Truth Magazine

By Johnie Edwards

We continue to look at lovers which are mentioned in the Bible.

Lovers of Self

Paul told Timothy, “that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves” (2 Tim. 3:1-2). Too many are so much in love with themselves that they have no room for loving God and their fellow man. Jesus said, “He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal” (Jn. 12:25). The love of self has led many to gratify their desires regardless of what God has said. Self-love keeps church members from faithful attendance if there are other things they like to do when services of the church are being conducted.

Lovers of Money

“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which, while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows” (1 Tim. 6:10). There is no evil in money but the love of it leads many astray. This is the reason for these words: “Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in the uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy” (1 Tim. 6:17).

Lovers of the Praise of Men

Some are more concerned about what men think than what God said. The reason given for some rulers not confessing Christ was: “For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God” (Jn. 12:43). Paul’s attitude concerning the praise of men is worthy of our attention. “For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10). The Pharisees, in the days of Jesus, were seeking the praise of men and this was their reward (Matt. 23).

Lovers of the World

Christians are admonished, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 Jn. 2:15). Loving the world caused Demas to forsake Paul (2 Tim. 4:10) and it will cause us to forsake God and His word. No wonder James said, “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (Jas. 4:4).

Lovers of Preeminence

The desire to be above others, and to be first is the desire of those who seek preeminence. The desire for preeminence in the church has caused much trouble among brethren. John wrote of one who desired preeminence in this language, “I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not” (2 John 9).

Lovers of Darkness

Darkness is opposed to light. Men of God are men of light and are urged to walk in the light (1 Jn. 1:7). Yet many love darkness more than they do the light. Listen to John as he wrote about darkness. “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (Jn. 3:19-20).

Lovers of Parents More Than of God

Often one will not obey the gospel because of parents. Jesus said, “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matt. 10:37). Children are to love their parents but this love must not interfere with their love for God and His Word (Luke 14:26; Mark 10:29-30).

Truth Magazine XXII: 30, p. 482
August 3, 1978

By Dennis Lynd and Ben M. Shropshire

The first Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . . .” The Fourteenth Amendment provides that “No state shall make or enforce any laws which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States . . . without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Most citizens of our great nation enjoy freedom of religion as guaranteed by the Constitution, and are grateful for such rights.

A question we would like for you to consider is this: Do all citizens of the United States enjoy freedom of religion? Before you answer this question, put yourself in the following situation, and then think about whether you would be enjoying religious freedom under such circumstances: Suppose that you were not a Christian, but, having learned that you need to be baptized for the remission of your sins, you decide to be baptized. However, the minister of the official state-supported religion of the community in which you live explains to you that it is just is not possible for you to be baptized by immersion; that under the circumstances surely it will not make any difference with God if you are sprinkled instead of being immersed. Finally, after two months of pleading, and only as a result of adverse publicity, the state-supported minister consents, and makes the arrangements for you to be scripturally baptized.

Now that you are a Christian, you would like to share the good news of salvation with others. You would like to have a Bible class so that the one who taught you could also teach others in your community. But the “powers that be” in your community will not allow you to do this. At the very least, instead of having to attend the services of the state-sponsored church, you would like to have the opportunity to assembly on the Lord’s day with other Christians in order to observe the Lord’s supper weekly and to sing without the accompaniment of a mechanical instrument of music. Again, though, the officials of your community refuse to allow you to do this. You would find this situation even more intolerable because of the realization that other religious groups, differing from the state religion, are allowed to worship according to their beliefs, but you are denied the same opportunity.

Undoubtedly you would not be happy in such a situation; but you need not worry about this because it could never happen anywhere in the United States. Right? Wrong! This very situation has happened in our country, and is happening even today. Where? In the prisons of the state of Illinois, and perhaps in other prison systems elsewhere in our country.

Perhaps you feel the situation with inmates in a prison is different; that they lost their rights, including the freedom of religion, when they were convicted and incarcerated. Such is not the case, however. While it is obviously true that a prisoner loses some of his rights, he still retains and is guaranteed by the Constitution certain basic rights-freedom of religion being one of them.

In order to illustrate for you the reality of this problem, that prisoners are being deprived of their right to worship and serve God according to their beliefs, and to appeal to you for help in solving this problem, we want to share the following information with you.

