Truth Magazine

By Morris W R. Bailey

When we think of handling aright, (or rightly dividing) the word of truth, our minds usually turn to the distinction between the Old and New Testament, and the fact that we are, today, under the New Testament of Jesus Christ, and not under the Law of Moses. This has been the .burden of our discussion thus far. With this article we enter upon a new phase of our subject in that we propose to show that . . .

The New Testament Must Also Be Rightly Divided

Just as people become confused and arrive at wrong conclusions when they fail to make the proper distinction between the Old and the New Testament, so they often become confused and arrive at wrong conclusions when they fail to make the proper distinction between things that differ in the New Testament, itself. This article will deal with the distinction that must be made between events and conditions before and after the cross of Christ.

In Hebrews 9:15-17 we read: “And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise – of the eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made it. For a testament is of force where there hath been death: for it doth never avail while he that trade it liveth.”

In these words the writer of Hebrews speaks of the new covenant under the figure of a testament, or will. A will is a legal document in which the testator states his or her wishes relative’ to the disposal of money or property after their death. Some have become -so :imbued with the doctrine of salvation by grace that they have developed a phobia of anything with a legal aspect in connection with salvation. So when a Gospel preacher points out. conditions of salvation that must be obeyed, he is met with the’, objection that such obedience would be legalism-that is, trying to earn salvation by works, and thus contrary to grace. Well, in Hebrews ,9:15-17 Paul designated the Gospel as a testament-a legal document. So I guess that Paul was a legalist.

Old Covenant In Force During Jesus’ Personal Ministry

About two thirds of the, way through our Bible, we find a page bearing the words, THE NEW TESTAMENT OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST. Unfortunately some have concluded from this that everything in that section of the Bible is a part of the New Testament plan of salvation. Such, however, is not the case. A proper division of the word of truth locates the personal ministry of Jesus Christ as taking place while the Law of Moses was still in force. This is evident from the following observations.

1. The Law of Moses did not end until the cross of Christ. Paul said, “having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.” From this we conclude that since the Law did not end until the cross,.it was therefore in force during Christ’s personal ministry.

2. Jesus, Himself, kept the Law. On numerous occasions we find him keeping the Passover feast. Moreover He taught His disciples to keep the Law. To His disciples He said, “The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat. All things therefore whatsoever they bid you do, these do and observe . . .” (Matt. 23:2,3).

In showing that the Law of Moses-the old covenant-was in force during the personal ministry of Christ, it thus becomes obvious that the new covenant could not have been in force at the same time. It is a fact, well .established in all jurisprudence that two covenants or wills cannot be in force at the same time. If a man makes a will and then later makes a second will, the first will becomes null and void. That the two covenants, the old and the new, could not be in force at the same time, is made clear by the apostle Paul in several strong scriptural arguments.

1. In the seventh chapter of Romans, Paul used the analogy of the marriage contract. A woman, married to a husband, is bound by the law of that husband for as long as he lives. She cannot contract a marriage with a second husband while husband number one is alive. If she does, she is guilty of adultery. Therefore the first husband must die before she is free to contract a marriage with a second husband.

Applying that illustration to the Law, Paul said in verse four, “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ, that ye should be joined to another, even to him who was raised from the dead.” Paul’s argument thus is, that they could not be joined to the Law of Moses and the new covenant at the same time. The Law of Moses had to be repealed before the new covenant could be established.

2. In the fourth chapter of Galatians, Paul gave the allegory of two women, Hagar and Sarah. Hagar, the bondwoman, represented the Law given at Mount Sinai. Sarah, the freewoman represented the new covenant. Just as Hagar and her son were not allowed to inherit with Sarah and Isaac, but were cast out, so neither can those under the law inherit with those under the new covenant.

3. In Hebrews 10:9 the writer said, “He taketh away the first that he may establish the second.” First what? Second what? Verse ten tells the writer is speaking of wills. Thus the first will, or testament, was removed that the second will, or testament could be established.

Based on the foregoing observations, it thus becomes obvious as to why it is important that we make the proper distinction between events that occurred, and conditions of forgiveness stipulated before the death of Christ and events and conditions after his death when the new covenant was in force. Failure to recognize this distinction leads to . . .

