Truth Magazine

By James P. Needham

My thanks to the editor for printing this debate in a single issue of the magazine, and to brother Sharp for his participation and attitude.

Keith says the debate has proven four things, (1) that Jesus is fully human and fully divine. I thought that was a given. I’ve not known any brother in my lifetime, that denied this before John Welch.

(2) Keith says the debate has proven that our disagreement is over the humanity of Jesus, not his Deity. If “our” includes Keith and his fellow-travelers, it is not true because the debates with John Welch have been over his denial of the Jesus’ deity. In fact this whole controversy was spawned by John’s saying that Jesus was “an ordinary guy like you and me.” He has apologized for his wording, but not his concept, Keith’s claim to the contrary notwithstanding. In my humble opinion Keith labors hard to salvage John from his error, not by rebuking him, but by trying to find a position that doesn’t sound as blasphemous, but essentially amounts to the same thing. Just what is the essential difference between Jesus’ not having his divine attributes, and having them but not using them? This is an odd, awkward, and an unscriptural position.

(3) He says the debate has proven that those who accuse him of denying the deity of Christ are inconsistent because they teach the same thing he does. Keith often is assumptive and ambiguous. It is often difficult to get his point. As it stands, the above statement is not true.

(4) He says he has proven that “this issue is a result of neo-Calvinism.” This is pure nonsense! I said previously that Keith doesn’t seem to know what Calvin-ism is. He claims he does because he quoted a Calvinian creed! Some proof! His quoted creed doesn’t say what I said, nor does it mean it. I challenge Keith or any of his fellow-travelers to name any brother that took their position before John Welch did in 1990. Were all our brethren previous to John Welch neo-Calvinists? Neo-Calvinism has become a buzz word that these brethren throw around in-discriminately. It is a prejudicial false charge.

Keith thinks the Father’s use of his omniscience to fore-see and foreknow that Jesus would use his free moral agency to choose not to sin, therefore could not sin without making God a liar, is neo-Calvinism! I showed this is exactly what the Bible teaches, so Keith must think God is a neo-Calvinist! During the last almost 50 years I have preached against Calvinism among some of the most rabid Calvinists in the world (the Dutch Reformed). I have de-bated Calvinists and studied with them in their homes. I have devoured their creeds and researched their literature, and I don’t believe or teach one thing that is a 42nd cousin to anything peculiar to Calvinism and for Keith to insinuate that I do is a travesty on truth, comes close to an insult, and reflects his lack of knowledge of Calvin-ism.

Keith charges that I deny that Jesus was tempted to sin as a man? He cites Hebrews 4:15 and wonders if it is in my Bible. I wonder if my explanation of this passage was in Keith’s copy of my negative. I know it is in mine, and it was in his when they left my desk!

Keith says he proved that Jesus’ spirit was “fully human and fully divine.” Keith can’t make a single argument for his position without meeting himself coming back or colliding with John Welch whose heresy he is trying to defend. Keith should have shown just how this works out. The body of Jesus, according to Keith, was inhabited by only one spirit which was “fully human and fully divine,” but the “fully divine” part was inactive. If it was “fully human and fully divine,” then your good friend John Welch says that’s 200% and an absurdity. Are you going to debate John? If Jesus’ spirit was “fully human and fully divine” that is equal to two fully independent spirits. The “fully Divine” spirit had to be capable of “fully” functioning, and the “fully divine Spirit” certainly was unless Jesus’ body was animated by a half spirit. Keith doesn’t like the two-spirit position, but his position logically leads to it. If the “fully Divine” Spirit was inactive during his earthly sojourn, then he was animated by a “fully human” spirit? Two full spirits: 1 + 1= 2 spirits, or is it’ /z + = = 1 spirit? No, it is one fully divine spirit that acted like a human spirit when it was appropriate and harmonized with Jesus’ earthly mission as Servant and Savior. Will Keith deny that Jesus had the power to so do?

