Truth Magazine

By Steve Wolfgang

I have been asked to review the most recent material submitted by Bruce Edwards, Jr., for publication in Truth Magazine. I have refrained until now from commenting publicly or in writing specifically about Bruce’s voluminous writings during the last few years, even though I have had a good deal of contact with Bruce during that time. This contact includes not only several personal conversations but a rather lengthy exchange of personal letters between us during the same general period of the exchange of letters between Bruce and Edward Fudge, now edited and published as A Journey Toward Jesus. The only major exception to my familiarity with Bruce’s recent writing is the material published in Arnold Hardin’s bulletin. Brother Hardin rather unceremoniously removed me from his mailing list (as I understand he has done to others as well) several years ago when I had the audacity to question some of the things taught in that bulletin. It is this sort of paper – The Persuader, Mission, etc. known as espousers of liberalism in one form or another, to which Bruce has increasingly lent his influence and support in the last few years.

Some Introductory Matters

My restraint in commenting about Bruce’s writings stems as much from lack of time due to involvement in other projects as much as my personal disinclination to enter into an expose; it certainly has not been because of any approval on my part of the course of Bruce’s published material nor his attitude therein expressed. I do see the need for that sort of thing, however, and have been in general agreement with some who have taken some abusive criticism for their review of Bruce’s material.

The editor of this paper is not the only one to request that I review the material Bruce sent to him for publication. Bruce himself specifically named me as one of the few he wanted to review it, stating to Mike Willis, “1 would personally rather see you or Ron (presumably Ron Halbrook SW) or Steve do the responding because we have had so much contact” and furthermore stating his opinion that those of us mentioned would not be “as inclined to make the kind of prejudicial statements that Lavender did in his article” (Edwards letter to Mike Willis, 6 November 1978; the reference is to Bill Lavender’s review of Journey Toward Jesus which appeared in the September 21, 1978 issue of Truth Magazine (Volume 22, no. 37).

The only comment I care to make regarding Brother Lavender’s article is to add a loud and hearty “Amen!” to it. I thought enough of the Lavender article to reprint it in the local church bulletin where I preach, as Bruce would know had he not requested us to remove his name from the Expressway mailing list over a year ago. In my estimation, Brother Lavender said many things which perhaps should have been said long before now and which will bear repeating. Bruce’s booklet of correspondence with Edward has been circulated and recommended in the Louisville area (and elsewhere) by some who share the convictions and opinions expressed in that correspondence, in an attempt to win converts to those views. It is nothing short of amazing to me to behold the close mindedness of those who are either following or preceding Bruce down the road he now travels. Those of us who are styled “narrow-minded” or “legalistic” because we may preach somewhat more critically than happens to suit some who pride themselves on their broad mindedness often take and read many papers with which we disagree (and have to pay for most of them); but these self-proclaimed “enlightened ones” cannot be bothered to read the other side, or will cut you off if you dare to disagree with what they write.

There is an additional consideration which should be mentioned by way of introduction before I undertake to consider Bruce’s most recent article (which I shall do by simply taking his remarks in order and making some general observations regarding them). Anyone who undertakes a critical review of another’s position, particularly in religion, runs the risk of being labeled a “head-hunter,” “spiritual policeman,” “brotherhood watchdog,” on a “witch-hunt” or some other equally uncomplimentary terminology. The following comment from one of the “evangelical” writers from whom Bruce has so much affection fairly illustrates, in another context, the hazards of “heretic detecting.” John R. W. Stott, an Anglican writing in Christianity Today (November 4, 1977, p. 35), questions whether public exposure is the best way to deal with such problems because “heretics are slippery creatures” who often disguise their true intentions by the misleading usage of familiar language. “Besides,” he says, “in our age of easy tolerance, the arraigned heretic becomes in the public mind first the innocent victim of bigoted prosecutors, than a martyr, then a hero or saint.” It occurs to me that what Bruce has done is to deliberately set himself up for a review which he knows in advance will be critical. Whether he has done this with the conscious intention of creating sympathy for his position by appearing to become a “martyr,” I cannot say, but no doubt that will be the effect in the minds of some who will read this exchange. Nonetheless, I believe response needs to be made to a number of Bruce’s very personally insulting and prejudicial remarks, and if I am to be cast in the role of the “big bad Wolf,” so be it.

On “Career Management” And Character Assassination

In his letter to Mike Willis, Bruce goes to some length to argue that he cares not what brethren think about his teaching or whether they approve or not. He says, in part, “I have long ago ceased to care per se what the writing or preaching brethren say or feel about me. I do not look to them for spiritual health or approval. Some have indicated they can `make me or break me’ career-wise . . . but I am unwilling to `play up to’ those brethren who are reputed to be somewhat in order to have this `support.”‘

All of which may be very interesting but is nonetheless quite inconsequential with respect to the issue at hand. I know of no one dedicated to the truth who would not agree wilt the principles Bruce propounds and seems to think he alone follows – that we should all preach our convictions regardless of the outcome in the eyes of men, even our brethren in the Lord. I suspect that more than a few preaching brethren who, along with their families, have suffered spiritually, emotionally, financially, and in every other way on account of their convictions beyond anything Bruce has ever experienced would find such pompous pronouncements at best slightly humorous if not downright disgusting. The fact of the matter is, despite Bruce’s pious platitudes in this regard, that when a number of churches who had been assisting Bruce financially began to question Bruce’s teachings of late and then to discontinue supporting Bruce as he spread his opinions about grace and fellowship, there was considerable crying about “brotherhood policemen and watchdogs.” Those who, like Bruce, espouse these noble ideals need to practice what they preach and be willing to openly and publicly own up to what they believe, and suffer the consequences – financial or otherwise – without either whining about being “persecuted” or resorting to devious methods or aloofness to hide their beliefs from those who support them financially. This is simply basic intellectual honesty. (Should anyone doubt that this has occurred in Bruce’s case I believe ample documentation could be supplied, since Bruce evidently has no objection to the publishing of personal correspondence.)

