Truth Magazine

When a person indicates an interest in baptism, we tend to want to baptize him that very moment instead of waiting for the next assembly because we are convinced that should that individual die in their sleep they will be numbered among the lost.

Many people in the church fail to differentiate between what is normative for the Christian faith and what is exceptional. I remember growing up as a boy hearing sermons during gospels meetings (when we would sing “Just As I Am” 2,000 times during the invitation to insure that someone would go forward) and how the preachers would tell a tragic story about a young man or woman who decided to be baptized but before they could go into the water were killed in a car wreck or by a falling meteor. “How sad!” the preachers would wail, “He was so close to salvation, but now is eternally lost in the hell of fire!” The folks in the crowd would nod reverently in agreement. The message was quite clear: God does not consider circumstances or intent, only whether or not one made it into the pool.

This sort of thinking has led to various sorts of bizarre legalisms. When a person indicates an interest in baptism, we tend to want to baptize him that very moment instead of waiting for the next assembly because we are convinced that should that individual die in their sleep they will be numbered among the lost. I remember a man who was baptized and whose hand did not totally make it under the water. The baptism was deemed invalid by an observing minister and had to be done over again.

The implication is that the act of baptism itself, not God, is the salvific factor. For so many years we have engaged in polemics with folk who contended that the thief on the cross was saved apart from baptism that we have concluded God cannot save any-one unless that person receives baptism with our own imprimatur. In our history, Alexander Campbell was criticized when he wrote that a person could receive sprinkling as baptism in some contexts and be saved, and David Lipscomb was taken to task for suggesting that a person could receive immersion in a Baptist church and still be deemed a Christian. These brothers as well as others were seeking to steer the Restoration Movement away from a crippling legalism and Pharisaic thinking.

We must remember that the church belongs to Christ and he will admit or deny whoever he chooses. We are to teach immersion as the normative form, but at the same time we must not fall into a quasi-magical type of thinking. It is the relationship of the person to the Lord that is the pivotal factor. God can, and does, make exceptions. We are not to confuse the exceptions with the normative, but we are to cultivate an attitude of flexibility when it comes to the ways of Providence.

Review of “Mike Blackwell on Baptism”

Larry Ray Hafley

If brother Blackwell were a Baptist and attacked his brethren who insist that one cannot be saved without repentance and faith in Christ, here is how his article might read:

Many people in the church fail to differentiate between what is normative for the Baptist faith and what is exceptional. I remember growing up as a boy hearing sermons during revival meetings (when we would sing “Just As I Am” 2,000 times during the invitation to insure that someone would go forward) and how the preachers would tell a tragic story about a young man or woman who decided to repent but before they could believe were killed in a car wreck or by a falling meteor. “How sad!” the preachers would wail, “He was so close to salvation, but now is eternally lost in the hell of fire!” The folks in the crowd would nod reverently in agreement. The message was quite clear: God does not consider circumstances or intent, only whether or not one believed in Christ.

This sort of thinking has led to various sorts of bizarre legalisms. When a person indicates an interest in God, we tend to want to lead him to faith in Christ that very moment instead of waiting for the next assembly, because we are convinced that should that individual die in their sleep they will be numbered among the lost. I remember a man who believed in God but did not totally repent and believe in Christ as the Son of God. His faith was deemed invalid by an observing minister, and he had to repent and believe all over again.

The implication is that the act of believing itself, not God, is the saving factor. For so many years we have engaged in polemics with Primitive “Hard Shell” Baptist folks who contended that the other, impenitent thief on the cross was saved apart from repentance and faith in Christ that we have concluded the God cannot save anyone unless that person receives faith with our own. In our history, Charles Spurgeon was criticized when he wrote that a person could receive faith in a Deity as a substitute for faith in Christ, in some contexts, and be saved, and Billy Graham was taken to task for suggesting that a person could believe in a Church of Christ and still be a Baptist. These brothers, as well as others, were seeking to steer the Reformation Movement away from a crippling legalism and Pharisaic thinking.

We must remember that the church belongs to Christ, and he will admit or deny whomever he chooses. We are to teach repentance and faith in Christ as the normative form, but, at the same time, we must not fall into a quasi-magical type of thinking. It is the relationship of the person to the Lord that is the pivotal factor. God can, and does, make exceptions. We are not to confuse the exceptions with the normative, but we are to cultivate an attitude of flexibility when it comes to the ways of providence.

