Truth Magazine

By Mike Willis

Every man should have the knowledge of salvation and the blessed assurance that should he die he would go to be at home with God. Yet, how does one know when and if he is saved? This has been a question asked by many through the years. Indeed, this has been a question frequently answered by the preachers. who restored New Testament Christianity in this country. They preached on this subject repeatedly, although they titled their lesson differently. Rather than entitling their lesson “How Can We Know That We Are Saved?” they called their lessons “The Evidence of Pardon.” Yet, they grappled with the idea of how one can know that he is saved.

Feelings Are No Evidence of Salvation

Many people rest their assurance of salvation squarely upon their own personal sensations despite the fact that the Bible repeatedly warns that personal feelings are not absolutely trustworthy. Sometimes people feel a certain way about a matter as a result of testimony that is unreliable. They experience all of the feelings which one would experience if the testimony was reliable. For example, when Absalom plotted the death of Amnon, he invited all of his brothers to a sheepshearing feast in Baal-hazor. While Amnon was there, Absalom’s servants killed him. The word came back to David that Absalom had murdered all of the king’s sons. “Then the king arose, and tore his garments, and lay on the earth” (2 Sam. 13:31). David felt the same way as he would have felt had the testimony which he had heard been true. Judging from his personal feelings, all of his children except Absalom were dead. Yet, his feelings were not based on reliable evidence; they were based on false testimony.

That the same thing might happen with reference to personal salvation is abundantly clear from the case of Saul of Tarsus. Saul had a clear conscience until the time that Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus. Speaking of the time when he persecuted Christians, Saul said, “I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth” (Acts 26:9). He lived in all good conscience (Acts 23:1) during the time that he was a persecutor, blasphemer, and injurious person (1 Tim. 1:13): Despite the fact that he thought that he was in a saved relationship with God, he was lost and doomed to hell. No man better illustrates the truth of the proverb “there is a way which seemeth right unto man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Prov. 14:12; 16:25) than does Saul of Tarsus. His personal feelings produced no salvation.

Feelings are simply a result of testimony; they say nothing about the truthfulness of that testimony. A man may certainly experience all of the emotions which come with salvation without experiencing salvation. Someone may give him the false testimony regarding what he must do to be saved (such as “worship Buddha”) resulting in that man feeling saved (indeed, experiencing all of the emotions which come with true salvation) without him ever being saved. Hence, the fact that one has experienced certain feelings is no guarantee of salvation. Believing that one is saved does not save that person.

Salvation Through God’s Pardon

We must remember that salvation from sins occurs when God forgives us of sins. Forgiveness of sins occurs in the mind of God. God is the one who was sinned against; He is the one who has the right to grant pardon and forgiveness. What goes on in my mind with reference to me feeling forgiven does not say one thing about whether or not I have been forgiven! Let me illustrate this point. Suppose that a man sat on death row in prison for having committed some crime. Pardon could be granted to that man by the governor; the governor has the legislated power to pardon a criminal. However, in order for that man to be pardoned, the governor would have to grant the pardon. After finding out about that pardon, the man would normally rejoice. Later, he would be released. However, let us reverse this situation as is often done in conversion. Let us suppose that this man sitting on death row tried to convince the guards to release him because he felt that he was pardoned, although no communication from the governor to that effect had been issued. Would the guards release him? Absolutely not! The pardon must be granted before the man can be released.

With reference to salvation, God must grant the forgiveness of sins (the pardon) before the feelings which a man has have any meaning at all. Yet, how does one receive the word of pardon from the Lord? Obviously, God does not issue a formal decree sent down from heaven to an individual to let him know that he has been forgiven. Yet, our knowledge of salvation must come through God’s statement of salvation. That is done through the written word of God, the Bible.

In the Bible, God has promised salvation to man conditionally. When man meets those conditions, God has promised to save him. When we learn what those conditions are and meet them, we can know that we are saved because God has promised to save the man who meets them and He cannot lie. Hence, our assurance of salvation rests squarely upon the promises of God.

Divine Conditions For Salvation

In order to be saved, man must have his sins forgiven through the blood of Christ which manifests God’s grace. Obviously, man cannot save himself. Hence, to be saved he must comply with the conditions laid down by God to receive His proffered grace. In order to be saved, man must obey the gospel. It is dangerous for a man not to obey the gospel, Peter wrote, “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” (1 Pet. 4:17-18). Damnation will be given to those who do not obey the gospel (2 Thess. 1:7). In contrast, our obedience to the truth purifies our soul (1 Pet. 1:22) as we meet the conditions for receiving God’s grace.

