Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Mr. L. D. Foreman is co-editor of a monthly Landmark Missionary Baptist magazine in which he writes a regular column entitled, “Bible Study.” In the January 1972, issue of his paper, Mr. Foreman discusses the delivery of Israel from Egypt. Under a subheading, “Saved by the Blood,” he says,

“ Baptists have always held the Bible doctrine that blood must be shed for the remission of sin. Hebrews 9:22 tells its that without the shedding of blood, there is no remission … The fact of the blood shed by an innocent lamb plus the fact that it was literally applied to the doorposts and lintels produced the ‘Passover’ of judgment. ‘When I see the blood, I will pass over you. The fact that Jesus’ blood was shed by whipping, thorns, nails and spear will not save any soul until that blood is applied. The blood cannot be applied except by the individual’s repentance of sin and faith into Jesus. The denominations believe in the blood plus good works, church membership, baptism, etc. Baptists believe in the blood.”

Mr. Foreman makes some scriptural remarks. When he says that the blood of Christ was for the remission of sin and that its benefits are conditionally received, he certainly taught the truth. Mr. Foreman’s teaching, however, raises some questions and comments in view of his union with Missionary Baptist doctrine.

Without Blood-No Remission

It is true that Christ’s blood was shed “for the remission of sins” (Mt. 26:28), and that without the shedding of blood “there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22). It is also true that Mr. Foreman believes the blood of Christ to be an absolute essential. a necessary prerequisite, to the forgiveness of sin. The Bible teaches that Christ’s blood and baptism in His name are “for the remission of sins” (Mt. 26:28; Acts 2:38). The prepositional phrases are identical in the Greek and English languages.

———————————————————————————————

BLOOD

(Mt. 26:28)

“For the Remission of sins”

BAPTISM

(Acts 2:38)

Without Blood. No Remission (Heb. 9:22);

Without Baptism, No Remission

If Not, Why Not?

———————————————————————————————

Will Mr. Foreman attempt to answer the question posed in the above diagram? It is not a difficult question for those who believe and preach the gospel pattern of salvation, but it is a problem to the advocates of Baptist doctrine. We trust that Mr. Foreman will either answer the question so as to show us the error of our ways, or accept the force of the argument, deny Baptist doctrine, and begin preaching baptism in the name of Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

The Blood Applied

Mr. Foreman correctly states that Jesus’ blood “will not save any soul until that blood is applied.” If that statement were not true, universal salvation would prevail. The blood was shed for all, but not all are saved; thus, its benefits are received conditionally. But Mr. Foreman says the conditions for forgiveness are “repentance of sin and faith into Jesus.” Baptist doctrine, of which this statement is representative, declares that remission of sins may be had without baptism. The Bible, however, teaches that it is in baptism that the blood of Christ remits sin. “In whom (Christ) we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace” (Eph. 1:7). How does one get into Christ to be redeemed by the blood? The word of God answers with a question, “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death” (Rom. 6:3)? One is not cleansed by the blood until he is in Christ (Eph. 1:7). One is not in Christ until he is baptized into Christ” (Gal. 3:26, 27). Conclusion: One must be baptized before the blood of Christ will pardon.

The Blood Plus Nothing

Mr. Foreman indicates that if one believes baptism is essential to salvation that lie does not believe in the all-sufficiency of the blood; at least, that is the inference of his last paragraph which we noted. If one believes that baptism is necessary, then it is the blood plus baptism, but says he, “Baptists believe in the blood.” This is a subtle inference that will work with equal force against Baptist doctrine. An advocate of universal salvation by the blood might say:

“The denominations believe in the blood plus repentance, plus faith, etc. Universalists believe in the blood.”

This leaves the same impression as Mr. Foreman molded against baptism. If the essentiality of baptism infers that the blood is not all-sufficient, then the essentiality of repentance and faith does the very same thing. The truth is that belief and baptism are essential to salvation by the blood. The Lord said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:16).

Missionary Baptists believe that a Missionary Baptist Church is referred to in Acts 20:28 where it is said that Christ purchased the church with His blood. Do they believe tile blood of Christ is sufficient to make one a member of the church of the Lord? Assuredly, they do, but one must be baptized before lie can be a member of the Missionary Baptist Church. Does this make them purchased by the blood plus baptism? Does it reflect on the all-sufficiency of the blood of Christ to require baptism? No, they would answer. Just so, baptism as a requirement for forgiveness does not reflect oil tile blood. If they can see how that baptism as a requirement for church membership does not reflect oil the blood, they ought to see the same with respect to salvation. We hope they will.

The apostle Peter said that “baptism dotb also now save us” (1 Pet. 3:21). yet he showed that we are redeemed by the blood and saved by grace (1 Pet. 1: 18, 19; Acts 15: 11). So, gospel preachers today can command baptism in the name of Christ “for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38; 10:48) and still say, “We are saved by grace, redeemed by the blood.” If Peter could say it what doth hinder us? Or would Mr. Foreman charge Peter with teaching the blood Plus . . . ‘?

