Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From West Virginia: “We have a problem in the church where we worship. There are two elders that are not working together. One apparently wants to do what the Bible says, the way it says. The other one is liberal. They do not work together. Is there any command or example where members are supposed to carry the Lord’s Supper to the sick or shut in? One of them does that and says he is doing a good work. “

Reply:

About The Elders

Christians, let alone elders, ought to be able to work together. When there are doctrinal differences, the problem is intensified. Elders need not be carbon copies of one another. They should, however, mutually seek the best interests of the church which they oversee. Some of the best elderships in this country are composed of men of diverse backgrounds, personalities, and approaches. Their varying strengths, talents, and weaknesses are counterbalanced by one another. Their goal is the glory of God; their care and concern is for the flock of God which is among them. So, their personalities are joined in a single, united effort. Like different parts of a puzzle, they fit and work together to accomplish a complete picture. That is as it should be.

Our querist should talk with the elder that is “liberal.” In a spirit of meekness and humility, discuss his liberal tendencies. Also, he should discuss with these men what he has revealed in the question and comments above. The difficulty cannot be arbitrated on these pages. (In the letter that came with the question above, the writer suggested that comments be made in Truth Magazine about this matter.)

About the Lord’s Supper

I know of no “command or example where members are supposed to carry the Lord’s Supper to the sick or shut in.” By studying Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 11:18-29, one can see that the Lord’s Supper was taken when they “came together” “into one place.” One of the purposes of coming together is to “break bread.” I know of no Scripture that indicates that those who cannot attend on the first day of the week should be taken the Lord’s Supper.

But the one who does it says he is “doing a good work.” That is how a Lutheran justified infant baptism to me. He admitted that it was not in the Bible, but he said he would retain the practice because it was “a good work.” One lady attended a midnight, Catholic Mass at Christmas time. The organ music was “so inspiring,” she said, that it “had to be a good work.” Now, answer those arguments while making the one about taking the Lord’s Supper out to the sick and shut in. I will be watching to see if you blink or swallow.

This thing about “a good work” has been used to justify everything from,-benevolent societies to church sponsored ball teams. A work is not a “good work” unless appointed and ordained by the word of God (Eph. 2:10; 2 Tim. 3:17; 2 Pet. 1:3). Whenever a thing is labeled a good work, a good response might be, “A good work, huh? Says who?” Smile and wait for a Scripture.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 26, p. 418
June 28, 1979

By Steve Wolfgang

During the week of February 26 – March 2, Brother W.C. (Billy) Ashworth of Dickson, Tennessee met Jack Rudd in a debate on the following propositions. Ashworth affirmed

“It is unscriptural for churches of Christ to build and/or maintain benevolent organizations for the care of the needy, such as Tennessee Orphan Home and homes for the aged”

the first two nights, with Rudd denying. This proposition was discussed at the New Hope Church of Christ, ten miles east of Dickson. The last two nights, Jack Rudd affirmed

“It is scriptural for churches of Christ to contribute funds from their treasuries in support of Herald of Truth Radio and Television Program, conducted by Highland Church of Christ, Abilene, Texas (Sponsoring Church)”

with Ashworth denying this proposition. This portion of the discussion occurred in the meetinghouse of the Tennessee City Church of Christ, seven miles west of Dickson. This discussion came about as a result of several private discussions -between two members of the New Hope and Tennessee City churches respectively, who asked the two disputants to enter into this discussion. This writer moderated for Billy Ashworth; Don Hinds, from the San Francisco Bay area, moderated for Jack Rudd.

This debate was the first such discussion in a quarter century on these issues in Middle Tennessee. (A misprint in Brother Ashworth’s bulletin preceding the debate left the impression with some that it was the first debate anywhere in twenty-five years, and provided much of the substance for the remarks in Rudd’s first several negative speeches.) Brother Rudd included these comments in his first night’s speeches:

“If you want another debate, or if any of your brethren want a debate . . . brother Don Hines, who’s my moderator, told me he would be glad to take any of you to San Francisco and engage in a debate in that area. So I don’t believe you’re going to have any trouble getting a debate from any of us . . . No one’s afraid. We’ll debate you any time, any where, and if you want a debate, get the propositions made up, and I’ll get you a debate in almost every state in the union, and we won’t have to wait very long to do it.”

Since Brother Rudd so quickly volunteered his moderator to debate these same issues, this writer, as the other moderator, just as quickly accepted that challenge in the closing remarks the first evening. Correspondence has been exchanged with Brother Hinds relative to conducting such a public discussion in the San Francisco Bay area in the fall of 1979; announcements will be forthcoming as details are finalized.