Keith says Jesus “had 100% of the human attributes (Heb. 2:17), but kept 100% of the divine attributes (unused: Heb. 1:1-4; 13:8).” This is what he says, but I proved that Jesus used divine attributes in having the power to effect his own resurrection, accepting worship, and he had power on earth to forgive sins (Mark 2:10). Keith replies that Jesus never demanded worship but was passive in it. So what? The Father demanded it (Heb. 1:6). Should Jesus have re-fused what his Father commanded? Was he not worthy of what his Father commanded? Is that Keith’s point? His replies on this point insinuate that something was inappropriate about worshiping Jesus, and that it was equal to worshiping Herod! Where did the Father ever command the worship of Herod, or an apostle, or any other object but Deity? If God commanded all his angels to worship Jesus in the flesh does not prove Jesus used a divine at-tribute, I am at a loss to know what would. And all I needed to defeat Keith’s proposition is proof that Jesus used just one Divine Attribute. I have proven that he used at least three! Keith even admitted that Christ’s forgiving sins was different from the apostles! That was a fatal admission! He thus surrendered his proposition! He tried to patch it up, but his patch doesn’t stick.

Keith thinks my admission that Jesus limited himself in that he grew in knowledge, is making his argument. All sensible Bible students know that deity sometimes limits itself; to deny that it can do so is to limit the power of deity. I don’t even deny that Jesus could have limited all his divine attributes as Keith argues, but the question is, did he? I have proven that he did not, and Keith has failed to prove that he did, so his proposition fails. Jesus did not allow any of his divine attributes to sully his earthly mission. I showed that the Father limited his knowledge in commanding Abraham to offer Isaac, thus the limitation of knowledge doesn’t prove Jesus used no divine attribute.

Keith contends that since Jesus did all his works by delegated authority, this proves he used none of his own divine attributes. No, it only proves the hierarchy of the Godhead. The Father has primary authority, Christ and the Holy Spirit have delegated authority. If Christ’s using delegated authority proves he deactivated all his own divine attributes, it also proves the same for the Holy Spirit since he too exercised only delegated authority (John 16:13, 14;14:26)? And what about the apostles? They too had only delegated authority? Does this mean they emptied themselves of the use of all their human attributes? What proves too much proves nothing!

Keith’s final affirmative is largely wasted paper, ink and effort. All his quibbles and quotes about some supposed disagreements I might have with this brother or that, cut no ice with me, and prove his desperation and that he has a party spirit which is a work of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21). I have not consulted with any party bosses (since I know none) in preparation for this debate. Keith knows more about the beliefs of the brethren he mentions than I do. I have answered his quibble once and for all. I said I would be glad to discuss the Bible with any brother under honor-able circumstances. This reply alone answers about half of his third affirmative.

Keith claims to be working for unity while fomenting division. He has unsuccessfully tried to put me in some party, but he has failed. I don’t fit into parties  never have. I am my own man and I do my own thinking. If he wants unity, then let him purge himself of the party spirit.

Keith is anxious for me to answer his question about whether one must believe Jesus used some of his divine attributes while on earth to be saved. Keith is playing to the grandstand here. He has said that since both of us believe in the deity and humanity of Jesus our differences should not affect our fellowship. His magnanimity may not be as warm and fuzzy as it appears since he is the one who challenged for this debate. When my comments on the Welch heresy appeared in this periodical, Keith jumped to the defense of Welch and challenged for a debate. His question is like the sectarians’ asking, “Do you think that just you and your little bunch are going to be saved?” It is prejudicial. I have proven that Jesus used some of his own divine attributes while on earth. Whether one has to believe that to be saved is a matter for God to decide. I don’t try to tend to God’s business. I plead his law, and leave the rest to him. Keith wondered why I didn’t give the law. I thought he knew it! A better question is, can one be saved who sows discord among brethren and divides churches with false doctrines (Prov. 6:19), then tries to cover his tracks with bogus apologies. Keith preaches unity while sowing discord! The conservative churches are not growing outwardly, and are being devoured from within by factions and parties and foolish controversies.

