Truth Magazine

By Jeffrey Kingry

The first step in finding the rich life, is finding out what it is not! Many view a rich life as one of indulgence, cessation of conflict, wealth, power, or esteem from men. The rich life has nothing to do with what the world considers worthy.

The call of the Christian is not to create a “Christian Society” – a world adhering to the principles of Christ. God has informed us that this will never come to pass anyway (Matt. 7:13; Jas. 4:4). Neither is it the Christian’s duty or responsibility to solve the world’s problems. This world, and more specifically, our society, has many tragic inequities and injustices that are totally beyond solution by the Christian. Rather, the Christian is called upon to live a new life. That he can and must do.

The Good Life Is Not Success

We live in a technological civilization that socially judges “success” by materialistic standards. This is not a political or an economic article, but unfortunately, many brethren have a view of themselves and other’s living as “successful” based upon humanistic, political reasoning and standards.

For instance, following World War II, the United States’ success in mass production, transportation, and communication won a global war. Our wealth and abundance of material resources developed a mind in many that centralization of oversight, pooling of wealth, and massive application of material resources would solve any problem. It did not work, of course, politically or militarily, but it kept a lot of people busy. Applied to religion, it was disastrous.

Even following the debacle of the past twenty-five years, we are still told by those ambitious men of purpose, “If a thing works, it is good; If it does not work, it is not good.” Big is better than little. More is better than less. We have developed an institution and instrumental view of values and people. Accomplishing an end is more important than the effect it may have on the people or the quality of their life. Whether it be a war in Korea, or Viet Nam or the Herald of Truth – the results of the thinking are the same. We even see it among those who oppose the abuses of the past in varying degrees: specialty churches, brotherhood preachers and lines of teaching, etc. The rich life is not the “success ethic.”

Jesus was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and well acquainted with grief. He was a man from whom others hid their faces in shame and embarrassment. He was looked down on by many in contempt, and even His closest friends did not honor or esteem Him (Isa. 53:3). Jesus warned His followers to beware of success that brought the good favor of all men, and their plaudits. Only the false prophets received the glory of men (Luke 6:26). He established a standard for the disciple, that whoever would be the greatest must be the menial: the servant, the waiter, the minister, the foot-washer, boot-black, door holder, the waiter while others go ahead, the quiet while others get the glory, the humble while others bow and smile, the silent while others laugh to scorn. “Who is greater,” Jesus asked, “He that sits at meat, or he that serveth? His disciples answered him, He that sits. But, Jesus said, I am among you as one that serveth . . . .”

Success is not part of the good life, the rich life. The good is not always successful, and the successful are not always good. The Christian, if he is to find the rich life, must change his attitude towards what is indeed “success.” Rather than placing values on status, power, pride, wealth, fame, position, and strength, we need to place our value on humility, service, simplicity, integrity, sacrifice, and sharing. Divine success is just the opposite of what society admires (1 Cor. i:18-31). We need this lesson applied today more than any other. We have only to look about and see where many lay their true values. Proverbs reminds us, somewhat cynically, “Wealth maketh many friends . . . many entreat the favor of the prince: and every man is a friend of him that giveth gifts” (Prov. 19:4, 6). The Christian would do well to steer clear of the wealthy and his life-style. “When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is put before thee: and put a knife to thy throat if thou be a man given to appetite. Be not desirous of his dainties, for they are deceitful meat. Labor not to be rich: cease not from thine own wisdom” (Prow. 23:1ff).

The Good Life Is Not Status

The scriptures teach abundantly that men are of equal worth before God, each soul precious beyond compare. The parable of the lost sheep depicts God’s concern for the one in need, regardless of “success” with the ninety-nine (Luke 15:3-7). The parable of the loving father and the prodigal son further illustrates that there is no class structure or status before God, only the love of the Father for all in His family. God’s love extends even to the least worthy (Luke 15:11-32). The New Testament epistles exhort us over and over to regard one another as brethren in love and sacrifice. To live in the Kingdom does not mean that we must tear down the world’s class distinctions. There are masters and servants. Rather we are not to recognize them socially or spiritually. A man’s worth is determined by what he is, not what his status is. Equality does not mean that everyone is equal in every area, and this is not inferred in scripture. The popular myth in America is that all men have equal opportunity to climb to the top of the economic pile (we do not have that now – either in the church or out of it). Equality means that everyone should be able to participate meaningfully in life.