It is not the purpose of this review to rehash the substance of the debate; Brother Ashworth did an excellent job in both expounding and defending New Testament teaching regarding the work of the church and needs no “scotching” from this writer. Of course, since this writer is his son-in-law, some might detect some justifiable pride on my part! For those who are interested, verbatim tapes of the discussion are available. Also, printed copies of most of the overhead projection transparencies and charts used by Brother Ashworth may be obtained by writing to the above address. Interested parties may wish to study or hear the taped debate themselves rather than rely on this writer’s judgment. However, there were some interesting occurrences during the debate which may be of some interest and worthy of report here.

Brother Rudd very early in the debate took the position that a single individual (he used himself as an example) was an “organization.” Attempting to bolster this position, he held up one of Brother Ashworth’s bulletins, published and mailed by the Oak Avenue church where Brother Ashworth preaches, and maintained that it (the bulletin) was “an organization” because it had the words “non-profit organization” written in the space describing the postal permit. Ashworth, a Postal Service employee for many years (including more than eighteen as a Postmaster), had some fun explaining to Brother Rudd the difference in the permit issued to an organization (a church), and the organization itself, or the organization’s publication. Rudd’s insistence that a mailing permit constituted a separate organization came back to haunt him the last two nights when he had to confront the fact that the Herald of Truth, allegedly a work of the Highland church in Abilene, has its own separate mailing permit!

When confronted with the question of how he could be consistent in opposing the missionary society but uphold benevolent or educational societies or an arrangement like the Herald of Truth, Brother Rudd made the following comments:

“I will make one statement and that will take care of the missionary society. The missionary society is wrong because it doesn’t teach the truth . . . . So the missionary society is wrong because it displaces, it takes the place of the church. In other words, it’s just another church. That’s what’s wrong with it, and it doesn’t teach the truth.”

Other such statements which hardly need to be answered for anyone able to think clearly included assertions such as, “the church supports the government when it pays taxes” (used by Brother Rudd to “prove” that the church could therefore “support” Tennessee Orphan Home by making monthly donations to it); and “1 Timothy 5:16 authorizes church donations to any kind of home.” Brother Rudd was given the following written question (among others), to be answered on Friday night: “Is it scriptural for a congregation of the Lord’s people to send money to a Baptist church for evangelism?” Here is the answer given by Jack Rudd, in his own writing: “I thought everyone, even anti preachers would know that was alright.”

In regard to the tone and decorum of the debate, the answer to the question just quoted, will give the reader some indication. Brother Rudd repeatedly made demeaning personal references to his opponent and the elders of the Oak Avenue congregation where Brother Ashworth preaches (and also serves as an elder), and in many ways turned the discussion to issues of personality and irrelevant matters, Tuesday evening being perhaps the worst in this regard. On Thursday evening, his first night in the affirmative, Brother Rudd did not even attempt to define the proposition he signed his name to prove, forcing Ashworth to define the terms of the propositions in his first negative speech. While it is not always easy to sit through this sort of personal abuse and refrain from replying in like manner (one’s seat does indeed become a veritable “hot seat” after a while), Brother Ashworth did a remarkable job of restraining himself and keeping reply to this sort of thing in the background while attempting to focus on the issues expressed in the propositions. I was reminded of the Texas preacher J.D. Tant’s remarks, made in conjunction with a debate in the Dickson area earlier in this century, that “a man can no more meet” such an opponent “successfully and occupy a high plane than one could kill a polecat with a yardstick and not smell bad” (Gospel Advocate, March 12, 1908; see J.D. Tant, Texas Preacher, p. 305).

Nonetheless, though a certain degree of this sort of irrelevant issue perhaps needs some minimal reply lest some in the audience think reply is impossible, Brother Ashworth did a creditable job, in my opinion as one who sat next to him on the platform, in “keeping his cool” and bringing the audience back to the issues at hand. Discussion of the issues that divide brethren cannot help but be a healthy enterprise, and there were a good many young people (as well as some not so young) for whom this was the first exposure to a public religious debate. Thanks should go to Brother Ashworth for preparing and executing his portion of the debate, and I should also like to take this opportunity to thank brethren Howard See, Donnie Rader, and Jim Caplinger who were especially helpful during the week in reviewing the tapes of preceding sessions and preparing charts and other materials. Though most of his charts and arguments were lifted directly from Guy N. Woods’ debate with Roy Cogdill, Brother Rudd is to be commended at least for his willingness to defend his practices, which is more than can be said of most other preachers who are of his persuasion on this issue. Contact this writer for details regarding the tapes or other materials germane to .this discussion.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 25, pp. 410-411
June 21, 1979

By Donald P. Ames

Last year we submitted a review of the various VBS materials being offered and received an excellent response to such an action. Thus, we are again glad to have this opportunity to submit such a review in the hopes it will encourage and help brethren to select good and sound material, with as few objections as possible, and perhaps avoid some major disappointment.

