Truth Magazine

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

It is this writer’s firm conviction that what is being taught by the “Grace-Unity” brethren is indeed Calvinism. I have nothing personal against these fellows and have tried to honestly understand what they are saying. I do not believe that we are misrepresenting them and I resent their counter charges of our rebuttals as constituting Catholicism. I know of no one who teaches that righteousness is infused into the sinner, nor do we believe that justification is based on meritorious works, let alone the works of the law of Moses.

Ensign Fair, The Persuaded and other publications espousing Calvinistic heresy would have us believe, among other things, the following: (1) what they say and what those who oppose them are saying is basically a matter of “semantics” (The Persuaded, August 6, 1978). No doubt some semantics are involved, but this is not the general case. (2) Those who oppose them are “a few hard-headed preacher-types” and “underlings” (ibid.). In addition to this is the charge that we are creating a “party spirit” and because we believe we are under law to Christ (1 Cor. 9:2), we are legalists. There is much we would like to say here, but space forbids it.

When we charge one with Calvinism we should make certain that we understand what we mean. We do not want to misrepresent anyone. When we speak of the present issues involving Calvinism, we do not mean “classic Calvinism.” As Brother Tom Roberts points out, “classic Calvinism” is the TULIP concept, i.e., Total Hereitary Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the saints, the first letter of each composing TULIP (The Perfector, August 7, 1978). If what is taught now is not corrected then the next generation will advocate “classic Calvinism,” for this is the direction into which brethren are going. Here is what is now being taught: man has no ability to respond to God’s grace for justification is by “grace only.” We who believe that the Bible teaches that conditions of salvation must be met are charged with “meritorious law keeping,” hence a “work-righteousness.” Perhaps it can be better understood by observing the following:

“Outside of Man”

We are hearing a lot these days about “justification outside of man.” Look at it: “justification means to be pronounced righteous. It is a legally declared righteousness outside the sinner” (Emphasis mine, jt, The Persuader, July 23, 1978). “The doctrine of justification by an imputed (outside-of-me) righteousness directs us to find salvation in a saving event which is completely outside of us” (Emphasis mine, jt, Robert Brinsmead, The Ensign Fair, July 1978, p. 3).

What this means is that there is no work of any fashion regarded by God as effective in securing salvation by grace. There is a denial that faith, repentance, and baptism are works or conditions of salvation or grace. I see this as an outgrowth of Total Hereditary Depravity involving the inability of man to do anything to be saved. It is said that justification is by faith only and that this faith is a gift of God. Since man can do nothing to secure his salvation, every act performed in acquiring justification is “outside of man.” It is instead a justification unto life by the atoning work of Christ in an historical event. Martin Luther expressed it this way: he said “righteousness of faith (i.e., the righteousness of Christ) is a passive righteousness because we have it while we do nothing for it” (The Persuader, July 23, 1978). He further taught that it is by “faith alone” (ibid.). this means that-it in no way rests on performance (see Melvin Curry on “Salvation by Grace*- Through Faith,” Florida College Lectures, 1975). “Grace-Unity” brethren are forced by their position into a faith as a gift position. This means that faith is a gift of God through the spirit, not self-generated in man by the hearing of sufficient evidence (cf. Rom. 10:17). Compare this to the pure Calvinism of the Christian Reformed Church, article 22: “we believe that, to attain the true knowledge of this great mystery (i.e., “Our Justification Through Faith in Jesus Christ,” title of article 22, jt), the Holy Spirit kindles in our hearts upright faith, which embraces Jesus Christ with all His merits . . .” Again: “therefore we justly say with Paul, that we are justified by faith alone” (Article 22). Finally, R.L. Kilpatrick, in Ensign Fair, July 1978, talks about the “Alone Theology.” He says, “Any theology that injects the human element in God’s work of redemption is false theology . . . . Any theology that teaches salvation by anything other than grace alone is false theology. Any theology that teaches salvation by anything other than faith alone is false theology . . . . None of these terms are contradictory. They say the same thing.” How in the world can “grace only” and “faith only” say the same thing? If salvation is by grace alone, how can it be by faith alone? Paul says, “by grace are ye saved through faith” (Eph. 2:8). He says too, “we have access by faith into this grace” (Rom 5:2). “Grace” and “faith” do not mean the same thing and when “only” is added to them, they do contradict. So you see, brethren, when we compare what some of our brethren are saying with what the Calvinists are saying, they are identical. Yes sir, it is Calvinism.

