Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Question:

From Wisconsin: “Were the apostles baptized in water? During a recent rather lively Bible class, we all seemed to agree that what the Apostles did has no direct affect on our salvation. However, one non-Christian has challenged a member to prove that the Apostles were baptized in water, if water baptism is all that important.

“But back to the question, the class ended with two mutually exclusive positions on the Apostles. One, that they were set in the church miraculously and did not need to be baptized in water; and, two, that the only way anyone can receive the forgiveness of sins is after water baptism, including the Apostles. Your comments would be appreciated.”

Reply:

This is a controversial question. It has, however, no bearing on the importance of baptism. The challenge raised by this “non-Christian” is similar in design and intent to the old question, “But what about the thief on the cross?” Suppose none of the apostles were baptized. How does that alter Mark 16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned?” The answer to whether or not the apostles were baptized does not prove anything relative to the significance of water baptism for penitent believers today.

“Set In The Church”

Many believe the apostles were “set in the church miraculously and did not need to be baptized in water.” Their proof text is 1 Cor. 12:28. “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings helps, governments, diversities of tongues. ” If this proves the apostles were “set in the church miraculously,” it proves the same for prophets and teachers. The text says they were “set in the church” as certainly as the apostles. Were they, too, “set in” without the need “to be baptized in water?”

Further, in 1 Cor. 12:18, Paul said, “But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.” If verse 28 proved the apostles were “set in the church miraculously and did not need to be baptized in water,” why does not this verse prove that all members are “set in the church” before and without water baptism?

1 Cor. 12:18,28 do not deal with the method or the “how” of gaining entrance into the church. Verse 13 does this. “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body.” All members of the body were indeed “set” by the Lord, but it is verse 13 that tells us how they were “set in” the body, the church. Verses 18 and 28 refer to God’s arrangement of the functions in the body as the entire context clearly reveals. The duties are prescribed of God. Some have one place in the body while others have another. It is the ranking or ordering of the Lord who sets or arranges them ” as it hath pleased him” (1 Cor. 12:11,18,28).

“Were The Apostles Baptized In Water?”

Peter and Andrew were disciples of John the Baptist (Jn. 1:35). As such, they had been baptized in water. Jesus also made and baptized disciples (Jn. 4:1,2). The apostles were disciples. “He called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles” (Lk. 6:13). Those who refused John’s baptism “rejected God’s purpose for themselves” (Lk. 7:30-NASB). So, surely, the apostles. were baptized in water. This answers the question so far as it goes, but the implications are more extensive.

The real issue here is, “Were the apostles baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (Lk. 24:47; Acts 2:38)? One of them was. Paul was told to, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). “And he . . . arose, and was baptized” (Acts 9:18). But what of those baptized of John or Jesus before the cross? Were they baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins? This is the knotty, controversial portion of this query. There are at least two views.

1) Those baptized by John before the cross did not need to be baptized as per Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:16, If this outlook be correct, it does not negate or mitigate against the importance of baptism. This view states that John’s preaching of repentance and baptism were prepatory to entrance into the kingdom. John baptized “for the remission of sins” (Mk. 1:4), and those thus immersed were inducted into the kingdom on the day of Pentecost.

2) Those baptized by John before the cross also were baptized under the “great commission ” of Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:16.

None should be overly dogmatic about either view.

“But What About Acts 19?”

The disciples in Acts 19:1-5 knew only the baptism of John. They were likely disciples taught by Apollos (Acts 18:2426). It appears they were baptized “unto John’s baptism” after the Pentecost of Acts 2. Hence, the need to be “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 119:5). If it is granted they received John’s baptism postPentecost, this text is not germane to the issue before us. Our question involves only those legitimately baptized under John’s baptism. However, it is noteworthy that Paul said John urged that his disciples should believe on Christ which should come after him (John). Does not belief on Christ include obedience to His gospel?

Questions For Study

“Some questions may serve to get before you what we mean: (1) Did the baptism of John constitute the new birth? (2) Did John’s disciples enter the kingdom without the nlew birth? (3) Did John’s baptism make Christians? (4) Did it put men into Christ? (5) Was it in the name of the crucified and risen Lord? Paul settles this question in Acts 19, rather Luke settles it, in these words: ‘When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.’ If John’s baptism had been ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus,’ it would have hardly been necessary to say that.

“John’s baptism was temporary and provisional. It lasted until the baptism of the Great Commission, and there it ended, just as definitely and certainly as has the law of Moses.