Confusion Regarding Conditions Of Salvation

By this, I mean that when Gospel preachers endeavor to set forth the conditions of salvation under the new covenant, especially the command to be baptized, they are often met with the objection that there were people saved during the personal ministry of Christ without baptism. So they assume that if people could be saved during Christ’s personal ministry without baptism, people today can be saved without it.

That there were some who, during the personal ministry of Christ, were saved without baptism, is readily conceded. There was the palsied man of Matt. 9:2, to whom Jesus said, “Thy sins are forgiven.” There was the sinful woman of Luke 7:36-48, of whom Jesus said, “Her sins which are many are forgiven.” There was the thief on the cross of Luke 23:42, 43, to whom Jesus said, “Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise.” Not only did these people receive forgiveness of sins, but said forgiveness was bestowed without their having been baptized. No one denies that.

But what those who object to baptism have overlooked, is the fact that in each of these cases, forgiveness of sins was granted while the Law of Moses was still in force, and not according to the conditions of the New Testament, which did not become effective until after Christ’s death. Since those who were saved without baptism lived on the other side of the cross, they cannot be examples of conversion to those of us who live on this side of the cross and under the New Testament, sealed and dedicated by the blood of Jesus Christ.

Some Consequences

One more thought in this connection retrains to be observed. Sometimes a doctrine involves consequences that its adherents are not willing to accept. Such is true of, the idea that examples of forgiveness of sins without baptism. during the personal ministry of Christ, establish a precedent for salvation without baptism today.

In Romans 10:9 Paul made this declaration, “Because if thou shalt confess. with thy mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe’ in thy heart that . God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” It will be observed that in these words, Paul stated as a condition of salvation that one must believe that God raised Jesus from the dead. But what about those who lived before Jesus died? Could they believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead? Obviously not.

So when those who would rule out baptism from the plan of salvation for us today, tell us that some were saved during Jesus’ personal ministry without baptism, we respectfully remind them that some, were saved during his personal ministry without believing that God raised Jesus from the dead. Shall we say, on that basis, that such faith is, unnecessary? So, rule out baptism from the plan of salvation, and by the same process of reasoning, (or lack of it) faith is ruled out too. That is the logical, consequence, whether one is willing to accept it or not.

Yes, even the New Testament must be rightly .divided. In other articles to follow we shall point out other distinctions that must be made between things that differ if we would handle aright the word of truth.

Truth Magazine XXI: 38, pp. 600-602
September 29, 1977

By Dennis G. Abernathy

There is a practice that I have observed in several congregations that, it seems to me, is out of harmony with the word of God. The practice is that of using young boys, who are not Christians, to take part in the services of the church (lead singing, give a talk, etc.). Now; if I might ask: Where is the Bible authority for it? Secondly, let me ask: What is the purpose for so doing?

One preacher said, “I feel it is no different from a visitor (not a Christian) asking a question or commenting in a Bible class.” Surely, he was not thinking when he said that! Would you want to call upon the visitors (not Christians) to get up and lead a song or preach a sermon? Suppose you have a man who is attending regularly, but has not yet obeyed the gospel, would you allow him to lead the church in worship to God? If a young boy, who has not yet obeyed the gospel, can lead the singing or give a talk in the assembly why , cannot a man who is thirty or forty years of age, but who has not yet obeyed the gospel do likewise? Where do we draw the line? Brethren, what are we thinking about-or maybe we are not thinking at all. Would you encourage the same young man (who is not a Christian) who can lead the singing -and give a talk, to partake of the Lord’s supper?

Leadership in the church of the Lord is for faithful Christian men, not children. We-, need to; teach our children the word of, God and ‘their, responsibility to Him through obedience to His will. e need to teach, young men to be faithful Christians so”they can take their place as song leaders, elders, deacons, preachers.

Brethren we need to be careful. Already the liberal brethren have their “Children’s church”. I believe it is just this kind of shallow reasoning that leads to that type of service. As Dillard Thurman, said in the publication of Gospel Minutes: “I can think of no situation in which the church must use children to do that which is committed to those in Christ;” Neither can this writer!

