Truth Magazine

By David A. Webb

At the heart of the doctrine of the 400,000 member sect calling itself Jehovah’s Witnesses are their false teachings regarding the deity of Christ. The Witnesses claim that Christ was the first created being of Jehovah, and that during this pre-human state Christ was the Word (Greek: Logos) of the Father, but was never considered as equal to Jehovah.(1) During this time the Witnesses claim that Christ was some kind of a “a spirit person,”(2) indicating that He only possessed “a godly quality.”(3) This particular doctrine of the Witnesses traces its beginning back to Arius (c. 280-336 A.D.), Bishop of Alexandria, and to his followers called Arians. “The Arians taught that there was a time when God was alone and was not yet a Father. Arius went on to ascribe to Christ only a subordinate, secondary, created divinity.”(4)This is essentially the same position held by the Witnesses today. They recognize only Jehovah (God the Father) as the supreme deity, Christ as a lesser deity, and claim that the Holy Spirit is only “the invisible active force of Almighty God”(5) and not a third person. It would be impossible to answer in detail all the arguments raised by the Jehovah’s Witnesses in this article. Therefore I will only attempt to make a few remarks about some of the “key” scriptures dealing with the deity of Christ.

John 1:1-3

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.” The New World Translation of The Holy Scriptures of the Jehovah’s Witnesses translates the latter part of verse one, “. . . and the Word was a god.” This is done to uphold their theory that Jesus was a created, subordinate deity, inferior to Jehovah God. In reality the Witnesses’ position is polytheistic, affirming that there exists, besides Jehovah God, someone who is a lesser god. The Witnesses’ own translation defeats the concept of a minor deity existing with God. In Deuteronomy 4:35, the New World Translation reads, ” . . . Jehovah is the (true) God; there is no other besides him.” In Isaiah 43:10, it reads, ” . . . Before me there was no God formed, and after -me there continued to be none.” Finally, in Deuteronomy 32:39 the same translation reads, “See now that I-1 am he and there, are no gods together with me.”

The Witnesses argue that the Greek demands the indefinite article “a” to appear before “god” (Greek: theos) in John 1:1. This is simply not true. If it were true the Witnesses would be grossly inconsistent in observing their own rule. “In John 1:6, 12-13, 18 Theos is found, and in each place it is without the article . . . It is just ‘God.’ Why not render it ‘A God?'”(6) In quoting from Greek authorities the Witnesses will either make reference to scriptures which have nothing to do with the subject, or quote only part of what various grammarians may say, leaving the false impression that these authorities endorse Jehovah’s Witness doctrine. The apostle John clearly shows that Christ is just as much entitled to be called “God” as is the “God” whom Christ was “with” “in the beginning.” This means both God and the Word (Greek: Logos) are co-equal and coexistent. Furthermore, John identifies Christ as being active in the creation, which would make Him part of the God (Hebrew: Elohim, literally “God” in the plural sense) of Genesis chapter one. (See Genesis 1:1, 26-27.)

John 5:18

“Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said God was his Father, making himself equal to God.” The wording of John shows that Jesus considered God to be His (Greek: idios) Father. By the usage of idios, John said Jesus was claiming to be “equal in quality or in quantity . . . to claim for one’s self the nature, rank, authority which belong to God.”(7) The Witnesses argue that the Jews misunderstood the claim of Jesus, and that they mistakenly concluded that Jesus was claiming equality with God. “The Jews well understood what Jesus said, but John 5:18 is the statement of the Apostle John, not the Jews! . . . John said that Jesus claimed equality.”(8) Jesus also claimed equality with God on a number of other occasions: John 5:23 and John 10:30- . 38. In reference to the latter, Jesus said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). The Witnesses claim that Jehovah and Christ are only “one in agreement, purpose and organization.”(9) What they fail to mention is that, according to verse 31, the Jews took up stones to stone Jesus, giving as their reason, “For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God” (verse 33, ASV). The Jews would not have cried “blasphemy” against one who merely claimed to be “one in agreement; purpose and organization” with God.