It is curious to me, though, that with all of Bruce’s protestations about not caring what anyone else thinks or being unwilling to “use” anyone else to give him a badge of legitimacy, Bruce in his very next paragraph does just exactly that – using my name. In an attempt to make his work in Manhattan, Kansas, appear to be “as sound as any congregation in Kansas or Ohio or Kentucky” (why he should single out those places I know not), Bruce says, “You ask Steve Wolfgang who spent a Sunday morning with us: He sang, prayed, ate the Lord’s supper, participated in class, commended my sermon, bid the church godspeed. Am I to take that as endorsement or not? If I am the false teacher I am supposed to be, Steve must have compromised his convictions because he made no attempt to ‘convict the gainsayer’ or warn the brethren in any way that I was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. If I felt about him the way he and you seem to feel about me, I know I couldn’t have been silent. “

The fact of the matter is that my wife and I worshiped in Manhattan not only because it was the only place we knew of to worship in that part of central Kansas (we were returning from a meeting in Denver, Colorado) but also because I happened to know that there was at least one family in the Manhattan church who, despite Bruce’s assertions to the contrary, were very definitely in favor of his leaving due to his publicly circulated views on grace, faith, etc. While in Manhattan I discussed just such mattes with the head of one of the four families which composes one-fourth of the Manhattan congregation. As to my “endorsement” of Bruce, he well states later in his letter, “I do not personally think that every single. act of fellowship must constitute an endorsement of everything the other fellow believes in . . . . ” Exactly so. I was not about to breeze into a place almost completely unknown to the church and create a ruckus during Bible study or worship, though I would likely have responded had Bruce taught something plainly contrary to the Scriptures instead of preaching, as he did, a rather standard, Christianity Today type lesson on the significance of “Christ and the Six o’clock News” with the gospel plan of salvation tacked on to the end. He invited comments from anyone during the Bible study; I took him at his word and commented where I felt it was appropriate; he commended my remarks. I told him his lesson was well-presented and interesting, which it was, though certainly not distinctive either in content or format. It was a very general type lesson to which (except for the last five minutes) most conservative denominational preachers could have said “amen.” It contained no false teaching as far as I could ascertain, but then it did not condemn very much either. I suppose many of us, myself included, have on occasion preached general lessons on the need for faith such as that one. I am somewhat surprised (but perhaps it is only my naivete showing) that Bruce would attempt to use such an incident as a badge of his “orthodoxy.”

Finally, for whatever it is worth, it should be noted that the “make or break your career” syndrome evidently runs on both sides of this issue (as if it had anything to do with the substance of the issue itself). I recall vividly receiving a letter several years ago from a close personal friend who at that time held (and still may for all I know) some of Bruce’s notions on the grace/fellowship issues. In that letter I was warned of dire consequences to my “career” as a preacher and my “success” in that endeavor if I should continue to be associated with Truth Magazine. All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the issues at hand; why Bruce should introduce it I know not, except it be to cloud the issues and make it appear that what we are engaging in is nothing more than a squabble by a bunch of prideful, self-promoting, professional, career-oriented preachers.

On Judging Motives

Bruce seems to be overly concerned that someone might be guilty of judging his motives, or those of others who hold his persuasions. I have no desire to defend or endorse anyone who is guilty of passing judgment on another’s motives, whether it be done by one who might agree with me or whether it is done by Bruce Edwards, Jr. Thou art the man, Bruce, when it comes to motivejudgment. I shall not belabor the point, but if the following quotations from “The Bound Gospel” do not constitute unjust and unholy judgments of the hearts and motives of those whom Bruce condemnsl- pray tell what would it take to do so? Bruce has written off a good segment of his brethren, including evidently most preachers, as egotistical power-seekers who seek only their own glorification and gratification. One gets the distinct impression that Bruce thinks most of us have terrible attitudes, and that seems to bother him much worse than the rankest doctrinal error. Notice the following excerpts: Bruce says we have “succumbed to . . . the desire for a king. A creedalism that was formerly unofficial and unarticulated is now becoming more and more explicit -day by day various editors are drawing up the peculiar list of doctrines that will constitute . . . faithfulness . . . . “‘ Somewhat later he accuses those of us who do not use Acts 2:38 the way he thinks we ought to of simplistic, shallow misapprehension of the Scriptures. Quoth he, “Have we not . . . taken it as a glib prooftext for some peculiar distinctiveness about ‘our church’ and missed the profound depth that is there? Yes, I am convinced it is so . . . . We have taken a gospel which is simple and made it simplistic. ” Bruce furthermore would have us believe that the major concern for truth, in his words, “championed in churches of Christ” is only that sort of partyism “where in fact much of the emphasis is on certain ‘key’ issues – issues which preachers, editors, elders and other leaders are able to ‘keep track of’ in terms of party platforms acrd unwritten creeds. ” That there may be instances of this sort of attitude among some people I would not undertake to deny, but if such comments do not represent wholesale, across-the-board accusations involving judgment of others’ motives, I am not sure what it would take to constitute such things.

Bruce seems to be making, in his writing, the somewhat egotistical error (common to those who have preceded Bruce on his circuitious “journey”) of assuming that because he may once have had in his heart a legalistic and sectarian concept, therefore everyone who does not now agree with him or follow him along the primrose path must also have legalistic or sectarian concepts.

What Is The Issue?

As to the more substantial portions of Bruce’s article, I find much in his comments on fellowship with which I do not disagree. This review was not designed or intended as a detailed scriptural exegesis or criticism of Bruce’s use of passages of Scripture. Bruce uses many passages, which like the Baptist who cites a multitude of passages on “faith” to prove “faith only,” touch neither top, side or bottom of the proposition which he sets out to prove. I disagree with none of the passages which Bruce cites, but I do deny that most of the conclusions which he draws from these passages are warranted by these Scriptures. Much of what I preach on the question of fellowship proper sounds very similiar to what Bruce espouses in his article. I am not sure that we move in the same direction from whatever common ground we may occupy there, however. Bruce has tried to lend an air of legitimacy (or “orthodoxy,” if I may be permitted the use of that word) to his teachings by claiming privately that he is not saying anything not said by men such as Ed Harrell or Robert Turner. I am not sure that this is so, and would suggest that Bruce and others who really think they are saying the same thing as Harrell, Turner, et. al. reread articles such as Turner’s “Stand Up And Say It” or Harrell’s “Love It Or Leave It.”

