Truth Magazine

By Ray Hawk

Brother Dorris V. Rader reviewed the debate between Carrol R. Sutton and this writer in the September 14, 1978 issue of Truth Magazine. Brother Rader is guilty of inaccurate reporting, misrepresentation, and putting words in my mouth. I hardly think this is Christian or fair

Brother Rader referred to a question Brother Sutton gave me on Monday night. The question was, “Do you believe the following proposition: `The Scriptures teach the church may arrange, oversee and provide for the preaching of the gospel and this arrangement is not an evangelistic organization (institution) such as the United Christian Missionary Society’?” I replied, “No.” On Wednesday night the same ,question was submitted to me and this time I saw what he was asking and replied “Yes.” Brother Sutton naturally called my contradictory answers to my attention, which I would expect him to do. I explained to him and th~,audience why I was answering it as I did that night but in the confusion of the moment, forgot which night I had given the wrong reply. However, Brother Rader has me making the following statement in your paper. “I don’t know why I answered both ways. I don’t have to explain. Which ever one is correct is what I meant.” What I said was, “I don’t believe the church can utilize it. (The United Christian Missionary Society, RM; don’t believe it has any place in preaching the gospel; and so that is the way I would answer that. So, I answered it wrong in one or the other, I’ll not take time to see whether I mis-answered it Monday night or tonight, but which ever one was correct, that’s the way I believe it. Anyway, I’ve explained what I believe on it.”

Do you brethren believe in misrepresenting a brother? Surely not. If you have the truth, you do not have to put words in a brother’s mouth to win your position.

I thought Brother Rader’s review was amusing in that he had me putting a 10 year old orphan in diapers for the church to change, but failed to explain that I used my 15 year old nephew who was in a coma and had to be diapered, but neither Rader nor Sutton took the time to remember that. I even asked Brother Sutton, “could the church take care of my 15 year old nephew (diaper him) if he was the charge of the church?” I do not remember his saying anything about that.

The debate will be printed and then folks can see whether I replied to these matters or not. It was a good debate and one that I am not ashamed of, either from the conduct of the discussion, or my part in it.

Truth Magazine XXIII: 3, p. 59
January 18, 1979

By Keith Ward

Tenuous Connections

Sometimes the connection between a scientific discovery and the Bible verse that foreknew it requires such a stretching of the understanding that credulity snaps and recoils to skepticism. We would do well to remember the rule we apply to alleged discrepancies in the Bible: “Here is a hypothesis which serves to explain and reconcile the disagreement. Now, unless our hypothesis can be proven untrue or irrational it stands and the objection (discrepancy-kw) is effectually met” (Haley, p. 53). In the same vein, if there are other rational explanations of a scripture, it is unwise and possibly wrong to assert that it points to a modern scientific discovery. Also, one hole in the rationale of the scientific foreknowledge hypothesis for a particular passage makes that interpretation untenable.

Some say that the gathering of the waters under the heavens into one place so the dry land would appear corresponds to the discovery that all oceans have one bed. If so, what of the Dead Sea, Galilee, lakes, etc. which are of the class “waters under the heavens” but are not in the one bed? Another fact is that antediluvian geography is unknowable.

Certainly, microscopic life is included in the swarms of creatures that populated the waters at God’s command (Gen 1:20). However, to inject “minute” into verse 20 as a modifier of “creatures” on etymological grounds in order to manufacture a reference for the discovery of these organisms at the invention of the microscope is, at best, questionable. Keil and Delitzsch never knew of these etymological grounds for “minute” as they say the term applies without regard to size. Weightier evidence is found in the context (v. 21) which specifically places “sea monsters and every living creature” in the waters as those that responded to God’s command to “Let the waters swarm.” Unless one is willing to affirm that sea monsters are microscopic, he should avoid this case of “Bible foreknowledge of science.”

