Truth Magazine

By Kenneth E. Thomas

Years ago I either read or heard (I can’t remember which) Marshall Keeble’s sermon by this name. It was impressive then and is as needed today as ever. There are a number folks who are saying that if man must “do” certain things to be saved (especially baptism) or if man must do something to “keep saved,” this some how negates grace. This doctrine isn’t new, it has been around for many years. Guess who originated it? It came from the same source as did the “you shall not surely die” if you eat the forbidden fruit doctrine of (Gen. 3:4). Man leaves God by disobedience, man must return to God by obedience. If obedience negates grace and earns salvation on one’ s own merits, why wasn’t this so from the beginning? Has it changed? If so, when? Those who teach this are obligated to give us answers to these questions (1 Pet. 3:15). Hebrews 11 refutes this idea as well as (Jas. 1:18-25; 2:14-26; Matt. 7:21; Heb. 5:9).

Places Where Salvation Was

“Located”

We are told that the things that transpired in the Old Testament records of God’s dealings with man are “written for our learning” and that they are to serve as “examples” to those of us living since that time (Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11-13). Let’s look at some historical events and make the proper application to you and me today.

1. A proper relationship (fellowship) with God was enjoyed between Adam and Eve “in the beautiful garden.” As soon as they sinned, they were expelled from the garden and lost their access to the tree of life along with the relationship they had formerly enjoyed with God (Gen.3:1-24). See (vv. 22-23). In order to approach God now, since their sins had separated them from him, animal sacrifices were instituted as a means of temporarily atoning for their sins, allowing them to approach him in worship. While nothing is specifically stated about Adam and Eve having offered such sacrifices after the fall, we do have the record of two of their sons, Cain and Abel, as they attempted to worship God outside the garden. We learn from Hebrews 11:4 that Abel acted by faith offering what God had commanded for this particular sacrifice and was blessed. We also learn that Cain attempted to substitute the fruit of the ground and his worship was rejected by God (Gen. 4:1-7).

2. Next as we study biblical history, we learn how exceedingly sinful mankind became on earth. Man became so evil in fact that the record says that “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). The Bible says, “It repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart” (v. 6). “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord” (Gen. 6:8). Then we read God’s commandments to Noah regarding the building of a giant boat or ark three stories high with one door and one window, along with specific instructions as to its size and type of wood to be used in its construction, as well as its contents (Gen. 6:14-21). The last verse of Genesis 6 simply says, “Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded Him, so did he.” You will remember that the Scriptures say that “Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord” (Gen. 6:8). Did “doing according to all that God commanded him” somehow negate God’s grace in that dispensation? If you answer no, then you are bound by honesty and consistency to admit that doing doesn’t negate God’s grace today, for the Hebrew letter says, “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith” (Heb. 11:8). You will please observe that “Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark” (Gen. 7:23b).

A New Testament application of this principle may be found in Peter’s reference to how Noah’s kind of faith will also save us when we do as instructed. “. . . when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by (through, KET) water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities being made subject unto Him” (1 Pet. 3:20-22). Isn’t it strange that folks will totally disavow what the word of God says about scriptural baptism today? They say it does not save whereas the Bible says it “does also now save us.” This little change of one letter makes the difference between salvation from alien sins and continued separation from God. Look at those two words “not” and “now”! If the Lord wanted us to know the role baptism plays in our salvation, how much plainer could He have said it than “baptism doth also now save us?” Does it or doesn’t it? Just as surely as one is “saved by faith,” (Rom. 5:1; Gal. 3:26; John 8:24; Heb. 11:6), one is likewise saved by baptism. If we can’t take God’s word here, how can we claim to take it elsewhere? Jesus said something about living by “every word” (Matt. 4:4).

3. It cannot be denied by the honest Bible believer that God made provision for justice to be properly meted out in Israel. Involved in this were the “six cities of refuge.” Three were to be on one side of Jordan and three on the other in Canaan. If one committed manslaughter or murder, he was “fair game” for the next of kin, the avenger of blood, unless he was able to take up residence “in the city.” There he was safe from harm and would be brought up before the congregation for judgment at the proper time. If he was caught “outside the city” the revenger of blood could take his life with God’s approval. See Genesis 9:6 for when this law of capital punishment was first stated so far as we know (cf. Num. 35:6-33). There is much more of interest concerning these cities but that will have to wait for another lesson. Suffice us to keep clearly in our minds that “salvation was located” in these cities.