Specifically, the conditions for receiving salvation are as follows: (1) Believe the gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mk. 16:15-16). In order for a man to be saved, he must believe the glorious gospel-the good news of salvation by grace through faith in Christ. (2) Repent of sins. The conditions for salvation include the repentance of sins. Paul told the Athenians, “And the time of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead” (Acts 17:30-31). (3) Confession of faith. In order to be saved, a man must confess his faith in Jesus. Paul wrote, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:9-10). (4) Be baptized. As another condition for receiving God’s. grace, Jesus has required that a man be baptized (immersed) in water. In response to the Jews on Pentecost who asked what they had to do to be saved, Peter said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38).

These are the divine conditions for receiving the forgiveness of sins. Through these acts of obedience, elsewhere called “the obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5; 16:26), one meets the conditions for receiving forgiveness of sins. Let it be clearly understood that one cannot earn his salvation through these means. Rather, these are simply the conditions for receiving the free gift of God’s grace.

Knowledge of Salvation

I can know that I am saved when I meet these divine conditions for receiving God’s grace. God has promised salvation to those who so respond to His offer of grace. I know that I have the salvation which He has offered when I have responded in this fashion to His grace. My assurance of salvation rests squarely upon the promises of God; His divine veracity is at stake in my salvation.

On the other side, I can have no assurance of salvation so long as there is one part of God’s conditions for receiving His grace with which I have not complied. If I have not repented of my sins, I cannot have an assurance of salvation; if I have not confessed faith in Jesus, I cannot have an assurance of salvation; if I have not been immersed in water, I cannot have an assurance of salvation. The man who promises salvation to a man who has not met the conditions laid down by God for salvation promises more than God has promised. The only assurance which the man who had not met these conditions can have of salvation is only so much as mere man can give. There is no divine assurance of salvation to any one who does not meet the conditions for salvation.

The only genuine assurance of salvation which a man can have is that which comes through God’s holy word. Only when I learn the conditions laid down for salvation as revealed in that word and comply with them can I know that I am saved. There is no assurance of salvation through any other means.

Truth Magazine XXII: 45, pp. 723-725
November 16, 1978

By John Welch

It is easy to imagine that everyone leads a life of pleasant happiness that many enjoy. It is easy to believe that all family situations are good and happy. But, they are not. There are still many people who endure much of that pictured in the Old and New Testaments. We are removed from those days only by the plastics, polyesters and automobiles around us. Otherwise, the world is the same.

I met Ruth the other day. No, she wasn’t really the Ruth of the Old Testament and her name wasn’t really Ruth. Yet, somehow I felt a closer sympathy with that godly woman who finally married Boaz, for having met this woman.

It was the one day of the year that the church here meets at the unusual hour of 11:00 a.m. rather than the usual time of 9:30 a.m. I always worry that some visitor customarily go to the building at the normal hour trying to insure that no one will despair of worshipping the Lord by our change in the time of service.

She was sitting on the front porch of the meeting house modestly dressed and with her 8 year old son, Eddie. She had driven through an hour’s worth of terrible traffic which was the reason for the change in our hour of service. She had driven by the building the night before to be sure that she knew where the church building was so that she would have no difficulty locating it on the Lord’s day. She was intent on waiting there on the porch for the services with confidence that the worshippers would eventually come to join her. We walked the three blocks to my home to await the service.

She was from the East coast and had been a Christian only 9 months. She was brimful of zeal and glowing talk of her good brethren back home and everything that the forgiving Son of God had done for her. She was about 48 or 9 I suppose and her face and hands showed that she had been familiar with the out-of-doors and hard work.

She told me that she had married late in life at about 40 years old. They had been blessed with a baby at this late date. Then, about 2 months before their son was born her husband died.

She was left with a baby, a tiny income and a 10 acre holding. For the eight years since then she had lived humbly off that income. She told me about raising cattle on the property to sell and eat; about milking a cow for her and her child. She spoke of hearing the gospel and obeying, going to meetings, and teaching. She told me about hey neighbors who let her mow their field and about putting up 800 bales of hay by herself. She spoke about how wasteful the big cornpickers were; as she went through the winter fields after them and kicked the ice-encrusted ears of corn loose and in two days could fill her pickup —

I had been pretending to be half-listening while I studied my lesson, but I had to leave at that point. There is only so much that a man can stand. The vision of Ruth gleaning the fields as Boaz instructed his servants to drop extra amounts for her was getting too strong. My eyes were getting too moist. She was speaking too plainly of faith, hope, and courage. The powerful love of a mother struggling to provide in a hard circumstance was too much. May God bless her and all of those like her!

“Whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.” (Romans 15:4).

Truth Magazine XXII: 45, p. 722
November 16, 1978

By Steve Wolfgang

Informed students of the history of the Lord’s church know that past examples of modernism(1) among professed members of the Lord’s church are not hard to come by. In the very first chapter of one of the most recent (and one of the best) studies of the Disciples of Christ and Churches of Christ, we are told that “Toward the end of the (nineteenth) century a number of liberal ministers became bold enough to publicly defend evolution, higher criticism, and some of the other controversial scientific theories of the day.”(2) This “new liberal spirit ultimately led a large segment of the church into the mainstream of liberal American Protestantism in the twentieth century” and “also resulted in another major division of the movement.”(3)

Even within the lifetime of most Truth Magazine readers, examples of those who espoused modernism are prevalent. In Louisville, where I now live, the Taylor Boulevard congregation was troubled in the 1940’s over the liberalism of James A. Warren. who “embraced outright modernism.”(4) Warren left and moved to Chicago, publishing a tract, “The Heresy of Legalism”(5)on one of the way-stations to his modernistic destination. He was not alone. According to another historian of recent developments in Churches of Christ, “in the 1950’s, in the space of a few months, fourteen gospel preachers, most of whom are from the Chicago area, forsook the Churches of Christ and aligned themselves with the very liberal Disciples of Christ.(6)

In Indianapolis, the city in which I was born and raised, David Bobo, minister at one of the “Churches of Christ” there, and a graduate of the Disciples of Christ seminary there (Christian Theological Seminary), began to espouse some modernistic viewpoints. Speaking on the Abilene Christian College lectures in 1960, Bobo dealt with “Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible.” Among other things, he pointed to the “number of different writers participating in the writing of Biblical history, each inevitably from his own particular viewpoint and with his own set of emphases …. All these things . . . could not have failed to produce a certain diversity underneath the over-arching unity of the Bible.”(7) In his analysis of the ACC lectures, William S. Banowsky summarized the thrust of Bobo’s lecture. “After stating `that on the surface there are innumerable discrepancies in the Bible,’ Bobo jolted many of his Lectureship predecessors by asserting: `Nothing is really at stake here except the possible theory that every original writer . . . was miraculously guarded against any minute lapse or slip.”(8) Banowsky further informs us that, according to Bobo, ” `the many discrepancies of the Bible’ fall into three categories, verbal, historical, and ideological. He stressed that there are discrepancies in all of nature and that the Bible is not proved invalid because it contains those `normal discrepancies which characterize all other manifestations of God-given life.’ ” Furthermore, “admitting that some of the discrepancies could not be `reconciled or eliminated,”(9) Bobo had these choice words for those who disagreed with his modernistic position:

In their efforts to deny all discrepancies they have resorted to unscholarly, ridiculous, and sometimes dishonest means. Regardless of how good and pious their intentions may have been, their methods have often been below the level of respectability. This likewise has continued down to the present time . . . . Such behavior is sub-Christian . . . .(10)

Bobo’s views were the subject of a thoroughly documented article by William E. Wallace, then preaching in Indianapolis, in this periodical in 1965.(11) According to Wallace, “Professor J. D. Thomas of (Abilene Christian) College critically reviewed Bobo’s positions in a number of articles which appeared in the Gospel Advocate and Firm Foundation. (12) It is interesting to notice Wallace’s comment that, despite such clear statements as quoted above, “Bobo would deny that he is a modernist.”(13) and it is instructive to hear our brother’s general (and we believe quite incisive) observations regarding modernism:

Modernism appears in varying degrees. There are different kinds. Only the extreme modernists are really willing to accept and wear the label. I doubt that any preacher associated with churches of Christ would appreciate being labeled a modernist, yet there are preachers among us who are definitely modernists. Modernism is better described than defined.(14)

Though more veiled and not as open or blunt as his views expressed a dozen years earlier, Bobo’s comments at several of Carl Ketcherside’s unity forums, which this author attended in Indianapolis in the early 1970’s, display his attitude toward the Scriptures. They were published, interestingly enough, in Mission magazine,(15) which a former editor of this journal has called “the Number One espouser of theological liberalism among churches of Christ.”(16) Brother Willis, both in that article and in a previous series, documented evidences of modernism up to that point among Churches of Christ, particularly at Abilene Christian College, R. B. Sweet Publishing Company, on the staff and board of trustees (including faculty at Abilene and Pepperdine Universities), and elsewhere.(17)