The discovery that the universe expands is not seen in the fact that “firmament” derives from a root that means a spreading action (Gen 1:8). First, no derivation carries exactly the meaning of the root, else there would have been no need for the new word. In what way has the root meaning been modified in the derivation? Being linguistically unqualified to determine for ourselves, we are led to believe that it refers to an expanding universe. Will those who propose this use of the root meaning of a word with its derivatives apply the same logic to psallo? (It originally meant to pluck a literal instrument, but later was made figurative and primarily laying emotions, heart, etc. If I carry the root for “expand” to its derivation to interpret Gen 1:8 by what standard of fairness will I deny this priviledge to the instrumentalist who takes the root meaning of psallo to Eph 5:19?) Second, the firmament specified in v. 8 is the atmosphere and one should refer to vs. 14-17 for the use of “firmament” in relation to the universe. Since the same term “firmament is used with both universe and atmosphere, if it means one is expanding, the other must also be expanding in the same manner. Is the atmosphere expanding? No! Finally, could we not all read Genesis I all year and never exclaim. “Viola!” Since firmament of expanse derives in such and such a manner, the universe must be expanding (see key). Most of us, like the commentators, merely conclude that the firmament is a huge expanse of sky and stars, and that God expanded it over the earth. The scientific foreknowledge hypothesis in not a necessary conclusion. In fact, it has several problems. The rational thing to do is not to use this passage for evidence of this nature.

Gross Misrepresentation of Scripture

Sometimes I am dumbfounded at some of the uses made of scripture to prove foreknowledge of modern scientific discoveries. Even a casual reading of the passages should cause one to reject such an interpretation.

Hebrews 11:3

“By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which appear.” Can one who reverences God’s word fail to be indignant when he sees this verse used to foreshadow the discovery of atomic particles? Are we not to hold the original, intended meaning as sanctified? Or, may we just select the right string of words to fit our hobby without regard to fair interpretation?

Faith comes by hearing God’s word (Rom 10:17). If a man understands something by faith, he understands it because he believes what he reads in God’s word. Thus, then, and therefore, when one reads, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” he understands that the world and all things seen were made from nothing. Not one word in the faith gives me to understand anything about atomic particles.

If atomic particles are in view here, we must shift our faith from those verses (unknown), that caused this understanding and place it in the scientist and his instruments. Faith has become fact. I no longer need Heb. 11:3 as these things are no longer faith but sight (2 Cor 5:7). And are these evidences promoters not missing a good bit by not making 2 Cor. 4:18 refer to the scientist and his atom-smasher as he looks “at the things which are not seen.” Proof-texting is no prettier when done by a brother for evidences than when done by a denominationalist to support his favorite doctrine.

Seed

God gave hope to the woman when he promised that her seed would bruise Satan’s head (Gen. 3:15). Also, Abraham was promised, “All the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it and to thy seed forever” (Gen. 13:15). The first refers to Christ; the second to the nation Israel.

Until 1880 scholars argued which sex possessed the seed for procreation and which provided fertilizer. Now we know that each provides seed of procreation-man the sperm, woman the egg. But wonder of wonders, Moses knew this all along, by inspiration and this is an additional fact we can glean from the references to the seed of Eve and of Abraham. Believe it? Who can? Brethren, if science had discovered that only one sex carried the seed of procreation and the other was “only” the fertilizer, Christ would still be both Eve and Abraham’s seed and Israel, would still be Abraham’s seed (no matter which sex carried the seed) according to the sense these terms have in ‘Genesis and we would so argue in debate. From the context, there is no indication that God had the seed of procreation in mind. Rather, every indication is that he did not, but specifically (remember the exclusion principle which we gleefully point out to institutional and instrumental brethren) meant a person(s) of another generation(s). Furthermore, inspiration later shows their fulfillment respectively in Christ and in Israel’s conquering Canaan which should prevent any from coming to another interpretation about seed of procreation.

Just For Emphasis

Already science has discovered what the Bible told us long ago, plants utter sounds (Psa. 96:12; Isa. 44:23). The identification of death sounds and other noises from plants has made some hopeful of finding a meaning in science for the Biblical statements that the mountains sing, fields sing and the world will not be moved.

I think none among us intends to preach false doctrine, to publish lies and to re-publish the wresting of scripture in this matter of scientific foreknowledge. Instead, I believe (and hope fervently) that these duplications of error have been inadvertent and will be corrected. Let us not be sloppy in repeating all we hear, but search the scriptures and gird up the loins of our minds. (Note: I have learned that some of the cases I accepted as valid are disputed by others. I was unable to discover any contextual basis for rejecting them. Those who have should publish their reasons that we may avoid repeating error.)