Philippians 2:6

“Who, (Christ Jesus) being in the form of God, thought it not. robbery to be equal with God.” The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation of Philippians 2:6 is rendered, “Who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” The impression intended by the Witnesses in this translation is that Christ was not equal to God and never considered the idea worthwhile. However, the passage does teach that Christ was equal to the Father, and shows that He did not consider His equality to be stealing any of God’s glory or deity. Christ never had to grasp or seize any of the quality or quantity of the deity of the Father; He already had it! No one has any need to seize something he already possesses. Another translation renders this verse, “Who, though from the beginning he had the nature of God, did not reckon equality with God something to be forcibly retained.”(10)

Colossians 1:15-18

These verses are also used by the Witnesses to attempt to prove that Jesus was only a created being inferior to Jehovah. They draw attention to Christ being “the firstborn of every creature” (verse 15), and proceed to show that Jesus is referred to as the “begotten of God,” and the “Son of God” in a number of other passages. The Witnesses consider the expression “Son of God” to mean someone inferior to God, but the first century Jew knew the expression meant full equality with God, and it was on this account that they sought to kill Him (see Lev. 24:16; John 5:18; 10:30-38; Matt. 26:63-65). The Witnesses also quote Revelation 3:14 where Christ is identified as “the beginning of the creation of God” (KJV), proving, they say, that Jesus was the first creature God created. The statements of Christ being “begotten of God” or “the only begotten” are referring to His position, not His origin. “In Hebrews 11:17, referring to Abraham, ‘yea he that had gladly received the promises was offering up his only begotten son.’ Isaac was not his only son, nor was he the eldest. Ishmael was born before Isaac (see Galatians 4:22). Isaac, however, occupied the position of firstborn, and claimed title to the Only Begotten because he was the one of promise and purpose. The same is true in regard to Jesus. He came uniquely by promise with the purpose of human redemption. In this sense he is both Firstborn and Only Begotten.”(11)

As for the word “firstborn,” it can either refer to “firstborn in time” (i.e. oldest, or first to be born), or “firstborn in position,” indicating “supremacy,” or “pre-eminence.” The entire section of Colossians 1:15-18 is emphasizing the supremacy of Jesus. His supremacy, or pre-eminence, is seen in that He created all things, He existed before all things, by His power all things are held together, and He has power over all other powers, even death itself. “He was not the first person to be raised from the dead, but he was the first never to die again. His resurrection from the dead proved his preeminence. ‘Who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the pre-eminence.’ This is emphasis of His position, not origin. He was ‘declared to be the Son of God . . . by the resurrection from the dead.’ Romans 1:4 . . . being the firstborn is a statement of position-not origin!”(12)

In reference to Revelation 3:14, the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses perverts the scripture by making it say that Christ is ” . . . the beginning of creation by God,” instead of leaving it to say that Christ is ” . . . the beginning of creation of God” (KJV). The word “beginning” (Greek: arche) is literally translated “origin,” or “source.” Left alone, the passage would read that Christ is “the Origin (Source) of God’s creation.”(13) This would then harmonize with John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:15-18, and Hebrews 1:1-3. Therefore the passage does not teach that Christ was the first to be created by God, but that Christ is the origin, or source of all that was created.

Conclusion

Without question, Christ is equal to the Father in every respect! He claimed to be equal in “quality and quantity” with the Father, and claimed for Himself “the nature, rank, (and) authority which belong to God.” To accept the Jehovah’s Witness’ position, one would have to deny Christ His position of supremacy and preeminence which the scriptures so plainly establish. In short, to accept the Witnesses’ position is to deny the scriptures, and make Christ a liar!