Additional Observations

First, how would brother Blackwell refute the parallel above? It “proves” that one can be saved without faith in Christ as well as his article “proves” that some will be saved apart from “the obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5; 6:17, 18; 16:26).

Second, did anyone bother to count the number of Scriptures brother Blackwell used to establish his position?

Third, if you counted the same number I did, what shall we say of his article in view of the following pas-sages? (1) “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isa. 8:20). (2) “(We are) not to think of men above that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). (3) “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me. . . .And the things that thou hast heard of me . . . the same commit thou to faithful men” (2 Tim. 1:13; 2:2). (4) “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). (5) “Continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them” (2 Tim. 3:14).

Fourth, since brother Blackwell appeals to Alexander Campbell, does that not open him up to the charge of being a “Campbellite”?

Fifth, does brother Blackwell stand with Campbell and Lipscomb in their adamant opposition to mechanical instruments of music in worship? Or, would he say that while singing is “the normative,” that we should “cultivate an attitude of flexibility when it comes to the ways of worship and allow, under certain conditions, the use of pianos and organs?” If brother Blackwell does not agree to be “flexible” in the area of music in worship, but insists on singing only, would that not “steer the Restoration Movement” toward “crippling legalism and Pharisaic thinking”?

Sixth, “Alexander Campbell was criticized” when he became an advocate of the missionary society in the work of evangelism. Would brother Blackwell have joined with Campbell in his effort to promote such organizations to do the work God gave the church to do? Or, would he oppose them and “steer the Restoration Movement” into “a crippling legalism and Pharisaic thinking”?

Seventh, with respect to immersion, music in worship, observance of the Lord’s supper and the giving of our means “upon the first day of the week,” would brother Blackwell say:

“We must remember that the church belongs to Christ, and He will admit or deny whatever practice He chooses. We are to teach immersion, singing, giving, and the taking of the Lord’s Supper `upon the first day of the week’ as the normative form, but, at the same time, we must not fall into a quasi-magical type of thinking. It is the relationship of the person to the Lord that is the pivotal factor. God can, and does, make exceptions. (Hence, we may play a piano in worship, give, and take the Lord’s supper on Saturday.) We are not to confuse the exceptions with the normative, but we are to cultivate an attitude of flexibility when it come to the ways of the worship of the church.” (See Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16, 17; 2 John 9.)

Eighth, brother Blackwell says that insisting on baptism the “very moment” one indicates an interest in it is a form of “bizarre legalism.” (1) When 3000 in Acts 2 were baptized “that same day,” was that a case of “bizarre legalism” (Acts 2:37-41)? (2) When Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch the “very moment” he expressed “an interest” in baptism, was that a “bizarre legalism” (Acts 8:35-39)? (3) When the jailer in Philippi was baptized “the same hour of the night” (midnight), was that an example of the “bizarre legalism” to which brother Blackwell referred (Acts 16:25-34)? (4) When Saul of Tarsus was asked what he was waiting on (“And now why tarriest thou?”), was that yet another case of “bizarre legalism” (Acts 22:16)? Brother Blackwell, could you please cite a case of baptism being delayed until “the next assembly” for penitent believers who indicated “an interest in baptism”?

Ninth, if baptism is valid when one’s hand is not immersed, what about his head as well as his hand? Would that be “deemed invalid”? If not, what if both hands and his head and shoulders were not immersed? Would that baptism be “deemed invalid”? If a man said only his head had been immersed, would you deem his baptism to be “invalid,” or would you say it “had to be done over again”? If you did, would that make you guilty of a “bizarre legalism”?

Would you be endorsing “a crippling legalism and Pharisaic thinking” if you were to deem a man’s Methodist sprinkling “invalid” and insist that he be immersed? If you insisted that a product of the Methodist sprinkling system had to be immersed, how would you respond if the Methodist were to say, “We must remember that the church belongs to Christ, and He will admit whomever He chooses. We are to teach immersion as the normative form, but, at the same time, we must not fall into a quasi-magical type of thinking. It is the relationship of the person to the Lord that is the pivotal factor. God can, and does, make exceptions; therefore, my Methodist sprinkling will suffice for baptism. We are not to confuse the exceptions (sprinkling) with the normative (immersion), but we are to cultivate an attitude of flexibility when it come to the ways of baptism”? How would you answer the man, brother Blackwell?