Truth Magazine XXIII: 3, pp. 57-58
January 18, 1979

By Johnny Stringer

Our hearts should overflow with love and gratitude when we contemplate the marvelous grace of our loving heavenly Father. The book of Romans deeply impresses us with the truth that our good standing before God is not a reason for. self-righteous boasting; rather, it is a reason for raising our voices in praise to God; for it is the result of His wonderful grace, and not our own goodness.

It is saddening to see such a lovely truth perverted so as to lead souls into error, but the truth concerning God’s grace has been tragically perverted almost from the beginning of the gospel’s proclamation. In Romans 6, Paul deals with a perversion which would use God’s grace as an excuse to live a life of sin. The teaching of the book of Romans has been so grossly perverted that it is always a matter of urgency to present its true teaching and to refute the erroneous perversions of the book.

Grace has been defined as “unmerited favor.” In his letter to the Romans, Paul demonstrated that all men are in need of God’s grace because all have sinned (Rom. 3:910, 23). Since we have sinned, we deserve to be the recipients of God’s holy wrath. Nevertheless, by God’s grace, He is willing to forgive us our sins, so that we can stand before Him free of guilt, just as though we had never sinned. The forgiveness is possible only because of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross by which He paid the price for our sins. Since this justification is undeserved, it is a gift of God’s grace. (Note Rom. 3:24-26.)

In the Roman letter, Paul contrasts justification by grace against justification by works. Consequently, some have erroneously concluded that there are no conditional works which we must perform in order to be justified. That this is an erroneous conclusion can be readily seen by a consideration of the many passages that teach the necessity of man’s obedience. Among these are Matt. 7:21, Heb. 5:9, 2 Thess. 1:7-9, James 2:24, and Acts 2:38. Jesus clearly teaches that obtaining everlasting life involves human labor (John 6:27-29). Indeed, in this very Roman letter which so strongly emphasizes justification by grace, Paul shows the importance of obedience when he observes that the very purpose of gospel preaching was to produce obedience (Rom. 1:5; 16:25-26).

The question arises, if human work is involved in obtaining salvation, how can the salvation be of grace? The answer lies in the fact that the works we perform do not earn the salvation which we receive. If we have not earned our salvation, then it is a gift of grace. God requires that we meet certain conditions, but when we have met those conditions we still do not deserve to stand justified before God. Even after meeting His conditions for forgiveness, we still deserve to be punished rather than forgiven; yet, by His grace He forgives us so that we are just in His sight.

The idea of many is that if we have to meet conditions to receive our salvation, then our salvation is not a gift of grace. This simply is not true. Sometimes I offer to give my little girl a quarter to go into her bank, but I make the gift conditional – she has to say “please.” Saying please does not earn the quarter, but she does not get the quarter unless she says it. Although she must say please, she does not earn the quarter; hence, the quarter is a gift given by my grace. The meeting of conditions does not nullify grace! Suppose I offered you a thousand dollars on the condition that you said “please.” Would you deny that the thousand dollars was a gift of grace, simply because it was conditional?

The principle involved can be illustrated by a number of Biblical incidents. The Israelites had to meet certain carefully specified conditions in order to receive Jericho (Josh. 6), Naaman had to meet conditions to be miraculously healed of His leprosy (2 Kgs. 5), and the blind man had to meet conditions to receive his sight (John 9); yet, all these gifts were given by grace, because the works performed did not merit the gifts. After Naaman had dipped seven times in the Jordan, he could not arise from the water and proclaim that he had earned his cure by his works; no, his cure was still a gift given by the grace of God, for which Naaman owed God his praise and gratitude.

