Truth Magazine

By Dennis C. Abernathy

I am sure that a great many are aware mat we live in a time that is not characterized with respect. We see this “lack of respect” on every hand and in every facet of life. The word “respect” simply means, “to consider worthy of esteem” and carries with it the idea of deferential regard and honor. I certainly do not pretend to know all the reasons for this general lack of respect (although I do have some ideas on the subject), but I certainly can suggest some areas wherein there is a crying and pressing need for respect. Consider the following:

1. There is a Pressing Need for Respect for God. There are many today who do not even believe in God, much less, respect Him. “God that made the world and all things therein . . . . . seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things . . . . . For in him we live, and move, and have our being . . . . . For we are also his offspring” (Acts 17:24-28). Do most people recognize these things? No! With most, it is as it was with Israel of old. They have forsaken God. “For my people have committed two evils: They have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, to hew for themselves cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water” (Jer. 2:13). Listen to the language of many today. God’s name, used in vain, is no uncommon thing. Look at many of the TV commercials and see the profane use made of God and those things that pertain to Him. Visit many worship (?) services of the Lord’s church today and notice how respectful (?) many are. Have we lost sight of the honor and respect that is due our Creator? For shame! “For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? Who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord? God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him” (Psa. 89:6-7).

2. There is a Pressing Need for Respect for God’s Word. There was a time when people, for the most part, were willing to go to God’s Word and see what He said on any matter. They may have disagreed over the meaning of a passage, but not that it was from God Almighty. If an individual has respect for the word of God, he will receive it as such. “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe” (1 Thess. 2:13). What the word of God says should end all argument, that is, if we respect that word! A proper respect for the word of God will lead one to “speak as the oracles of God” (1 Peter. 2:11), without any addition or subtraction. “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may kept the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2, 12:32). Further we read in Rev. 22:1819, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophesy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophesy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

But is there this respect for the word of God by the majority of folk? Nay, there is not! Man has added and he has subtracted to suit his own fancy. The Book says we are saved by faith (Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16) but man comes along and says that we are saved by faith “only.” The Book says “not by faith only” (Jas. 2:24); man says that it is by “faith only” and that it “is a very wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort.” The Book says we are to sing and make melody in our hearts unto the Lord (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16). Man, in his wisdom, comes along and says, “Lo we want to sing and play upon instruments. The Book says, “Wherefore, let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12). Man comes along and says it is “impossible for one to fall.” The Book attributes for itself completeness and perfection (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3; Jas. 1:25;, but man comes along and says we must have the Spirit operate upon our heart first so that we can then understand the Word. The Book says the gospel is God’s power to save, but man (even our own brethren) comes along and uses every gimmick, scheme, and trick in the old denominational book to get people into the number. You notice, that I say “number” and not the “body of Christ.” It is impossible to get people into the body of Christ through these means. Are we drawing people to Christ through the puppet shows, magic tricks, youth retreats, prizes on the buses, etc.? Jesus said, “Ye seek me, not because you saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled” (Jn. 12:26). As long as the loaves and fishes held out they would follow Jesus. As long as the gimmicks hold out many today will follow. But Paul said the gospel is the power to save (Rom. 1:16). He 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). Of course some brethren make their distinction between “gospel” and “doctrine” and try and say Paul was all wrong about it anyway.

What has happened? I will tell you what has happened! In the mad rush to keep up with the denominational world and society in general, many have lost respect for the Word of God. The doctrines, commandments, and schemes of men are held in high esteem while the Bible is thrown on the junk heap as out-moded.

3. There is a Pressing Need for Respect for Decency and Morality. Today we are bombarded with indecency of speech, dress, and manners. Indecent language, pictures, etc. come into the home via television, radio, newspapers, magazines and other avenues (Phil. 4:8; Eph. 4:29). Some wear few clothes, and others wear clothes from material of such nature that they may as well not wear any at all (1 Tim. 2:9-10). Many evidently do not know how to act decently and civilized around women and older folks (1 Tim. 5:1-3). Morality (according to the Bible) is outdated and now we have the “new morality.” Everyone is now his own standard and “love” is the guiding force. Of course, to them love is just the avenue to gratify their every lust and desire. The cry goes up, “You cannot legislate morals.” I do not want to legislate morals, but God has! He has spoken! (Read Gal. 5:19-21 and 2 Cor. 12:20-21.) Will we heed His Word?