Keith’s defense of Welch at the expense of truth and facts is obvious. He has not learned, seemingly, that we should not think of men above that which is written (1 Cor. 4:6). He says John confessed he had been wrong not just in word but in concept. Then why did he say in his most recent debate with Gene Frost, “I’ll apologize to you for any word I’ve used. Fine, let’s get rid of it. But, Brother Frost, I believe the same thing, I haven’t shifted”(Emphasis mine, jpn, Frost-Welch Debate, 91, 4th par. left column, June 1995). He asked which Welch apology has Frost ever accepted? Welch’s apologies are hard to accept because he repudiates them before one has time to accept them! Gene tried to accept the apology Welch made following the Louisville debate, but the ink wasn’t dry before Welch publicly was repudiating it.(See article by Gene Frost in Gospel Truths, January 16, 1997, 16-19; cf. his follow-up article June, 15-17).

Conclusion

This debate has been frustrating to me. I am chagrinned that at this late date we are spending our time and energy debating the nature of our blessed Savior while the world goes to hell in a hand basket! I cannot understand why or how those brethren who are standing with and defending the Welch doctrine cannot see that he has made false apologies, and supposed repentances, only to continue to defend his original error. If he has changed the substance of the position he took in his Shively, Kentucky sermon, and has repented of both his words and his concept, why does he continue to defend his original position and deny that he has “shifted”? What are all the debates about if we all agree?

Keith seems to feel that the brethren opposed to the Welch doctrine are hard-hearted, mean-spirited, and hell-bent on hitting on John Welch and his fellow-travelers. Nonsense. Gene Frost’s article trying to accept Welch’s latest “apology” was a genuine offer of his heart and hand, and I, and I am sure many others, were delighted to think this might end this foolish controversy. He personally wrote Welch’s defenders and asked them to commit to Welch’s supposed change, only to receive not a single reply. Be-fore the ink was dry in Gene’s article, Welch publicly was reneging on his supposed change and accusing others of stretching his apology beyond his intention.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 22 p. 
November 20, 1997

By Steve Wallace

Brethren in different places are preaching the “Gospel of Change.” They are calling things that churches have generally practiced “traditions” and feel a great need to alter everything they can. Such things as having an order of services, e.g., two songs and a prayer, or an invitation song are looked upon as dull, unwanted heritage from past generations. A brother who was once at the church here even advocated unstructured worship. While such change may be “the thing” with some brethren, we want to ask if it is wise and worthy. We question such change for the following reasons.

The Danger of Judging Hearts

The thought seems to be that, since a given church has held to a given order of services or a particular practice for a number of years, these things have become empty rituals and the brethren’s hearts are no longer in them. Hence, some have gotten the idea that “we need to stir things up a little around here!” Let us remember that acts of worship alone do not constitute acceptable worship. Rather, acceptable worship consists of God-ordained acts springing forth from the heart of the worshiper (cf. John 4:24; Matt. 15:8). It is not our business to judge whether or not someone’s heart is in the worship, neither do externals alone indicate such (John 4:24). The heart is God’s province and he will decide if our worship is acceptable (1 Sam. 16:8). Brethren who advocate such change may be saying something about the state of their own hearts (Matt. 15:8).

We May Change Something that Has

Lost its Meaning to Us That is Still

Meaningful to Someone Else

Some brethren are saying we should do away with the invitation at the close of services. “It’s just a tradition,” they tell us. First of all, is the church (the “bride”) not saying, “Come” by extending the invitation (Rev. 22:17)? Just as importantly, what might that invitation mean to a lost sinner who stops by our services? I know a story of a young man who had been raised a Roman Catholic. After leaving that religion and spending some time in the world, he started searching for the right way. Bible in hand he talked and studied with different religions. It was while he was attending a Baptist church that he became convinced he ought to be baptized in order to enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5 was the verse that hit him). Upon requesting baptism, the Baptist preacher told him that they would baptize him in a few months. That did not set real well with him. Not long after that he was invited to visit services at a church of the Lord. When they extended the invitation that night, it could have been meaningless to everyone in the building  but it was not meaningless to him! “That’s the way it ought to be!” he thought. The reason I know this story so well is because that young man was me! I am glad that the Knollwood Church of Christ in Dayton, Ohio, had not fallen prey to the “Gospel of Change.” The invitation means a lot when you are lost!

The Things We Change To Will Become Traditional

Imagine visiting a church which has been having unstructured worship for five years. Upon seeing the proceedings you ask the one next to you, “What’s going on?” The reply? “That’s the way we’ve always done it!”

