the automatic forgiveness to occur is a general disposition of faith. By this, they mean an attitude toward God which causes a man to generally walk in the light. They imply that when a man who generally walks in the light commits sin that he is forgiven of that sin automatically without repentance, confession, and prayer because he is generally manifesting an attitude of faith. My Bible states that the sins of a man such as described above are forgiven conditionally. Regarding such a man, John said, “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 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 us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 Jn. 1:6-9). Notice that this salvation is conditional: “If we confess our sins . . . .” John did not say, If you commit sin while walking in the light, do not worry about it because you are already forgiven because you generally are walking in the light.” No, he said, “If we confess our sins . . . .” This, my brethren, is conditional salvation!

Conclusion

In closing, let me remind our readers what “salvation by works” is. Salvation by works, as used in the Bible, is a system of justification whereby a man is justified through perfect obedience to the law of God. This man is saved, not because he has had his sins forgiven, but because he has no sins. His salvation is not of grace because he has earned it through his perfect obedience to the law. No man can be justified by perfect obedience to the law because no one can obey the law perfectly! However, we must be careful not to label something as salvation by works which is simply conditional salvation.

Secondly, let us remember that conditional salvation does not nullify grace. This is true whether we are discussing the conditional salvation of the alien sinner or the conditional salvation of the erring child of God.

Continue with us in this study next week as we consider the conditions which are necessary for a person to be saved by grace through faith.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 27, pp. 435-436
July 12, 1979

By Johnie Edwards

Many religious groups teach “infant baptism.” The Discipline of the Methodist Church says, “Let every adult person, and the parents of every child to be baptized, have the choice of sprinkling, pouring or immersion” (1952 edition, page 519). The Catholic Catechism tells us, “Babies have to be baptized because they have Original Sin on their souls . : .” (page 56).

Actually, there is no such thing as “infant baptism.” The word baptism means to dip or immerse. Babies are not actually baptized! Water is poured or sprinkled on them.

The history of sprinkling reveals that it was accepted first by the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Ravenna in 1311. The Catholic Church teaches that, “Baptism used to be given by placing the person to be baptized completely in the water; it was done in this way in the Catholic Church for 1200 years” (Adult Catechism, pp. 56-57). Protestant churches have simply borrowed sprinkling for baptism from them.

Let us look at some reasons why infants should not have water poured or sprinkled on them as a religious ceremony:

Bible Baptism Is Not Sprinkling

Bible baptism is not sprinkling in the first place. Bible baptism is a burial. “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:12). “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4).

An Infant Is Not Subject To Bible Baptism

An infant is not a subject of Bible baptism. The teaching of the Bible in regard to baptism eliminates the infant. Jesus said, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth, Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:18-20). Again Christ said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:15-16). Peter commanded, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins . . .” (Acts 2:38). One must also be able to confess his faith in Christ (Matt. 10:32; Acts 8:37; Rom. 10:10).

An infant is not a subject of Bible baptism for a subject of Bible baptism has to be capable of being: (1) taught, (2) believing, (3) repenting of sins, (4) confessing his faith in Christ and (5) submitting to immersion.

Infants Are Not Sinners

An infant is not a sinner. We are often told that an infant has “original sin” on its soul. The Bible does not teach that! Jesus said concerning little children, “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for such is the kingdom of God” (Mk. 10:14). Again Christ said, “Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 18:3). A person has to commit sin in order to become a sinner. “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law” (1 Jn. 3:4). There is a period in the life of a child, “before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good . . .” (Isa. 7:16). “God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions” (Eccl. 7:29). Ezekiel said, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him” (Ezek. 18:20).

“Infant Baptism” Not Practiced in The Bible

“Infant baptism” was not practiced by the apostles and the early church: All eleven cases of conversion in the book of Acts show that men heard the gospel preached, believed and were baptized. There is no record in the New Testament of an infant ever being baptized, or having water poured or sprinkled on him!

“Infant Baptism” Robs The Child

It robs the child of freedom of choice. Each is to do his own choosing as to whether he wants to obey God or disobey (Josh. 24:15, Rev. 22:17). It may rob the child of salvation. Many times a child, when he grows older, refuses to be baptized, saying, “My parents had me baptized when I was a baby.” Thus, the child refuses to obey God (Matt. 7:21; Heb. 5:8-9). I would not want to base my salvation on the testimony of another. Obey today.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 27, p. 434
July 12, 1979