“Whatever relationships existed under the law of Moses ended with the abrogation of the law. Would not the same hold true in respect to those blessings brought about by the baptism of John? The baptism of the Great Commission is for the remission of sins, but it also establishes us in a relationship where we may continue to receive pardon for sins committed after baptism. John also baptized for remission of sins. Did that baptism put them into a relationship through which they could continue to receive forgiveness of sins after the new covenant began? and after the baptism of John had ceased?” (Luther Blackmon, Gospel Advocate, “The Baptism of John,” April 22, 1948, p. 389). I think not.

This question may never be settled to the satisfaction of everyone. It is a moot question. It has no bearing on our salvation. Let no one be unduly disturbed about it. Surely, Christians will not be alienated by pushing it to the point of strife, contention and division. Regardless of one’s view, he must continue to press and preach the necessity of baptism for sinners today (Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38, 22:16; 1 Pet. 3:21).

Truth Magazine XX: 45, pp. 716-717
November 11, 1976

By Roy E. Cogdill

Men bear fruit by their lives, in their teaching, and even from their attitudes comes forth fruit that is often discernible and distinct. The liberal movement among brethren about which we frequently have something to say is the result of an attitude toward the Word of God. This is the real essence of the institutional movement. As long as men have respect for the Word of God and reverence for the authority of Christ they will not make every excuse in the entire catalog of human imagination for departures from the simplicity of the Gospel.

“Shortly before the turn of the present century, a movement originated in the church of Christ that resulted in what is commonly known as the Christian Church. The idea is quite generally wide-spread that the cause of this schism and resultant division was Instrumental music in the worship and societies in the work of the church. Technically speaking, this is incorrect. True, these were major differences between those who adhered to the original pattern of things and those who went out from us: yet Instrumental music and the societies were effects rather than causes.

“Dr. A. W. Fortune, some time professor of the College of the Bible, and ‘Pastor’ of the ‘Central Christian Church,’ of Lexington, Kentucky, in his book, ‘The Disciples in Kentucky,’ sets forth as grounds for the division, the following: ‘The controversies through which the Disciples have passed from the beginning to the present time have been the result of two different interpretations of their mission. There have been those who believed it is the spirit of the New Testament church that should be restored and in our method of working the church must adapt itself to changing conditions. There have been those who regarded the New Testament church as a fixed pattern for all time, and our business is to hold rigidly to that pattern regardless of consequences. Because of these two attitudes, conflicts were inevitable (Page 383).

“This, we believe, is a fair and impartial statement of the divergence of views that obtained then, and are now characteristic of the two groups. Because of these differences in attitude, it was, as Dr. Fortune suggests, inevitable that division should come; and it came shortly before the turn of the present century. Those who had worked and worshiped together in the effort to plant again the Cause of Primitive Christianity in a land torn by division and cursed by denominationalism, divided themselves, and the result was that another denomination came into existence! Ironically enough, those whose avowed mission in life was the utter destruction of all denominationalism, became but another denomination, and thus built again the things they had once destroyed! Today the Christian Church admits its denominational status, and glories in the fact!

“Instrumental music and the societies were simply symptoms of the disease that lurked unseen; outward manifestations of an inward attitude wholly foreign to that which had characterized the Restoration movement in its inception. Nor did this difference in attitude originate with this movement. It is the same as that which occasioned the famous controversy between Luther and Zwingli-whether we are at liberty to do anything not expressly forbidden, as Luther contended, or are bound by what is written and must therefore do no(hing for which there is not a ‘thus saith the Lord,’ or ail approved apostolic precedent, as Zwingli contended. This, too, is the point of issue between those who insist that the Bible and the Bible alone is a sufficient rule of faith and practice, and those who consider it a book of principles only, and therefore to be made adaptable to changing times and conditions. The former have always repudiated creeds, confessions of faith and church manuals, while the latter have not hesitated to advocate them, indeed, to urge them as legitimate instruments to adapt the truth to present day conditions. This is the door through which instrumental music, missionary societies, creeds, infant baptism, sprinkling and pouring as substitutes for baptism, and many other things adinittedly not taught in the New Testament, were brought in. While all have not been so frank as Mr. Beecher, the eminent denominational preacher of an earlier generation, who said that he practiced infant baptism for the same reason that he used an ox yoke-he had tried them and both worked-it is yet a fact that this is the real reason why so many things unauthorized by the Scriptures are practiced without question, today.