Yes, on and on we could go. Certainly we live in a disrespectful age. But we do not have to live that way. We live in the world, but we do not have to be of the world. Let us strive to live a life of respect for God, His Word, and for our fellow man. God will be pleased and we will be blessed.

Truth Magazine XXII: 36, pp. 582-583
September 14, 1978

By Larry Ray Hafley

In this article, we are drawing a bead on a statement that very well could have been written by those affected and infected by the “grace, unity and fellowship” concepts of Carl Ketcherside. First, the statement:

One of the apostle Paul’s great affirmations of faith began, `I know whom I have believed.’ His security in his salvation was based not on some set of beliefs nor a system of theology; it was based on a personal relationship. He knew Jesus. It is entirely possible that a person can know all about Christ and not know Him personally. The Christian faith is not so much a religion as a relationship. It is having a personal encounter with Jesus Christ who is the Son of God. This encounter leads one to a personal commitment of his own life to Jesus, accepting Him as Savior and acknowledging Him as Lord.

The quote is from the “First Baptist Messenger.” It was written by Jerry Curry, a Baptist preacher. The Baptists have been making nonsense on the grace-fellowship issue for, “Lo, these many years,” but some of our brethren are about to get even.

Look at the statement again. What does it say? In 2 Timothy 1:12 (“. . . for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day”), Paul did not argue that security is “based not on some set of beliefs nor a system of theology.” That was not his point, for in the very next verse, Paul said, “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of men, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.” Wonder if the word “form” would be at least roughly equivalent to “set of beliefs” or “system of theology”? What would you think if one were to take 2 Timothy 1:13 and say that Paul’s security in his salvation was not based on a personal relationship but on a set or form of beliefs? You would respond, “Yes, we must hold fast the form of sound words, but this cannot be separated from our trust or faith in Christ.” In other words, both verses go together. Exactly!

All this talk about “commitment to a Person,” “a personal encounter,” and “knowing Christ personally” is a bunch of pious nothing. What does it mean? What does it say? When it attempts to exclude obedience to the truth or a keeping of a “set of beliefs,” it means absolutely nothing. Paul did think, in one of his “great affirmations of faith,” that security in salvation was dependent on knowing and continuing in a “set of beliefs.” Hear him, “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). Try to explain that text with “a personal encounter” that eliminates adherence to a “set of beliefs” to cannot be done. Further, “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 Jn. 2:4).

But Baptists and the “new unity movement” brethren in the so called free churches should not feel hard at this article or toward me. After all, my security, according to them, is not “based” on a “legalistic” set of beliefs, but on “a personal relationship.” So, I can scorn their beliefs and be just as secure as they are as long as I maintain that ever-nebulous, undefined “personal commitment to Jesus.” Somehow, though, it does not work out that smoothly. These brethren who accept the old Baptist views on grace and fellowship in Christ can accept a premillennialist, a Christian Church preacher and his piano, and institutional brethren with their human societies, because they say theirs is a “relationship to Jesus” which is not based on a “set of beliefs.” But they have a hard time following that same reasoning and accepting me. That is not being consistent.

Truth Magazine XXII: 36, p. 578
September 14, 1978

By Jimmy Tuten, Jr.

The Apostle Paul informs us that we are not to be “overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12:21). Within collectives of God’s people, there is always a need for peace and concord, kindness and good will. These are indispensable. When strife enters into a congregation, the possibility and hope of doing good are gone. We are to live in harmony with one another. It was Nelson who, after one of his great victories, sent back a dispatch in which he gave as the reason of it: “I had the happiness to command a band of brothers.” The implications of his success are apparent.

Evil will rear its ugly head from time to time, but we must overcome it with good. We are not to be vanquished or subdued by injury received from others. Our temper must not be allowed to get excited; our principles must not be abandoned; our amiable temper must not be ruffled by opposition. God would have us maintain our Christian principles and show the power of the gospel.