Truth Magazine XXI: 38, p. 600
September 29, 1977

By Ron Halbrook

In the First Century, brethren came face to face with this question, “What of Christians who were Jewish returning to the Old Law? How should such be viewed? Are such brethren safe-perhaps ‘safe in prospect’ or hope-since the Old Law recognized the same God as the New?” In the first part of the Hebrew letter, the writer taught that to have God, one must have Christ, and to have Christ one must obey all the words of His law. “God . . . hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son . . . . Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.” The writer said “every transgression and disobedience” was punished under the Old Law, and assures us the likelihood of escaping punishment for violating the New is even less! “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him” (Heb. 1:1-2:4).

The writer warned that even God’s people can be guilty of unbelief by continuing in sin; those who do not hear God’s voice and obey “.the word of God” cannot enter into the heavenly rest (chs. 3-4). The writer exalted the New Covenant in all its glory, warning again and again that those who “have tasted the good word of God” but who violate it without repentance shall come to a horrible end; “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the diving God” (chs. 5-10). The brethren were reminded that “without faith it is impossible to please” God, and by reference to great men and women of faith in the Old Testament were reminded also that the faith which pleases God is that which obeys Him. “By faith Abraham . . . obeyed” (Heb. 11). The conclusion contains a prayer that God will ‘,’make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ” (13:20-21). Only those Jewish Christians who continued to obey God’s Word maintained unity with the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and all the saints!

Among other things, James addressee) himself to this question, “Can the church show respect of persons?” James said brethren must not only look into, hear, and understand God’s word, they must obey it; those who think otherwise are “deceiving your own selves” (1:2127). “The royal law” requires love of fellow man without “respect of persons”-and “whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” Those who will be’ “judged by the law of liberty” must show love and mercy to all men without partiality. James demolished the self-deception of one who argued that he had faith and was justified without all this attention to strict statutes, rules, and laws. “. . . can faith save him? . . . faith without works is dead …. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (ch. 2). No, brethren who violate the apostolic teaching have no hope of justification. Those who “err from the truth” are not covered by grace; each one must be brought back into grace and unity by being converted “from the error of his way” (5:19-20).

Other issues were met, by 1, 2, 3 John and Jude. A major one was, “Can we know God or have His grace and not keep His commandments?” Some claimed to be “in the know”-seeing great truths missed by others, looking into deep mysteries perceived by the initiate. Therefore, they were on a high plane of knowledge and fellowship with God and were not bound to observe strictly every detail of the Inspired Message.

Oh, how John and Jude exploded the proud. fancies of these “knowing” ones! These lordly princes of knowledge who claimed to be ,above the law and sin were sinning every time they said they had no sin! Further, there was no forgiveness for them because their cock-eyed theories prevented them from confessing, repenting of, and repudiating their sins-they would not meet the conditions of forgiveness. Their “light” was darkness; by thinking they could continue in sin without breaking the unity,, they made themselves “of the devil.” All their “knowing” was a farce: “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”

Both doctrinally and in actual practice, these “knowing” ones turned the’ truth in-side-out and up-sidedown. They perverted both the place of Christ personally and the place of his Inspired Message in the scheme of redemption. They did not know how to love either God or their brethren, and were walking in “the spirit of error” while claiming “higher truth.” The apostolic teaching was the true test of Light, knowing God, Love, and Faith; maintaining unity with the Father and the Son depended upon continuing in the apostolic teaching, “The Doctrine of Christ” (1 Jn. 1:1-3; 2:3-6; 4:1-6; 5:1-3; 2 Jn. 9; Jude 3, 17-21).

“How shall churches be organized?” This question was answered for First Century saints by the letters to Titus and Timothy. By the inspired instructions in the letter to Titus, Paul revealed how Titus was to “set in order the things that are wanting” among the churches of Crete. Men were not left to build their own ecclesiastical pyramids and to set the bounds of their own authority. Elders and deacons were to be ordained in- each church, which in itself .indicated the sphere of their activity (not to mention other references which state the limit of that sphere; cf. Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2). Strict qualifications for the office and work of elder were given both to Titus and Timothy. Immediately after discussing some of these matters on church organization, Paul said, “These things write I unto thee . . . that thou may know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15-16). The things written were to be strictly observed: that was the basis of .unity on the question of church organization.