Secondly, Bruce does not say much more in “The Bound Gospel” than what he has already said before in previously published writings — writings which have (I believe rightly) brought critical reactions from a number of brethren who are careful and diligent students of the Scriptures. In essence, this most recent article of Bruce’s clarifies nothing.

In the exchange with Mike Willis which elicited these most recent articles from Bruce, Mike asked Bruce a number of questions which I find quite germane to the issues which separate Bruce and myself (as well as Bruce and others). I shall not reproduce Mike’s questions here, lest this review become unduly long, but they were good questions which focus the issues clearly. I am sure Mike would be happy to supply a copy of those dozen questions to any interested reader. The point is, as far as I can tell from reading “The Bound Gospel” there is no serious effort made to consider most of them, let alone any attempt to give an unequivocal answer! Bruce has simply reconfirmed in my mind his unwillingness to face up to some substantive issues.

It appears to me that crux of Bruce’s article follows his quotation of Phil. 3:7-I 1. Several paragraphs later he concludes: ‘ My faith-response is to try diligently to understand and obey all that 1 find in His word whether command, example or inference – and exhort others to do the same. My ‘holding firm to the word’ involves this life-long walk with the Lord . . . which demands my attention to obedience, while trusting in the sacrifice of Jesus to cover my sins. . ., confessing all known sins and asking God to forgive those as yet undiscerned by a faithful heart striving to please Him. ” This is all well and good, so far as it goes, but the fact is that it completely skirts the issue. How does one determine when his ‘faith-response” and “walk” is in harmony with what God wills? To Bruce’s rhetoric most good Southern Baptists and many other denominationalists could offer a resounding “Amen.” They would insist that their walk of faith is based squarely upon God’s grace, and that they “hold firm to the word” and demand attention to obedience. But they just do not see that baptism is a condition of salvation! Let Bruce address himself to this issue: Is the necessity of baptism for salvation “too clear for any `honest heart’ to miss”? Does a person’s salvation depend upon his being “right” (or “right enough”) on this “issue”? If it does, what makes this particular issue such a special category (to Bruce)-but not to the Baptist (or Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc.) “man of faith” who uses Bruce’s identical words about his profession of faith, life-long walk with the Lord, etc? Could it be the fact that Bruce was “raised in the church” and this issue has some particular emotional appeal to him, inbred from childhood, or is it indeed something “too clear for any `honest heart’ to miss” and, therefore, a command of the Lord necessary to salvation? Bruce may regard such questions as “trite,” but he has made no attempt to date to come down and deal with them – and I predict he will not. Should he decide to do so, I think he may find they focus the issues of difference between us rather clearly, and indicate that what separates us is not personal animosity, pride, creed-making, power politics, etc. though there may indeed be instances of all this. It is certainly true that those who teach the truth may have bad attitudes, or that I or others may hold the wrong disposition regardless of whether we hold a true position on a given issue; it is possible to be lost in spite of the fact that one teaches the truth. But all these questions are not really the central issues, as interested parties can readily see.

The same point may be made with respect to Bruce’s comments under Roman numeral “V.” When Bruce says, “To place some honest brother or sister who misunderstands at this point (according to my fallible judgment) some point of Scripture in the same category as a willfully disobedient rebel is to suggest absurdity. If there are occasions in your life where you have been honestly mistaken, you know then that all people who fail to see your point are wicked reprobates. ” I ask “What points”? Baptism? Evolution? The inspiration of the Scriptures? The deity of Christ? I know a good many urbane, well-educated, morally upright people who “just don’t see it like I do” on these and other rather basic points. Is a neo-orthodox theologian who lives a “good life” replete with “good works” and talks, as Bruce does, of his “walk of faith” and “commitment to the word” and all of Bruce’s other borrowed catchphrases a “wicked reprobate?” (Why Bruce should inject such a loaded term connoting total evil I cannot understand – unless it be to cloud the issue.)

Finally, I want to pay some respects to Bruce’s comments on “fellowship” and “local churches” as “functioning units.” I ask Bruce the same questions I have asked Edward Fudge on this point (and have yet to receive an answer). If all those “in Christ” (I presume Bruce is as yet unwilling to recognize the pious unimmersed as in Christ, though some clarification from him might be in order on this point) are “one in the Lord” but simply cannot have local fellowship (sharing) together in the same local church, how can we speak of division over issues such as instrumental music or support of institutions? If you have a “Christian Church” composed of baptized believers on one corner and a “Church of Christ” composed of baptized believers on the next corner in the same town, aren’t they all “one in Christ” but just unable to have “fellowship” together in a local sense because they differ on issues like instrumental music? If this is all there is to “fellowship,” how can there be “division”? 1 seem to recall Bruce Edwards asking Edward Fudge some similar questions in some correspondence somewhere but I do not recall reading a clear, unequivocal answer? I wonder how Bruce now deals with such questions since Edward has now evidently “converted” him? Perhaps one or both of them will clarify their position for us.

Conclusion

Preparing this review has not been an easy task. Were it not for the weight of the central issues involved, and for the rather high stakes (human souls) which are being affected by teachings like Bruce’s, I would have declined to invest the time, effort, and emotional and spiritual energy necessary to bring to publication. Even now there are questions in my mind as to the wisdom of giving Bruce any more public exposure than he has already received, or of appearing to make a martyr of him in the eyes of some. Again, it was done at his request, and I am glad to know that Bruce realized that Truth Magazine would publish his material, and that he felt there were some of us who are not on a personal crusade against him. It is sorrowful to have to engage in this sort of critical endeavor, and someone who has never done so cannot realize what an agonizing experience it can be, and is. But who can abide the aternative, which is to sit in sweet blissfulness, ignoring both the teaching and consequences of the positions which have turned Bruce (and others who do or may follow) in his present direction? I certainly cannot continue to sit quietly by, and say nothing. With the hopefulness that some may begin to see the consequences of the road Bruce now travels, or be stengthened in their convictions, I submit this review “with fear and trembling.” May the Lord help us to see and do that which is right.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 26, pp. 425-427
June 28, 1979

By Bruce Edwards, Jr.