Connie Adams, formerly of the Truth Magazine staff and now editor of Searching The Scriptures, has also documented in this paper instances of modernism among Churches of Christ, including an “award-winning” Mission Magazine article written by an elder in an Arkansas church which openly advocates theistic evolution.(18) Even among our brethren who have espoused institutional or social gospel concepts of Christianity, men such as James D. Bales and Ira Y. Rice, Jr., have for a decade chronicled instances of theological liberalism or outright modernism among those claiming to be members of the Lord’s church.(19)

In 1972, Mission, a paper staffed by those at least nominally claiming to be members of the Lord’s church, and whose Board of Trustees is filled with faculty members from colleges supported by funds donated from the congregational treasuries of “Churches of Christ,” published perhaps the most open exposition of outright modernism among Churches of Christ up to that time. In “Every Scripture Breathed of God is Profitable,” Warren Lewis, a graduate of one of “our Christian colleges” and several other institutions of higher learning, stated his premise as “the fact that scripture does not agree with itself,” and concluded with the question, “but what about the clashes and jars? The knots of disagreement in scripture cannot be untied. Nor, indeed, should one try to untie them.”(20) In between he seeks to argue by raising questions such as “how can we say that scripture is breathed of God and profitable when it has jarring, clashing disagreements within it, when it makes things up that most likely did not happen, and when what it teaches about Jesus in one place does not tally with what it teaches about Jesus in another place?”(21) Several years later, the September, 1974 issue of Mission contained a survey (quite informative) of the controversy over such matters by Don Haymes, and a rejoinder to his critics by Warren Lewis. Lewis offered a few more instances of what, by his own definition, compose “clashes and jars,” and reiterated his basic contention that “each of the gospels paints a picture of Jesus which is so different from the other three that the story-level-at the verbal, literal, word-for-word level of the accounts-we are unable in many cases to say what Jesus in fact did or taught. Clashes and jars of this kind are to be found on every page of the gospels. And the doctrines about Jesus from gospel to gospel based on these clashing stories do also equally jar among themselves.”(22)

This article was not designed to be (and because of space limitations cannot be) a refutation of various claims made by these intellectual wonders. Its sole design has been, at the request of the editor, to document instances of modernism among some claiming to be members of the. Lord’s church. In the face of accumulated evidence supporting that thesis which crosses my desk quite frequently, I am constrained to say that one who would deny such a proposition has either played Rip van Winkle for the last thirty years, or else simply has no conception of what modernism is. That some among Churches of Christ are following the familiar path trod by their counterparts of a century ago in the. Disciples of Christ is too plain to be debatable. What the next few years bring, as those imbibing one degree or another of these views gain control of the institutional manifestations of “Churches of Christ,” will be interesting but awful, in every legitimate sense of that word, to behold.

Truth Magazine XXII: 45, pp. 726-727
November 16, 1978

1. For a definition of modernism see my article on “Modernism among Evangelicals” elsewhere in this series.

2. David Edwin Harrell, Jr., The Social Sources of Division in the Disciples of Christ, 18651900: A Social History of the Disciples of Christ, Volume 11 (Atlanta: Publishing Systems, Incorporated, 1973), p. 15.

3. Ibid. See also pp. 9, 434, n. 167.

4. James P. Needham, “The Taylor Boulevard Trouble,” Truth Magazine, VIII: 2 (November, 1963), p. 39; see also Connie W. Adams, “Old Songs, New Singers,” Truth Magazine, XVII:13 (February 1, 1973), p. 202.

5. A copy of this pamphlet is in the Pamphlet File at the Disciples of Christ Historical Society in Nashville; Xerox in author’s possession. James D. Bales replied to Warren in a tract of his own, “The Heresy of Legalism?” also in the author’s possession.

6. Cecil Willis, “The Taproot of Digression: ‘No-Patternism,’ ” Truth Magazine tract, p. 15. This excellent tract was originally a series of articles appearing in Truth Magazine in 1972.

7. Cited in William S. Banowsky, The Mirror of a Movement Churches of Christ as Seen in the Abilene Christian College Lectureship (Dallas: Christian Publishing Company, 1965), pp. 110-111.

8. Ibid., p. 111.

9. Ibid., p. 139.

10. Ibid.

11. William E. Wallace, “Modernism in Indianapolis,” Truth Magazine, IX:12 (September, 1965), p. 271.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid.

