Truth Magazine

By Earl Robertson

Does the . Bible teach anything about membership in the church of Christ? If it does say something about this matter, we should be able to find it. Do men and churches teach the same thing about this that the Bible teaches?

The Bible teaches that the church of Christ is the body of Christ (Eph. 1:22, 23; Col. 1:18, 24). It also teaches that one is baptized into the body (1 Cor. 12:20). The conversion of the Jews on Pentecost (Acts 2) illustrates this truth. The apostles preach Christ unto the assembly and the people become convinced through the preaching that they are sinners. They make inquiry as to what they must do for salvation. They are told, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins . . .” (Acts 2:38. Peter further exhorted the audience to “save” themselves by obeying what he had preached. “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:41). This was the apostolic way for church membership. In fact, Luke says, “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2:47).

Church membership, in the times of the apostles, was simply accomplished-people obeyed the gospel and the Lord added them to the church. This time-honored and God-given plan has not changed. We are aware, however, that many churches today give no respect to the Lord’s way in this matter! One church manual says, “The churches therefore have candidates come before them, make their statement, give their `experience,’ and then their reception is decided by a vote of the members. And while they cannot become members without baptism, yet it is the vote of the body which admits them to its fellowship on receiving baptism” (Hiscox Manual, p. 22).

So, an experience of grace must be told to some church and the members listen to it to decide if the person is saved or lost, then cast their votes for making the individual a member of the church! Wonder where this doctrine originated? Did it come from God or man? Friend, it is a man-made doctrine. It is different from what the Bible says about church membership. What church voted to either accept or reject the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26ff)? The eunuch did not experience what modern man says happens today. The eunuch heard Christ preached and he obeyed. The Lord added!

Truth Magazine XXII: 34, p. 554
August 31, 1978

By Roland Worth, Jr.

The “reverence” that the Roman Catholic Church bestows on the mother of Jesus is well known. That such enthusiasm for Mary was not found in the first century church is admitted by at least some Roman Catholic scholars. For instance, the French historian H. Daniel-Rops writes, “At first she occupied a very modest place in men’s minds. We find her mentioned hardly at all; properly speaking, there is no Marian liturgy” (Church of Apostles and Martyrs, E. P. Dutton & Company, New York, 1960; reprinted, 1963; footnote page 217).

Daniel-Rops attempts to gloss over this, from the Catholic view, incongruous situation by verbal semantics. He hedges the above concession with the remark, “However, the dogmatic importance of the Virgin Mother had been asserted from earliest times” (page 217). That Mary possesses a certain doctrinal importance we would readily admit and, indeed, insist upon: For instance, if she were not a virgin at the time of Christ’s birth the reliability of the New Testament as a historically accurate document would collapse into ruins.

However, it is not in this sense that Mary is of “doctrinal importance” to the Catholic Church! To them her “doctrinal importance” includes her immaculate conception, her bodily assumption into heaven, and an intercessory -role that non-Catholics would dare apply only to Jesus Himself. So when people refer to the “dogmatic importance” of Mary they may be referring to quite different things. The question is not whether there were doctrinally important things concerning her life; rather, the question is what matters of doctrinal importance should be attributed to her. This question must be answered on the basis of evidence rather than preference. The New Testament is completely silent concerning the special doctrines the Roman Church teaches concerning Mary. Furthermore, the evidence that Daniel-Rops introduces from the first post-apostolic centuries also omit the now distinctive Catholic positions!

He writes, “The dogmatic importance of the Virgin Mother had been asserted from earliest times. The oldest creeds follow the example of the Gospels in confessing that Jesus was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. Against the Docetists who denied the reality of the Incarnation, the motherhood of Mary proves the truth of Christ’s humanity. Against the heresies which sought to refuse Jesus His divinity, the dogma of the Virgin birth called attention to the transcendency of Him who was made man in a fashion different from that in which other men were conceived. About 100 St. Ignatius of Antioch was already saying, `Turn a deaf ear to anyone who does not confess that Jesus, the descendant of David, was born of the Virgin Mary,’ and his Epistle to the Ephesians contains the following profound sentence: `The ruler of this world is ignorant of the virginity of Mary, and of her travail in childbirth, and of the Lord’s death: these are three resounding mysteries performed in silence’ ” (page 217).