Faith and Works

Summed up, it is argued that salvation is by grace alone, founded in the sacrifice of Christ who only is and wholly righteous, and that this righteousness is imputed to the sinner, so that God no longer sees the sins of the sinner, but only the righteousness of Christ instead. All works or conditions are excluded and we are not subject to any law (Jas. 2:24; 1 Cor. 9:21).

However, while salvation is not conditioned upon works of merit or the law of Moses, we are subject to the “royal law” or “law of Christ.” There are conditions (or, works) to be met. Righteousness is a gift through grace. But nowhere do the Scriptures teach that the perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner so as to cover sins. Righteousness is a gift bestowed upon the individual so that he is counted as one without guilt, a righteousness received through the merits of our Lord’s blood upon the conditions of obedient faith. To speak of “conditions of obedient faith” is not to say that it is meritorious in nature. Our response to the “Grace-Unity” brethren is not Catholicism. If brethren, without colored glasses tainted with Calvinism would restudy “law” as taught in the Bible, they would recognize the importance of such passages as 1 Cor. 9:21 and not be frightened every time “law” is mentioned. Nor would they cry Catholicism every time “law” is mentioned. They could also see that when Paul says that we are justified “without the deeds of the law” (Rom. 3:28), he was talking about legalistic Jewish and Gentile law (Rom. 2:14-15). James, on the other hand, when speaking of works (2:24) had reference to those works which faith must have so as not to be alone.

Look at the case of Abraham in Romans 4: He was justified by faith, not by works (vs. 1; 3). Genesis 15:6 shows that his justification was by faith in contrast with the law. He was promised a son and a multitude of descendants. He responded by believing God and God counted Abraham’s faith unto him for righteousness. God promised (His provision) great blessings and Abraham responded by believing. In consequence God reckoned his faith for righteousness. In verses 4-8, David (Psa. 32:1-2), shows that while righteousness is imputed without works, it is conditioned on forgiveness of iniquities (cf. 7-8). That is why we stress that conditions of forgiveness must be met. This, we repeat, is neither meritorious nor Catholicism. Verses 9-11 or Romans 4 shows that Abraham was blessed by faith before the giving of the law of Moses, hence, without law, and before circumcision was instituted (Gen. 17). Abraham became the “father of all them that believe,” both Jews and Gentiles who would likewise believe to the saving of their souls (vs. 17-18). Beginning with verse 19 Abraham’s faith is demonstrated to be an active faith with the ultimate design of his faith pertaining to later generations (vs. 23-25). Even us to whom faith is reckoned for righteouness which involved the atoning work of Christ. The doctrine of justification by faith relates to the principle set forth in Romans 3:24-31. Abraham is an example of a great proponent of faith, but a faith that obeyed (Jas. 2:21-23; Heb. 11:8), and it was imputed to him for righteousness. So you see, we need to clearly understand the type of works by which Abraham was not justified as taught in Romans 4 and this will help us to understand the “works” of James 2. James teaches deeds of faith – an obedience necessarily involved in Scriptural faith. By all means, justification involves obedience to God!