Conclusion

Change for the sake of change is not wise and it can actually produce bad results. Biblically based things that we have always done as a church are good and often need no changing. Some may even be part of our eternity (Rev. 7:9-12).

Guardian of Truth XLI: 23 p. 5
December 4, 1997

By Jim McDonald

Wisdom teaches that “tools” to do a work may become antiquated and ineffective. For decades radio preaching here in the States was a great tool through which many learned the gospel. “Running debates” were conducted with various denominational preachers in many locales and in some instances, formal debates were conducted over the air. While it is not true that no good today comes from radio preaching, we readily acknowledge that it is no longer as effective as it once was.

Wisdom also teaches that what does not work in some places may be the very thing needed to accomplish work in another place. Radio preaching may not be very effective in the U.S. but it is highly profitable in the Philippines  at least in some parts. Four men who were recently baptized were all denominational preachers who were converted through listening to a radio program aired each Sunday afternoon from Davao City, southern Mindanao. Jerry Casa directs the program and is helped by Julie Notarte and Wilfredo Canas, as well as other men of the region. The picture shows Ken Marrs speaking on this program during our most recent visit to this region, June 1997.

What is happening in Davao City is being duplicated in Cordon, Isabela, northeast central Luzon. Domie Jacob, preacher in Cordon, has a Saturday program and from it many have been baptized and at least two congregations of the “one-cup” persuasion have come to a better knowledge of the truth. I met two former “one-cup” preachers in May in Ilagan, Isabela who had given up their errors on that doctrine, both of whom had come to a more perfect knowledge of truth through the radio, although one had learned the truth through Domie’s preaching and a second led to a better understanding through a program directed by Romeo Torreliza in northwestern Luzon.

There are likely 40 congregations in the Cagayan Valley (northeast Luzon) many of which are the result of radio preaching. Rody Gumpad conducted a radio program for many years in Tuguegarao and in our visits to that area we met many people who had been converted through hearing his pro-gram. Two other programs have been or are still being heard in Tuguegarao  one is conducted by Neo Aglugub and Robert Gamiao and these have borne fruit for the cause of our Lord. Within the last year a program has been broadcast in Manila, the only one in this vast city of 10,000,000 people. Ben Cruz, Fred Agulto, and Jaime Bobis are the most frequent speakers, but others also from the Manila area speak on the program. Much interest is being fueled through this program.

We do not claim that every program conducted in the Philippines has been a success as in these instances we record. Some have met with minimal success. Several factors enter into successful radio preaching, not the least of which is the state of the heart of the hearer and the ability and knowledge of the speaker.

For those places where the gospel is aired, there are dozens of other places where there is no such voice  places which desperately need an avenue to sound forth the Word. Three such places presently come to mind where we believe a radio program would help greatly promote the cause of our Lord.

Mindoro

The island of Mindoro is the home of brother D. Menor, a pioneer preacher who was widely known in past years. Brother Menor’s health and age do not permit him to be very active now, but there are some strong, faithful and able men who live here. In past years the work was more prosperous than now. According to brethren there, there are 17 congregations still active but several congregations which once met, no longer assemble. The preachers are older, perhaps more mature men, but there are very few younger preachers preaching on the island. The work could be helped, we believe, through a program that would reach all over the island. Elesio Sikat of Aurora is well respected and has the capability and knowledge to handle an effective radio program.

Cebu City

Cebu City is the second largest city in the Philippines. There are just two or three congregations in this huge, sprawling metropolis and these are extremely weak and small. Cebu City is in the center of the Visayas and a radio program radiating from here would be heard in many other islands, as well as Cebu. Cirilio Sumabol is one of the preachers in Cebu City and has been searching out stations from which the Word might be sounded forth.

Mindanao

Ben Libertino lives in Poblacion 5, Midsayap, Cotabato, in the midst of southern Mindanao. Brethren in this area have suffered much and still suffer in this region afflicted by Muslim rebels. Homes and church buildings have been burned, as well as crops. Some brethren have been killed. Others have fled, but Ben and Virgil Vilanueva and other preachers remain to preach to their people. Ben believes a program would be highly effective, aired from Cotabato City. Not only could the lost hear the gospel but distressed brethren could be encouraged and given strength to stand amidst their trials and persecutions.