Is there anything in this that even the most staunch Fundamentalist will find repulsive or heretical? I think not. However is there anything in this that justifies the Roman Catholic beliefs that Mary is a special intercessor with Jesus, that she was immaculately conceived, and that she was bodily taken into heaven? The answer to this must also be no. Clearly, when early post-apostolic writers spoke of the importance of Mary they had different doctrines in mind than does the contemporary Catholic.

As the years went by, Mary became romanticized and her importance elevated. When applied to her, theology was gradually transformed into mythology. Perhaps someone will find that latter word offensive. But what else can we call the grand claims made concerning her that lacked any foundation in Divine revelation?

Daniel-Rops tells us, “This dogmatic role, which the earliest Fathers of the Church had appreciated so clearly, gradually became blended with tenderness and veneration. The finest poems in the Song of Songs were to be interpreted in terms of the graces of Mary; the mysterious Chapter XIII of the Apocalypse was to be understood as a definition of her role as mediatrix. Gradually her figure appeared among the paintings on the walls of the catacombs: as the virgin to whom Isaiah foretold the miraculous birth, as the young girl whom the angel visited, and as the mother holding in her arms the Infant God. One ill-carved third-century inscription calls her ‘Digenitrix.’ So, closely linked with Christ, and subordinate to Him, the Catholic Church’s cult of the `Blessed Virgin’ (the ‘Panagia’ of the Greeks), as it was developed at the end of the fourth century and in the course of the fifth, has its roots far back in early Christian history” (page 217).

How in the world can any reasonable man believe that there is a father-son relationship between such early beliefs as the virgin birth and the much later belief in Mary as immaculately conceived and mediatrix? How does the belief that Christ’s birth of Mary proves that He had a fleshly body lead to the belief that Mary is interceding for the true believer? There is absolutely nothing in the earlier beliefs that require the latter deductions. The first beliefs were based upon Divine revelation; the latter beliefs on the mythologization of an increasingly popular figure. Again, no offense is intended but grandiose claims not confirmed by scripture can only be branded as mythical! When we have revelation endorsing a claim we can rest assured that we are dealing with hard, historical reality; but when we face claims that are unconfirmed we can not help but feel that our doubts are confirmed by the lack of scriptural endorsement.

Let us use a modern parallel: If I were to argue from the fact that my mother gave birth to me that that proves I have a body of flesh and bone there would be no controversy at all. But could my great-greatgrandchildren 200 years hence take that statement and feel, justified in saying that my mother was immaculately conceived? Of course not! One idea does not logically or of necessity lead to the other. Yet, just such a relationship Daniel-Rops would have us believe existed between first century facts and fourth century myths!

Before closing we should point out the weaknesses of some of the arguments Daniel-Rops used. He wrote, as we quoted above, that “one ill-carved third-century inscription calls her ‘Digenitrix.’ ” Notice those words “ill-carved.” They suggest incompetency or inability. Since when do the carvings of an incompetent artisan determine or confirm the propriety of a religious belief?

We also read, “Gradually her figure appeared among the paintings on the walls of the catacombs: as the virgin to whom Isaiah foretold the miraculous birth, as’ the young girl whom the angel visited, and as the mother holding in her arms the Infant God.” If the same painted pictured all three side by side (as Daniel-Rops seems to imply) then the painter must have believed in reincarnation for that is the only way Mary could have appeared in the days of Isaiah and in the first century. Yet that doctrine is heretical to the Catholic Church. Since when can the teachings of heretics be introduced to prove what should be orthodoxy in the Catholic Church?

Truth Magazine XXII: 33, pp. 537-538
August 24, 1978

By Donald P. Ames

Anyone familiar with the so-called “Gay” movement of homosexuals is also aware of the fact they are busy seeking social acceptability. This is being done now by a show of strength to try and play upon the American disposition of toleration, “live-and-let-live.” It is also being sought by seeking inroads into various denominations as ministers (after all, aren’t ministers supposed to be “good” people?).

According to the Gary Post-Tribune (7-5-77), the United Church of Christ denomination is now moving toward “denomination-wide” approval of homosexuals as ministers also. The way was prepared by the adoption of a resolution of “Human Sexuality” which stated: “For males and females, heterosexuals and homosexuals” that “concern for another, not just rigid rules, determines morality.”