Endnotes

1. Let God Be True, 1946 Edition, pp. 34-35.

2. Ibid.. p. 34.

3. The Word According to John-Who Is He? (booklet published in 1962), p. 56.

4. Anthony A. Hoekema, The Four Major Cults (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company), p. 327.

5. Ibid., p. 89.

6. Maurice Barnett, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Section 2, p. 9.

7. Joseph Henry Thayer. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1966), p. 307.

8. Maurice Barnett, op. cit., Section 2, p. 10.

9. Let God Be True, p. 86.

10. The New Testament in Modern English, translated by Helen Barrett Montgomery and published by The Judson Press, American Baptist Board of Education and Publication, 1952.

11. Maurice Barnett, op. cit., Section 2, p. 16.

12. Ibid., p. 15.

13. The New Testament in the Language of Today, William F. Beck, Concordia Publishing House, 1963.

Truth Magazine XIX: 26, pp. 403-405
May 8, 1975

By Donald P. Ames

Despite the presence of Harding College (Searcy), Southern Christian Home (Morrilton) and the Paragould Children’s Home (Paragrould) in Arkansas, the cause of the Lord is not standing still in this state; faithful churches exist in each of the above mentioned cities. There are a number of good sound congregations standing for the truth throughout the state, many of them being served by faithful elders and a goodly number of faithful gospel preachers as well. Obviously, we cold not “touch the hem of the garment” of them within the confines of one special issue.

One could hardly think of Arkansas without thinking of Eugene Britnell, preacher for the Arch St. Church in Little Rock, who recently was selected as editor of the Gospel Guardian in an effort to return that journal to the “old paths.” He has had much influence throughout the state, and Arch St. has been responsible for the establishment of several new congregations, as well as strengthening others. Other widely known names in Arkansas history include W. Curtis Porter and Joe Blue. In northeast Arkansas, the cause is gaining many sound and aggressive preachers who hold forth the banner brightly as the liberals have retreated from repeated challenges. Several new congregations have been begun and others are moving ahead in growth, in selection of elders, and in standing for the whole counsel of God. Western Arkansas will miss Guthrie Dean (formerly from Ft. Smith) who has moved to Tennessee, but is also blessed with many aggressive preachers who are standing for the truth of God’s word. Stanley Lovett, editor of the Preceptor, also lives in Ft. Smith (two editors is not a bad claim). Jady Copeland just recently moved to Arkansas, and joins others in boldly proclaiming God’s truth. Yes, indeed , the “fields are white unto harvest,” and many congregations-even without the benefit of full-time preachers, are pressing forward to carry the word of God to those lost in sin-within and without the church. We are glad to be able to offer this special from the state of Arkansas.

Truth Magazine XIX: 26, p. 402
May 8, 1975

By Donald P. Ames

One cardinal point of Jehovah Witness’ doctrine is that the earth will remain forever and will become the eternal dwelling place of those righteous persons who do not compose the 144,000 who, they say, are the only ones who will get to go to heaven (True Peace And Security, pp. 38-39, etc.). That such teaching is not so ought to be evident to anyone who has taken the ‘time to read 2 Peter 3. Here the writer affirms, “the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up” (v. 10). Jehovah Witnesses often try to escape the force of this passage by arguing that even though the Scriptures said that the world was destroyed by water in the days of Noah, they did not mean the destruction of the planet. However, a careful reading of the passage shows two different terms are under consideration: world and earth. The “heavens and earth” (v. 5) were originally created, and the “heavens and earth” are what will be destroyed (v. 10). Whatever constituted the original creation is what is going to be destroyed when the Lord returns (and, by the way, in such a fashion that no one will assume man has done it himself): Thayer defines the Greek term gae (earth) here as “The earth as a whole, the world; the earth as opposed to the heavens” (Lexicon, p. 114). If this planet then is what is under consideration, and it is, then there will be no place for any righteous person to dwell on this earth, because it will cease to be. It will not be “purged” by fire, but will be destroyed with fire. The second term, world, comes from the Greek term kosmos, and refers to those living on the earth (Thayer, p. 357). Those who were destroyed in the days of Noah by water were the “world” (v. 6)-the same dnes loved by God in John 3:16. When this distinction in the words is pointed out to Jehovah Witnesses, their entire case crumbles.