Conclusion

The gospel, called the “law of faith” (Rom. 3:27), requires conditions of faith in becoming a Christian and in continuing as such (1 Jno. 1:7-9). The Christian walks by faith (2 Cor. 5:7). Perfection is not involved in the sense of perfect law keeping and provision has been made for the inability of man. As Brother Marshall Patton has so ably pointed out many times both in writing and preaching, there are absolute and relative commands. In the case of being “buried” and “raised,” in baptism (Col. 2:12), you have an absolute situation, the obedience to which is not determined by relation to anything else. You are either “buried” and “raised,” or you are not. Relative commands (Christian graces for example, 2 Pet. 1:5-11), are determined by time, opportunity, and ability. The conditions of faith in relative commands are found in the phrase “giving all diligence.” Lard expresses it a little differently: “partial obedience to the law is the only obedience possible to man; perfect obedience to conditions is the only obedience acceptable to God” (Lard’s Quarterly, Vol. III, pp. 20-21). Look at Galatians 3, observing that to Abraham the promise of faith of Jesus was given (v. 7, 9) to them that believe (v. 22). Verses 26-29 show the conditions of that faith resulting in our being Abraham’s seed.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 11, pp. 186-187
March 15, 1979

By Wallace H. Little

Historically, the Datus were the men who were leaders in the communities of the south. In time, these accumulated to themselves power over larger areas than just the barrios where they lived. The development was a natural thing, and evolved over a period of time. Originally, these men were just the unofficial leaders in the sense that others, recognizing their wisdom, would come to them for advice and guidance. In times of disaster or danger, their leadership was sought and accepted. Then in time, their positions gradually changed from an unofficial one to that which was generally accepted as official. They became the law. They maintained their position by virtue of their ability, however, and usually they were not passed from father to son. Thus, the borders of influence of each community with a Datu would expand or shrink depending on the individual ability of the particular Datu governing at the moment. Some were so powerful they were able to stave off the Spanish and all other would-be conquerors. Others compromised with these, and some became satrap rulers under the invaders. But all ruled their own areas, to a greater or lesser extent, and the community was loyal to them.

In matters of family, loyalty is important, and in some cases, critical if we are to understand the situation in the Philippines in spreading the gospel there. We in the U.S., even with the Vietnam-debacle and our subsequent decrying of national patriotism, still sustain and continue to maintain a great degree of affinity with and respect for our nation as a nation. We might expect to find a similar feeling in other nations, including the Philippines. When we do not find it as we know it in the U.S., we are surprised. But that is not the worst effect. The reaction of the Philippine Christian in some situations is largely governed by the matter of family loyalty. It is sort of a chain of power. The closest ties exist between husband and wife. I have known women there to be so loyal to their husbands that even when the husband had been convicted of a crime and sent to jail, they continue to believe he could not possibly be guilty, and that the government, in spite of the evidence, was wrong. I am speaking of Christians. This type of loyalty exists in virtually all cultures there that I am familiar with. It is only slightly diminished toward other members of the family. Hence, when misconduct on the part of a preacher there is discovered, he can often lead off part of or perhaps the entire congregation where he was preaching, convincing them that he is innocent on his word only, and do this in the face of a pile of evidence. If the congregation is partly made up of family and relatives, so much the easier. This loyalty, is centered in the husband and wife relationship, extends only slightly diminished to the immediate family, then to a lesser degree to other relatives, to the tribe, to the barrio or community, to the city, the sub-province, the province and finally, remote now, the nation. At each stage, it weakens and diminishes; by the time it goes beyond the local community, its force is much less. If the transition from the barrio outward also includes a breaking of solidarity of family relationship, its force is weakened even more. The present national leaders are deliberately cultivating a feeling of nationalism, and in time, I believe they will succeed in producing it. But for now, the Filipino sees his loyalty virtually ending when the borders of the barrier or community are crossed.

This feeling of loyalty will cause one to support and urge the recommending of one who shares it, and likewise urge the rejection of one who does not. It will be subtle, but it will be there. The one who enjoys the loyalty will receive a stronger recommendation than the one who does not, regardless of the merits of the two individuals. We might not like this, but we need to face the fact of it, because it is indeed a fact of life there.