“Such an attitude is, of course, wholly foreign to that which characterized those who launched the restoration movement. The pioneers of the faith were determined to do nothing for which there is no expressed command, or approved precedent; and they were willing to speak only when the Scriptures speak and be silent when the Scriptures are silent. So long as these principles were adhered to, unity prevailed, and the Cause of Primitive Christianity spread with a rapidity equaled only by that of the apostolic age. The Christian Church of today is, therefore, a total apostasy from the teaching of Campbell, Stone, Scott and others. This, we believe, will not be seriously questioned by those who belong to that institution. Certainly, they who boast of their denominational status will not insist on maintaining harmonious views with a man who made a daily paper in New Orleans publish a correction of a former s(atenient in which he was declared to be the ‘head and founder of a great denomination,’ as Mr. Campbell did. Said Mr. Campbell: ‘You do me too much honor, I have always repudiated all human names and heads for the people of the Lord.’ Contrast this with the following statement front ‘Dr. Harwood Miller,’ recently installed as ‘permanent pastor’ of the National City Christian Church: ‘Deno in inat ions and sects are not wholly or even largely the product of human pride and prejudice and unbrotherliness-a thing entirely wrong could not long endure by the devotion of men-it is unthinkable to condemn all sectarianism as sinful.

“The real cause of division in the body of Christ was therefore, an abandonment of the principles that had hitherto motivated us. Those who no longer looked upon the New Testament as an all-sufficient guide and rule of faith and practice did not scruple to demand things unauthorized therein; while those who clung tenaciously to the allsufficiency of the Scriptures, as stoutly resisted them; and division was, therefore, inevitable. This, indeed, has been the cause of all departures since the apostolic age. Those who regard the Bible as a complete revelation for all time cannot, in conscience add to, or take from, its teaching, in the smallest particular; while those who view it only as a mass of raw principles to be worked into shape to fit changing conditions, are not restrained by the injunctions it contains against adding to or taking from the Word.”

The above quoted paragraphs are taken from a tract entitled “Causes of Digression” published by the Gospel Broadcast of Dallas, Texas. This tract was written by-of all things-Guy N. Woods, now chief hatchet man for the “Gospel Advocate”-the chief medium for the promotion of human institutions among the brethren of this generation. The case against the position Woods now occupies and the Advocate now advocates could not be made out better. Another denomination is emerging or has already emerged and division has “inevitably” come again. The causes are the same as they were in the division that gave rise to the denomination “The Christian Church” at the “turn of the century.” Once again it is true that “benevolent societies,” “Christian Educational Societies,” human federations like the “Herald of Truth” and “Campaigns for Christ,” and a multitude of other departures from New Testament pattern and authority are only symptoms of the disease and not the real cause. The real cause lies this time also in a difference in attitude toward the Word of God and divine authority.

Those who reject all of these human institutional arrangements in the work of the Lord’s Church stand now where Guy N. Woods and others allied with him in this digression stood before-clinging “Tenaciously to the all sufficiency of the Scriptures”-and still willing to “speak only when the Scriptures speak and be silent when the Scriptures are silent.” Brother Woods and multitudes of brethren who once stood where we stand have accepted the doctrine of the Christian Church and are now among those “who consider it a book of principles only, and therefore to be made adaptable to changing times and conditions.” To put it in Brother Woods’ words again, “The real cause of division in the body of Christ was (is) therefore, an abandonment of the principles that had hitherto motivated us.”

Truth Magazine XX: 45, pp. 714-715
November 11, 1976

By Arthur M. Ogden

This is the fifth Article in a series on “Women Teachers.” In the four previous Articles, I have sought to show that the truth on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 permits Christian women to teach classes of other women and children. These two passages do not forbid it.

In this the final study in this series, I am turning my attention to a consideration of some positions taken by some of our brethren on the subject before us, which I feel are out of harmony with the truth. These arguments are “Wells Without Water” and hinder the cause of truth. I assure you, that the things presented for consideration in this article are not intended just to find fault. They are presented that you might prayerfully consider them for their merit, with the hope that by logic and reason, we can come to present an impregnable front to the force of error. I beg you to consider them carefully in the same spirit with which they are written. If they are in error, feel free to call them to my attention.