I.

In past months, many brethren have been speaking about a something they call a “unity in diversity faction” or “the grace-fellowship heresy.” It is easy to fall into the tendency of relying on stereotypes and catchphrases to convey one’s meaning and ultimately do one’s thinking for him. I dislike such sloganeering: mainly, because it hides truth instead of revealing it – it puts the reader or listening audience at the mercy of the peculiar definitions and connotations the writer-speaker places on such phrases. Scriptural argumentation is my preference and has been too little in evidence in recent years among brethren who have written about such things – on either side of the “fence.” But such displeases God – it fosters bitterness and worldliness among brethren and is antithetical to our profession of faith. I propose here to look at some current topics in the light of Scripture, hoping to provoke some genuine thinking on these matters as opposed to the blustering and blathering we seem to have become used to. Before getting into anything in particular, I would like to further preface my remarks with a, few statements about my perspective on “the brotherhood” and related matters.

(1) My inclination is to let matters lie and say nothing, either about what I think or what others have said. But I have come to see that someone ought to step out and at least expose the pretensions of power and authority that some brethren have begun to wield among “us.” The quotation marks around the word us in that last sentence say a lot about what I think is one of the main problems I witness among churches of Christ: the problem of identity. Individual Christians and individual congregations seem to be unsure about what they are and what their function is. Long ago, F.D. Srygley posed the question, “Who are we, ‘as a people’?” His writings, collected in that remarkable, exciting book, The New Testament Church, are as relevant today as when he first wrote them as an editor of the Gospel Advocate at the turn of the century. Srygley well knew the problem of facing denominationalism both in the world and among his brethren, the problem of getting even professedly undenominational people to see the implications of their stand.

How are individual Christians bound together in a local church? Where are the bounds of fellowship exercised and when is fellowship to be withheld? What is the relationship between separate autonomous congregations, and, what can be the relationships between the Lord’s churches and the human institutions that grow up around them first as service organizations and later as served organizations? I cannot pretend that I will deal with these questions that have troubled brethren for decade:. in some extraordinary way that will settle all controversy; in fact, I may simply stir up some more. But something needs to be said and since I do not see anyone else trying, I feel obliged to at least try.

(2) 1 have begun to see that although “we” have championed local autonomy for a long time and fought against the influence of purely human institutions over brethren, in fact, it has tended to be lip service. Some editors, some preachers and some congregations have begun to show their true colors: what they have really wanted is a tightly controlled, stand-at-attention-when-I-speak “brotherhood,” a network of Church of Christ franchises patterned, not especially after the New Testament pattern, but after their own. Whenever a local preacher in one state, who is also an employee and editor for a human institution, calls for the “brotherhood disfellowshipping” of another preacher in another state, then something needs to be said. Such brethren ought to be more honest with themselves and with their brethren as to what they are really asking for.

Things will not stop here; other “undenominational” fellowships in history have succumbed to the same human frailty: the desire for a king. A creedalism that was formerly unofficial and unarticulated is now becoming more and more explicit – day by day various editors are drawing up the peculiar list of doctrines that will constitute what “faithfulness” is to mean. The “brotherhood” idea – as illegitimate and anti-Scriptural as any concept that has come down the road in the past fifty years – is the root of all such denominational leanings. An unacknowledged framework of local churches, editors-at-large, publications, foundations and colleges exists now and is taking upon itself all the “marks” of the formal denominational structures “we” have previously opposed. Isn’t it time to tell the emperor that he doesn’t have any clothes on?

(3) One more digression: I fully realize how pretentious it may seem for me to be saying anything at all; I ask for your good will and patience in reading through this material. The readers may judge whether it coincides with the “sound words” of the apostles, knowing that he faces God, not me in judgment, and conversely that I too face Him, not the reader or reviewer. What men per se may think of me or this article is unimportant – what counts is what God thinks and I am happy to commit myself to His infallibly just and merciful review.

II.

“Any ‘old path’ that isn’t as old as Jesus and the apostles isn’t old enough.”

Yes, that is exactly how I feel about any teaching which comes my way. Just because something is trumpeted as being “in the old paths” or is alleged to be “what sound brethren believe” or any other of the convenient slogans that have been coined over the years . . . is of no particular importance to me. Brethren have for too long been used to such catch phrases; it is too comfortable and too dangerous to judge whether something is true on the basis of its popularity or its endurance. If something is true now or in the 19th century, it is only because Jesus or His men taught it in the 1st century. Yet one brother told me he did not have to deal with any of my arguments – all he had to do was label them or associate them with some particular “ism” that was abroad. Thus, we come to a person’s basis of truth and for me, that is simple: the revealed, inspired, infallible, authoritative word of God – what we call the Bible.

My outlook is formed and fashioned by that word, which had its ultimate manifestation in a Person: “And the word became flesh and dwelt among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father) full of grace and truth” (Jn. 1:14). Since I live under the new, not old, covenant I turn to the words of the apostles and their witness for my guidance. And it is that witness to the coming of the Savior, His mission and current Lordship which connect me, by faith, to His saving grace: “That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you also, that ye also may have fellowship with us; yea, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son, Jesus Christ: and these things we write that our joy may be made full” (1 John 1:3, 4). Thus, whatever I know about this Savior Jesus must come from His apostles and other inspired companions which He directed for later generations. If one closes the door to this testimony, ,he has access to no other reliable source for truth – and sentences himself to walk in darkness.