4. Our next illustration of “salvation being located” is the case of Rahab the Gentile of the city of Jericho. She had heard of God’s dealings with the various people who opposed Israel in the wilderness wanderings. When spies were sent by Joshua to “spy out the land,” she hid the spies so they would not be caught. She made them take an oath to save her and her family from the destruction of Jericho when they came against the city. Not only was she told that she and her family must “stay in the house” or their promise to spare them would be null and void, she was also told to “place a red string in the window.” These are conditions placed on the grace that she and her family were to receive you see. Did she and her family earn being spared by staying in the house and placing the red string in the window? Certainly not! Would they have been spared without meeting those conditions? Certainly not! If conditions did not nullify grace then, why do some suppose they do today? Read Joshua 2:1-24. See verses 17-21 in particular. Do you suppose there is any reason, prophetically speaking, that this “red string” or “scarlet cord” was the sign for Israel to spare this particular house? Whether that is so or not, it does remind us of the blood of Christ and how God’s wrath against our sins is stayed when we are “under the blood of Jesus” by having obeyed the gospel and by continuing to walk in the light (Rom. 1:16-17; 6:3-6; 2 Cor. 5:17-21; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; 1 Pet. 1:22-25; 1 John 1:1-9). Please read these passages.

5. Salvation for Paul and the crew of a ship was once conditioned upon every one “staying in the ship.” The temptation was to try to escape death by jumping over board. Paul said an angel of the Lord had promised them that no harm would come to them if only they would “stay in the ship.” The lesson here is the same as in the other cases of course. Their safety was by God’s grace, but to be a recipient of said grace they must do as instructed. Do you suppose any one of these fellows said, “We have earned our lives being spared for we stayed in the ship?” I don’t think so. They knew their safety had come from the God whom Paul served (Acts 27:21-44). See verse 31 in particular.

Our Salvation Is “In Christ”

 Salvation is “in Christ” (2 Tim. 2:10)

 Redemption is “in Christ” (Eph. 1:70

 Forgiveness is “in Christ” (Acts 2:38)

 Sonship is “in Christ” (Gal. 3:26-27)

 Reconciliation is “in Christ” (Eph. 2:13-16)

 Translation is “in Christ” (Col. 1:13-14)

 One is a new creature “in Christ” (2 Cor. 5:17)

 Sealed with Spirit “in Christ” (Eph. 1:13)

 An heir of God “in Christ” (Rom. 8:17)

 Seed of Abraham “in Christ” (Gal. 3:27, 29)

 Blessed in death “in Christ” (Rev. 14:13)

 Complete in “Christ” (Col. 2:8-10)  All spiritual blessings “in Christ” (Eph. 1:3)

Being “In Christ” Same As Being “In His Church”

The sphere of being “in Christ” and of being “in his church” are identical spheres or relationships. The same acts of obedience that placed one “in Christ” at the same time makes one a part of that which is known as his church, kingdom, family, household, body, or bride. To say that one is saved by one means and becomes a member of the church by yet another, is to show one’s lack of understanding. Since Christ’s blood is the purchase price for his church (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:15) and since the church is the “spiritual bride of Christ” (Rom. 7:4; Eph. 5:22-33), when one has been cleansed by his blood, he automatically becomes a part of his bride. To say one is save and then must “join” the church would be akin to saying, “I am going to be married and then seek a bride.” The figures of speech which show when one’s state or relationship is changed from “out of Christ and out of his body” to “in Christ” and “in his body” are many. To Nicodemus Jesus said that he must be “born again” to see the kingdom (John 3:3). This new birth is of two elements, the water and the Spirit (John 3:5). This is paralleled by Titus 3:5 which shows that God saves us “through the washing of regeneration.” When he is “born again,” therefore, he is automatically a child in the family of God. The same acts which place one “in Christ” are what make one a member of his church. The church and the kingdom are one and the same spiritual relationship (Matt. 16:18-19; Col. 1:13-14; Mark 9:1; Acts 2:22-41, 47).

How Does One Enter Christ?

Surely the question has already been sufficiently answered to the discerning mind who has read this far in our study, but to give more specific information may be needful and so we continue.

If we do not “enter Christ,” we will remain aliens and unreconciled unto God by the cross. I know because of the following language inspired by the Holy Spirit. “But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were afar off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace who has made both (Jew and Gentile, KET) one, and has broken down the middle wall of division between us, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that was between us, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity” (Eph. 2:12-16). To remain out of Christ is to be separated from God; but to be “in Christ,” is to be “no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (Eph. 2:19).