Let it be remembered that we are overcome of evil when we suffer our temper to be excited and become enraged and revengeful by engaging in contention with those who injure us. We must show those with evil dispositions the loveliness of a better spirit. As a Christian, proper deportment is essential.

The following illustration from the Primitive Monitor of 1912 demonstrates what we are saying:

Among the incidents of the Revolutionary War, it is recorded that there lived at Ephratah, Pennsylvania, an old Baptist minister, Peter Miller, who had a very staunch enemy in his community who was also a notorious fighter against Old Baptist. This enemy, during the war, was charged and found guilty of treason, and for this was sentenced to hang. As soon as sentence was passed, Peter Miller set out on foot to visit General Washington at Philadelphia to intercede for the man’s life. George Washington told the minister that he was sorry but his pleading for his friend could not be granted. “My friend!” exclaimed Peter Miller, “I have no worse enemy living than that man.”

“What?” said George Washington, “you have walked sixty miles to plead for the life of your enemy? That in my judgement puts the matter in a different light. I will grant you his pardon.” The pardon was made out and Peter Miller hastened at once towards the place of execution, which was fifteen miles from Philadelphia, and which was to take place in the afternoon of that day. He arrived lust as the man was being carried to the scaffold, and the doomed man, seeing the minister walk up, exclaimed, “there Is old Peter Miller. He has walked all the way from Ephratah to gratify his revenge by seeing me hang!”

The words were scarcely out of his mouth when Peter Miller handed him his pardon and thus his life was spared.

Yes brethren. Overcome evil with good!

Truth Magazine XXII: 36, p. 587
September 14, 1978

By Larry Ray Hafley

Our sights are drawn in on several statements made by Baptist preachers.

” `Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’ (Matt. 3:2) . `He that believeth on him is not condemned’ (John 3:18. `Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shaft be saved’ (Acts 16:31. ‘. . . except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish’ (Lk. 13:3).

“These passages are not contradictory. In each case when belief is mentioned, doubtless repentance is assumed, and so when repentance is commanded, belief is assumed. There is no other explanation. In Mark 1:15 both are specified by Jesus: ‘. . . repent ye and believe the gospel’ ” (L.D. Capell, editor, Missionary Baptist Searchlight, February 10, 1978).

Now, if editor Capell could use the above reasoning to show that repentance and faith are “assumed” even though they are not specifically mentioned, he ought to be able to do the same with respect to baptism. Observe a parallel to Capell’s conclusions:

“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:3)!. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16). “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). “Whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43).”

These passages are not contradictory. In each case when belief is mentioned, doubtless baptism is assumed, and so when baptism is commanded, belief is assumed. There is no other explanation. In Mark 16:16 both are specified by Jesus: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”

The comparison is a counterpart to Mr. Capell’s. But there is one further point. The passages which I cited do not mention repentance. Mr. Capell’s do not refer to baptism. The verses I noted do not exclude repentance. The ones quoted by Capell do not exclude baptism. Repentance may be “assumed” in the Scriptures which I gave. Baptism may be “assumed” on the same basis in the ones given by Mr. Capeli. If not, why not?

“Important To Note”

Mr. Capell makes another sensible statement to which one we may effect a parallel. “It is important to note that though a man truly repents and believes, he does not save himself by this means. The repenting and believing merely brings him to the point where God saves him. Salvation is wholly by the grace and work of God. Man’s part is only to submit himself in the position that God can save him.” Aside from a qualification or two, I can accept Mr. Capell’s view.

Let us apply his paragraph to belief and baptism: It is important to note that though a man truly believes and is baptized, he does not save himself by this means. The believing and being baptized merely brings him to the point where God saves him. Salvation is by the grace and work of God. Man’s part is only to submit himself in the position that God can save him.

For years, Baptist preachers have charged that the command to be baptized negates the grace and work of God. They say that if baptism is essential it nullifies the grace of God. However, Mr. Capell shows the issue, the distinction. With faith and repentance, he sees how that obedience to the commands to repent and believe do not do away with God’s grace and work. He believes that one must repent and believe, but “it is important to note” that these two conditions do not reflect of mitigate against the grace of God. Well, that is exactly what a Christian says concerning baptism. Surely, Mr. Capell and the Baptists can see that!