The Story of Edmund Lopes

Edmund Lopes (no. 15286) is an inmate at the Pontiac Correctional Center in Pontiac, Illinois. At the time Dennis Lynd met Edmund, Edmund was the head of the Protestant Chaplain’s board of deacons in the prision church. In the latter part of March, 1976 Dennis studied with Ed on the subject of baptism and Ed came to realize his need to be immersed into Christ. As a deacon in the Prison Bible Church, he tried to get them to stop using sprinkling for baptism. When the Chaplain continued to sprinkle prisoners, five of the six members of the deacon board left the Protestant Chaplain’s program. This was the beginning of many problems for Ed in his continuing differences with the chaplaincy of the prison.

On April 1, 1976, Edmund Lopes was removed from the prison population, and placed in segregation on a bogus disciplinary ticket. On April 2, a lawyer accompanied Dennis Lynd to the prison for the specific purpose of checking on this action by prison officials. The attorney was not allowed to enter the Correctional Center despite his protests. While in “seg,” Edmund was encouraged to return to the Chaplain’s faithful fold. By this time, however, Edmund was beginning to see that the spiritual battle lines had been drawn.

Due to adverse publicity, the prison administration was forced into allowing Edmund to be baptized on May 7, 1976. Concerning this, Ed later wrote:

“It took me two months after I was totally convicted of my need for baptism to finally get immersed for the remission of my sins. During that period, or any period before that, had this vessel of human clay died, I would have gone to hell. My brothers and sisters, that very thought terrifies me when I think of how close I had come to hell’s doors had not God been merciful enough to extend the time to me. I pleaded, I begged to be baptized. I asked every official in here from the wardens to ministers, to state officials, and to the Head Chaplain in Springfield. I was given one excuse after another. ‘We are looking into it’ ‘God knows you mean well, but He is teaching you patience.’ ‘We don’t have the facilities.'”

Edmund’s baptism turned out to be a very private affair, with the immersion taking place in the whirlpool of the prison hospital.

Five days later, on May 12, a mobile-baptistry was rolled into the prison and the Protestant Chaplain immersed fifteen inmates into the chilly waters. This was largely the results of the efforts and influence of Edmund Lopes. A newspaper article which appeared at the time in the Bloomington Pantagraph stated that the baptistry “was parked near the basketball courts of the prison Wednesday because there had been a swelling of fundamental Christianity inside the prison walls recently-fundamentalism which holds that a person is not properly baptized until he has been totally immersed in water.”

Two years have now gone by since these events transpired. During this period of time, Brother Lopes and others have requested the opportunity to study in a class in the prison with Dennis Lynd. Their repeated requests have all been denied. Also, they have tried to gain the right to worship according to the New Testament pattern in their own services, apart from the prison chaplain’s services. Even though other groups have been given this privilege, so far their efforts have not been rewarded with success.

During this same period of time, some inmates, wanting to be baptized for the remission of their sins, have been frustrated by the prison system. One man had to wait six months in order to be baptized, and only then after the prison chaplain had tried to persuade him not to be baptized by telling him that baptism is not necessary for salvation. When this inmate was being baptized, the Chaplain disrupted the service by loud and boisterous talking and other offensive behaviour. Another inmate informed prison officials of his desire to be baptized, but after being frustrated for about six months in his attempts, he finally gave up, deciding to wait until he was to be released from prison.

Gospel preachers have experienced considerable difficulties and harrassment in trying to gain admission to the Pontiac prison, largely the result of the fact that churches of Christ do not have any formal licensing or ordination procedures. Several preachers have presented adequate documentation to prison officials confirming their status as gospel preachers, but these were not accepted. The prison chaplaincy has equivocated several times about exactly what is required, and has been inconsistent in allowing some in on the basis of a certain procedure, while refusing others on the same basis.