Public and Private

I once attended a debate on the subject of “Women Teachers,” in which about half of the time was spent trying to prove that the real point at issue was whether Bible Classes are public or private. The disputants argued for hours on the point. Both must have been under the impression that Paul said, “I suffer not a woman to teach in public,” and “Let your women keep silence in public.” The Bible does not read that way, however, and I suggest that until it does, there is absolutely no reason to discuss the point.

Call Bible Classes public or private, it does not matter. It has nothing to do with the issue. The truth is, Christian women are not permitted to violate their submission to man anywhere, whether public or private, and she can teach anywhere, whether public or private, that does not place her in the position of addressing the assembly of the whole church (1 Cor. 14:34-35), and that does not place her in a position of ignoring her submission to man (1 Tim. 2:11-12).

Arguing the issue over public and private with those who are opposed to “Women Teachers” is a serious mistake. First of all, you join hands with the false teachers, saying, “in public” is what qualifies 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, and 1 Timothy 2:11-12. That is an error within itself. It is a disaster to try and qualify these passages with “in public” as we have already seen. Secondly, you find yourself in an endless battle of meaningless words which prove nothing. The words public and private are relative words and their meaning cannot be pinpointed to be absolute. So, what may be in one sense public, may in another sense be private. According to Webster’s definitions of public and private, Bible Classes may be considered as both. I have found in my experience that the admission of the fact that Bible Classes are public is a thorn in the flesh to the opposition. Since most of their arguments are based upon Bible Classes being public, they are at a loss for words when you admit that they are public.

The Prophet’s Wives

Many brethren have been arguing for years that in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Paul is talking about the “prophet’s wives,” and since we have no prophets today, the passage is not binding. The argument is based upon the premise that Paul had been addressing the prophets (v. 29-33), and since he says, “let your women” in verse 34, it is felt that he is speaking of the prophet’s wives. Support is also found for this position in Paul’s statement, “let them ask their husbands at home” (v. 35).

I find great dissatisfaction in this argument. First, because it is built upon false premises, and second, because it ignores plain statements. The premise that Paul is addressing the prophets is false. Nowhere in these verses does Paul direct his remarks to the prophets. We must go all the way back to verse 26 to find those addressed. “How is it then, brethren?” The remarks following are directed to the brethren regarding the tongue-speakers, the prophets, and the women. The brethren were to “let the prophets speak” (v. 29), and “let your women keep silence” (v. 34). The brethren were to regulate order in this assembly (v. 40). This involved bringing their (“your”) women “under obedience” to “keep silence in the churches.” “Your women” were the women of the church, and it included all Christian women, for Paul said, “It is a shame for women to speak in the church” (v. 35). To limit this passage to the prophet’s wives is to ignore the fact that the command covers every Christian woman.

Let us suppose for a moment that the application of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 was just to the prophet’s wives. Would that not mean that all other Christian women were not under the restrictions of the passage? Could all other women speak in the church? If not, why not? And if not, what is the point of the prophet’s wives argument? Can christian women today speak in the churches? If not, why not? And again, what is the point of the prophet’s wives argument?

1 Timothy 2:11-12 is usually cited as the passage that will not permit christian women to speak in the assembly today. This passage does not silence women. We all recognize that 1 Timothy 2:11-12 permits women to teach, as long as she does not violate her submission to man. I maintain that a woman can ask a question, answer a question, read scripture, and make a comment, even in a Bible Class where men are present as long as she is not ignoring her place of submission to man. Most of you agree with that too, but how many of you would let a woman read a scripture from her seat just before we oberve the Lord’s supper? How many would allow her to make a comment from her seat after reading the scripture? Would you permit a woman the same liberty in the assembly of the whole church, that you permit her in the classroom? Before you throw 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 out the window on the shoulders of the prophet’s wives, I believe it would be wise to consider the consequences of your position.

Inspired Women

Others have been contending that the women of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 were “inspired women,” and since we have no inspired women today, the passage is not applicable. This position is based upon the premise that all of those regulated in the chapter were inspired.

I have previously referred to this position in Article 2, “1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Is It Binding Today?” I pointed out in that article that this conclusion is based upon an assumption, which is not inferred, much less necessarily inferred. In fact, Paul’s statement in verse 35 precludes this position, for he said, “it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” He did not say, “inspired women.”