But “that sounds good,” you say. How does that work out practically? We all know it is well and good to claim to follow the apostolic witness alone, but an entirely different matter to actually do it. Quite right. And my answer to that is also simple: As one made in His image, I must bring to the Scriptures all the reason, intelligence, faith and will to obey that I can muster in order to understand, incorporate and obey the will of God in my life. Jesus said that His words are “Spirit and are life” (John 6:63). He promised everyone who will ask, knock and seek that they will be answered (Matt. 7:7, 8). Thus, I come to the written word with the confidence that with a heart of faith and the desire to know truly His will, I will not be turned away empty handed: “If any man willeth to do His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself” (Jn. 7:17). The promise of the Scriptures is that I can honestly know and please God through an understanding and an obedience to what I find His will to be in the word He has given us. Such matters would include any commands, examples or inferences I discern in the word from my personal study of it.

III.

But what is the possible application of these conclusions to current problems and dilemmas? I can only speak for myself, answering on the basis of my understanding of the word. Some have offered to read my heart and declare my motives despite Jesus’ warning against it (Matt. 7:1-5); yet only One knows the heart of a man and any attempt to intimate ulterior motives and thus judge the soul of a brother is an affront to the Holy Judge who will take such matters into account.

Issues of late have been made to revolve around “fellowship.” The real question, however, the one that must be settled before “fellowship” can even be approached is this: How are men saved? And how do they stay saved? Then, and only then, after these questions are resolved can “fellowship” become relevant. I have no decision to make with regard to fellowship with X, if I have first not determined the basis of salvation of God’s pattern. That pattern is really quite simple on examination: all those found “in Christ” will be saved. Whatever being “in Christ” means – that is the condition for salvation. It will make little difference whether you or I see issue A alike if one or both of us is not “in Christ.” Otherwise, we have nothing to share in. Just here, let me digress a bit and consider some common thinking on the matter.

One of “our” favorite passages is Acts 2 – and rightly so. It is indeed the “hub of the Bible,” the center and focal point of all that precedes it or comes after. When “men and brethren” cry out in Acts 2:37 we know clearly why they are crying out – they have been convinced of their utter sinfulness before God, they have slain the righteous one, The King – and they are desperately looking for a way out of their predicament. Every responsible person shares their predicament, “For all have sinned and continually fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Can we not see that we are all in that Pentecost assembly? We too have killed the Lord of Glory just as assuredly as if we had been in that mob calling His blood down on us. Our sins put Him on that cross. The “solution” to our problem is the same as theirs, “repent and be baptized . . . .”

But is there a problem here? Have we not often taken that passage for granted. Taken it as a glib prooftext for some peculiar distinctiveness about “our church” and missed the profound depth that is there? Yes, I am convinced it is so. And it is so because there is a great difference between that 1st century throng and us: the desperation, the cognizance of sin, the sense of being lost, the urgent, veritable need for a sinbearer, for Jesus that was characteristic of those “men and brethren” I find generally absent from “our” preaching and writing. And with good reason. Because I believe we have taken a gospel which is simple and made it simplistic.

Another way of saying it is this: we have bound the gospel; we have taken the heart of “good news” out of it and laid it along the Old Covenant as merely, merely another law to keep. We have turned good news into bad. We have progressively cheapened the meaning of His death and resurrection. By packaging the gospel in convenient steps, ostensibly as a “shorthand” for the ignorant in the denominational world, we have ironically offered our hearers the benefits of salvation without their coming to grips with the depth of their sin and alienation from God. Unless the gospel we set forth centers around the risen Savior who lived the perfect life we could not live, to be the perfect sacrifice we cannot give as opposed to the incessant muzak of what we all can do to get forgiveness as if we could earn, merit or achieve it on our own – we will be planting seed and raising crops that God the Father has no interest in. I am not talking about the response that the believer must make to appropriate forgiveness, but the actual cause, the underlying basis for our salvation. It is clear in Peter’s words and that of everyone else in the New Testament Scriptures that the emphasis in salvation and its basis is wholly upon Who Jesus is and What He has done (cf. 1 Cor. 1:25-31; Rom. 8:1-8; Tit. 3:3-8).

At one time I know that I personally had a legalistic conception of salvation – that in some way I was saved because of what I had done, that salvation was based upon my abilities, my performance, my own personal merit before God. I saw my works, not as the response of faith (James 2:14ff.) but as the essential cause and activator of my fellowship with God. My discipleship was self-not Jesus-centered. Jesus, the Savior, mattered little per se in my life; I did not obey for His sake – I obeyed for me. What counted was not that I loved and followed Him, but that I achieved all the “right positions” in some abstract system of law. I was nor coming to His sacrifice to appropriate its blessings; I was trying to fashion a crude one of my own. As I said earlier I speak for myself; maybe no other brother has ever grappled with these things the way I have. If so, may such praise God. But I would be surprised to discover such to be true.

I believe there is a pernicious, hidden assumption in much of the talk and teaching one gets from preachers, writers, Bible class teachers, et al. It is this: that somehow those who have come to agree upon certain convictions regarding Biblical inferences have a kind of bargaining position with God that others, who perhaps have not yet come to the same convictions, do not. In other words, there sees to be the presumption that because we (we “conservatives,” we “anti-Grace-fellowship-heresy” brethren, we-this, we-that) have arrived at some particular convictions we are in a position to be more “righteous” than someone who has not and, thus, we are entitled to write off, ostracize and otherwise consign to hell those who have not “achieved” our level of correctness. Instead of our salvation being rooted in Jesus, the center has subtly and subtilely been shifted to us and our ability to come to all the right positions on the multiudinous issues that confront 20th century Christians.

Now let me point out something here about this assumption: this emphasis on being “right” is fine and dandy – if it is perceived as the honest, loving response of a person who knows Jesus paid the price, that He bought us and that we ought to do all we can to please Him and reflect His glory (2 Cor. 3:16, 17; Lk. 17:10; Phil. 3:12-21). On the other hand, if this emphasis on “being right” is being set forth as the basis of salvation, as if to say we are saved when acid only when we have all the right positions – there ensues a difficulty; at least as I see it. If this assumption is so, then it establishes the impossible situation of trying to be saved by being 100% right in every attitude and practice (no other percentage would do) and which no one (no one) has ever achieved or ever will – it sets up the very legal situation Jesus nailed to the cross, which Paul called a curse, which Peter said was a burden none of the “fathers” could bear, which all of us confess to be beyond our reach, no matter how holy or righteous we may conceive-ourselves to be.