The Cogdill Foundation submitted requests for VBS kits to: (1) Sweet Publishing Company, (2) Gospel Teacher Publications (3) Lambert Book House and (4) Quality Publishing Company. These four publish the most widely accepted VBS literature among brethren, and thus are our major concern.

Sweet: “Rejoice And Praise The Lord”

More and more in recent years, the material from Sweet has taken on an inter-denominational flavor, as if trying to appeal to the Christian Church as quickly as to brethren. The VBS material this year leaves one with the impression this goal is clearly in mind. The theme of the material is “Worship as Praise to the Lord,” and the adult class is encouraged to plan and lay out a worship service for the following Sunday. Some good points on the right attitude for worship are included, but again the material relies heavily on additional resources from the Moody Press (Baptist) and Concordia (Lutheran). It is also of such a nature that it requires much additional purchasing of equipment and materials from Sweet to complete.

Promotionalism is more than evident throughout the material. Advertising is included in all student booklets for T-shirts and iron-ons to be purchased with the VBS theme on the front – from Sweet, of course. Teachers manuals (especially in the lower grades) also contain promotions for day schools, mission VBS, etc. Puppets are pushed as an opening act daily, and they in turn promote Kool-aid as a central point to look forward to. Projectors and tape recorders are also needed (extra) for the suggested daily film strips related to the lesson. And, the suggested guide for organization looks more like the charter for the U.N. than a simple VBS!

Their cut-outs are die-cut (partially cut out, punch out the rest), which saves the teacher a lot of time and work in class – and helps the student who participates. Although the RSV is quoted in the text, answers can be easily found in the KJV as well (but the TEV is quoted in the lower grades, without any disavowal of the many perversions found in this mis-translation). The Senior High student book could throw you if you have not used their material before, as it is laid out in sections to be removed daily. Hence, half of the first lesson is in the front, and the rest is found on the other half of the same page in the back of the booklet (pages are marked to help in this skipping around).

There are some serious objections to this material, in addition to the heavily promoted T-shirts and other Sweet publications – some of questionable reliability. Although music in worship is discussed (as an act of worship), it is treated so vaguely that one using the instrument in worship would never be moved to question the scriptural authority for such additions. For the adult class, a special book (13 chapters – obviously too much to be covered effectively) is to be used, written by Wendell Willis (no relation to our editor, I hope). This book denies that the collection taken up by Paul for the needy saints in Jerusalem was to meet any need (a point he contradicts a few pages later), but rather that it was merely a voluntary sharing of love and fellowship among fellow Christians as the mood moved them. He also points out that food was offered as a contribution as well in early churches and was then used by them in their benevolent work (hence the implication is left that the same substitution is perfectly acceptable today as well).

Doctrinal truth is not upheld as that which is the Law of the Lord today. Instead of serving as a guide-line for doctrinal purity, the truth is set forth as a “confession of faith” on the part of that particular writer, and many such “confessions of faith” exist throughout both the O.T. and N.T. Although these “confessions of faith” sometimes separated the Christian from the erring, and caused those of like convictions to pull together, they “were not imposed on believers . . . were not used to attack other Christians, nor were any intended as exclusive” (p. 87). Thus, the gospel is upheld simply as a means to “tie us together,” and not as the instrument of God also for purity, rebuking of error, and exposing of false brethren (Jude 3; Gal. 1:6-8; 2 John 9, etc.).

Although baptism is also mentioned, it is treated as an act of “worship,” and not as obedience to the commands of God. A vile sinner may be baptized to free himself of his sinful past, but those raised in the church are usually baptized to “dedicate” their lives to God! One is baptized out of a desire to be “in Christ,” a part of the body of Christ, and then “exhorted” to cease from sinning from that point forward. It follows faith “naturally,” and is a point of dedication – but the point that God commands it for the remission of sins and that the sinner must be convicted of his sinful way of life is glossed over. The teachers manual does mention a few scriptures that could be used to illustrate the point, but the 13-chapter book does not see fit to dwell on the point.