A preacher I once knew said, “I know the church and the kingdom are one and the same relationship, for every time the first century Christians planted the seed of the kingdom, churches of Christ sprung up.” That’s exactly so (Rom. 16:16). Jesus said, “Other sheep I have which are not of this (Jewish, KET) fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one fold and one shepherd” (John 10:16). The apostle Paul, who was chosen late to be Christ’s apostle to the Gentiles, was qualified when Christ appeared to him on the Damascus road. He both heard his voice and saw the Christ (1 Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11). This man was a praying, penitent, fasting, lost soul until he heard “in the city” what he must do (Acts 9:6). In the city he was told, “And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). In doing this, he was “delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of God’s dear son” (Col. 1:13). This same man wrote by divine inspiration the following: “. . . do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death” (Rom. 6:3)? Since, as already shown “all spiritual blessings are in Christ,” can you not see that since we are “baptized into Christ,” we have no access to any spiritual blessing that is “located in Christ” without scriptural baptism. Scriptural baptism is when a penitent believer is baptized upon his confession of faith in Christ for the remission of sins and into the one body. Period! Are you “in Christ?” If not, let us assist you as soon as possible (Acts 2:22-38, 40, 47; 26:28-29). Read Acts 2 and see what was taught and what these folks did on Pentecost to become a member of Christ’s church. This was hundreds of years before such a thing as Roman Catholicism was heard of and many more hundreds of years before such a thing as Protestantism was on the world scene. If we go back beyond those things to the Bible, believe and do as they did, we will be what they were. If not, then why not?

Guardian of Truth XLI: 19 p. 6-8
October 2, 1997

By H.A. (Buster) Dobbs

Some are confused over whether Mark 9:38-41 instructs the disciple of Jesus to accept as saved those who teach things contrary to sound doctrine, especially concerning the plan of redemption. The passage reads:

John said unto him, “Teacher, we saw one casting out demons in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followed not us.” But Jesus said, “Forbid him not: for there is no man who shall do a mighty work in my name, and be able quickly to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us. For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink, because ye are Christ’s, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward” (ASV).

A popular writer commented:

Remember when the apostles wanted Jesus to condemn another minister who didn’t belong to their group? It’s the story of Mark 9. John and the other disciples had seen another fellow doing some incredible things  casting out demons, changing lives. And what’s more, the man was giving credit to God. He was doing it in the name of Christ. He just wasn’t a part of the apostles’ team.

Everything about him was so right: Right results, right head. But wrong group. John wants to know if he did the right thing in telling the man to stop. John’s not cocky, he’s confused. So are many of our people today.

The writer then boasted about how much he had learned from a Presbyterian, a Catholic, a Nazarene, a Pentecostal, and a Baptist. He described people in these denominational groups as sincere in heart and giving God the glory. He concluded that anyone who is doing good works, in the name of Jesus, is acceptable to God while remaining in his sectarian affiliation. The test of fellowship suggested is, “First, look at the fruit. Is it good? Is it healthy? If the person is bearing fruit, be grateful! A good tree can-not produce bad fruit, so be thankful that God is at work in groups other than yours.” He announced that “a much more tempered John would reduce it to this: `Whosoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God has God living in him’ (1 John 4:15).

The unavoidable conclusion from this line of reasoning is that the only condition of eternal salvation is to confess Jesus as the Son of God. If that is true, then every professing Christian religious group is secure and there is no need for churches of Christ to exist. The charitable thing is to sell our property, give the money to the poor, and join the nearest denomination.

If the conclusion is false and the souls of those who do not precisely obey the commands of God are in jeopardy, then we have an obligation, before God, to expound unto them the way of God more accurately. The concern is not to prove “us” to be right and all others to be wrong, but for the safety of priceless souls. It is not done for boasting and seeking dominion over others. It is a matter of keeping our trust as good stewards and caring enough for the alien sinner to help him understand what he needs to do to have the everlasting benediction of God. It springs from a sincere desire to have all men to obey him who is the “author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him.” A love for truth and lost souls compels us to warn that when Jesus comes in judgment he will take vengeance on them that obey not the gospel. (2 Thess. 1:7-8).

We must keep in mind that there is one faith (Eph. 4:5). Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). Paul told Timothy to “charge some that they teach no other doctrine” (1 Tim. 1:3). Paul warned:

If any man teacheth a different doctrine, and consenteth not to sound words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is puffed up, knowing nothing, but doting about questionings and disputes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, wranglings of men corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth, supposing that godliness is a way of gain (1 Tim. 6:3-5, ASV).