But, of course, no one says we must be perfect. Yes, that is true, no one would say such a preposterous thing! But that has not stopped some of us from trying to live our lives as if it were true, or encouraging us to find ingenious ways to get around the predicament (as did the Pharisees). Discipleship would then, and for many already has, disintegrate(d) into the lifelong struggle for just enough right positions – to be saved – or at least to stay ahead of the brethren who may not yet have seen the pattern In the completeness that we do. But I am now hearing that God never has demanded perfection from men and that this is some kind of Calvinistic trick or deception that we have unwittingly accepted. But it was no “Calvinist” who cast Adam and Eve out of the garden or who left the unfaithful Israelites to die in the wilderness or who struck Ananias and Sapphira dead or who calls a church unto Himself that is to be holy and without blemish before Him in love. Have we gotten to a point where we must lecture our own brethren on the holy and righteous attributes of God?

My question is this: if salvation is predicated on such a basis, on our ability to get the correct positions on all possible issues, then who will be saved? We may go through life hoping, guessing that we might saved, might have everything out – but I ask in all sincerity, is this the joyous confidence of salvation that is reflected in the lives of New Testament Christians or of the apostle Paul who said, “I know Him whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which is committed to Him against that day” (2 Tim. 1:12)? Are these words by Paul the subtle claim that he had lived a perfect life? That his practice was perfect? That such was the basis of his confidence in salvation? Anyone who has read Philippians 3 knows the answer to that:

But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ – the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like Him in His death, and so, somehow to attain to the resurrection from the dead (Phil. 3:7-I 1).

The upshot of all this is simple to me: trying to base our hope of salvation on any other foundation than the blood of Jesus is futile (1 Cor. 3:11). We cannot be saved by being “right” because ultimately we cannot be “right” enough; we will fall short. We will sin. It is a dead end. But of course that has not stopped many from trying to find a way around this predicament.

The most common way is to set up some peculiar categories, say, the “work and worship of the church” and claim that this, this above all is the key to faithfulness, the one “identifying mark” that is crucial to salvation and then such are labelled as “too clear for any `honest heart’ to miss.” But even getting straight on these matters (and let us not under estimate their importance in a God-pleasing life style) will not provide me with the basis I need for fellowship with God. For after I get lined up on these, there are yet countless other matters about God and His ways that I must learn and practice, more issues than I will ever be able to master in one or a dozen lifetimes. I will fall short in perfect practice and understanding – is there anyone who will deny this? But what then can be the basis? Is there no condition?

The Biblical answer is clear: “By this gospel you are saved (note present tense, ble), if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you” (1 Cor. 15:2). Salvation is an on-going process; it does not end at baptism; it is a “walk.” While knowing that I will fall short of perfect understanding and practice, I am still bound, by love, by grace, (remember Lk. 17:10) to “do all that it is my duty to do,” to hold firmly to what the apostles teach to the best of my ability. My faith-response is to try diligently to understand and obey all that I find in His word – whether command, example or inference – and exhort others to do the same. My “holding firm to the word” involves this lifelong walk with the Lord (Eph. 4:1-5; 17-32; 5:1-6: 18) which demands my attention to obedience, while trusting in the sacrifice of Jesus to cover my sins (1 Jn. 1:8-2:6), confessing all known sins and asking God to forgive those as yet undiscerned by a faithful heart striving to please Him.

This kind of “condition” is a little bit different than the kind usually championed in churches of Christ, where in fact much of the emphasis is on certain “key” issues – issues which preachers, editors, elders and other leaders are able to “keep track of” in terms of party platforms and unwritten creeds. But the “righteousness that is by faith” does not lend itself to the kind of categorizing, labeling and sloganeering that the carnal “conditions” by which men “judge themselves by themselves” do (2 Cor. 10:12). And when the worldly brethren have their power to judge removed (Matt. 7:1-6), they tend to become sullen, provoked and frustrated – which in turn leads them to create factions, sects and, yes, denominations which rally around their positions and interpretations and ostracizing those who dare to dissent.

Can the believer not apostatize then? Can he fall away? Again, the Bible is clear: yes he can. One may turn his back on the Savior, refuse to trust in His sacrifice, refuse to follow Him, refuse to obey Him – to do as Demas did, going back into the world (2 Tim. 4:9). But then is ignorance not bliss? By no means! Such a straw man ought to be put to death once and for all. The disciple of Christ who insists on pleasing God is not satisfied with his ignorance – he wants to go on learning more and obeying more to please His Father in heaven. He seeks not some vague unresponsible state where is he free from further growth or knowledge; his goal is not to know as little as possible and thus be less responsible. Instead, he wants to be as “response-able” as possible to the love and great redemption found in Christ Jesus. We must come to grips with the sober realization that we cannot know it all – ignorance is inevitable – and certainly that we will not be sinless by our own performance. But that realization is hard to take, especially if we have always been “in the right church” with the atmosphere thick with the pollution of human merit mixed with an exalted view of one’s ability to reason and practice on some perfect level.

To place some honest brother or sister who misunderstands at this point (according to my fallible judgment) some point of Scripture in the same category as a willfully disobedient rebel is to suggest absurdity. If there are occasions in your life where you have been honestly mistaken, you know then that not all people who fail to see your point are wicked reprobates. Yet that is the stereotype we have come to live with. Instead of the broad brotherhood generalizations and dictums we have been using for a standard, why don’t we start now to be what Scripture authorizes us to be: local Christians who work and worship in local churches. Those are the only “functioning units” that the Lord has ordained: the individual Christian and the local church and we have claimed to believe that. Claimed, but not practiced.