But sometimes they counter with the argument that 2 Peter 3 must be interpreted figuratively, not literally, and that we err in so doing, especially in light of a similar statement in Isa. 65:17 and 66:22. However it must be kept in mind that Isaiah was writing in figurative language, but there is nothing to indicate that Peter had any such view in mind. In fact, his literal application of the creation and the flood are strong evidence he was not speaking figuratively at all.

Secondly, the context of the passages in Isaiah shows the term means a “new relationship” with the Lord and is to be understood figuratively by its specific New Testament application. Thirdly, neither passage in Isaiah speaks of the destruction of this present earth and heavens as does 2 Pet. 3. Thus, they are in no way parallel.

But, if the earth is to be destroyed (and it is), there is no place for a Premillennial kingdom nor the kingdom of the Watchtower Society to continue to exist after the return of the Lord. Their case is lost in the smoke and ashes of a destroyed universe-along with the rest of their false teachings. My friends, do not be deceived into thinking God will not destroy this planet, the heavens, etc. The Bible too clearly teaches otherwise! “Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God” (2 Pet. 3:11-12).

Truth Magazine XIX: 26, p. 402
May 8, 1975

By Ron Halbrook

Paul Fought Legalism

What is the legalism Paul fought? The New Testament is the legal, lawful, and right standard proceeding from God. Paul objected to a legalism which returned to a standard which, though good for its intended purpose (Gal. 3:19), is wholly incapable of taking away sin. “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” (Heb. 10:4). In view of that impossibility, the only way The Old Law system could “save” a man is by his never sinning. “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them” (Gal. 3:10). Once a man sinned, he stood under the curse; under the Old Law he could then obey the conditions of forgiveness laid down, which brought forgiveness only with a view to the coming death of Christ. Now that the New Covenant was in effect; the Old was removed. For a man to bind himself back to the domain of the Old Law was to reject the only forgiveness there is. The first time he sins, he is under the curse with no hope of forgiveness. Can the blood of bulls and goats help him? No. “And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them” (Gal. 3:12). So the only way the Old system could “save” a man would be by his living a sinlessly perfect record. Thus Paul reduced the hope of those who went back to the Old Law to a futility. The first mistake they made, the curse of sin would be upon them with no hope of forgiveness in the system to which they had bound themselves.

During the age of Moses’ law, that law was the standard and God required it to be obeyed in all particulars (Heb. 2:2; 10:28). Rightly used, the Law was legal, lawful, and right. But after Christ came, to go back to that standard implied an attempt to be saved by never sinning-because that is the only way that system could “save” after Christ came. Here is an attempt which puts one in the position of having to earn, deserve, and merit eternal life by means of a perfect record. And, that is legalism in its harsh, uncomplimentary sense. Here is an implicit attempt to present ourselves before God with this plea, “God, I have never sinned against your Law; search my life and see that I have never faltered nor stumbled. My life is perfection. I never sought forgiveness because I never needed it. Now I demand the judgment of the bar be that I am `righteous’ because You can do no other. And I demand eternal life as a consequence. What I have earned, deserved, and merited, you must give.” If the person sinned even once, there is nothing in his legalistic attempt that could remove even that one sin. This is the legalism which Paul names, indicts as a failure, and fights.

As Paul shows, this sort of legalism is preposterous on the face of it. If a man decided late in life to pursue this course, supposing one could live a perfect life from that point, he still would face his former sins. What would he have to remove them? One might decide early in life that he wants to earn, deserve, and merit eternal life, and so determine to do everything that God declared to be right. Thus, the person would see in the Old Law, and in the New as well, many things God taught to be right. But the poor fool is looking at a remedial system-a system to prepare and bring about forgiveness for sinners. God’s revelation is for man, for man as he finds himself in sin. So our foolish legalist would see it is right to offer sacrifice–which were designed to teach men the horror of their sins. And, as he might look at the New Law as so many more marks set by God for a perfect man to meet, he would (1) repent of sins never committed, (2) be baptized to wash away sins he did not do in the first place, and then (3) keep the Lord’s supper to remember a “gift” which he has no use for! What a travesty! It misses the point of the reality of sin and the point of the design of God’s revelation.