The only works which would negate grace are works which would earn our justification, so that it is deserved; that is, meritorious works. When Paul says that justification is by grace rather than by works, he is speaking of meritorious works. He simply means that our salvation is a gift which we have not earned, rather than something we have earned by our own good works. This is the point of Eph. 2:8-9. In the book of Romans he uses the term “works” to refer to perfect law-keeping – living a sinlessly perfect life. If one lived sinlessly, keeping God’s law perfectly, he would thereby earn his justification, hence would need no grace. His reward would be owed him due to his perfect works (Rom. 4:4). In the book of Romans Paul contrasts justification by grace on the conditions of an obedient faith, against justification by keeping the law perfectly so that the reward is earned and there is no grace involved. Hence, when he denies justification by works, the works to which he refers is perfect law-keeping; he is not denying that certain non-meritorious conditions must be met.

In fact, Paul makes it clear in the book of Romans that jusification by grace is conditional when he says, “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand” (Rom. 5:1-2). It is by faith that we have access to God’s grace; hence, in order to be justified by grace, one must have faith (belief). Justification, therefore, is conditioned on human effort, for believing is something which men do.

Some would reply that faith is not a work performed by men, but Jesus teaches that it is. Read very carefully John 6:27-29. Jesus told the people to labor in order to have everlasting life (v. 27). Having been told to labor for everlasting life, the people asked what kind of labor they should do in order to work the works of God (v. 28). Jesus replied to this question by saying, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent” (v. 29). He thus referred to believing as work. Certainly, faith requires human effort. It does not come miraculously, apart from human effort, but through the mental effort that is involved in studying the word of God (Rom. 10:17). It involves the mental labor of thinking, reasoning, weighing evidence.

Some maintain that Jesus means that faith is a work that God does, as He miraculously produces it in the human heart, hence, that Jesus is not referring to faith as a work which men perform. However, it is obvious that the subject under discussion was what men must do. In verse 27, Jesus had taught that men must labor for everlasting life; then, in verse 28, the people had asked what works they must do. It was in answering the question regarding what works men must do that Jesus said believing was the work to be done.

Further, the Roman letter demonstrates that the faith which brings justification is faith which motivates men to obey. In Romans 1:5 and 16:25-26, Paul affirmed that the purpose of gospel preaching was to produce, not merely faith, but the obedience of faith. This principle comports with his statement to the Galations that the thing which avails is “faith which worketh by love” (Gal. 5:6). He points out to the Romans that it was through their obedience that they became free from sin (Rom. 6:17-18). Therefore, it should be understood that anytime we read that justification is by faith, the faith which is referred to is faith which moves men to obey (Gal. 5:6); and faith does not save until it has moved men to obey (James 2:17-26).

It is clear, then, that justification by grace is conditioned on a working obedient faith. Those who have never become Christians must be led by their faith to repent (Acts 3:19), confess Christ (Rom. 10:9-10), and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3-6; Gal. 3:27). When they have met these conditions, they still do not deserve salvation. These are not works by which one earns salvation. Nevertheless, because of their faith which produced these acts of obedience, God will graciously grant them the forgiveness of sins and they will stand justified despite their unworthiness.

Those who have become Christians, but later sin and thereby bring themselves under condemnation again, must be led by their faith to admit their sins (1 John 1:9), repent of them, and pray for forgiveness (Acts 8:22). When they do so they will still deserve punishment, but by His grace God will forgive them.

Truly, God’s grace is conditional. Men cannot impenitently persist in sin and receive God’s forgiveness, whether the sin involves immorality or corruption of the work, worship, and organization of the church. There is no promise of forgiveness apart from meeting the divinely appointed conditions. Let us praise God from the depths of our hearts that He will so graciously forgive us upon the meeting of these conditions, so that we who are so undeserving can stand justified and pure in His sight despite all our iniquities.

QUESTIONS

• What does “grace” mean and how does it apply to our salvation?
• What perversion of grace does Paul answer in Romans 6?
• What have men brought upon themselves, requiring justification of grace?
• How have modern false teachers perverted justification by grace?
• What are some Bible incidents which illustrate the principle of conditional grace?
• Explain how Paul uses the word “works” when he says we are not justified by works.
• What condition is necessary for salvation (Rom. 5:1-2)?
• Some false teachers ay that faith is not a condition required of men, but is a miraculous gift of God. Disprove that theory.
• What is the purpose of gospel preaching, according to Paul?
• What conditions of grace must be met by those who have never obeyed the gospel? By erring Christians?