What then does this boil down to? To this: the province of salvation is totally in God’s hands – He alone knows the works and hearts of men, those with the true heart of faith (2 Tim. 2:19). Our “part” in this plan is to grapple honestly with the Scriptures and to live humbly and faithfully by what we see taught there. I must abide by what the Scriptures say to me, all the while urging others I consider to be “in Christ” to remain faithful to Him and do the same. When all is said and done that is all I can do. I do not understand the Lord to be saying to me that I must fashion little duplicates of Bruce Edwards out of the converts and brethren I confront. In my fellowship, as an individual Christian and in a local church, I must come to grips with my imperfect knowledge. I must remain true to what I believe is authorized by God, realizing the possibility (probability, perhaps) of being mistaken in some areas. If Scripture demanded that we have fellowship only with those with whom we have 100% agreement (or, “on the really crucial issues” – and whose list is the same here?), then I ask, whom would we fellowships? If every act of fellowship constitutes an endorsement of a fellow’s whole belief system who would dare fellowship anyone else? Isn’t it clear that “endorsement” can be applied only in and for the specific activity in which two\Christians are engaged? Thus, (1) 1 cannot practice with another anything I believe to be wrong in itself and (2) 1 cannot practice anything which night allow another to stumble through weak scruples (Rom. 14:1-23).

What I do for the Lord, I must do out of loyalty to Him, not some institution, party, local church, eldership, preacher, editor or anyone else. He directs me. I listen for His voice. If it leads me in conflict with others, I must yet bear Him alone. I must seek His will, practice is to the best of my ability and trust in the Lord Jesus for salvation. I do not have to determine who is going to be saved in order to live a righteous life.

It is time to cease trusting in the “horses and chariots,” the slogans ad cliches of the “brotherhood” and begin trusting in Jesus. The labels and categories that men create have little bearing on eternity. It is my prayer that God would bring us all unto Himself and that we would determine to rest in Him and His power and glory ever more.

“Come unto me all ye that are heavy laden, and I will give you rest…” (Matt. 11:28).

Truth Magazine XXIII: 26, pp. 422-424
June 28, 1979

By Earl Robertson

It seems now to be the practice of many to rename and glamorize sin into respectability so that it is not sin at all. If the right people give their okay to any sinful practice then it is no sin to engage in it.

Homosexuality – called living “Gay” – is a good example of this. This sin is not new to the human family. People practiced it in the Old Testament and in the New and they were identified as “Sodomites.” This sin was then condemned by the Lord and it is still condemned by Him. Consider these passages: Gen. 19:5-8; Lev. 18:22-25; 20:13; Deut. 23:17; 1 Kgs. 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kgs. 23:7; Rom. 1:24-27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:9, 10. If one believes the word of God, these passages should set one in proper perspective relative to sodomy. Calling it “Gay” does not change God’s feeling about it!

Those who live in sodomy disregard all these scriptures. What is even more distressing is the fact that many religious leaders will not commit themselves on this issue! Of what are they afraid? It is not a matter of “human rights” to practice this sin. Yet, this is the area into which the practitioners of this heinous behavior put it. “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people” (Prov. 14:34).

A homosexual or Sodomite first has no regard for God or His word and his disrespect for man is easily observed. The experience of Lot in his own home convinces one of this truth (Gen. 19). God destroyed Sodom for its “Gay” actions. They walked after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness (2 Pet. 2:10). Peter says that God turned “the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example unto those that after should live ungodly” (2 Pet. 2:6). Jude says, “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 7).

God delivered righteous Lot, who was sore vexed at the filthy living he had seen (2 Pet. 2:6-10). May He continue the same with us. May the modern Sodomites, like the Corinthians of old, become aware that “abusers of themselves with mankind” will, without repentance, go to hell. Be washed and cleansed (1 Cor. 6:9-11)!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 26, p. 421
June 28, 1979

By Mike Willis

Last week, we introduced the study of Eph. 2:1-10 by noting the universal need of man for salvation. In studying verses 1-3, we showed that all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Hence, man is “dead in trespasses and sins” (2:1), doomed to Hell and without hope before God. While man was alienated from God through sin, God acted in the salvation of his soul.

By Grace Ye Are Saved (vs. 4-9)

But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ (by grace ye are saved), and hath raised us up together and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: that in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.

Having shown man’s lost condition, Paul now shows God’s response to man’s need. Consider carefully the divine attributes listed by Paul which caused God to act to save man. He mentions such things as mercy, love, grace, and kindness. Let us define each of these words.

a. Mercy (eleos). Thayer distinguishes eleeo from oikteiro as follows: eleeo – “to show sympathy with the misery of another, esp. such sympathy as manifests itself in act, less freq. in word; whereas oikt. denotes the inward feeling of compassion which abides in the heart” (p. 203). The noun eleos he defined as “mercy; kindness or good will towards the miserable and afflicted, joined with a desire to relieve them.” This simply states that God felt sorry for man’s hopeless state and acted personally to bring about his salvation.

b. Love (agape). Kenneth Wuest wrote the following concerning agapao: “Agapao” speaks of a love which is awakened by a sense of value in an object which causes one to prize it. It springs from an apprehension of the preciousness of an object. It is a love of esteem and approbation. The quality of this love is determined by the character of the one who loves, and that of the object loved.

Agapao is used in John 3:16. God’s love for a sinful and lost race springs from His heart in response to the high value He places upon each human soul. Every sinner is exceedingly precious in His sight (“Golden Nuggets From the Greek New Testament,” Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, Vol. III, pp. 60-61.).