When the book of revelation was written, brethren were being forced to face this very practical issue, “Can we accommodate ourselves to the world in time of persecution?” The “record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ” which John gave was the very word of God-not mere theological theorizing. “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein. . .” (1:1-3). He admonished the saints to be unswervingly faithful, not to accommodate, not to compromise; warned of false doctrine, smug indifference, and refusal to repent of sin; gave a panoramic view of the eventual victory of Christ and His servants, and of the sure defeat coming to the devil and his angels. John concluded with an appeal for men to “do his commandments” and a fearful warning not to “add unto these things” nor “take away from the words of the book of this prophecy” (22:14-19). Unity and victory was for those who continued to obey, defeat and death for those who disobeyed. There was no middle ground, no room for compromise or accommodation-no matter how fiercely the battle raged.

What About Today?

We have demonstrated at some length that obedience in faith to the inspired message was necessary to maintain unity in the first century. What about today? Will it still work? Faith can give only one answer: “Yes!” As has been often said but too little observed in practice: God’s plan will still work if we will still work God’s plan.

In matters of faith and practice necessary to salvation, we can “all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). We can still maintain unity with “both the Father and the Son” by abiding “in the doctrine of Christ.” But “whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God” (2 Jn. 9). We can and must “fulfill the law of Christ” by bearing “one another’s burdens,” while at the same’ time earnestly contending “for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Gal. 6:2; Jude 3).

On the other hand, we dare not try to create or maintain an unholy unity in the bonds of iniquity-either by faith or practice-with those who “pervert the gospel of Christ.” Paul warned, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8-9). In view of the admonitions contained in these and similar passages, Moses E. Lard asked, “Is it true . . . that all Christians cannot see alike? It is a humiliating fact, I grant, that they will not see alike, but a grand lie that they cannot” (Lard’s Quarterly, Vol. I (1865), p. 253).

“But,” someone objects, “when the Bible is made the standard of unity, it divides people.” Yes, indeed, any standard of unity is also a standard of division! C. C. Morrison, liberal Disciple of Christ, in The Unfinished Reformation complained about the Bible dividing people; Lanny Hunter, liberal member of a Church of Christ, in the June 1974 issue of Mission picked up the same cry. Whatever standard they propose will be a standard of division to all who do not accept it, so the only question is whether we shall have a divine standard of unity (which separates those who do not think it is a good standard) or a human standard (which will also separate).

Yet another brother thinks that our language is not pure, but is crude and misleading, when we claim the Bible is the basis of unity. He says it is not “strictly true that the Bible is the basis upon which we are to unite” and that ‘not “even the plainest New Testament teachings are the basis of unity” (Edward Fudge, June 20, 1968 and May 1, 1969 Gospel Guardian). He proposes Christ as the basis of unity. Whatever such nebulous talk means, it is obvious our brother is uncomfortable with the plea which makes the apostolic teaching the basis of unity. He is making “Christ as the basis of unity” mean something less than the apostolic teaching; such a road leads to making less and less of the apostolic teaching necessary for unity. The truth is that we have unity with Christ the same way sheep have unity with their shepherd. “And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers” (Jn. 10:4-5). When one strays from the apostolic teaching, he strays from the voice of Christ. Unity in Christ means unity upon His Word. It was so in the New Testament days, and the restoration plea simply calls men to return to that premise.

Another pleads that Romans 14 allows doctrinal diversity in faith and practice. The truth is that the chapter deals with matters in which God has neither required nor prohibited: The same book, in chapter 16:17-18, warns that we cannot teach anything as a condition of salvation and fellowship which God has not bound in the Inspired Message.

In short, brethren, the inspired book teaches this: The unity of Ephesians 4 is maintained by the sound preaching of 2 Timothy 4. That was God’s plan in .the First Century. He has given no notification of its change in the Twentieth Century. We dare not risk our souls (and the souls of others!) on any other platform. In God’s blessed Son, in His Holy,Word, let us maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. In the Twentieth as in the ‘First Century, there is one Lord, there is one faith.