Inconsistencies

In Article 3, “1 Corinthians 14: Truth, The Roadblock to Errors,” I made mention of the fact that we do not have the right to take the regulations given to govern commanded things, and use them to regulate the realm of expediency. This is to extend a thing beyond its legitimate bounderies. To illustrate my point, the Lord commanded the use of the cup (Matt. 26:27-29). There can be only one element, the fruit of the vine. It is specified, and must be observed. The container is not specified. It comes within the realm of expediency. Which kind, and how many are left to human judgment. We understand that it is wrong to apply the rule for determining the element to the realm of expediency.

Applying these principles to 1 Corinthians 14, we find that the regulations of the chapter are commanded, and are designed to control a divine arrangement. Bible Classes are a human arrangement. They are not commanded. They are simply an expedient method of grouping people in order to teach them the Word of God. The only rules governing them are those rules which govern the realm of expediency (1 Cor. 10:23), and those commands which have generic application. For that reason, there is not one single rule in 1 Corinthians 14 that applies to the Bible Class arrangement. Some brethren wish to apply the rules of verses 28-30 to the Bible Classes, but will not apply verses 34-35. That is an inconsistency. The truth of the matter is, none of those regulations apply to the Bible Class arrangement.

“As Also Saith The Law”

Paul says that the women are to keep silence because they “are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law” (1 Cor. 14:34). Many rightly contend that the principles of “obedience” as taught by Paul in this verse, is the same principle taught in the law from the beginning. Miriam (Ex. 15:20-21), Deborah (Judges 4:46; 5:7), Huldah (2 Chron. 34; 2 Kings 22), and Anna (Lk. 2:36-38) are cited as examples of women who taught (even men) without violating this principle.

I hesitate mentioning this argument because it has some merit. My main objection to the argument is that I consider any appeal to the Old Testament to prove anything under the New Testament, a weak argument (Gal. 5:4). Even if we proved that women could teach under the Old Testament without violating the principle of “obedience” we still would not have proved they could do it today. It is also weak, because it places one in the position of having to justify other things done hy those Old Testament women which are not permitted of christian women. Never give a man a board with which to beat you.

New Testament Women

Rhoda, Lydia, Euodias, and Syntyche are often cited as proof that Christian women can teach. These examples actually teach nothing about the scripturalness of women teaching. What Lydia did after she became a Christian, I do not know, and what she did before she became one, certainly could not help me to understand what christian women can do. Rhoda “constantly affirmed” (Acts 12:15) before a group of christians that Peter was at the door, but I do not know who was present, nor whether she sinned or not. I do know that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12 teach that if Rhoda did not sin, it was because she was not in the assembly of the church, and did not exercise authority over any man. But that is all I know. Euodias and Syntyche “labored with me (Paul) in the gospel” (Phil. 4:2), but I do not know what they did. What they did was approved, but I do not know what it was. So, you see, I cannot use them to prove that christian women can teach classes of other women or children. We must go elsewhere to prove that women can teach.

Conclusion

Other examples of “Wells Without Water” could be cited, but these are sufficient. It is my honest opinion that in dealing with false teachers, we should make arguments that are strong and that cannot be answered by [he opposition. We must use reasoning that proves the point, and that does not prove too much. “Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:17). May God help us to study, understand, and rightly use His Word.

Truth Magazine XX: 45, pp. 712-714
November 11, 1976

By Ron Halbrook

IV. Other Concepts Of “Automatic” Grace Or Forgiveness:

A. WE ALREADY HAVE ETERNAL LIFE AS A PRESENT POSSESSION, so we will not be lost because of sins we may commit. Persons teaching this error will want to specify “sins of weakness,” “sincere sins,” “sins of ignorance.” This waters down the doctrine and makes it easier to swallow. Actually, it comes from Calvinism which says we have eternal life and cannot be lost no matter what sins we commit. The Bible teaches we are alive unto God when we obey the gospel (Eph. 2:1). Being in the family of God, we are “heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” There is “the glory which shall be revealed in us.” “But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it” (Rom. 8:17, 18, 25). There is “an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you” (1 Pet. 1:3-5; cf. Phil. 3:20). On the inheritance day, “the righteous (shall go, understood verb, RH) into life eternal” (Matt. 25:46). We have eternal life in prospect or by right of inheritance. If we continue to practice a sin (failing to repent, confess, ask forgiveness, and quit the sin), we forfeit our inheritance.