I believe most brethren would be sadly disappointed if they purchased and used this material with the promotionalism, general tone, and unsound teaching therein.

Lambert: “I Choose Jesus”

I must admit this material is very attractive, very appealing, and inspirational – at least to me! An adult class is also included, and the student is encouraged to select Jesus as his Savior, Lord, Teacher, Friend and King. Some good (and needed) material is contained showing that obedience to the commands of Christ is not “legalism” and also in refutation to the false theory of premillennialism, which is sneaking back in some places unawares. Cut-outs for the lower grades are not die-cut, but are well adapted for the lessons. A number of songs are also included in the back of the lower grade class booklets for kids to sing, and the theme of choosing Jesus is well presented.

However, some draw-backs do exist which the user needs to be aware of. The teachers manuals for the lower grades strongly promotes a bus ministry and pushes the idea of refreshments – even to the extent the teacher is urged to bring them to class even if the congregation does not use them in VBS! Intermediate and Junior classes seem to be a bit simplified, and a lot of the work is placed upon the teacher. Lastly, the teachers manual for the Senior High class recommends K.C. Moser’s commentary on Romans, The Way Of Salvation, which was one of the early leaders of the false teaching on grace-fellowship — though the ideas are not carried over into the class material. Since these are contained in the teacher’s manuals, they ought to be called to the teachers’ attention and avoided.

Gospel Teacher: “Jesus, My Lord”

This series is also good, with the cut-outs for the lower grades die-cut to assist the teachers. It, too, has an adult class, and challenges the student to recognize Jesus as Lord of the creation, of history, of the Scriptures, of the church, and of his own life. Some very good faith-building material on evidences is contained in the teen-age classes, at an age in which many sometimes find themselves floundering on the shores of unbelief.

A class play of the lesson is recommended daily for classes clear up through the Junior level, and without this play, I have serious doubts there would be adequate material to survive a class period of any length. Some overlap exists in the classes, and the material here also would have to be heavily supplemented by the teacher, who has the bulk of the load to carry

Although there is some excellent material in these lessons, it lacks the appeal of Lambert’s; and because of the play, I feel many brethren would find it not what they were seeking to teach as material, but simply teaching as a side to entertainment.

Quality: “Praising Jesus”

This is the third year of a rotating series being developed by Quality Publishing Company, and frankly, I have not been too impressed with the quality of the previous two years. However as the saying goes, “The third time is a charm,” and this year Quality seems to have finally hit on an excellent combination. The material is very well presented and much more acceptable than the previous two years. The theme is praising Jesus – because He made me, because of His love, because of His word, because of His family (i.e., the Church), and through our obedience and loyalty.

Although the RSV is used again, the lessons are laid out so the more popular KJV can be used just as easily, and in fact, one lesson actually includes a Bible drill for both to avoid any problems. In the lower levels, the cut-outs are not die-cut, but neither are they that difficult. The emphasis on refreshments and puppets is not found in this series either. The material is laid out for a two hour class, which means it can be easily adapted to split classes, or parts omitted for different arrangements (such as one evening session). A time-schedule for each activity is printed in the teacher’s manual of the lower grades to aid the teacher in planning his allotted time, and there is plenty to keep the student busy and interested without working the teacher to death as well. Some very excellent material is included in the elementary teacher’s manual for class use on answering questions that arise with church discipline and reactions – which would be good for other classes as well.

This does not mean there are no draw-backs to caution against. A number of songs are suggested to be sung by the lower grades throughout the class, and nearly everyone of them is new. This could pose a problem to a teacher who is not musically inclined, even though a simple tune is suggested. A few alternatives are suggested, and also a plug to make up a few of your own (why not?). One teacher’s manual even suggests sending a cassette tape to one of the churches in Abilene, Texas (address included) which would be glad to have their young people sing the songs on it. This, of course, would require no “last minute preparation,” as sometimes characterizes brethren getting ready.

The Beginners class teachers manual also suggests a class project of making peanut-butter one session which is to be eaten. However, there is enough material this could be dropped without any problem. It also suggests a brief field-trip outside to accumulate things made by God, which could be replaced with class illustrations or as a home-work assignment if the teacher preferred to keep the class more quiet.

There is no adult class in this kit. On the other hand, the Senior High material could probably be used by adults if one so desired.