Truth Magazine XXIII: 3, pp. 55-57
January 18, 1979

By Mike Grushon

In the past several years, one of the critical doctrinal controversies that has arisen among our brethren has to do with the nature of man’s righteousness. Some of our brethren have advocated the viewpoint that the personal righteousness of Christ is imputed to the Christian. This means in practical terms that when an individual becomes a Christian, he stands before God as righteous because he has Christ’s righteousness in the place of his own. The book of Romans contains the lengthiest single passage which discusses the concept of imputation. Therefore, it is appropriate that a small part of a special issue on the subject of the Book of Romans be dedicated to a study of what Romans really . teaches about imputation of righteousness.

The word “imputation” is but one way that translators render the two Greek words ellogeo and logizomai. These two words are found throughout the New Testament and are translated by many words including: suppose, reason, number, reckon, counted, thinkest, concluded and esteemeth. Obviously, these Greek words have a very common usage. However, it is when the word impute or one of its synonyms is used in relation to the concept of man’s righteousness before God that it becomes a part of the controversy between truth and error.

It is no easy task to briefly define the false concept of imputation which is being advanced by some brethren today. The concept is a part of the theology developed by John Calvin. Calvin’s concept of imputation is not an isolated belief. It is an integral part of a well-developed logical system. At the base of this concept is the idea that Christ’s perfect obedience must stand in the place of man’s inability to perfectly obey. Calvin says, “By his obedience, however, Christ truly acquired and merited grace for us with his Father . . . . if as a righteous man he suffered for unrighteous men – then he acquired salvation for us by his righteousness, which is tantamount to deserving it . . . . so by one man’s obedience many are made righteous (Rom. 5;19)”(1) Calvin’s concept of imputation is essential if one must justify man meriting salvation. We can recognize man’s shortcomings, so if he is going to merit salvation it must be on some basis other than personally achieved righteousness. Thus how does imperfect man become perfectly righteous? Listen to Calvin, “For if righteousness consists in the observance of the law, who will deny that Christ merited favor for us when, by taking that burden upon himself, he reconciled us to God as if we had kept the law? . . . What was the purpose of this subjection of Christ to the law but to acquire righteousness for us, undertaking to pay what we could not pay? Hence the imputation of righteousness without works which Paul discusses (Rom., ch. 4). For the righteousness found in Christ alone is reckoned as ours . . . . Now that power arises solely from the fact that the Son of God was crucified .as the price of our righteousness.”(2)

Thus, the concept is that the Christian is righteous because Christ lived as a substitute law-keeper and died perfectly righteous. That perfect righteousness is imputed, put to the account of the individual Christian and he, thus, stands before God righteous with Christ’s perfect righteous. Calvin’s system is very difficult to pick and choose portions to believe and portions to reject. So it is with the concept of the imputed righteousness of Christ. The consequences of man having Christ’s perfect righteousness seem obvious to nearly everyone but those of our brethren who are promoting it. What does Calvin view as its result? Listen, “Then he bids us take refuge in Christ’s blood, that having acquired righteousness we may stand secure before God’s judgment.”(3) The result of imputation of Christ’s righteousness is the impossibility of apostacy, the preservation of the saints. These two doctrines go together, the one is the basis of the other. It is only a matter of time that if an individual believes that one that he will be forced to the other, It is ironic that some of these brethren who act as if they have recently discovered the Biblical concept of grace have adopted a position that puts such emphasis upon merited salvation.

Of course, if the Bible teaches the doctrine that Calvin developed and some of our brethren are espousing is what the Bible teaches then we all ought to accept it. However, when we look at what the book of Romans says about imputation we find no mention of perfect obedience or the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

The favor that Abraham received was riot merited by him or by the act of any other. Paul says, “For what does the Scripture say? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness . . . . but to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness” (Rom. 4:3, 5). Notice the contrast, Calvin says that the perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed to the Christian. The Bible says that the believer’s faith is imputed for righteousness. The impact of Calvin’s doctrine is that once man has obtained Christ’s perfect righteousness, he is secure in salvation. After all, if Christ’s personal righteousness has been counted as your own how could you possibly be lost? On the other hand, Paul says that faith is imputed for righteousness: Standing right before God is conditioned on an individual’s faith, not merit whether obtained upon your own or from some other source. This is the vital difference between what the Bible says and what our brethren who have accepted Calvin’s concepts are teaching.