B. 1 JOHN 1:7 SHOWS GOD WILL REMOVE OUR SINS, EVEN SINS WE ARE CONTINUING TO PRACTICE, IF WE ARE DOING THE BEST WE CAN. Just as above, this amounts to a provision of automatic forgiveness for some sins one may continue to practice. “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin” (1 Jn. 1:7). This passage is isolated from its context and other passages to create this impression: (1) we walk by faith in some things, walk-walk-walk, i.e. continued action; (2) we walk in sin in some things, sin-sin-sin, i.e. continued action; (3) Christ’s blood removes the sin though we never quit practicing it! Just as fast as we can commit the sin, the blood of Christ washes it away unconditionally so far as the sin itself is concerned supposedly conditionally in that we must walk by faith in some things.

The context continues at least through 1 Jn. 2:2, and does not have in view continued action in sin. The sin washed away in 1:7 is the sin committed in 2:1, which is not continuous action. A. T. Robertson points out in his Word Studies that “sin” in 2:1 (“if any man sin”) is 11 second aorist (ingressive) active subjunctive”: “if one commit sin.” Ingressive aorist signifies point action which “breaks in” upon the scene, as any grammar will show. Dana and Mantey say of it that the action is “contemplated in its beginning. This use is commonly employed with verbs which signify a state or condition, and denote entrance into that state or condition” (A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p, 196). John pictures our falling into sin from time to time, not continuous action. He pictures sin as “breaking in” upon our lives, not continuous action constantly in our lives. It is sin “breaking and entering” from time to time, not sin abiding in us. In his Word Studies, Vol. IV, Kenneth S. Wuest says

” In the expression, ‘if any man sin,’ we have the aorist subjunctive, speaking, not of habitual action, but a single act. It could better be translated, ‘if any man commit an act of sin.’ John regards sin in the believer’s life, not as habitual, but as extraordinary, as infrequent.”

When a man continues in digression, as worshiping with an instrument of music, he is constantly in the “state or condition” of sin. He is not repenting-not changing his mind–and not reforming-not changing his practice. JOHN IS NOT PROMISING FORGIVENESS FOR ANY SUCH SIN!

If a Christian began worshiping with an instrument, letting that sin “break in” upon his life, entering the state or condition of sin, BUT THEN REPENTED AND CONFESSED AND REPUDIATED HIS WRONG, the blood of Christ would cleanse him in keeping with 1 Jn. 1:6-2:2. Sin breaks in upon our lives when sinful anger breaks in; but as we repent and confess, God forgives. If we enter the state of sin by ungodly anger and do not repent or confess it to God, but continue to walk in that state or condition, there is no automatic forgiveness clause revealed in God’s word for such.

In fact, 1 Jn. 3:9 absolutely denies the very thing brethren affirm! “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin because he is born of God.” No this does not teach perfectionism. This concerns continuing in a state or condition of sin, “not mere occasional acts of sin.” “Doeth no sin” is “linear present active indicative. . . . The child of God does not have the habit of sin.” ‘And he cannot sin” is “present active infinitive” and “can only mean ‘and he cannot go on sinning . . . . . .. (see Robertson’s Word Studies in 1 Jn. 3: 6, 9). Interestingly, Dana and Mantey use the very verses our brethren overlook, in comparing the aorist and present tenses (Grammar, p. 195):

In 1 Jn. 2:1, he uses the aorist tense twice with the verb HAMARTANIEN, to sin, ‘My little children, I write these things to you HINA ME HAMARTETE, in order that you won’t even commit an act of sin. And EAN TIS HAMARTEI if anyone does commit a sin, we have an advocate with the Father.’ In 3:9 he uses the present tense with the same verb: ‘Everyone born of God OU POIEI, does not practice, continue in sin; because his seed MENEI, is abiding in him, and he is not able to HAMARTANEIN, continue in sin, because he GEGENETAI, has been born of God.’

In other words, the sins which we confess and are forgiven are occasional acts of sin which we may commit and turn from in genuine sorrow (1 Jn. 1:6-2:2). When we continue in a sinful practice and thus the state of sin, there is no automatic provision of grace; to the contrary, we show we are standing out of the family of God where all grace is and standing in the devil’s family (1 Jn. 3:4-9).

Both concepts discussed here under the heading of automatic forgiveness are currently being used to enlarge the circle of grace, unity, and fellowship to include brethren WHO ARE CONTINUING IN THE SINFUL PRACTICES OF DEGRESSION from the law of Christ revealed in the New Testament.