“Whatever Baptism Does It Does It Figuratively”

So says Bedford Andrews in the name issue of the Searchlight. Hear him: “Whatever baptism does it does it figuratively. It is a figure or likeness according to 1 Peter 3:21. We read in Acts 22:16, . . . be baptized and wash away thy sins . . .’ Now if baptism literally washed away sins, we would have two saving elements. Because we have the Bible saying we are `washed from our sins in His blood’ (Rev. 1:5). Do we thus have a choice-water of baptism or the blood of Jesus? No! of course not. We are actually and really cleansed from sin by the blood of Jesus, and figuratively show it in baptism in water. Everyone knows that.”

So, according to Mr. Andrews, baptism does not save us. It only does so figuratively. It does not literally wash away sins. It only does so figuratively. The Bible says we are “baptized into Jesus Christ” (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27). Is that only figuratively, Mr. Andrews? Baptists teach that baptism is what puts one into the fellowship of a Baptist Church. Of course, baptism could not really do that. No, we are not “baptized into one body,” because, according to Andrews, “Whatever baptism does it does figuratively.”

The literal blood of Jesus Christ does not literally wash or cleanse us from sin. God cleanses, washes and saves us by the blood of Christ, but the literal blood that literally dropped from the cross does not literally wash the literal soul. The water of baptism does not literally wash or cleanse us. God does that. But when does God do it? He does it when we obey from the heart that form of doctrine that is delivered to us. Then we are made free from sin by the blood of Christ (Rom. 6:17, 18). Acts 22:16 and Revelation 1:5 do not contradict another. God forgives us of sin by the blood of Christ when we are baptized. In the scheme of redemption, the blood of Christ had to be shed “for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). Without the shedding of Jesus’ blood, there could be no forgiveness (Heb. 9:22). Still, God does the forgiving or remitting. Baptism in water is one of the conditions or terms of pardon; without obedience in baptism, there is no forgiveness (Mk. 16:16; Acts 22:16). But, God does the saving.

Mr. Andrews, where does the Bible say that we figuratively show our salvation in baptism in water? 1 Peter 3:21 does not say it. The water of baptism is a true likeness of the salvation of Noah and his family by water. The salvation and deliverance of Noah is a type of the salvation which we receive in baptism. Baptism is not said to be the likeness or type of our salvation. It is the likeness of Noah’s deliverance from the old world of sin. So, corresponding to Noah’s salvation “by water,” “baptism doth also now save us.”

Acts 2:38 “Because Of”

Again, Andrews avers, “Some think Acts 2:38 teaches baptismal regeneration. There we read, ‘. . . Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins . . .! Mainly the thought is based on the word ‘for’ as employed here. ‘For remission’ should be understood to mean ‘with reference to’ or ‘because of remission let everyone be baptized. Baptism is with reference to sin already forgiven.”

Note a parallel which will show the folly of Mr. Andrews’ reasoning: Some think that Matthew 26:28 teaches blood regeneration. There we read, “”This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Mainly the thought is based on the word “for” as employed here. “For remission” should be understood to mean “with reference to” or “because of” remission Jesus shed His blood. The blood of Christ is with reference to sin already forgiven.

The expression “for the remission of sins” is the same identical phrase in Matthew 26:28 and Acts 2:38. That being so, let Mr. Andrews try his hand on my parallel to his statement.

But that is not all. If baptism is “because of sins “already forgiven,” then so is repentance. Acts 2:38 joins repentance and baptism. Both are “for the remission of sins.” Let us read a corollary to Mr. Andrews: Some think Acts 2:38 teaches repentance regeneration. There we read, “Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” Mainly the thought is based on the word “for” as employed here. “For remission” should be understood to mean “with reference to” or “because of remission let everyone repent. Repentance is with reference to sin already forgiven.

We have drawn our bead and pulled the trigger. If Mr. Capell or Mr. Andrews would like to respond, I am certain that Truth Magazine would be happy to carry their replies, provided of course, that we are given equal space in the Searchlight. Will they draw a bead and fire back? Or will they stay behind the cover of silence and hide behind the shield of their paper without opening it to differing views?

Truth Magazine XII: 37, pp. 598-599
September 21, 1978