God saw in man that immortal soul which was created in the image of God; He perceived how precious it was and pried it dearly. This love prompted Him to work toward saving it.

c. Grace (charis). The primary idea of grace is that God acted to do a favor for man; He acted freely and without expectation of receiving anything of equitable value in return. It finds its motive in the bounty and free heartedness of the giver (see Trench, pp. 166-171). “Moreover, the word charis contains the idea of kindness which bestows upon one what he has not deserved” (Thayer, p. 666). When we deserved to be cast into Hell for the wicked, rebellious offences which we had committed, God sent His Son to die on Calvary. That, my brethren, is grace!

d. Kindness (chrestotes). This word is a little more difficult to define. “So far from being this mere grace of word and countenance, it is one pervading and penetrating the whole nature, mellowing there all which would have been harsh and austere; thus wine is chrestos, which has been mellowed with age (Luke v. 39); Christ’s yoke is chrestos, as having nothing harsh or galling about it (Matt. xi. 30)” (Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, p. 233).

These divine attributes of God were the motivating forces which moved Him to act to save sinful men. There was nothing in man which deserved salvation. We are saved out of the goodnesses of God, plainly and simply.

Jesus Christ: The Expression of God’s Grace

Throughout this context specifically and the book of Ephesians generally, Paul emphasizes that Jesus Christ is the expression of God’s grace. God “hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ” (1:3); “he hath chosen us in him” (1:4); He has predestinated “us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ” (1:5); He did this “to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved, in whom we have redemption through his blood” (1:6-7); “In him in whom also we have obtained an inheritance” (1:11).

Similarly, chapter two shows that salvation by grace is through Christ. He “hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: that in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus” (2:6-7). “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus” (2:10).

These Scriptures show us that Jesus Christ is the manifestation of God’s grace. The totality of God’s grace for man is summed up in Jesus Christ. We can expect no grace in addition to that which is available through Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is God’s answer, His only answer, to man’s sin problems.

The sending of Jesus Christ, God’s only begotten Son, to die for our sins manifests the greatness of God’s love toward us. Paul mentioned “his great love” (2:4) when He described God’s love for mankind. Frankly, I have trouble grasping the greatness of God’s love. I have two children. I cannot imagine me allowing one of them to die for any reason. However, to imagine sacrificing one of my children to save an enemy is altogether unbelievable from my point of view. Yet, that is exactly what God has done for us. “But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins . . .” (2:4-5). “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom.5:8).

Hence, God has saved us by grace and that grace is summed up in Jesus Christ. His vicarious death on Calvary’s cross was an atonement for sins. He bore our punishment for us. The prophet foretold the work of Jesus of Nazareth in this fashion:

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem his stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all”(Isa. 53:4-6).

God’s answer to man’s sins should have been the firm expression of His wrathful judgment. However, in grace -unmerited favor – toward man, He sent His only begotten Son to die on the cross of Calvary for our sins. Indeed, our salvation is wholly of grace.

What God Does For Us

Here are some of the things which God in His marvelous grace has done for us. I am sure that others could add to this list. However, let us confine ourselves to this text:

1. He “hath quickened” us (Eph. 2:1, 5). The word “quicken” means “to make alive.” We who were dead in trespasses and sins are now “made alive.” The language of our text reminds us of Romans 6:3-4. Compare the following:

Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus (2:5-6).

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 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. 6:3-4).

The dead man of sin is buried with Christ in baptism (hence, he dies with Christ) and raised up together with Him to walk in newness of life.

The phrase “to make alive” or to “quicken” is the antithesis of “dead in trespasses and sins.” Whereas the latter phrase means “unforgiven,” the former simply means “forgiven” (cf. Col. 2`.13). This man’s sins have been remitted; he stands before God pure and clean as if he had never violated a single one of God’s holy commandments.

2. Made us sit together in heavenly places (Eph. 2:6). This passage teaches that Christians shall receive a heavenly reward. Epouranios meant “the heavenly regions, i.e. heaven itself, the abode of God and angels” (Thayer’, p. 247). We are given spiritual life and an eternal reward of heaven. God’s grace is further exemplified in the precious promises which He holds out to His saints. It is not enough that He merely forgives men of their trespasses; He also gives them heaven.

Conclusion

in our consideration of salvation by grace through faith, we have seen man’s need for salvation. We noticed that all men are sinners and doomed to eternity in hell, not for the sins which someone else committed, but for the sins which each man commits. In this article, we have seen what God has done to save us from our sins. We have seen the divine attributes of God (mercy, love, grace, kindness) which motivated Him to send His only begotten Son to die on Calvary for our sins. We have seen that all of God’s grace for the salvation of man is in His Son Jesus Christ. Be with us next week as we continue this study by noticing the conditions for receiving salvation by grace.

Editor’s Note

Beginning on page 6 is an article by Bruce Edwards, Jr. and a reply by Steve Wolfgang. After months of self-imposed silence, Bruce has finally decided to say something about the grace-unity issues. He sent me a fifteen-page article. I replied to him that I thought that this was too long but he insisted that it be published in its entirety. Lest someone think that Truth Magazine has a closed door policy which does not allow those reviewed to reply to their critics, I decided to go ahead and print this material, although I do not think that Bruce warrants that much space. Hence, I compromised by printing this article in eight point type. It is here for those who desire to read it; those who have no interest in what Bruce is writing can simply skip over it.

The main characteristic of this article by Bruce is that it answers no questions relevant to the issues of grace-fellowship. Read the article and then tell me whether or not Bruce accepts the following: (1) a distinction between gospel and doctrine; (2) the imputation of the perfect obedience of Jesus to the believer; (3) that things taught by example or inference can be made tests of fellowship; (4) whether the fellowship of the saints should be broken over the usage of mechanical instruments of-music in worship, church support of human institutions, church sponsored recreation, and other such departures from revealed truth. These and many other questions go unanswered in order that Bruce might harangue about brotherhood politics. Some of us are getting rather tired of hearing this garbage and are anxious to see Bruce (and others holding this position) grapple with the relevant issues. When will we see him do that? Read the material for yourself and form your own judgments. You can tell how well Bruce addresses himself to the issues the same as I can.

I want to thank Brother Steve Wolfgang for his good review of this article. As he stated, few people realize the effort involved in reviewing the writings of someone like Bruce. The personal feelings which one has for an individual must be laid aside in the interests of truth. We appreciate the fine spirit in which this review has been written.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 26, pp. 419-421
June 28, 1979