Menard Prison in Chester, Illinois

Although these abridgments of religious freedom at the Pontiac Correctional Center seem particularly severe, it is not the only prison in Illinois where religious freedom has been hindered, and even denied. Sam Draper, a faithful gospel preacher who works with the church of Christ in Chester, Illinois, has been visiting and talking with inmates and conducting classes in the Menard Correctional Center in Chester, Illinois for over two years. During this time, about sixteen men have obeyed the gospel, having been baptized for the remission of their sins. Brother Draper has not had any particular difficulties gaining admittance to the prison, and after conducting studies with inmates in the visitation room for awhile, he was even allowed to conduct a class in a private room, with as many as 15 to 20 men present at times. Sometimes it has seemed that the men who desired to attend the class have been hindered from doing so by prison officials, but Brother Draper has not experienced any particular problems with baptizing those he has taught, as usually only a few days delay (occasioned by security regulations) has been required. The greatest problem has been the unwillingness of the prison chaplain to make available the opportunity for him to conduct services in the prison on the Lord’s days for those whom he has taught and baptized. The prisoners and Brother Draper have requested such a service, but their requests have all been denied up to the present time, in spite of the fact that other groups are given this right. The only alternative open to these prisoners is to attend the services conducted by the chaplain in which instrumental music is used and in which they do not have the opportunity to observe the Lord’s supper weekly. Obviously, it is not right to expect them to do this.

What Is Being Done about This?

Edmund Lopes at the Pontiac prison, Jerry Jarvis, and Ronald Jones at the Menard prison-all our brethren in Christ-have filed suit in federal court against Governor Thompson and the Illinois Department of Corrections on the grounds that they have been denied their religious freedom. This has been done only after every possible effort in going “through the channels” to gain their religious freedom has been tried to no avail. This suit, if it is successful, could have far-reaching consequences for good: (1) It will provide our brethren in the prisons of Illinois the opportunity to worship according to the teachings of the New Testament; (2) It will guarantee them and gospel preachers the opportunity of conducting Bible classes inside the prison in order to edify those already baptized, and to teach others: (3) It will remove the unreasonable delays for those wanting to be baptized; and (4) It could possibly do the same thing for inmates in prisons in other places in the United States where the same kind of problems are possibly being encountered by brethren.

Brother Elliot Ozment, a faithful brother in Christ, a gospel preacher, and an attorney associated with the Crawford, Ozment and Bolin law firm in Nashville, Tennessee, has committed himself and his law firm to take this case, and to pursue it all the way to the United States Supreme Court, if necessary. He believes the case against the State of Illinois is a very good one, and shares with us in the belief that this is a very important and vital cause in which all who are members of the body of Christ should be interested.

Your Help Is Needed

Such a law suit is expensive, at the very least. The prisoners are unable to pay anything at all toward the costs of the suit, and they will not be expected to do so. The Crawford, Ozment and Bolin law firm is donating its services and time used for this suit at no charge to anyone. Realistically, their contribution could probably be valused at $15,000.00. However, since so many of us have an interest in the success of this suit, it would not be right to expect, nor to allow, them to pay for the “out-of-pocket” expenses incurred in the course of their service in behalf of this suit. It has been estimated that about $5,500.00 will be needed to meet such expenses as travel, telephone, motel, etc.

Our purposes in writing this article is to gain your interest in the case, and to ask you to help us with these expenses. We need to raise this money immediately. An accounting will be made of all money received, and any surplus not used will be returned. We are soliciting help from individual Christians only; any money received from congregations will not be accepted. Will you help us? If you can and will, please make your check payable to the “Lopes-Lynd Fund,” and mail it to :Mr. Allen Roth, 802 North Mill, Pontiac, Illinois 61764. If you desire any further information on this matter, you may contact either of us: Dennis Lynd, 707 E. Timber Street, Pontiac, Illinois 61764, or Ben M. Shropshire, 7222 North Hanley Road, Hazelwood, Missouri 63042.

Brethren, we strongly urge you to help us in this good work.

Truth Magazine XXII: 29, pp. 474-476
July 27, 1978

By Mike Willis

There have been so much talk about Calvinism in recent studies among us, on such subjects as imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ, that I am getting the very definite impression that some among us have little acquaintance with what Calvinism really is. I would like to present a few articles on the Calvinist doctrine of election with the view of acquainting brethren with Calvinism and refuting it. Let us begin by defining the Calvinist doctrine of election. In order to do so, we must go back to the total picture of predestination.

John Calvin defined his doctrine of predestination as follows:

We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which he determined with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter XXI, Section 5).

As Scripture, then, clearly shows, we say that God once established by his eternal and unchangeable plan those whom he long before determined once for all to receive into salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, he would devote to destruction. We assert that, with respect to the elect, this plan was founded upon his freely given mercy, without regard to human worth; but by his just and irreprehensible but incomprehensible judgment he has barred the door of life to those whom he has given over to damnation, (Ibid. Book III, Chapter XXI, Section 7).

The Westminster Confession of Faith, which was adopted by the Presbyterian Church, states rather clearly this doctrine of predestination and election. Here is its statement of the doctrine:

3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.

4. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

5.Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace (Chapter III, Sections 3-5).

Hence, the doctrine of Calvinism asserts that God has predestinated some men to everlasting life and others to everlasting death. The doctrine further asserts that this foreordination to life or to death is conditioned upon God’s sovereign will and not upon anything which He saw in man as to whether or not man would act to accept the riches of God’s grace or not.

The System of Calvinism

Calvinism is a system so constructed that if one admits one of the propositions the rest of the doctrines of Calvinism are necessary conclusions. They remind me of a stack of dominos; if the first one falls, the rest are going to fall as well. One cannot accept part of Calvinism; he either accepts all of it or rejects all of it. The doctrines of inherited total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints are all dependent upon each other for their validity. Let me try to tie these all together in the next few paragraphs.

The doctrine of inherited total depravity asserts that all men have inherited the guilt of Adam’s transgression. Having inherited Adam’s sin, man is so tainted in his nature that he cannot do one good thing. The Philadelphia Confession of Faith, adopted in 1742 by the Baptist Church in America, states this as follows:

Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others; yet, because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith, nor are done in a right manner according to the Word, nor to a right end, the glory of God, they are sinful and cannot please God, nor make a man meet to receive grace from God; and yet their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing to God (Section XVII, No. 7).

Hence, the unregenerated man cannot act pleasingly in obedience to God regardless of what he might do. He might want to obey the Lord but being tainted with Adam’s sin, he cannot; he might want to believe in the Lord, but being afflicted with total depravity-tainted in all of his parts-he cannot.

With all men in this lost condition, God then decided to save some. (We must not forget that according to Calvinism, man is in this condition because God so willed it.) Without any action on the part of man, God predestinated that some would be saved and worked to effect their salvation. To these men, God illumined their heart through the work of the Holy Spirit in order that they might believe the gospel and be saved. To the rest, God withheld His Holy Spirit from them; hence, they cannot believe the gospel and be saved. To the Calvinist, faith is an act of God, not an act of man. God gives man faith; it does not simply come by the hearing of testimony and the will to believe. Rather, God gives faith to those whom He chooses to save.

When God chooses to give a man faith, He sends irresistible grace. According to this doctrine, man cannot help but believe the gospel and be saved. Man cannot thwart the purposes of God; hence, if God wishes for a man to be saved, he will be saved whether he personally wants to or not. Hence, God’s gift of salvation is irresistible.

The death of Jesus Christ was limited in its scope only to those whom God predestinated to salvation. The atonement of Jesus Christ is not universal in its scope. Rather, Jesus died only for the elect. God never intended to save all men; indeed, He willed that some go into eternal damnation for the praise of His glory. Hence, Jesus did not die to atone for the sins of these men. He died only for the elect.

Those whom God elected for salvation cannot ever fall from grace; once God has saved them, they are saved forever. The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is dependent upon the doctrine of election. The Philadelphia Confession of Faith states this as follows:

The perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutablity of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God, the Father, upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ and union with him, the oath of God, the abiding of the Spirit, and the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace; from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.

Notice how this statement ties the entire system together. Calvinists recognize that theirs is a system; one cannot accept a part of it without accepting the entire system.

Precisely at this point some of my brethren apparently do not know Calvinism. The doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account is the theological justification for believing that the child of God cannot fall from grace. These brethren want to defend the doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account but do not want to accept its logical conclusion that the child of God cannot fall from grace. Rather, they want this imputed righteousness to only cover sins of ignorance and weakness of the flesh; they do not believe that it will cover sins of open rebellion. In this respect, the calvinists are more logical than my brethren by making Christ’s prefect obedience cover all kinds of sins rather than dividing sin into venial and mortal categories. The other aspect of this matter which these brethren must also accept is the fact that this Calvinistic doctrine cannot be accepted by itself. It is part of a system. To accept it, my brethren are logically compelled to accept the whole system. Some are not too far from doing that. R. L. Kilpatrick, Editor of Ensign Fair, has already inherited total depravity as seen from this quotation:

The question of whether or not God’s divine attribute of justice may be compromised in imputing righteousness to sinners has never bothered us too much because it is in our favor. But the idea that God could do the opposite and impute “guilt” to those who have never committed personal acts of sin does not set too well. We are inclined to ask, “How can God impute guilt to those who have never committed ,positive acts of sin, namely those who have not reached the age of accountability? Doesn’t sin have to be committed before it becomes accountable?”