15. David H. Bobo, “Looking For New Light in the Scriptures,” Mission, V:5 (November, 1971), p. 133; and “Worship and Unity,” Mission, V: 8 (February, 1972), p. 230. While not printed, a speech Bobo delivered before the 1974 Unity Forum in Nashville contained an obviously loose concept of authority and what most members of the churches of Christ would likely consider rather modernistic statements. The speech was attended by several on the Truth Magazine staff.

16. See Cecil Willis, “Theological Liberalism: Is There Any?” Truth Magazine, XVII: 19 (March 15, 1973), p. 293.

17. See Cecil Willis, “Theological Liberalism at Abilene Christian College,” appearing in the August, 1972 issues of Truth Magazine, 4-part serial.

18. Adams, “Old Song . . . .

19. See Bales’ Modernism: Trojan Horse in the Church (Searcy, Arkansas, 1971) and Rice’s Axe on the Root series followed by his monthly periodical, Contending For the Faith.

20. Mission, V:7, January, 1972, pp. 195, 200.

21. Ibid., 198-199.

22. Warren Lewis, “Let’s Look at the Text-Again!” Mission, VIII:3 (September, 1974), p. 86. Mission has also recently published “The Infallibility of the Bible and Higher Criticism” by one of the more modernistic of the participants in the “Battle for the Bible” controversy, Harry R. Boer (see references in my article on “Modernism and Evangelicals” in this series).

By Carol R. Lumpkin

First of all, allow me to explain what I have in mind when I say a “liberal church.” I have reference to a church which practices that which the New Testament does not authorize, such things as using the church building (paid for with the Lord’s money) for secular education, fellowship halls, recreational activities, baby showers, wedding showers, voting precincts, scout troop meetings, etc.; sending church funds to some sponsoring church, or serving as a sponsoring church; sending funds to some benevolent institution, or to some college. There, of course, are other things being done by some “liberal churches”; but these will let the readers know the type church I have in mind.

I cannot worship with a liberal church because:

1. I would in a sense be lending encouragement by my presence (2 Jn. 9-11).

2. I would be condoning those who do not believe and respect the all sufficiency of the word of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3).

3. I would appear to support what that church is doing (Matt. 5:16).

4. I would be denied the opportunity to teach the truth (Jude 3; John 8:32).

5. I would be violating my duty to withdraw from those who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine of Christ (Rom. 16:17).

6. I would support heresies (1 Cor. 11:18-19). I must speak out against such activities (Titus 3:10).

7. I would fail to obey the command to withdraw from those who walk not according to the apostles doctrine (2 Thess. 3:6).

8. I would fellowship those who no longer have fellowship with God, nor with Christ (2 John 9).

Some brethren who claim to be “conservative,” favoring only what the New Testament authorizes, seem to think (by their actions), that they can worship occasionally with a “liberal church.” If this can be done while on vacation, visiting, or on a business trip, then I raise the following question. Why can’t a person worship every time with a “liberal church”? If the “liberal church” is practicing sinful things, then is it not wrong? It would be like saying, since I do not intend to commit adultery all the time, then it would be alright to do so once in awhile.

John wrote, “If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth” (1 Jno. 1:6). Churches which do not follow the New Testament pattern in all things are in darkness. The person who commits adultery once in awhile is in darkness. Neither of the above have fellowship with God, even though they may think they do (2 John 9). When sin (darkness) is engaged in by a church, or by an individual, repentance is in order before God will remove the sin. John admonished the sinful churches of Asia to repent (cf. Rev. 2:5).

Churches, in the first century A.D., did not engage in the things which “liberal churches” are doing today. Since the New Testament churches were established under the influence of inspired men and were, therefore acceptable with God, how can churches of Christ today believe that God will accept their innovations?

Jesus has all authority (Matt. 28:18). Elders are to oversee the local church; but they do not have legislative power. Their authority is the New Testament; and there is no way to improve it. We must all “contend for the faith, once delivered” (Jude 3). Jesus prayed that we all be one (Jn. 17:20-21). Preachers may assume authority, elders may usurp authority; members may demand things like their denominational neighbors; but it all spells tie same; a rejection of the authority of Jesus Christ. When false doctrine is practiced and unscriptural works engaged in, people are deceived and souls are lost. In view of all this, we all must die and face the judgment (Heb. 9:27). We each will be judged by the words of Jesus Christ (Jn. 12:48). Those who reject, add to, or take away from God’s word will be lost (Rev. 22:18-19). Those who obey God will be saved (Matt. 7:21; Rev. 22:14). It is better to obey than to perish.

Truth Magazine XXII: 44, p. 717
November 9, 1978