All in all, I am much impressed with the drastic improvement in quality this year, and very pleased to commend this material to brethren. I would rate it as attractive aE Lambert’s, and much easier to use for longer classes, less play and more study, and less emphasis on puppets and refreshments. Quality deserves a big plus on this year’s material!

Conclusion

It is hoped such a review is helpful to brethren, and thal we might always use the best wisdom is selecting oui material for the good we seek to do in such teaching ses. sions. Kits and other supplies may be ordered from Trutt Magazine Bookstore (Box 88, Fairmont, IN 46928) and are, I believe, already in stock.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 25, pp. 408-410
June 21, 1979

By Mike Willis

The recent controversy regarding grace-unity has raised certain questions pertaining to how man is saved. All kinds of theories are being stated, including those which have God saving men who are walking in sin and unrepentant about their sins. However, a study of how men are justified is worthy of our attention at any time but especially in the midst of this controversy. I know of no better passage to consider than Eph. 2:1-10 to understand how men are saved. Examine with me this important passage.

Man’s Condition: Dead In Sin (2:1-3)

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins: wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: among whom also we had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Like the first three chapters of Romans, Eph. 2:1-10 opens with an establishment of man’s need of salvation. Certainly no one will become very much concerned about salvation until he is convinced that he is lost. Hence, this passage begins by showing man’s universal need of salvation. Verses two and three contain two different pronouns, ye and we. By these two different pronouns, Paul designates the Jews and Gentiles respectively.

1. The condition of the Gentiles (v. 2). Their past manner of life is described as walking “according to the course (aion) of this world (kosmos). ” The “course” (aion) of this world is defined for us by Trench as follows:

All that floating mass of thoughts, opinions, maxims, speculations hopes impulses, aims, aspirations, at any time current in the world, which it may be impossible to seize and accurately define, but which constitute a most real and effective power, being the moral, or immoral, atmosphere which at every moment of our lives we inhale, again inevitably to exhale,-all this is included in the aion, which is, as Bengel has expressed it, the subtle informing spirit of the kosmos, or world of men who are living alienated and apart from God (Synonyms of the New Testament).

These are under the “prince of the power of the air” (v. 2), the god of this world (2 Cor. 4:4), Satan himself.

The Gentiles of the first century were no different from those of us today. Every one of us knows the temptation of being conformed to this world around us. The world’s acceptance as respectable of such things as the usage of marijuana, fornication, adultery, gambling, drinking, petting, homosexuality, and a hundred other sins causes men to become involved in these transgressions. When a young person sees everyone else “doing it,” he wants to do it too. No one wants to stand out like a sore thumb in opposition to acceptable conduct among his peers. And, my brethren, the God-fearing man of this day stands out in just that way. Hence, the spirit of this world under the control of Satan leads men to walk in sin.

This disposition is further described as “the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.” We understand what the spirit of disobedience is; it is rebellion. This is manifested when the man refuses to submit to God’s holy commandment and openly and defiantly rebels against God Almighty. It was the spirit which Adam and Eve manifested in the Garden of Eden. It was the spirit which King Saul manifested when he refused to slay Agag, king of the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15).

2. The condition of the Jews (v. 3). Having shown the sinful condition of the Gentiles, Paul turned to describe the sinful condition of the Jews. He mentions their “conversation” (an archaic usage of the word meaning “general behavior, deportment”) as being marked by the lusts of the flesh. The Jews had walked in the lusts of their flesh.

There is a great civil war going on inside each of us. This war is the battle of the flesh against the spirit. Paul said, “Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would” (Gal. 5:16-17). The flesh pulls man in one direction; the revelation of God through the Holy Spirit commands that man walk in a different direction. There is a great conflict going on inside each of us.

The man who walks in the lusts of the flesh is the man who has allowed the lusts of his flesh to triumph over the commandments of God. He has allowed his body to be controlled by the natural fleshly lusts rather than by God’s holy commandments. Hence, he does whatever pleases his flesh and whatever his mind so desires that he should do.

By Nature The Children of Wrath (v. 3)

The special terminology used in this verse needs special comment. The phrase has been interpreted by Calvinists to teach that man inherits the sin of Adam and is born into this world an object of God’s wrath because he is totally depraved (depraved in all of his parts). The Scriptures, of course, teach that the guilt of sin is not transmitted from one man to another (cf. Ezek. 18). However, Calvinist commentators have a field day on this verse.