(To be Continued)

Truth Magazine XXI:38, pp. 598-600
September 29, 1977

By Mike Willis

For several years; I have been receiving the Present Truth magazine which is edited by Robert D. Brinsmead and mailed out of Fallbrook, California. I have spoken to some preachers among us who have been receiving the periodical without cost to them from its first issue. Just where this publishing corporation received its mailing list is unknown to me but I know that they are mailing their literature to a large number of the preachers in the Lord’s church. I have hurriedly glanced through the various issues of this paper during recent years and thought that I had a pretty good grasp of what they were teaching. However, in preparation for writing this article, I went back and carefully re-read the last two years of their publications to be sure that I was understanding what they were saying.

Emphasis on the Reformation

One thing has been evident to me from the beginning of my reading of this journal, namely, its emphasis on the reformation. Reformation scholars such as Luther and Calvin are quoted extensively and frequently. In my reading of the paper, I have almost become convinced that the quoting of Luther or Calvin in this paper is as good as the, quoting of the New Testament writers. Whether this judgment be true or not, I am thoroughly convinced that the editor and writers for this paper are bent on the restoration of the reformation. I invite any of our readers to critically examine any single issue of this magazine to see that this is so.

(Let me interject that I am somewhat concerned to. see some articles published among us which seem to emphasize the restoration movement in America to such an extent that one could get the idea that we are supposed to restore the Restoration Movement. We are to restore New Testament Christianity, nothing more and nothing less.)

Peculiar Doctrines of Present Truth

To list all of the things which Present Truth magazine is publishing would be impossible. Some of the points which they are emphasizing are altogether legitimate (such as the authority .of Goal’s word over subjective religious experiences). However, there are a number of doctrinal departures from the revealed word of God which I -want to mention to our readers and to substantiate from quotations from this paper in order that we might be on guard against some who might have adopted these views among us.

1. Perseverance of the saints. Articles which have been published in the Present Truth magazine express belief in the false doctrine of “once saved, always saved” as the following quotations clearly show:

“Moreover, they know-that the remnant of sin which is in their flesh, is not laid to their charge, but freely pardoned. Notwithstanding in the meanwhile they fight in the spirit against the flesh, lest they should fulfil the lust thereof. And although they feel the flesh to rage and rebel against the spirit, and themselves also do fall sometimes into sin through Infirmity, yet they are not discouraged, nor think therefore that their state and kind of life, and the works which are done according to their calling, displease God: but they raise up themselves.” (“Luther’s Comments on Galatians 5:17, “Present Truth, Vol. VI, No. 3, p. 9).

“Wherefore let not them which feel the concupiscence of the flesh, despair of their salvation …. But it followeth not therefore that thou shouldest make a light matter of sin, because God doth not impute it. True it is that he doth not impute it: but to whom and for what cause? Not to them that are hardhearted and secure, but to such as repent and lay hold by faith upon Christ the mercy-sent, for whose sake, as all their sins are forgiven them, even so the remnants of sin which are in them, be not imputed unto them ….And this is the true wisdom and consolation of the godly, that although they have and commit sins, yet they know that for Christ’s sake they are not imputed unto them” (Ibid., pp. 10-11).

These and other quotations which are taken from issues of Present Truth document the fact that these men are faithful to the Reformation theology of John Calvin’s doctrine of the perseverance of the saints.

2. The imputation of the righteousness of Christ. The theological basis which is used for saying that God overlooks the sins of the believer is the Calvinistic doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ to the account of the believer. Here are some quotations which document the fact that Present Truth endorses and propagates this doctrine:

“There are two elements blended together in God’s redemptive act In Christ. These elements are righteousness and blood. Paul not only ascribes salvation to the blood of Christ but also to the righteousness of Christ ….The gospel to about Jesus Christ (Rom. 1:3)-His righteousness and blood. If Christ is our Sun, then half of this Sun’s luster is dimmed when we fail to rivet our attention on the grand theme of the righteousness of Jesus” (Robert D. Brinsmead, “The Righteousness of Christ,” Present Truth, Vol. VI, No. 2, p. 161.

“We may summarize the point by saying that God requires of man a holy life. The justice of God’s judgment seat requires exact and perfect obedience to the divine law. Man cannot be saved unless that law be fulfilled-every jot and title of it.