Equality has many implications. One is that in the church we are to eliminate hierarchial and bureaucratic relationships in which some do “significant” and more desirable work, and others do menial tasks. Too often we structure our relationships and work the same way the world does. Undue deference is given to the rich, the scholar, the executive, the popular athlete or entertainer, whose only abilities are physical or intellectual, hardly a basis for a foundation of trust and experience in matters of the spirit and quality of life. In too many relationships, some are viewed as more important than others. This is not the case in the rich life.

Some see that education is the basis for determining worth. The educated are worth more than the uneducated. They are paid more money, therefore they are worth more as people. Some even think they ought to make more money than the uneducated and be given greater deference. Who says? Certainly not God. There is no moral reason to support it. It is based upon sheer class prejudice, selfishness, pride, and snobbery. It is arrogant for some to consider themselves worth more than others.

The Good Life Is Not Wealth

Everyone should have an income that is sufficient to meet his needs. It has always been a puzzle to me why some in the church should receive (not earn) a million dollars a year and another only two thousand. Paul noted, that in the church it was not a question of some being burdened, while others live a life of wealth, but rather that each man’s basic needs be met. When the man with a million and the man with $2,000 are both Christians there should be “an equality, that your abundance might supply their want, and so that their abundance might supply your want. As it is written, He who gathered much had nothing left over, and he that had gathered little had no lack” (2 Cor. 8:13-15).

Wealth demands sharing, not out of duty, but because wealth is a stewardship. It is not ours, but has been entrusted to us by God to be used. To indulge, merely because we have abundance denies our very reason for existence. We do not exist to indulge, but to love, give, and share. Jesus said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). It is more enjoyable to share than to accumulate. Again, sharing is not done out of duty, or even because others have need (paternalism). We share that we might commune and have fellowship with our brethren and that our unselfishness might impress the unbeliever who sees the good work and glorifes God (Heb. 13:16; Acts 2:44-46; Phil. 4:10-18).

Too often, sharing is viewed as a weakness! Imagine! In our society it is viewed as a failing to be dependent upon anyone. But we are dependent on God and our brethren. We deny our humanity and our Saviour if we do not accept our dependency. To the extent that we are too proud to ask our brethren for help, we have cut ourselves off from them. To the extent that any one of substance or ability looks down on his brother in need, he has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.

In truth, wealth is too often a detriment to the rich life. Possessions bring with them dependence and addiction. Luxury weakens our ability to abstain, to wait patiently for results, and to sacrifice. People of possessions become slaves to them. One cannot serve God and possessions at the same time. One or the other must go.

Neither does wealth satisfy. Gaining more possessions merely stimulates the lust for more. It is humerous to consider some of the wealthy Christians I have known. These men do not recognize their own affluence. They complain of high taxes, prices, and debts. They explain that there are others who have much more than they do. They are often penny wise and pound foolish. They will mix half and half, shop for bargains, and yet spend thousands of dollars for a car too big for their needs, a home too ostentatious for their family, or clothes, too rich by far. Time recently ran an’ article on the poor affluent. They described “poor” families of only $25,000 or $30,000 a year who could not “get by” on their large salary. There is a limit to what one can consume and still stay healthy. Just as overeating will produce obesity and its attendant problems, so “possessing” has a limit, beyond which one cannot stay healthy. “Having food and raiment, be therewith content. Any more than this proceeds forth of vanity.” Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God. Man’s rich life does not consist in the abundance of the things which he possesses.

What Is The Rich Life?