Joseph Henry Thayer commented specifically on this verse when he defined the word phusis (nature). He defined the word to mean “a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature” (p. 660). He specifically distinguished this from something that was innate, something obtained through birth. We still use the word “nature” to mean “the essential character of a thing; quality or qualities that make something what it is, essence” (Webster). Let us notice the “nature” of those who were “children of wrath.”

The Nature of These Men

1. “Ye walked according to the course of this world” (v. 2).

2. They manifested “the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience” (v. 2).

3. They had their conversation “in times past in the lusts of our flesh” (v. 3).

4. They fulfilled “the desires of the flesh and of the mind” (v. 3).

These terms from the context describe “the essential character of” the man who is outside of Christ; these are the “quality or qualities” that make them what they are.

Obviously, such men are “children of wrath.” This simply means “children” who are the objects of God’s wrath. Any person who lives as the ones who are described above live are objects of God’s wrath. Hence, we see Paul’s description of man’s condition.

Dead In Trespasses And Sin (v. 1)

The phrase at the end of the third verse, “even as others,” is somewhat like the summary statement in Rom. 3:23-“for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” This statement wraps all of humanity-both Jews and Gentiles-in sin. There is none righteous, no, not one!

The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). The death intended is not physical death; we suffer physical death as a consequence of Adam’s sin. (Men suffer the consequences of the transgressions of another without bearing the guilt of their sin. This is one of the mistakes committed by Calvinists. They have the guilt of one man attributed to another.) The death intended is spiritual death-separation from God because of sin.

Some have pressed this metaphor beyond its intended usage. Here is an example of an abuse of this phrase .

. . . First of all if a man is physically dead there is no sense asking if he is entirely dead, is there? We just accept the fact that he is completely dead and is not able within himself to do anything physical. And spiritual death is the same way. If God’s word says that a man is spiritually dead then it doesn’t make sense to ask to what extent he is dead, but just accept the fact that he is completely spiritually dead, and is not able to accomplish a single spiritual act. Now, what if your loved one lay in a casket and a great physician said to you, “I will give that loved one of yours physical life if only he will believe in me and come asking for it.” Wouldn’t that be a hopeless case! We can see right away that there`could be no hope for that loved one.

Now suppose that loved one did raise up out of the casket and say “give me this physical life. I believe.” Wouldn’t you know that this loved one is asking for something that he already had? Just the fact he has completed a physical act would be enough to let you know that he is already alive. But there are those, my friends, that read God’s precious word every day and hear God say that before a man’s eyes are opened by the Holy Spirit he is spiritually dead, but that they want to make Jesus say who is the great physician, I will give unto that loved one eternal,. spiritual life if only he will of his own free will give me this spiritual life, although God says that he is spiritually dead (Carl D. Tharp, “Salvation-Offer or Gift?” The Christian Baptist, Vol. II, No. 8, p. 3).

This usage of the metaphor states that a “spiritually dead man” is unable to do one thing to obtain salvation by grace. Rather, God has to give that man spiritual life before he acts and without him acting in any way. Under these presuppositions, they raise the question, “What can a dead man do?”

In response to this question, let me mention that a spiritually dead man can some things. For example, a spiritually dead man can (1) do good (Lk. 6:33), (2) hear the voice of God (Jn. 5:25), (3) do the things of the law (Rom. 2:14-15, and (4) be provoked unto emulation (Rom. 11:14-15). In a similar vein, one should notice the usage of “dead” in the phrase “dead to sin” (Rom. 6:2). Does this mean that a man cannot commit sin until God acts upon him to cause him to be able to sin? Certainly not! The man who would so state would be soundly rebuked for pressing a biblical metaphor beyond its intended usage.

Col. 2:13 offers a divine definition of what it means to be “dead in sin.” There, Paul wrote, “And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.” Notice that the Colossians, like the Ephesians, were dead in sin. However, they were made alive (quickened). They were made alive by this method: “having forgiven you all trespasses.” Hence, a man who is dead in sin is simply an unforgiven man! Those who make this phrase men a man who cannot act spiritually to do anything with reference to his salvation should be consistent by saying that a man who is “dead to sin” cannot act so as to commit a sin! One is no more wrong than the other.

Conclusion

When we consider salvation by grace through faith, we need to begin by stating man’s need for salvation. All men are “dead in their trespasses and sins.” We all stand before the Lord unforgiven and doomed to an eternity in Hell. Having committed sin, we each deserve the just penalty for sin-death! Yet, man’s deplorable condition is not hopeless. Continue this study with me next week to see what God has done to save sinful men.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 25, pp. 403-405
June 21, 1979