If there is any travesty more absurd than this one, it must be that of calling God’s system of grace on the condition of obedient faith “a cold, futile legalism.” If the Judge pronounces one “just,” it may be because (1) He can do no other, i.e. the man merited it, or (2) He shows His mercy. In either case, His pronouncement. is legal, lawful, and right. Next, mercy may be extended. (1) unconditionally, or (2) conditionally. Either way, the Judge’s transaction is legal, lawful, and right. When the Judge by His mercy, upon stated conditions, declares us free from all charges and punishment, He acts legally. We must meet the stated conditions without addition, subtraction, or alteration. When we meet the conditions, this is not seeking the pronouncement “just” or “innocent” on the basis of meritorious works! On the other hand, the least alteration of the conditions is evidence of dependence on some ground other than the conditional mercy of the Judge. The sum is: we are saved by the Judge, by ourselves, by mercy, by conditions, by a gift, by effort, by a divine arrangement-legal, right, and lawful in every way. “Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith” (Rom. 3:27). All of which shows the scheme of redemption can be called “a remedial system” and “a legal system,” but not a system of legalism!

Does God Take Man’s Finiteness Into Account?

But does the scheme of redemption take into account man’s frailty and finiteness? Yes, it is designed for man as he is. For instance, as Marshall E. Patton points out, “Some commands are absolute and some are relative.”(1) Absolute commands can be obeyed absolutely by finite man. Absolute commands are “void of any relativity. Obedience to such is determined not upon the basis of its relation to something else, but rather upon the basis of being wholly independent of everything else.”

“One may keep absolute conditions to the degree of perfection. In fact, if they are kept at all, they are kept perfectly. There is no relativity about it …. Grace is seen in the nature of the commands themselves-they are within reach of human effort.”(2)

In this regard, salvation is conditioned on “conforming to the do-its and don’t-do-its of statutes” given by God, to borrow Brother William Wallace’s description of legalism.(3)

God told Israel to march around Jericho, and even specified the rules for marching! He told them not to inter-marry with the Canaanites, and specified penalties for disobedience. “Every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward” (Heb. 2:2). God gave a pattern for the ark, the tabernacle, and the temple. “See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern. . . ” (Heb. 8:5). If these commands were kept at all, they were kept perfectly-for man was capable of obeying these conditions of God’s favor. When they were obeyed, nothing had been earned, deserved, or merited. Had Israel earned Jericho when the walls fell, or did the walls fall by the grace of God . and was the city given as a gift from God??? When faith motivated Israel to worship and offer sacrifices exactly as God commanded, faith saved, i.e. brought men into the unmerited favor of God.

Today the pattern of worship, the pattern of sound words, and the pattern of church organization are clearly revealed. The things that are written prescribe the limit, the rule, the law of God in these matters (1 Tim. 3:14-15; 2 Pet. 1:13-15; 2:1-3; 1 Cor. 4:6; 2 Jn. 9; 2 Tim, 3:16-17). Obedience to the law of Christ does not earn, deserve, or merit anything; it is simply the condition of receiving the unmerited favor of God and continuing therein.

Brother Patton continues by pointing out that “relative commands” are determined in “relation to something else,” citing the graces in which we are to grow as examples (2 Pet. 1:5-11). Obedience to the command to grow in these graces

“. . . must be determined in relation to other matters. People may possess these graces in varying degrees …. Obedience in this instance depends upon one’s ‘giving all diligence’ (v. 5J. Diligence requires a sincere effort commensurate with one’s time, opportunity, and ability.