“Says Calvin, ‘The Lord promises nothing except to perfect keepers of His law,’ and then, to underline the human predicament, he adds, ‘and no one of that kind is to be found.’– Calvin, op. cit., Bk. 3, chap. 17, sec. 1. This is where God stepped to by providing for us a Surety (Heb. 7s22) in Jesus Christ. His righteousness consists in His perfect obedience to His Father’s law in our room and on our behalf. Not only by His blood (which atones for our offenses) but by His righteousness He reconciles us to God and presents us in the sight of divine justice as if we had kept the law” (Ibid., p.18).

“Since Christ lived for His people a life of positive righteousness as well as died to atone for their sins, this means that God’s justification of the believer includes more than pardon for past offenses. While the blood of Christ washes away the stain of all guilt, the righteousness of Christ clothes the believer with the righteousness which the law demands” (Ibid., p. 22).

“By faith he can bring to God the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ, and the Lord places that righteousness of His Son to the sinner’s account. This is how the believing sinner is justified by faith.

“Justification before the law is more than pardon for past sins. While on the cross Christ bore away the curses of the broken covenant so that the believing sinner might be pardoned. He also fulfilled the stipulations of the covenant by His life so that a perfect keeping of the commandments might be imputed to the believer. Being justified by faith in both Christ’s doing and dying, the believer is entitled to all covenant rewards” (Vol. V, No. 7, p. 52).

We have already encountered some trouble among the Lord’s churches because certain ones among us have accepted the Calvinistic doctrine of the imputation of the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ. By applying this doctrine to certain matters among us, some have extended their umbrella of fellowship to include those who are wilfully involved in support of human institutions from the church’s treasury, the sponsoring church type of organization, premillennialism, using instruments of music in their worship, diverting the mission of the church to get it involved in recreation, etc.

3. Election. Another point of Calvinism that is presented in the Present Truth magazine is the doctrine of election. The Calvinists are hurting from the extensive attacks of those of us who oppose Calvinism who have charged that Calvinism teaches that God chose to send a large group of men to Hell without them ever having done anything to deserve it. Present Truth does not like the logical consequences of the Calvinistic doctrine of election. However, rather than repudiate the Calvinistic doctrine of election, the writers of Present Truth prefer to rest in inconsistency. They recognize that the doctrine of God eternally decreeing a group of reprobates to Hell is the logical consequence of their doctrine of election but they refuse to accept it. At least these Calvinists recognize their problem as is shown in what follows:

“At the Conference of the Hague the Calvinists stated: ‘When we posit an eternal decree of election of certain particular persons, it clearly follows that we also posit an eternal decree of rejection or reprobation of certain particular persons, for there cannot be an election without a rejection or reprobation. When from a certain number some persons are elected, then by this very act others are rejected, for he who takes them all does not elect” ‘ (Kiaas Runia, “Recent Reformed Criticisms of the Canons;” Present Truth, Vol. V, No. 6, p. 27).

Klaas continued in this article to try to grapple with the problem. He said,

“It is of course true that logic’ does play an important part In theology . . . .By this very means the church has developed its doctrine of the Trinity and also its Christology, yet the question must always arise: is a particular consequence ‘good and necessary’? In general we must say that especially at the point of an eternal decree of reprobation we have to be most careful. And one should ask oneself: why does Scripture itself not draw this conclusion, if it is so natural and so logical?” Ibid., p. 281.

Of course, Unitarians would ask Klaas the same question as he posits with reference to the eternal decree of reprobation with reference to the Trinitarian doctrine of the Godhead. You see, Klaas is reluctant to accept the logical conclusions of his presuppositions. He wants to adopt the idea of an eternal election, the total depravity of man, etc. but to reject the bad side of the conclusions which result from these presuppositions.

Citing with approval the work of certain Calvinists who are unwilling to accept the conclusion of an eternal decree of reprobation, Klaas said,

“Secondly, they also refuse to change the biblical asymmetry between election and rejection, Into a symmetrical, logical system, in which salvation and perdition evolve from the one decree in two parallel lines. ‘He who wants to be ‘logical” here, must either make faith the work of man alone or unbelief the work of God’ ” (Ibid., p. 29).

Notice the position which Present Truth is taking with reference to the doctrine of election. They want to believe that God predetermined that some would be saved but do not want to believe that He predetermined that others would be lost. Consequently, they charge that the Bible is illogical and asymmetrical on this point. In essence, this says that the Bible is teaching two contradicting doctrines. Klaas leaves the matter up in the air. He states that these two doctrines conflict with each other and that he accepts the idea of an election and rejects the idea of reprobation but offers no way that the two can be harmonized. Instead, he appeals for more study in this area.