Jesus said, “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and its righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you” (Matt. 6:33). The “these things” are all the physical things we will ever need: what to eat, drink, and be clothed with. It has always been those who are humble and live modest and simple lives who most often find peace, satisfaction, and meaning. Those who actively pursue fame, wealth, or glory are the least apt to be happy. The rich life is a simple life. When one sins, and trouble enters his life, his quality of life is cluttered, disordered, hampered, and hectic. Those we read about in scriptures who were closest to God were men like John the Baptist who was unaware of the King’s dainties, or soft clothing. Jesus depended on the care of the brethren for His needs, having not even a place to lay his head He could call His own. The-apostle Paul possessed but a few scraps of writing material, a book or two, and one cloak. Compared to the “successful” preacher of today with a different change of clothing for every night of the meeting, Paul is a shabby embarrassment.

Joy and happiness are not found in things, but in us and in other people. Wealth and richness are in a state of being, rather than in what we might possess. Richness is in what we are or can become, not in things. If richness is in terms of dollars, then dollars can be taken away, and we can lose what we thought we had. The rich put their trust in riches to protect them and provide for them. The Christian puts his trust in God, and rich or poor financially, his richness can never be taken away from him.

Our standard of living should be thought of in terms of quality of life – what brings challenge, fulfillment, happiness, growth, maturity – rather than quantity of things, or our relative success over others. The good life cannot be bought with money. It is a life unencumbered, uncluttered, and disentangled in the things of this life.

“Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money come ye and buy, and eat; yea come, and buy wine and milk without money, and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? And labour for that which satisfieth not? Hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness” (Isa. 55:1, 2). The full life, the fat life, is found in the simplicity that is in Christ and His example.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 19, pp. 313-315
May 10, 1979

By Donald P. Ames

For some time the moral trend of this nation has been a genuine source of concern for many. It looks as if that trend is going to get worse before it gets better – at least if the IRS has its way and if trends do not change. The Suburban Observer, published in Cicero, Illinois (Dec. 14, 1978), carried the following article:

Will There Be Quota For Homosexuals In Private Schools?

Under the proposed IRS guidelines to determine if certain tax-exempt private schools are “racially non-discriminatory,” discrimination on the basis of religion, sex and sexual preference (a euphemism for homosexuality) would still be allowed. Why? IRS spokesman Leon Levine says this is so because the “public policy” against racial discrimination is more “distinct” than in these other areas. Does this mean that once “public policy” is distinctly against discrimination on the basis of religion, sex and sexual preference that private schools, including religious schools, will lose or be denied a tax exemption if they indulge in any of these things? Another IRS source, who prefers anonymity, says: “You can count on it, yes.”

ERA, and other organizations seeking its promotion, has been moving this nation in the direction of freedom from moral restraint now for several years. Recent efforts to bar teachers in California from teaching and promoting homosexuality failed to pass because of the mass support given those seeking to give the move a bad name. But, if trends do not reverse soon, “public policy” will soon be dictating to private schools how many homosexuals they must accept to remain active. Then what? Churches?

Such activity is getting out of hand and borders on downright stupidity! But, if we do not speak up, we had better look out! God still calls it a sin, and those who practice shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

Truth Magazine XXIII: 18, p. 312
May 10, 1979

By Billy C. Williams

Before I answer Weldon Warnock’s last article, it is necessary to explain the role each one plays in this exchange. It is not unlike a jury trial in which there are prosecutor, defendant, jury and judge. In this case, Weldon assumes the stance of prosecutor, I am the defendant and the readers are the jury. The judge? I think Weldon wants that job too. Because I was accused, I am on the defensive and am forced to answer and explain. Always in such cases it is presumed that the accuser is correct in his views and the accused is wrong. The accused must answer yes or no to the charges. And upon that evidence alone he is pronounced guilty. Thus, it was put to me that I will be allowed to “exonerate” myself, meaning I can either plead guilty or recant. Well, you can be sure this defendant has no intention of letting anyone dictate his answers. Too many questions and accusations were made to answer all in this small space. So just the major points will be covered.