V. Even Though Something Is Sinful, That Is No Guarantee We Will Be Lost For Practicing It. The argument is that we cannot be God or “play judge and jury.” We can say a practice is sin, but we cannot say it will make one be lost. This is an old denominational dodge, implying men should agree to disagree without saying one viewpoint or the other actually condemns in God’s sight. It is like saying that it is a sin to hear the gospel without believing and being baptized, but that such failure does not mean one will be lost. When we declare the consequences of sin, the truth is we do not take anyone’s final judgment into our own hands. To admit that an action is sinful, to say sin condemns, and to then say the specific action mentioned will condemn does not constitute playing judge and jury. It constitutes faithfulness to the word committed into our hands for preaching. Sin condemns! If it does not condemn one to eternal torment, just what does it do?

A tract has been widely circulated which admits instrumental music in worship “is sinful.” But then the author says, “Some, however, have apparently wanted to play judge and jury, and assign to hell without further ado all who use instrumental music in worship. This I have refused to do, and, when it has been clear that this was the meaning being given to ‘sin’ I have refused to use that word” (Edward Fudge, Answers to Questions ). The truth is that when one admits a practice is sin, he has already made the wages of such an act death – eternal separation from God. (1) “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). (2) Instrumental music in worship is sinful. (3) THEREFORE the wages of worshiping with instrumental music is death. Unless a perfect square can be perfectly round, there is just no way to get around it. But why would anyone want to get around It? To soften the thinking of brethren. To widen the boundaries of grace, unity, and fellowship.

VI. We Are Saved By Grace, Not By Our Own Works Of Merit Or Perfect Obedience. This is the old denomination dodge setting aside the conditional nature of salvation. Verses are quoted regarding our being saved by grace, not being earned or merited. We are saved by faith, not by works, it is added. Surprisingly, even an occasional denominationalist will see through this farce. Commenting on Romans 4, Kenneth S. Wuest points out that the faith which saves is actually a work; faith can be conceived of as saving as a work of merit or as an unmeritorious condition of salvation. In his word Studies on Romans (p. 66-67), he used the illustration of a drowning man:

It is like the proffered hand of a drowning man that makes it possible for the life guard to save him. There is nothing meritorious in the act of a drowning man in stretching out his hand in order to he saved. It is the efficient medium through which he is saved. Thus, the act of faith on the sinner’s part is not meritorious but only the efficient medium through which God is able to save him.

We enter grace by obedient faith, we continue in it by continuing in obedient faith. If one can understand that he enters grace by baptism as an act of faith, he can understand that other acts of obedient faith may be required to sustain the relationship. “The just shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:17).

But brethren’s thinking is becoming blurred on some of these fundamental principles. For instance, one brother addresed a church after it fell to institutionalism this way; he said that it may be better for a church not to contribute to human institutions, but brethern in churches which do so may expect the grace of God to save them anyway. “. . . we are saved ones because of God’s grace to us in His Son, and we are accepted by Him ‘in the Beloved!’ Not because we know it all, or do it all right.” We are not saved “through works of righteousness which we may do, but by the grace of God.”

We cannot work out a plan of salvation by ou- own wisdom, but God in His wisdom does have a plan of salvation for us (Eph. 1). Nothing we can do will make us earn, deserve, or merit salvation; yet it is a condition of salvation that we must work the works of God-we must obey Him in order to be saved (Lk. 17:10; Eph. 2:8-9; Jn. 6:29; Matt. 7:21-23; Heb. 5:8-9). It is the very nature of faith to do what God requires (Heb. 11). “The just shall live by faith.”

Conclusion

The loose teaching pointed out in this article is not all the loose teaching being done in relation to the new unity movement. Passages like Lev. 10:1-2, Jn. 17, Eph. 4:1-7, Gal. 1:8-9, 1 Cor. 1:10, 2 Jn. 9, Jude 3, and others are being construed to broaden concepts of grace, unity, and fellowship. But all the loose teaching has one thing in common: it will pave the way for unity with institutional brethern, conservative Christian Church people, then those in demoninations who have been immersed for one reason or another. Let us “remove not the old landmark” (Prov. 23:10). If we can move it an inch, we can move it a mile. In time, that is exactly what will happen to the new unity movement. The inch demanded now may not look like much. It has all happened before. Look at the last century, or the first and second centuries and following. Once human wisdom moves and expands the boundaries God has set, there is no stopping place short of “the universal brotherhood of man.”

Truth Magazine XX: 45, pp. 710-711
November 11, 1976