Without the imputation of guilt upon the whole human race, there is no answer for the death of the innocent. Physical death most assuredly is a “consequence” of Adam’s sin but we cannot overlook the fact that man’s punishment for sin (Rom. 6:23) must rest upon a legal base. It is not enough to say that the death of the innocent is a mere “consequence”, for, in the absence of guilt this would make God unjust.

If we are bothered by the negative aspect of imputation, should we not be just as bothered by the positive? In other words, wouldn’t it be just as “unjust” for God to overcompensate (impute righteousness) as it would for Him to undercompensate (impute sin)? If it somehow fits within the framework of God’s justice to declare righteous those who are unrighteous, then it somehow fits to declare guilt upon those who have never committed sin (“The Propagation of Adam’s `Kind’ “Ensign Fair, Vol. V, No. 11).

Notice that Brother Kilpatrick has accepted more of Calvinism than merely the imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ to the believer’s account; he has now accepted the imputation of Adam’s guilt to the account of all men, hence, inherited total depravity. His questions which he raises need to be answered by men such as Edward Fudge and Arnold Hardin. Brethren, how can you accept imputation of the perfect obedience of Christ while rejecting the imputation of Adam’s guilt? You cannot consistently accept the one while rejecting the other. This is the reason that we have been charging for many months now that your doctrine of imputation logically leads to the total acceptance of Calvinism.

Conclusion

In the next few issues of Truth Magazine, I propose to examine the doctrine of election as propagated by Calvinists. I trust that you will now see the relevancy of studying Calvinism today. We are not dealing with a denominational doctrine which reared its ugly head in the sixteenth century and has since died. We are discussing matters which pertain to current issues among brethren. Although it is true that none of my brethren have yet accepted the doctrine of election as taught by Calvinists, they are presently accepting other doctrines of Calvinism. A better acquaintance with the total system should help to avert further apostasy in the coming years in this matter. We bid you give these articles your careful attention.

Truth Magazine XXII: 30, pp. 483-485
August 3, 1978

By Ron Halbrook

For The Truth’s Sake, we must learn how to “flee fornication” (1 Cor. 6:18). We cannot afford to be naive about the wiles of the Devil, for he is constantly walking about “seeking whom he may devour” (Eph. 6:11; 1 Pet. 5:8). If we are to resist and to stand against him, we must take the counsel of God’s Word for our armor.

(I) We may have to literally flee the presence of one who seeks to entice us. When other arts of seduction failed. Potiphar’s wife tried to embrace Joseph in order to stir his lust. “And she caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me: and he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out” (Gen. 39:12). There is a time to teach God’s Word and warn those who have wicked thoughts. There is also a time when words will not avail to restrain the other person and when we must flee for our own safety. Being made of flesh, Joseph knew he could not resist such physical advances. If we had to lose our job in order to escape such attempts today, that would be better than to stay in the presence of unreasonable temptation until we lose our soul.

(2) We must be careful not to create unnecessary temptation in ourselves or in others. It is not wrong to be tempted (Heb. 4:15) but is wrong to dwell upon that which tempts (Jas. 1:14-15). We are asking for trouble when we dance, engage in promiscuous petting, or attend night clubs where every possible inducement to immorality is found. Not in dress, speech, or action should we do anything that might cause others to sin, even within the heart (Matt. 5:28; 18:6). This is a real danger in dancing or wearing such immodest attire as shorts and swimsuits. Many people who disapprove fornication condone everything that leads to it, as though it were right to contemplate the act but wrong to commit it.

(3) We should always pray for God’s help. None of us are beyond temptation. Jesus taught His disciples to pray, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” (Matt. 6:13). Jesus Himself prayed for His disciples, “I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil” (Jn. 17:15). God knows and cares about our struggles; as we humble ourselves before Him, He strengthens us to resist Satan (1 Pet. 5:6-9). “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him” (Ja. 1:5).

(4) We must fill the heart with good things. We cannot entirely control what we hear, see, and read, but we do have a great deal of control over what we dwell upon. Instead of filling the heart with everything that corrupts, and then fighting to resist the natural effects, we should fill our heart with things that are good, beautiful, and uplifting. “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true… honest . . just… pure… lovely… of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things” (Phil. 4:8).

Truth Magazine XXII: 29, p. 474
July 27, 1978