However, the book of Romans does not stop at simply affirming that faith is imputed for righteousness. Paul goes on to accurately describe the nature of such a faith. He discusses the nature of Abraham’s faith that was imputed to him as righteousness. In Romans 4:9-25, Paul demonstrates that faith that is imputed for righteousness is an active and obedient faith. Abraham completely trusted God and submitted to His will. The specific example Paul had under consideration was Abraham’s acceptance of God’s promise of a child when he and Sarah were well past child-bearing age. Paul says, “Yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief, but grew strong in faith giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what He had promised, He was able to perform. Therefore also it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Now not for his sake only was it written, that it was reckoned to him, but for our sake also, to whom it will be reckoned, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification” (Rom. 4:20-25). Abraham’s faith was such that he did God’s will. This does not mean that Abraham was perfect; it means that he was faithful. His faith was imputed for righteousness. Paul says our faith in Christ will likewise be imputed as righteouness. Again we stress not our sinless perfection; not our perfect obedience or that of any other (although we recognize Jesus’ perfection, we cannot accept that its purpose was to merit salvation through perfect righteousness); but our humble, active, obedient faith is what the Book of Romans says is imputed for our righteousness. For those who have such faith, Jesus died as a deliverer, the perfect sacrifice for our sins.

In an article this brief it is impossible to adequately describe the development of the Calvinistic doctrine of imputation, or to fully develop the scriptural position as it is set forth in the book of Romans. If the contrast between the two has been made evident, that Calvin lays stress upon the perfect obedience and meritorious life of Christ which is imputed to the believer resulting in the impossibility of any subsequent action of that believer resulting in his being lost, and the stress of the scriptures that faith on the part of the individual is imputed for righteousness thus resulting in the constant need for the individual Christian to live faithfully before God, then our time has been well spent.

In view of the purpose of this special issue on the book of Romans, we conclude by mentioning the place and doctrine of imputation plays in the overall message of the book of Romans. When Paul tells us that faith is imputed for righteousness, he allows us to see the means by which we can overcome sin which is common to us all and which results in the penalty of death (Rom, 3:23; 6:23). The solution to the problem of sin lies not with man’s ability to achieve righteousness upon his own. We are not going to merit salvation. However if God is going to grant such salvation, He may choose the basis upon which he is going to do so. Paul’s declaration that “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (Rom. 4:3), is the declaration of what basis God has chosen. Thus, the gospel is God’s power of salvation to those that believe (Rom. 1:16) because God counts such humble, trusting, and obedient acceptance of His word and counts those who exhibit it as righteous. Every Christian can be thankful that God has so bestowed His grace upon us by sacrificing His Son for our sins and providing us with the gospel of salvation.

QUESTIONS

• Define the word impute or imputation.
• What New Testament book and chapter discuss at length God’s imputation of man’s faith for righteousness?
• Who is one of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation who included a doctrine of imputation in his theological system?
• What is the name of his book, containing the doctrines of his theology?
• The Calvinist and Reformation movement developed an explanation of how God can view man as perfectly obedient, as earning and deserving his salvation. State that explanation.
• Pure Calvinism aruges that no work of obedience to the gospel is essential to salvation because someone has done all the obeying for us. Who?
• What false idea of a Christian’s security goes along with the denominational dogma of imputation?
• Contrast what the Bible says must be put down, recorded, or imputed to the ungodly for righteousness with what Calvin said must be imputed.
• Contrast the nature of Abraham’s faith with the Calviniandenominational doctrine of justification by faith before and without any other obedience.
• Use Abraham’s life to illustrate the difference between justification by a life of absolute human perfection in works and justification by obedient faith.

Endnotes:

1. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed.by John T. McMeill (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 4th printing, 1967), I, p. 531.

2. Ibid., p. 533.