Since he hinted that I was “fired” by a church because I taught false doctrine, I must say something, though I had hoped it would not be necessary. Weldon’s flippant remark that I was not fired “because of the way he parted his hair,” is unbecoming. It is still true that no one would say that I taught false doctrine. The only “point of doctrine” brought against me was that I condemned in general the partyism and factious spirit so prevalent in the church today. But if Weldon wants to talk about it we could discuss the out-of-town preachers who interfered and the un-Christlike conduct of a few in and out of the congregation. But I do not think he really wants to talk about that.

He asks three questions wanting to know if I condemn members of the Christian Church for using instrumental music, and premillennial and institutional brethren. Such questions are asked because he believes one must “strictly and faithfully” obey all commandments to be saved. When this type of question is asked, I get the distinct impression that it is feared someone will be saved who does not deserve it. Is it possible that some wretched perverter of truth will rise from the dead, overpower the host of heaven, and walk through the Pearly Gates in defiance of God?

To answer his questions: If one deliberately and wilfully disobeys God’s law or does presumptuous sin (presuming to change or act in defiance of God’s laws), he is surely condemned as long as he continues in that sin (Num. 15:22-30; Heb. 10:26ff). But if he, in ignorance, transgresses God’s law while earnestly desiring to serve Him faithfully, I do not find any passage that allows me to condemn him. He is no more a sinner than I am. And we are both guilty (Rom. 3:10, 23). Many people want to judge others according to their own understanding. But our Lord specifically warned against it (Matt. 7:1-5). For one to demand of others perfect obedience to all of God’s commandments (as he sees it), he commits a twofold error. In the first place, the individual must understand completely all of God’s Word. What man or woman has ever lived, besides Christ, who could claim such knowledge? Is my salvation and yours dependent upon intellectual supremacy? The second error is the assumption that anyone can in fact obey God perfectly. If anyone ever could perfectly obey God in all things, without sin, then why did Christ suffer for us? Let us be careful of our presumptions and demands.

Some have turned the Lord’s church into a business or social club to satisfy their own lusts; some seek to be entertained by their instruments of music and know nothing of worshiping God in song; others dethrone the Christ and say He died because He failed. These all stand self-condemned! But there are faithful brethren who honestly believe they can use institutions in the church, worship with instruments, or that Christ will return and reign over an earthly kingdom. Are they condemned because they do not understand these things as I do? I do not presume to so judge them. The understanding of each one is different and at different levels of growth. Are we all supposed to have the same knowledge? It is impossible!

Brother Warnock readily condemns those who use instruments or support institutions. Why does he stop there? What about the covering, one cup, or women’s slacks? Will he also condemn those who disagree with him on those issues? I would really like to know his answer to that one. If he will not condemn them, then just what makes one issue worse than another? If we all accept Christ and trust in Him, why is one ostracized and another fellowshipped?

Now what has all this got to do with the plan of salvation? There is a logical connection. If the “Plan” is BRCB then it is a ritual to be jealously defended. But if the Plan is Christ, the “ritual” becomes our natural and logical response to the Plan, namely Christ’s sacrifice for us. And if Christ is the Plan we will reject sectarianism and become only Christians.

Weldon states that he has never known one Christian who believes we earn salvation, and challenges me to name one. Now pay close attention to the following:

He distinguishes between who and what saves. The who is Christ (bless his heart!), and the “what is several things.” Then he gives “conditions” – grace, gospel, word, work, faith, baptism, and ourselves. Skipping over his misuse of some scriptures, I will say that those things are valid only as they relate to Christ and His work of righteousness (2 Cor. 5:14-21). Then Weldon quotes me as I quoted from Eph. 2 and says “Peter says differently. Listen to an apostle,” – and he quotes Acts 10:35. Dear reader, who wrote Ephesians? Wasn’t it Paul? Wasn’t he an apostle too? He is still having trouble convincing folks of his apostleship. Then Weldon says that teaching BRCB is “telling people what . . . they must obey in order to be saved,” “emphasis is placed on keeping the commandments of God.” He quotes and misquotes some passages in John and 1 John. Then he says, “Jesus saves our souls by obedience to his commands.” Under the new law . . . we have forgiveness by obeying his commandments in order to appropriate his grace . . . . Jesus’s law is a law of grace wherein forgiveness is offered . . . by obedient faith.”