I wonder where they found that in the word of God? If such be so, then why did God decide to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 13, Jude 7) for “going after strange flesh”? After all, as -long as they had “concern for another” that was all that was necessary? While it is true there is to be concern for one another, the Bible also affirms “fornicators (which includes homosexuals-DPA) and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4; see also 1 Cor. 6:9-10).

The attitude manifested by this denomination is just another way of saying that they intend to do what they desire (even to the overlooking of sins of perversion) regardless of what the word of God has to say. Such an attitude is an open mockery of the Bible!

But the same article went on to say that “the 1.8 million member denomination authorized the start of talks to explore the possibility of merger with the 1.4million member Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).” At one time years ago, this latter group stood for the truth. I wonder if they have gone so far as to also swallow this total lack of morality and respect for God’s teaching and teachers? Will they unite with the United Church of Christ denomination-false doctrine, homosexuals, and all?

There is another interesting side-light to this latter point as well. “Dr.” Leroy Garrett has been busy pushing the doctrine of an “all-inclusive” fellowship for both Churches of Christ and Christian Churches (including the Premillennialists, the ultra-liberal Disciples of Christ, and Baptists and others as “brethren in prospect”). I am now wondering if his “arms of fellowship” will open wide enough to also include all the United Church of Christ as well? Will he also accept the homosexuals, despite what the word of God has to say? Oh, what problems men create when they decide to abandon the word of God to follow their own ways!

Truth Magazine XXII: 34, p. 554
August 31, 1978

By Mike Willis

In last week’s article, I sought to show the system of Calvinism to be so interrelated that one cannot accept one part of it without accepting the entire doctrine. In this week’s article, I propose to list some objections to the Calvinist doctrines of predestination and election.

It Changes The Ground of Our Salvation

According to the Bible, man is saved through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Without the atonement on Calvary, no one could be saved. However, the Calvinist doctrine of election and predestination makes one’s salvation dependent, not upon the blood of Jesus, but upon the election of God prior to all the ages began. Before the world ever began, God had already decided who would and who would not be saved. Before the blood of Christ was ever shed, God had already decided to save some and condemn others. The shedding of the blood of Christ was just the enactment of a salvation drama according to the doctrine of election.

It Is Repugnant To The Nature of God

According to the Scriptures, God is presented as all wise, all good, and all just. Yet, according to the doctrine of election, God decreed something for a particular end which neither is nor can be good. He is supposed to have created the greater portion of men for eternal damnation to the praise of His glory. In order to demonstrate the glory of God, some men and angels were created and predestinated to eternal damnation. Yet that which is supposed to demonstrate the glory of God is contrary to His mercy and justice. It is repugnant to His justice because it affirms that God saves and damns men without regard to how they live. It is repugnant to the goodness of God because it teaches that God has willed the greatest possible evil-eternal damnation in Hell-to the greater number of His creatures. Hence, this doctrine is contrary to the revealed nature of God.

It Is Contrary to the Nature of Man

Not only is the Calvinist doctrine of election contrary to the nature of God, it is also contrary to the nature of man. Man is presented in the Scriptures with the ability to choose life or death (cf. Josh. 24:15). Yet, according to Calvinism, man cannot of his own volition choose whether or not to be saved. God has made that choice for him before the ages began. I think you can see this point more clearly by examining the fall of man in the Garden of Eden from this point of view.

According to Calvinism, God created Adam and Eve in such a way that they could not keep from sinning. Indeed, He had decreed that they would sin. Then, when they carried out the will of God by sinning, God turned and punished them. Similarly, God has created some men and angels in such a way that they cannot keep from sinning. Furthermore, He withholds from them such a portion of His grace as to enable these men to have the ability to repent and accept the gospel. Then, He condemns them to Hell for being in the condition of being an unrepentant sinner.

Contrast this idea with the nature of man presented in the Scriptures. In the Bible, man is presented as having the ability to choose whether or not to be saved. Man can either reject the will of God (Lk. 7:30) or accept it (Psa. 119:30). Any view of man which teaches the doctrine that man cannot affect whether or not he will be saved is contrary to the nature of man as revealed in God’s holy word.