“. . . the relative conditions, void of their relativity, cannot be kept by humanity to the degree of absolute perfection. Man. . . cannot attain to such. In recognition of this, God’s grace has made such conditions relative. Because of this a child of God can be righteous in spite of his coming short of perfection.”(4)

Thus while God is infinite-and therefore infinite in patience, etc., i.e. perfect in all qualities-man is finite. A Christian will grow in the grace of patience as long as he lives! He will never in this life attain unto the perfection of God in such qualities. God’s grace recognizes this; because of His grace and love and understanding, God has not conditioned salvation on man’s perfection in such qualities. As Brother Patton points out, He has conditioned salvation on man’s giving diligence to constantly grow in these qualities. The scheme of redemption which is the expression of God’s grace is legal, lawful, and right, and it takes into account the finiteness of man. Furthermore, as one gives diligence and grows in these graces, he does not earn, deserve, or merit eternal life.

As pointed out earlier, God even takes into account man’s proneness to sin, his weakness for sin in the face of temptation. As sin enters the life of the Christian from time to time, he humbles himself in a penitent attitude and seeks the cleansing blood of Christ (Acts 8:20-24; 1 Jn. 1). Habitual practice of sin-whether it be stealing, not obeying the pattern of worship, or anything else-is not covered by grace. Such violates the terms of grace, the covenant of grace, the conditions of grace. Such evidences that one abides in Satan’s family, not God’s. . . all pleas of, “I know him! I know him!” not withstanding (1 Jn. 3:9; 2:4; 4:6).

Legalism Inherent In Calvinism

In studying legalism, we cannot help but note the irony involved in the fact that some who cry the loudest about legalism have themselves made the scheme of redemption a system of legalism. Some who cry the loudest about legalism accept the Calvinist-Reformation theory of the imputed righteousness of Christ. This imputed righteousness theory makes the scheme of redemption a system of legalism! Forgiveness of sin is not enough in this system. God actually requires a sinlessly perfect record, it is said. But only God is perfect; man is not God, thus is not perfect. So how shall the system of legalism (requirement of a sinlessly perfect life) be satisfied? By imputing the sinlessly perfect record of Christ to each Christian!

We studied how Paul reduced to absurdity the legalism involved in the effort of some teachers to bind the Old Law. Paul quoted from the Old Law, “The man that doeth them shall live in them” (Gal. 3:12), to show the only way the Old Law could “save” a man would be by his living a sinlessly perfect record. When John Calvin was trying to explain why “the obedience of Christ is reckoned to us as if it were our own,”(5) he was forced to make the scheme of redemption a system of legalism. In so doing, he quoted the very passage Paul quoted, only Calvin quoted it to say even under the New Law God really does require what the verse says for salvation! “Righteousness consists in the observance of the law” and Christ “reconciled us to God as if we had kept the law,” thus “we obtain through Christ’s grace (i.e. his acts of obedience, RH) what God promised in the law for our works: ‘He who will do these things, will live in them.'”(6) In other words, God not only required the shed blood of Christ to remove our sins, over and beyond that He additionally required a life of perfect works from us.

Present Truth Magazine has made a specialty out of promoting and defending the view that the perfect record of Christ must be imputed to us. One article complains of what is called “Arminian theology” which “thinks of justification only in terms of forgiveness of past sins by virtue of Christ’s death. It fails to see that justification is also the imputation of Christ’s life of perfect obedience to the law-an obedience which gives to the believer a full and free title to eternal life . . . . ” The complaint adds that failure to accept the Calvinist view results in too much emphasis “on the active obedience of the believer in his life” in seeking “final salvation.”(7) Further pressing the point that God absolutely demands a real life of perfection in addition to forgiveness of past sins, the same writer says,

“St. Paul declares, `. . . the doers of the law shall be justified.’ Rom. 2:13. Perfect obedience to His law is the only condition upon which God will give any man eternal life ….