Notice carefully what he has said. He claims that command keeping is our salvation. And the specific commands he has reference to are belief-repentance-confession-baptism. According to Warnock, we are forgiven because we obeyed (BRCB) and thereby appropriated His grace. His use of “appropriate” is interesting. It means to take possession of. Does he mean that one who has done BRCB takes possession of God’s grace and thus owns His favor because of that obedience? Think about it.

Brethren, I think I have found one who believes that BRCB is what saves us and we thereby earn salvation. Furthermore, look at his phrase “law of grace.” If he meant the principle of grace, he would be right. But I think he means a system of legal grace whereby we merit grace through law keeping. Read Gal. 2:16-21; Rom. 3:20-31; 6:14. In these passages and others the original language omits the article “the” with “law;” which means it is talking about the principle of law, and it is not arguing for one law against another law (Christ against Moses).

Weldon quotes from 1 Jn. 3:22, 24 omitting vs. 23. Read it. The command to obey is stated.

I have not said that we do not have to obey God’s commands. We most certainly do. But we are not saved by our command-keeping. We are saved by Christ’s commandkeeping (Heb. 10:7). Because salvation by law-keeping is possible only by perfect obedience and we cannot do it. (Rom. 3:23: 4:4; Gal. 3:10, 11; Jas. 1:10). Christ kept law perfectly and made atonement for sin (Heb. 9:22-28). So we turn to Christ and through Him gain salvation. We begin by responding naturally and logically to His work of love. BRCB is not works of righteousness (Phil. 3:9; Tit. 3:5; Gal. 3:23-29). There is no merit in our doing of those things. Instead those things point to the One who does merit God’s approval (Matt. 3:17; 17:5; Heb. l; Rev. 5)

Let us stop preaching salvation by command-keeping and start preaching salvation by Christ. Stop proclaiming a “plan” that we do and start praising God for His glorious work of salvation.

I have stated clearly that BRCB is only our response to Christ. Christ is our Lord and Savior and we must honor him in all that we do, which includes righteous living. We are not created anew in Christ to do evil but righteousness (Rom. 6; 1 Jn. 2:6; 3:1-10). Doing righteousness is the result of our new relationship to Christ. It is not the cause of our salvation.

Why would anyone argue against salvation in Christ?

Who is your Savior? Is it Christ or BRCB?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 19, pp. 311-312
May 10, 1979

By Weldon E. Warnock

Well, Brother Billy Williams has been finally “smoked out of the woodpile.” All can now see his true color (if they want to). His article in Truth Magazine made it crystal clear where he stands.

He had crept into the Sciotoville church at Portsmouth, Ohio, unawares, and almost immediately began laying the groundwork to take the church into the Ketcherside Arnold Hardin-Edward Fudge Camp. Before he was able to accomplish this task, the brethren detected his strategy and terminated his services. Billy said in his article, “And no one would say (at Sciotoville) that I taught false doctrine.” They did not fire him because of the way he parted his hair. Billy is now a member where Arnold Hardin preaches. That tells us something.

As you observed from Brother Williams’ article, he does not like to put emphasis on law, commandments and obedience. There is a reason for this. If a person must strictly and faithfully abide in the commandments of the Lord to be saved, then Billy would not be able to find room for the salvation of the Christian Church people, the premillennial brethren or the institutional brethren. By relying on the grace of Christ and his righteousness, sincere baptized believers are accepted by Christ, even though they are not keeping all of His commandments. Is not this what you believe, Billy?

Brother Williams, I ask you some questions and be man enough to face them head-on.

(1) Are members of the Christian Church who trust in the blood and righteousness of Christ, condemned, even though they use instrumental music in worship? Now come on, and answer this question forthrightly.