It Is Hostile To the Nature of Eternal Life

Eternal life is presented in the Bible as the “inheritance of the sons of God” (Tit. 3:7); it is presented as the “reward of obedience” (Mt. 5:12); it is the recompense of those who fight the good fight of faith and who run well; it is the crown of righteousness (Rev. 2:10; 2 Tim. 4:7-8). Yet, according to the doctrine of predestination, eternal life is given arbitrarily because God chose to give it to man. It is not based on the reaction of man to the offer of salvation by God; it is based on God’s choice to save men.

It Is Hostile To The Nature of Eternal Death.

Eternal death is presented as the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23) and given to those who do not obey the gospel (2 Thess. 1:9). It is for the enemies and adversaries of God (Mt. 25:41; Heb. 10:27). Yet, according to predestination, God created man in such a way as He cannot keep from sinning. Then, He withheld from man a sufficient portion of His grace as to enable him to believe and obey the gospel. Then, He condemned to hell the man who could not keep from doing this, who simply carried out God’s will. Hence, the doctrine of predestination is contrary to the nature of both eternal life and eternal death.

It Is Injurious to the Salvation of Man

When the doctrine of predestination is presented, the man is told that he can do nothing to affect his salvation in either way. Hence, why should a man want to do any good thing? Doing good, trying to obey God’s word, will not help him in any way if he is part of the reprobate. Doing evil, disobeying God’s holy word, will not affect his soul in any way if he is part of the elect. Why, therefore, should a man even be concerned about his salvation if what the Calvinists teach is true? Why should he pray? Why should he study God’s word? Why should he try to help the ones who need his assistance? In short, why should man be concerned about his own salvation? Why should man be concerned about taking the gospel to his fellow man?

It Makes God A Respecter Of Persons

The Scriptures clearly present that God is no respecter of persons. Peter said, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10:34-35). “For there is no respect of persons with God” (Rom. 2:11; cf. Deut. 10:17; Gal. 2:6; Eph. 6:9; etc.). Yet, according to the doctrine of election, God arbitrarily chose who would and who would not be saved. Without any concern as to whether or not man was trying to live pleasing or displeasing to Him, God showed a willingness to save one man and condemn another. That is favoritism, respect of persons.

It Destroys the Comfort of the Gospel

The gospel is presented as a gospel of comfort in such passages as the following: “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light” (Mt. 11:2$-30). Is it comforting to tell people that God chose that Jesus die only for an elect group of people and that they might not be one of those for whom Jesus died? Is it comforting to tell people that God arbitrarily elected some to salvation and some to damnation and that the greater likelihood is that they are among those who are elected to damnation? Is it comforting to tell people that if God chose them to damnation that they will be lost even if they devoted all of their life to the service of God?

This damnable doctrine destroys the very idea that God is love. If God does not love all sinners and wish that all sinners were going to be saved, what guarantee do I have that He wishes that I be saved or that He loves me? This abominable doctrine leaves one with no assurance whatsoever that God loves Him enough to wish that He would be saved. Indeed, according to this doctrine, God hates the greater portion of mankind and loves only a select few!

It Destroys Basis For God’s Opposition To Sin

God is presented in the Bible as being altogether opposed to sin. Calvinists say that God is opposed to sin but their doctrine makes that impossible. According to predestination, God has predetermined everything that is going to come to pass. When Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden, God had willed that he sin. Furthermore, when a man lies today, he lies because God so willed it; when a man commits adultery, he commits adultery because God so willed it. This view of predestination makes sin the accomplishing of the will of God! How could God punish a man for doing what He willed that he do? Hence, this view of God destroys the basis for God’s opposition to sin.

Conclusion

There are insurmountable objections to the Calvinist view of predestination and election. We have touched only a few of them in this article. We trust that you will continue to examine this doctrine with us remembering that Calvinism is a system of theology. One cannot accept one portion of Calvinism without consistently accepting all of it. Those today who are teaching the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ are logically bound to accept the total Calvinistic package or establish on what basis one can consistently accept part of it and reject the rest of it. By knowing the conclusions to which this system leads, we are better prepared to oppose the first inroads of Calvinism among us.

Truth Magazine XXII: 34, pp. 547-549
August 31, 1978