The introduction of Tagalog (one of the three major dialects) as the national language, being taught in all schools at all levels is designed, along with other purposes, to produce a national awareness and loyalty. Today, English is the only language common to the entire nation, however well or badly each may handle it. In a generation, the Philippines will be a bi-lingual nation with Tagalog taking its place along side of English as the other major language. But we are dealing with today, and the existing diversity of language, and the need to convert people with what we have available or can get now. While Tagalog will, in time, assist in breakdown of the intense structure of loyalty, today this does create difficulties. It is my conclusion that many if not most of the ever-present preacher-jealousy stems from this family-centered loyalty which excludes those outside its framework. The family-loyalty situation has some interesting and important manifestations. One is the “vendetta.” It is not so prevalent today in its original form (“Death to the one who brought injury to the family!”). While the harshness of its impact may have been reduced, other forms still occur. For example, if a man was preaching the gospel and had obtained support and considered this only a “good job” and if he later loses his support, and he or others in the family suspect this loss happened because another Filipino preacher “blew the whistle on him,” he and his family might go to great lengths to get revenge. These may well include false charges brought against “his enemy,” a whisper campaign to undermine his personal reputation, the writing of letters to his U.S. supporters against him, an attempt to enlist others in both nations against him, plus whatever additional efforts he can think of. By no means all, or even most of the Filipino preachers would do such things; Christianity has taught them their first loyalty is to God. But there have been some who have engaged in these activities, even unto the present time.

The vendetta is not all that far beneath the surface of some there, even in its ultimate form-death. For a man to seduce a woman could very well involve him in the situation where he would become the target of an assassination attempt either personally carried out by another member of the family, or financed by the family. I know of one current situation where a woman’s moral reputation has been openly criticized, where several others in the family had to be persuaded not to go out and themselves kill the man who made the accusations (false ones, incidentally). While it is true, those who wanted to do the killing were not Christians, others in the family were.

Sometimes the vendetta-concept is used when the family believes the wrong done against them or one of its members will not or cannot be righted by the appropriate government. At other times, those within the family feel so strongly, they believe they have a prior right to revenge, and the government ought not to become involved at all.

The family-loyalty-concept has another consequence which bears directly on the support being provided various men there by different U.S. churches of Christ and individual Christians, too. A man might obtain a good (by their standards) job, with an income from it higher than some other members of the family who are living and working elsewhere. One evening, he returns from his job and finds some of these relatives there at the house. They are not there for a visit, but to move in and stay with him Understanding the family-loyalty situation, he often feels he has little choice but to do so. Among the non-Christians, this is of course a problem we are not personally concerned with. But among Christians, and especially where a man is supported in his preaching from the U.S., we are very definitely concerned. I know of more than one instance where a preacher, faced with this situation, has sent a panicked letter to his supporters, and to me and other Americans who have been there, seeking a large increase in support immediately. It took some time to understand what was behind his appeal, and then to understand his reluctance to “throw the bums out.” Fortunately, the more mature and experienced saints there realize they must not permit themselves to be so imposed on. But unfortunately, some other do not. This has resulted in them seeking a level of support far beyond their valid needs. I do not recommend such. 2 Thess. 3:10 applies to their lazy relatives as well as ours.

Another result of the family-loyalty concept is to “rally around” when this seems appropriate. For example, a man may be preaching for a small congregation, and be doing a good job, yet feel dissatisfied with the numerical results. So he tries even harder to convert his relatives, but is unsuccessful. But if an American preacher comes to that congregation on a preaching visit, many of the non-Christian members of the family will attend every service as long as the American is there, to give the impression that the church is numerically larger than is actually the case.

Probably no other area in our relationship with the Filipino brethren has as much confusion and misunderstanding developed as in this one which centers in family loyalty. Consequently, as Americans we need to understand it, to know why certain things happen there, so we be not discouraged and wearied in well-doing (Gal. 6:9). The American tendency to impetuousness and hasty action is often rubbed the wrong way by the consequences of the Filipino family-loyalty. Not understanding it, we fail to understand its effects, and cut off support from a man when we ought not to do so. And at times U.S. churches thus become discouraged about all Filipino preachers, and all work overseas. This ought not to be.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 11, pp. 184-185
March 15, 1979

By Earl E. Robertson

Of Christ, Paul says, “Who have himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good works” (Titus 2:14).