(2) Are the premillennial brethren who trust in the blood and righteousness of Christ, condemned, even though they deny that Jesus is now King, deny the kingdom is now here and the church is just an accident?

(3) Are the institutional brethren who pervert the organization of the church, condemned, even though they trust in the blood of Christ and his righteousness?

Brother Williams, I am not asking whether you believe instrumental music in worship, or premillennialism or church support of human institutions is wrong, but rather whether you believe those people are condemned who espouse those false doctrines? I challenge you to answer these questions.

Now then, let us address ourselves more to his article in particular. Nobody among us denies that Jesus is Savior and Redeemer. Billy, you are “riding a dead horse” and “milking a dry cow” to accuse brethren of such. Nobody in the church believes what you are implying. I have never known of one Christian, and neither has Billy Williams, who believes that belief, repentance, confession and baptism are our Savior or that we earn salvation. Name one, Billy?

All my brethren teach that Jesus saves, but He saves conditionally. These conditions constitute the plan (method, procedure) of salvation that the sinner is to obey. Billy does not know the difference, seemingly, between who saves and what saves. The who is Jesus (Mt. 1:21; 1 Tim. 1:15). The what is several things. All work together in the forgiveness of our sins by Jesus. Notice:

(1) Grace saves. “. . . . by grace ye are saved” (Eph. 2:5).

(2) Gospel saves: ” . . . . it is the power of God unto salvation . . .” (Rom. 1:16).

(3) Word saves: ” . . . . receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls” (Jas. 1:21).

(4) Works save: ” . . . . though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him” (Jas. 2:14)?

(5) Faith Saves: ” . . . . believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved” (Rom. 10:9).

(6) Baptism saves: ” . . . . baptism doth also now save us . . .” (1 Pet. 3:21).

(7) Save ourselves: ” . . . . Save yourselves from this untoward generation” (Acts 2:40). Brethren, if we would just let the Bible speak for itself, and accept it, we would have no problems.

True, nowhere is the phrase, “plan of salvation,” found in the Bible. However, Billy uses it, anyway. He says the notion is in Eph. 1:3-14. That is true in a broad sense. But the notion (to use his word) is also found in a limited sense in Acts 2:36-38; 16:30-33; 22:10-16, referring to conditions. God has a plan (conditions of pardon) for alien sinners to meet. Peter told the Jews on Pentecost to “save yourselves” (Acts 2:40). In other words, comply with the conditions of pardon. Billy, may the requirements for a sinner to be saved be called, “a plan”?

Brother Williams said, “We are not saved by works (Eph. 2:8-10). Any works.” Well, Brother Peter says differently. Listen to an apostle: “But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh (emp. mine) righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10:35). Brother James wrote, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (Jas. 2:24). It is hard to believe that Brother Williams made such a statement in direct contradiction to the Word of God.

Gospel obedience is not meritorious works. No one is turning BRCB into works of merit, but telling lost people what our Savior said they must obey in order to be saved. Billy, you are “barking up the wrong tree.” You are chasing a track that is not even there. You are not even cold trailing.

Preaching Christ crucified is preaching His Word. When the apostles and others preached what a man must do to be saved, they were preaching Christ. When Philip preached Jesus to the Samaritans (Acts 8:5, 12), he preached the kingdom, the name of Jesus and baptism. Philip later preached Jesus to the Eunuch, and among other things, he preached baptism (Acts 8:34-39). Certainly, he preached Christ and Him crucified, but in that sermon he preached baptism. Peter commanded Cornelius and household to be baptized (Acts 10:48). Billy says baptism is a response. Why not call it a command?

Paul had to do a little preaching on baptism at Ephesus to get those disciples straightened out on the difference between John’s baptism and Christ’s baptism. Of course, they had to get their faith right – faith in a resurrected Christ. So do we.