The New Testament is emphatic in telling us to stick hard by the exact teaching of Jesus and the apostles. The first church in Jerusalem “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship.” We, too, must hold firmly to the teaching of the New Testament that we may be in fellowship with all who “walk in the light” (1 John 1:7). Saints are to “speak the same thing . . . perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”

The inferred suggestion is that the one casting out demons was teaching a different doctrine from Jesus and the apostles. When this is presented in a way that suggests it is parallel to Catholics, Presbyterians, Nazarenes, Pentecostals, and churches of Christ not being in the same group and not agreeing in their teaching, it affirms that the person John saw was teaching a different doctrine from Jesus and the apostles. Otherwise, the two situations are not similar.

If two groups, each teaching the truth of revelation, condemn each other out of jealousy, that might be parallel and it would be wrong. If one group is teaching truth and a different group is teaching error, the situation is not analogous to Mark 9:38-41.

The one John saw was acting, according to the text, in the name of Jesus.

This means he was doing miracles with the authority and by the approval of Jesus. It is inconceivable that he was teaching something that contradicted what Jesus taught. His teaching had Jesus’ endorsement. The teaching of denominational bodies is different from the teaching of the New Testament and does not have divine approval.

Miracles of the first century were to confirm what God spoke through his Son (Heb. 2:1-4). If the one who was casting out demons was teaching something other than what Jesus taught, we have God confirming contradictory ideas. This is unacceptably confusing and therefore impugns the nature of God. Jesus said, “There is no man who shall do a mighty work in my name, and be able quickly to speak evil of me” (Mark 9:39, ASV).

There were others, besides the apostles, whom the Lord sent to urge the Jews to repent. The seventy, for instance, were among that number (Luke 10:1). Jesus doubtless empowered the seventy to cast out demons. Jesus gave the apostles power over demons when he sent them out on a similar mission (Matt.10:5-8). The seventy preached the same message as the twelve  not a different plan or purpose. This man could have been one of the seventy.

Jesus declared, “He that is not against us is for us” (Mark 9:40). If this means that everyone who is not actively op-posing Jesus has communion with him, there is a new basis for fellowship. The people who ignore Jesus are not necessarily against him, but are they in fellowship with him? Clearly, Jesus is saying this man is not against us because he does miracles in my name and is teaching the truth. On another occasion Jesus said, “He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth (Matt. 12:30, ASV). The two verses do not gainsay each other and therefore this explanation must be correct.

The question remains whether God is a stickler for the details of his law. A quick reminder of Nadab, Abihu, Uzzah, Ananias, Sapphira, Peter at Galatia, and the man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath is enough to prove that God will allow no tampering with his statutes, no matter how slight the thing may seem to us.

God’s Word is immutable simply because it is God’s Word. No one of sound mind would be content to go to the final judgment having ignored a jot or tittle of the commandments of the Lord. The only safe course is to do precisely and exactly what God tells us to do in exactly and precisely the way God tells us to do it. Anything else is folly.

Reprinted with permission from the Knight Arnold News, 4400 Knight Arnold Rd., Memphis, Tennessee 38118-2948.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 18 p. 
September 18, 1997

By Kenneth Sils

The book of Romans in the New Testament is one of the most informative books in the Bible. Paul told them that he was ready to preach the gospel of Christ to them for it was the power of God to salvation for all people, whether they be Jew or Greek, slave or free, and male or female. This theme resonates throughout the book as Paul encourages all of them to see themselves as the people of God, united in the body of Christ, saved by the grace of God through obedient faith. Towards the end of the letter, Paul lists a series of salutations. The object of our study today is the expression found in Romans 16:16 when he told the Romans, “. . . The churches of Christ salute you.” Allow me to make three important observations concerning the term “churches of Christ” that is found in this passage.

The first observation from this God-given name is the section “of Christ.” When one says church “of Christ,” one is showing who the owner is of that which is called the church. Jesus Christ is the owner and possessor of the church. In Matthew 16, Jesus asked his disciples whom they thought he was. The answer Simon gave was correct. He said in Matthew 16:16, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” In response to his confession of faith, Jesus said in Matthew 16:18, “… on this rock, I will build my church.” The church belongs to Jesus and Jesus alone. The headship of the church was never left to Peter, Paul, or any other man on this earth. In Colossians 1:18, we learn that Jesus “is the head of the body, the church.” The church of the Bible is truly the church “of Christ.”