4. Total depravity. In keeping with the fact that Present Truth is pretty much a Calvinistic journal, although it does differ with the main stream of Calvinism in some points, the paper teaches that man has received the guilt of Adam’s transgression and stands totally depraved before God.

“Here is a simper. In himself he has no freedom at all. To begin with, he Is in debt to the law. Because he has failed to render to it a life of perfect righteousness, his We is forfeited, and he is obligated to make full satisfaction to the law’s penal claims. By the power of that omnipotent law he is bound to the service of sin (1 Cor. 15:56 Rom. 7:8). Or to put this another way, God’s wrath (‘the law worketh wrath’ (Rom. 4:15) 1 has abandoned him to the control of sin. All this has come about by the sin of Adam, his legal representative (Rom. 5:16-19). Then too, his nature Is disposed to hatred of God and to love of evil. So we may safely concede the Augustinian premise that in Adam man is totally lost. He is so enslaved to do evil that he is not free to live a life of righteousness” (Robert D. Brinamead, “The Legal and Moral Aspects of Salvation, Part 3s In the Matter of Election,” Present Truth, Vol. V, No. 6, pp. 12-13).

“At this point the Calvinist may ask, ‘How can the sinner, who is dead fn sin’s and totally depraved, be free to accept Christ?’ We simply answer that the legal aspect of redemption takes precedence over the moral condition of man” (Ibid., p. 13).

Notice that Brinsmead had the perfect opportunity to express his disagreement with Calvinism in this last quotation but he chose not to. Why? Because he accepts Calvinism’s concept of man. Man is born totally depraved according to the writers of Present Truth.

5. Salvation without baptism. Having seen this much Calvinism in the Present Truth magazine, I was not shocked to read that these writers did not believe that one had to be baptized in order to be saved. In fact the masthead of the paper reads, “Solely by Grace, Solely by Christ, Solely by Faith.” (Of course, the editor has never taken the space in his paper, at least to my knowledge, to explain how salvation can be solely by three different things! The masthead is a contradiction in terms.) However, let me once again document the fact the Present Truth teaches that one can be saved without baptism. In the second issue of the special on the “covenant,” the writers of Present Truth treated baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the “signs and seals” of the covenant. In this, the writer said,

“We have to acknowledge that people can be saved apart from the signs and seals of God’s covenant” (“The Signs and Seals of the Covenant,” Present Truth, Vol. V, No. 8, p. 18).

“There are still some hard-liners in captivity! Some insist that all who are not baptized by immersion according to their particular teaching cannot be saved ….We need to acknowledge that salvation is by grace alone. This means that the Lord Is in the business of saving sinners. Just as no one Is without sin, so no one is without error. If error damns us, then we must all be damned” (Ibid. ).

Repeatedly this paper mentions that one is saved through repentance and faith without ever mentioning that baptism is essential to salvation. Yet in these statements there can be no doubt that these men do not believe that one has to be immersed in water in order to receive the forgiveness of his sins.

Conclusion

As we have gone through an examination of this paper, the question comes to my mind of just how well received is Present Truth among the brethren. I do not know the answer to that question. Perhaps some of our readers can inform us as to what they are hearing from comments with other preachers. However, I do know that I have read three complimentary letters signed by gospel preachers among us in the pages of their “Letters to the Editor.” That, I admit, is not very many yet it should awaken us to the danger which is in this journal.

Seeing the dangers that are inherent in this revival of Calvinism, this Neo-Reformation movement, I would like to issue a call for brethren everyone to arm themselves for another fight against the evils of Calvinism. Get out your sermons on total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints and preach them. If you have not prepared any sermons on this subject during the time that you have been preaching, I would suggest that you need to study these subjects and prepare lessons on them. I found these books to be especially helpful to me: The Gospel Plan of Salvation by T.W. Brents and Kept By the Power of God by I. Howard Marshall. (Needless to say, these books are available through Truth Magazine Book Store.)

Truth Magazine XXI: 38, pp. 595-597
September 29, 1977