When we preach belief, repentance, confession, baptism, we are preaching that a person has to have (1) faith in the divinity of Jesus (Jn. 8:24), faith in His humanity (1 Jn. 4:2), faith in His blood (Rom. 3:24-25) and faith in His resurrection (Rom. 10:9), (2) a turning from sin to Christ in the act of repentance (Acts 17:30-31), (3) a declaration of the Lordship and Sonship of Jesus (Acts 8:37), and, (4) baptism into Christ to appropriate the blood and be saved by his grace (Rom. 6:3-4).

Billy, what is wrong with the preceding doctrine – the four points? You say, “Our `plan’ (BRCB) is no better than anybody else’s `plan’.” I would bow my head in shame for advocating that God’s plan, as outlined above, is no better than the plans of a bunch of sectarians. Can you blame the brethren at Portsmouth, Ohio for asking Brother Williams to move? We commend their courage and love for the truth.

In the New Testament much emphasis is placed on keeping the commandments of God. Jesus said, “if ye love me, keep my commandments” (Jn. 14:15). “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me . . .” (Jn. 14:21). “If a man love me, he will keep my words . . .” (Jn. 14:23). “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love . . .” (Jn. 15:10). Love for Jesus is shown by law-keeping. Is one meriting Jesus’ love by strict adherence to His commandments? Certainly not!

John wrote, “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments” (1 Jn. 2:3). “And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him . . .” (1 Jn. 3:22-23). “By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments” (I Jn. 5:2). “And this is love, that we walk after his commandments . . .” (2 Jn. 6).

If preaching obedience to the commandments of God makes me a legalist, then I am a legalist. Whatever doing the will of the Lord makes me, I am it! I offer no apologies. Jesus saves our souls by obedience to His commands. “Blessed are they that do his commandments that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city” (Rev. 22:14, emp. mine). Jesus is the “author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him” (Heb. 5:9).

Peter wrote, “Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit . . .” (1 Pet. 1:22). Paul told Timothy, “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee” (1 Tim. 4:16).

Poor old John, Peter and Paul. They did not know that when people obey the commands of God that they are earning their salvation by doing meritorious works. They had not read Baptists manuals or heard Baptist preachers.

The following quotations will show us where Brother Williams is getting his doctrine. In fact, the quotes sound about like what Brother Williams wrote.

Pendleton’s Baptist Church Manual, p. 48: “. . . that justification includes the pardon of sin, and the promise of eternal life on principles of righteousness; that it is bestowed, not in consideration of any works of righteousness which we have done, but solely through faith in the Redeemer’s blood; by virtue of which faith in his perfect righteousness is free imputed to us of God.”

Philadelphia Confession of Faith, pp. 30-31: “. . . and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ sake alone.”

Brother Williams stated that Jesus nailed the law to the cross and gave a system of grace. Is he trying to tell us that we do not have to obey law now, but just rely on God’s grace? I am aware that Jesus nailed the law of Moses to the cross, but He did not nullify law. Paul said, “Do we then make void law through faith? God forbid: Yea, we establish law” (Rom. 3:31, ASV footnote). We are under the law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2; Jas. 1:25).

Certainly, we are not under a system that requires perfect obedience to law for justification. That was the situation in the Old Testament (Rom. 2:13) because there was no remission of sins in it. The blood of Christ was not in the Old Testament. But under the new law, the law of Christ, we have forgiveness by obeying His commandments in order to appropriate His grace. Hence, Jesus’ law is a law of grace wherein forgiveness is offered to the violaters by obedient faith.

In conclusion, I ask you, the reader, if Brother Williams has been misrepresented? I am persuaded the unbiased can see that he was accurately portrayed. We did not misunderstand him. We knew exactly where he was coming from. Joining up with Arnold Hardin further substantiates our judgment. His accusing me of slander, dishonesty, trying to prejudice, subtlety, innuendo, lying, gossiping and backbiting, all in one article, is the best Brother Williams has in trying to defend his position. Some of his personal letters are of the same character when he is challenged.

Friends, the fox has been caught in the chicken house and he does not like it.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 19, pp. 309-310
May 10, 1979