No one knows what might result should these broadcasts materialize. God’s word is “quick and powerful and sharper than a two-edged sword”; it is God’s power unto salvation (Heb. 4:12; Rom. 1:16). Thousands have already been converted in the Philippines. Thousands, hopefully millions, can be. Are you interested in helping to preach the gospel via radio in either Mindoro, Cebu City, or in southern Mindanao? I will be happy to provide further information about whom you may contact for those who have such a desire.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 23 p. 8-9
December 4, 1997

By Marc W. Gibson

Ever since the recent death of the Roman Catholic nun known as Mother Theresa, I have heard numerous comments on television and other places to the effect that if there ever was a person of whom there could be no doubt that she would be in heaven, Mother Theresa was the one. It could make one stop and wonder if, in spite of some errors, the grace of God would allow someone like her to be judged righteous in the end. I am aware that this topic may be found controversial and troubling to some, but I believe it to be important. When discussing such matters, too many rely on their gut-instinct or inner feelings rather than the clear teaching of God’s word. This can be spiritually fatal. The Lord will judge all souls by the standard of his word (John 12:48). I am not at-tacking any person living or dead, but only desire that we examine our beliefs in light of God’s revealed word.

It is not within the realm of this article to fully argue the fact that the Roman Catholic church is an apostate religion. Suffice it to say there is no scriptural authority for its existence, organization (hierarchy), and most of its practices and beliefs. The orders of monks and nuns are unauthorized in Scripture, as is calling someone on earth “Father” or “Mother” in a spiritual context (Matt. 23:9; I use the name “Mother Theresa” accommodatively because that was the name she was best known as, mwg). Whatever else may be said about Mother Theresa, she was still a lifelong practicing member of a human denomination that was devoid of the teaching and practice of truth. She was not a member of the body of Christ, wherein the saved dwell (Eph. 5:23).

The main argument concerns moral goodness and the grace of God. Mother Theresa was a person of high moral character and work. Her labor among the poor and dying in Calcutta, India, is legendary and worthy of honor. But will this alone place her in the good graces of God and his salvation? Will the grace of God cover other faults, though unrepented of? Consider the case of Cornelius, “a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always ” (Acts 10:1-2; see also v. 22). Here is a good, upright, moral man. If he would have died in this condition, many would argue that the grace of God would save him regardless. But is this how God saw his condition? Cornelius was visited by an angel of God who told him that, while God had taken note of his good character and deeds, he needed to send for a man named Peter who “will tell you what yet must do” and “tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved ” (vv. 3-6; 11:13-14). As good and as moral as Cornelius was, obviously something was lacking in his life. Later, when Peter arrived, Cornelius told him, “Now therefore, we are all present before God, to hear all the things commanded you by God” (v. 33). Peter taught him that “in every nation whoever fears [God] and works righteousness is accepted by Him ” (v. 35). This included being baptized for the remission of sins (vv. 47-48; Acts 2:38) and all other works commanded in God’s word. We may do good, moral works here on earth yet not be in a right condition with God. The case of Cornelius proves that moral goodness alone will not save. One must be saved from sin by the blood of Christ and then live by God’s moral and doctrinal will.

Jesus will render final judgment at the last day (2 Cor. 5:10). In teaching his truth today, righteous judgment is rendered on our present condition (John 7:24). If I could have talked to Mother Theresa, I would have told her what I tell others  leave the denominations of men and put on Christ in baptism, being added by him to his one church. Still, she had full access to the truth in God’s word. On the other hand, you or I must never presume to say what God will do separate from what he has already revealed (1 Pet. 4:11). To say that God will judge differently than what he has revealed is to speak where God has not spoken. Be careful! To assume and teach that God will make exceptions to his revealed way will lead to a disregard for the authority of his revealed word. Maybe we should be busier teaching and obeying the truth instead of trying to figure out ways to get people into the kingdom of heaven without them doing “the will of the Father in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s grace is accessed by faith (Rom. 5:1-2), and true faith is a faith that obeys God’s will (Jas. 2:17-26). Fear God and work his righteousness today for your salvation!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 21 p. 1
November 6, 1997