The good news of the gospel is that Christ has lived this life of perfect obedience. He has fulfilled the conditions upon which God will justify unto life eternal. He lived this life in our name and on our behalf. This is why the apostle says that we are justified. . . by His obedience. . . While the death of Jesus (passive obedience) is the basis upon which God forgives sin, the life of Jesus (active obedience) is the basis upon which God can impute to us a life of perfect obedience.”(8)

The truth is that from the beginning of time God has taught that the result of sin is death; sin requires blood, death, taking of life. Never has He taught that He demands a perfect life (whether personal or imputed) to save men.(9)

“Your iniquities have separated between you and your God,” but in the plan of God Christ “was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities …. the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. 59:1-2; 53:4-6). Those who accept this gift have that which separates from God (sin) removed …. “their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more” (Heb. 8:12). This makes them “right,” “just,” or “innocent” in the sight of God-the gift of grace. Any supposed additional demand of ‘a perfectly sinless record is the product of human imagination, reason and philosophy, tradition, and creeds. And it makes the scheme of salvation a system of legalism. Yet by further twists and contortions in this human system, it turns out that less actual obedience on man’s part is required, rather than more obedience.

After The Way They Call Legalism

In conclusion, let not the charge of legalism shame us into hedging, compromising, or speaking ambiguously regarding “the whole counsel of God.” Just as God is unchanging, the eternal principles of His word are unchanging. Here are some things called legalism by those holding denominational concepts: (1) Insistence that people must hear and believe gospel preaching in order for them to be converted and saved (Rom. 10:17); (2) Insistence that one’s sins are not forgiven until he is baptized in water (Mk. 16:16); (3) Insistence that unity with God and the faithful is broken when men deviate from the New Testament pattern for the church -whether in worship, mission or work, doctrine, organization, discipline, . etc. (1 Tim. 3:14-15); (4)”Insistence that conformity to the world makes one the enemy of God-whether in vulgar speaking, dancing, immodest dress, social drinking, adultery and fornication, anger fits, dishonesty, covetousness, frantic anxiety for material concerns, etc. (Jas. 4:4; Matt. 6:31). To which charge we simply reply, -“After the way which they call legalism, so worship I the God of my fathers.”

We are legalists after the order of Noah. Noah found grace in the eyes of God, not because he never sinned, but because he was a man who met the conditions of grace through active faith (Gen. 6:22; Heb. 11:7; 1 Pet. 3:20). Had he built the ark according to the divine specifications, except for making ten windows instead of one, or except in regard to the length of the ark, or except for the type wood used, he would not have met the conditions of grace. After the way which many call legalism, so served Noah the God of his fathers. And so must we serve God “by the law of faith,” according to “the law of the Spirit,” “under the law to Christ,” fulfilling “the law of Christ,” looking into and practicing “the perfect law of liberty,” fulfilling “the royal law” (Rom. 3:27; 8:2; 1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2; Jas. 1:25; 2:8).

Endnotes

1. Marshall E. Patton, “Answers For Our Hope,” ‘Searching the Scriptures, Vol. XV, No. 9 (Sept. 1974), pp. 136-138.

2. Ibid.

3. William Wallace, “Not Under Law,” op. cit.

4. Patton, op. cit.

5. John T. McNeill, et. al., Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion in Two Volumes (Vol. I), being Vol. XX of The Library of Christian Classics, p. 753.

6. Ibid., p. 533.

7. Robert D. Brinsmead (editor), “Justification by Faith,” Present Truth, Vol. 2, No. 4 (Aug. 1973), p. 27.

8. Robert D. Brinsmead, “Justification by Faith and Christian Ethics,” Ibid., Vol. 3, No. 3 (July 1974), p. 29.

9. Did not Christ live a sinless life (Heb. 4:15)? Yes, but not in order to fulfill the requirements of Calvin’s system. A perfect life was necessary so he could, as a lamb without spot and without blemish. die for sins of other, not his own (Isa. 53:6).

Truth Magazine XIX: 25, pp. 394-396
May 1, 1975