A tremendously expensive price has been paid by our Lord that we might become His very own; He gave Himself for us, the verse says! This He did freely. .His death on Calvary’s cross was like that of a criminal. Yet, He did not sin, neither was guile found in His mouth (1 Pet. 2:22). No man could ever convince Him of sin (John 8:46). Yet, one of His own disciples placed a filthy kiss from his putrescent lips upon Him for those who waited to take Him like a hunted desperado. He was removed from the garden that night and shuffled back and forth before different men for trial-all of them illegal trials (Isa. 53:8). It was here that He experienced loneliness and untold agonies of inhuman brutalities, and was heard in that He feared (Heb. 5:7). With great drops of sweat falling freely from His torture-racked body, He cried, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

His Purpose in such a gift was “that he might redeem us.” All have sinned and the wages of sin is death (Rom. 3:23; 6:23). It is from this death that He redeems. His people are a redeemed people) redeemed from all iniquity-lawlessness.

This possession of His is a purified people. He gave Himself that He might purify-free from the guilt of sin. Every Christian should know his obligation to live a clean, Christ-honoring life (2 Cor. 7:1). “But ye are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Pet. 2:9).

His own possession is a peculiar people. They are not peculiar because of their dress, but because they are zealous of good works. His possession is created in Christ for good works, and must work out his salvation (Eph. 2:10; Phil, 2:12). Inasmuch as we are not our own, because we have been bought with blood, we must live so as to glorify Him (1Cor. 6:20).

Truth Magazine XXIII: 11, p. 183
March 15, 1979

By Bruce James

In Heb. 7:22, Jesus is said to be a surety of a better covenant. This is the only place in the New Testament that the word is used referring to Jesus. The meaning of this word and the Greek words related to it is the idea of surety, guarantee, security, pledge. And the idea here is that of someone who will never break his word and of a pledge which is certain to be fulfilled.

It must be recognized that the word surety has a number of encircling meanings. The surety must be honored even at the cost of a man’s life savings or of his life itself. The more legal meaning of the term although being used as a noun, is really an adjective meaning reliable or under good security. The subjective form of the word means a sponsor, a surety, a guarantor. This word is used of the trustees of a bank, who guarantee its solvency and who are sureties that money deposited will be honored and repaid. The last thought regarding the meaning of the word “surety” has to do with pledging oneself, as in going bail for a man. It is like our saying: “I guarantee that . . . .”

It is into these encircling ideas that the Hebrew writer brings Jesus when he says that Jesus is the guarantor of a better covenant. But what does this mean?

It simply means that Jesus is the guarantor that there is possible a new relationship between God and man. After all, that is really what a covenant is, a relationship between two parties. The old covenant’s basis was the law (Ex. 24:1-6) of Moses. But this left man in default for no man could keep it perfectly, except Jesus. And, He has shown us a new way, yes, a new relationship, a new covenant.

How can I be sure? How can I believe that it is true? Because Jesus is the guarantor of the new relationship. He did not come with words only but even in his own person it was demonstrated. Jesus said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). “The word became flesh . . .” (Jn. 1:14). Jesus has shown what God is like; He has demonstrated the mind of God; he has demonstrated God’s attitude toward man. Jesus fed the hungry, healed the sick, comforted the sorrowing and was a friend to sinners and outcasts. Jesus is the guarantor of the love of God. He lived and died to show us the heart of God. He is the surety of the possibility of the new relationship with God. What a means of encouragement and consolation that God has given to His children and to whosoever will obey the Prince of life!

Truth Magazine XXIII: 11, p. 183
March 15, 1979