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 22, pp. 4-5
April 5, 1973

By Cecil Willis

Some time ago I received a letter from a Methodist preacher informing me that one of the members of the congregation had “transferred her membership” to the Methodist church. The letter was addressed to the “Pastor of the Church of Christ Church.” I had been expecting someone to refer to the Lord’s Church as the “Church of Christ Church” for some time. In fact, some have just been asking for it. At first I was inclined to think the Methodist “Pastor” did not know any better. Then I decided maybe he did not want to compliment us by saying we are simply the church of Christ. But then, after thinking about it a while, I decided perhaps it is not his fault at all. Possibly, some of us are actually to blame. Some brethren are constantly speaking of “Church of Christ preachers,” “Church of Christ doctrine,” “Church of Christ church buildings… Church of Christ colleges… Church of Christ orphan homes or homes for the aged,” “Church of Christ youth camps,” “Church of Christ young folks,” a “Church of Christ funeral,” “Church of Christ Student centers,” and “Church of Christ Bible Chairs.” Sometime ago I read where a church in southern Kansas started a “Church of Christ ball club.” but when the brethren objected to such, they conceded, and changed the name to the “Church of Christ Independents”.

Not long ago, in reading through some old copies of one of the “Church of Christ papers.

I noticed an advertisement. On the same page with an article on “Sound Speech” was this “Announcement”: “We are pleased to announce to the brotherhood that we are now ready to release our first album of Church of Christ quartet records.” This “Church of Christ quartet” was singing “On the Jericho Road” and “I’ll be List’ning”, along with other songs. The records were enclosed in a “beautiful album with a Church of Christ picture (whatever that is-CW) on it.” Among the songs was also “I Could Hang My Head In Shame.” And shouldn’t we all, after reading an ad like that?

Maybe the Methodist “pastor” was not wholly to blame after all. After some among us had described so many things by “Church of Christ this or that,” perhaps he thought he had good reason to address his letter to the “Church of Christ Church.”

 

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 22, p. 3
April 5, 1973

By C.D. Plum

“Twinkle twinkle little star
How I wonder what you are
Up above the earth so high
Like a diamond in the sky.”

So wrote tile Poet, many years ago, which thrilled me when I was a child. The stars may not have been so “little,” but appeared so, held in place by the word of God in yonder blue. (Heb. 1:3).

“Revelation” declares the purpose of the sun,” moon,” and “stars.” “The greater light (sun) to rule the day.” “The lesser light moon to rule the night.” “He made the stars also.” (Gen. 1: 16). The great purpose of all these is: “The heavens declare the glory of God.” (Ps. 19: 1). As long as we see this purpose in these “three,” we are standing on accurate “revelation.”

But when the acclaimed Jeane Dixon, the supposed “Seeress,” pretends to foresee the future, and fortell the future by reading the heavenly planets of God’s solar system, she denies the revelation God made about their purpose, and thereby becomes a false prophetess. Though this is a truth of God, many will be deceived by her so-called ability to answer questions about the future. She talks so much, and writes so much, and utters her guesses so frequently, that the law of average almost guarantees her to hit some events that may take place in the future. But when she hits some things that does not prove she is really a seeress whom the stars talked to, and “foretold” her future events. Far from it.

It is no surprise to Bible students that before Jeane Dixon’s time they had “astrologers” the peer, or superior, of her, who were also studying the heavenly planets, especially the stars, that they might appear as “wise men” before the civil rulers of their day.

Let us note the star gazers of Isaiah’s day. Note this Scripture: “Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsels. Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee.” (Isa. 47:13). God’s humble Daniel and his friends were spoken of as: “being ten times better . . . than the astrologers. ” (Dan. 1: 20). And again, The Wise men,” the astrologers, the sooth savers, could not reveal secrets to the King. (Dan. 2: 27). They couldn’t back then, they still can’t. Forget the so-called seer or seeress, the prophet or prophetess. No good then, no good now in foretelling future events. The Astrologers failed to enlighten king Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4:7). The astrologers failed to enlighten Belshazzar. (Dan. 5:7). What more need I write? You can quit reading astrologer’s corner in the daily paper. You’ll have more time for gospel literature. Adieu!

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 22, p. 2
April 5, 1973

By Harris J. Dark

Suppose I relate a story to just one other person, and then two of us know it. Let each of us tell another, and that makes four. If each of the four tells another, obviously eight will have heard. Do you know how many times that would have to be repeated in order for every person on earth to hear the story? Only thirty times, following the first!

If I tell another person, each of us another, and so on, after the message has been communicated thirty-one times it will have been heard by 2,147,483,648. If we allow an entire month for one person to relate the story to one other person, it can cover the earth in thirty-one months. Can we do that well with our modern methods and devices?

To be generous let us say that it will take an entire year for each to teach another. At that rate we can include all the people on earth in thirty-one years. How long will it take at the rate we are going now?

If we assume that there are already as many as 500,000 Christians in the world we can reduce the number thirty-one to twelve, hence the required time to twelve years! Remember that in accomplishing this, one-half of the earth’s population would not have to teach any one, another fourth only one person each, and no one would need to teach more than twelve others!

This would be cooperation in the finest and most effective sense. It is the best system of communication ever known. It is the one Jesus used. But, it has one great hindrance. It places responsibility on the individual, and we don’t like that! We want to shift it to the group. We prefer to make a small contribution to some mass movement, and then claim credit for everything the group does.

TRUTH MAGAZINE XVII: 21, p. 13
March 29, 1973