A second observation from the inspired phrase, “the churches of Christ salute you” points out the truth that the word “church” could never refer to any arrangement of man-made buildings. It’s impossible for a stone or brick building to salute anything! In the New Testament, the word church means “called out” or “those who are called out.” Acts 5:11 states, “So great fear came upon all the church.”

Only people have the ability to fear and those who were the “called out” of Christ expressed in unison reverential fear due to the awesome power they witnessed through the hands of the apostles. No physical building (cathedral, synagogue, sanctuary, meeting house) was ever referred to as “the church” in the New Testament. To do such today shows a gross ignorance of God’s way taught in Holy Scripture.

A third observation we should learn from the God-breathed phrase, “the churches of Christ salute you” refers to God’s use of the plural for the word “church.” The term “churches” simply meant “the called out” in reference to a variety of locations around the world. This is a phrase of common sense. Paul was currently instructing the “church of Christ” which was meeting in the city of Rome. There were the “called out” in Jerusalem, Ephesus, Antioch and the list could go on and on. Consider the seven “churches” of Asia which had letters sent to each one in the book of Revelation. It is vital to understand that the only distinction between these churches is in respect to their location. They were not denominations with differing doctrines, organizations, and allegiances. Their doctrine was the same for all as Paul commanded as he was sending Timothy to them in 1 Corinthians 4:17, “… who will remind you of my ways in Christ as I teach everywhere in every church.” The same doctrine that Timothy must preach to Corinth would be preached before every church of Christ he spoke to, regardless of their location.

The Caroline Street Church of Christ proposes to be a group just like you read about in the New Testament. We give our total allegiance to Christ and his inspired message just as the churches of Christ did in the fust century. Our mission is to teach the gospel of Christ for the salvation of your soul. If your interested in being a part of a church who loves the Lord and his inspired message, let’s study together. 1827 Caroline St., South Bend, Indiana 46613

Guardian of Truth XLI: 18 p. 20
September 18, 1997

By Steve Willis

The Victoria Child Sexual Abuse Society (VCSAS) issued a warning which prompted the entire article. VCSAS Director Peggy Mahony said, “With a small group of children, the behaviors are becoming more severe and more hurtful. It ranges from four- to six-year olds using coercion on younger children to have oral sex, to 11-year olds, raping seven-year olds.”

She says sexually abusing children fall into two groups:

The first group may have been `over-sexually stimulated’ by watching their parents have sex or peeking at their pornographic videos, or sometimes merely by the increasingly overt sexuality of commonplace TV fare like soap operas. `Even some of the daytime programming is stimulating for kids,’ Ms. Mahoney cautions. Children who subsequently act out the behaviors they have seen often have not been otherwise molested, which hitherto has been regarded as the chief predisposing factor for sexually abusive youth.

“The second group of young abusers  usually boys  are predatory and tend to commit much more serious assaults, like rape, on other children. Even in this group, only about 60% have been molested. However, Ms. Mahoney says, `the vast majority come from violent homes.”

The article continues: “That some agencies report an increase in child-perpetrated sexual abuse does not surprise family advocates. Like other indices of social breakdown, the phenomenon reflects an underlying moral decline, they argue. `It’s a consequence of the lack of mores and taboos,’ comments Laurie Greschke, the western vice-president of REAL Women of Canada. ‘It goes hand in hand with the availability of pornography and the strength and deviancy of it. You can now get more than thirty kinds of pornography magazines at any corner store.’

“The increased sexualization of young people and the unconcern of many parents, reflects society’s diminished respect for the sanctity of life, adds Mrs. Greschke. ‘Children are not viewed as special and precious gifts, so it doesn’t matter what we do them,’ she says. The modem evolutionary conception of existence, which posits that human beings are not created by God but rather developed without purpose, breeds such attitudes. `People are of no value and can be treated that way. There’s been a weakening of basic moral values.”‘

Further, mentioning a book some may be interested in finding:

“Maggie Gallagher, an American social commentator and author of the book, The Enemies of Ems, assigns much of the blame to family breakdown. While she says there is a shortage of `solid research’ specifically targeted at child sexual abusers, `there is considerable evidence that children who are not growing up with both biological parents are at greater risk of being abused.’ Ms. Gallagher reports that one Canadian study found that a child’s chances of being sexually abused were 40 times as great when a parent was absent. `There may be many different causes,’ she allows, `but it’s certainly plausible that the number of children not living with their parents are at much higher risk, both of being abused and of abusing others’ (Alberta Report, 23, article by Tom McFeely).

Guardian of Truth XLI: 18 p. 19
September 18, 1997