In this connection, Blackwell charges that Christians in the past unwittingly have made “baptism itself, not God, the (saving) factor.” That is a slur and a slander against the truth and the people of God. It is a lie and an insult to the faith of Christ! When the Spirit says that “baptism doth also now save us,” does Blackwell believe that Peter was implying that “baptism itself, not God, was the (saving) factor”? No, he was not, and neither are we.

Tenth, since brother Blackwell acknowledges a standard, or a “normative form” for the work and worship of Christians and admits that we should not “confuse the exceptions with the normative,” the standard, the pattern of the word of God, will he tell us how he establishes what is “the normative form” as opposed to “the exceptions”? If he replies, let him take up Philippians 3:16, 17  “How-ever, let us keep living by that same standard to which we have attained. Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us.” (Note that those who followed “the exceptions” rather than the “standard” to which Paul appealed were called “enemies of the cross of Christ”  Phil. 3:18). Paul was inflexible in those areas. Perhaps he was merely lapsing back into his former “Pharisaic thinking”!

Eleventh, since the Old Testament was “written for our learning,” what do we learn about “the exceptions” to “the normative form” (Rom. 15:4)? (1) Should Nadab and Abihu have been allowed their “exception” of “strange fire” (Lev. 10:1, 2)? The “normative form” was to burn incense with fire from the coals of the altar (Lev. 6:12, 13; 16:12). The “exception” was disallowed! (2) The “normative form” in Numbers 15 was to do no work on the Sabbath. The “exception” of picking up sticks resulted in death (Heb. 2:2, 3; 10:26-31). (3) The “normative form” (the standard, the rule of the word of God) was that none was to touch God’s holy vessels (Num. 4:15). In an exceptional circumstance, Uzza “put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the ark; and there he died before God” (1 Chron. 13:9, 10). Again, “the exception” was disallowed.

Twelfth, in the areas to which brother Blackwell refers, he affirms that “God can, and does, make exceptions.” Where did he learn this? Further, he speaks of “Pharisaic thinking.” The Pharisees sought to add their human traditions, their “exceptions,” to the word of God. This sounds like brother Blackwell! He is the one who contends for the acceptance of human “exceptions,” as opposed to “normative form” of the word of God; hence, he is the one who is guilty of “Pharisaic thinking.” Rather than cultivating “an attitude of flexibility when it comes to the ways of Providence” (which, as used by Blackwell, the word of God no where encourages), why not “cultivate an attitude” of obedience to the word of God, “bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5; Col. 1:9, 10; 3:17; 1 John 4:6)?

Incidentally, is brother Blackwell binding his “attitude of flexibility” upon us? If so, would that not be a form of “crippling legalism”? However, we do have “an attitude of flexibility.” We feel flexible enough to reject his appeal. Will he grant us that flexibility, or will he rigidly bind his crippling, legalistic brand of flexibility upon us?

Finally, do not be deceived by brother Blackwell’s subtle words. When he speaks of “what is normative for the Christian faith” as opposed to “what is exceptional,” he is bidding for a reception of unscriptural, denominational doctrines and human traditions (cf. Rom. 16:17, 18). His first sentence, in essence, says, “Many people in the church fail to differentiate between what is taught in the word of God and what is not taught in the New Testament.” Brother Blackwell, “Thou art the man.” Our appeal, “our own imprimatur” (official approval), is the “normative form” or pattern of the word of God (Matt. 28:20; Acts 2:42). “Exceptions” to the teaching of the word of God makes one’s worship void and vain (Matt. 7:21-23; 15:8, 9).

It is not a question of what God can do. The issue is not “our history,” nor the practice of “the Restoration Movement.” The question, ever and always, is, “What saith the Scriptures?” “How readest thou?” Whether it be baptism or Sabbath service, tell us what the Bible says! If that be “crippling legalism,” then, by all means, cripple us with truth, and let the Lord carry us home (Rev. 2:10)!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 11 p. 10-13
June 5, 1997

By Aaron Bass

A potential problem. There is a prevailing attitude towards gospel preaching that is very dangerous. There seems to be a greater interest among some preachers to-wards style rather than substance. Greater emphasis is placed on the delivery rather than the content of sermons. There is more focus and attention on how a preacher sounds and how he comes across rather than on what he says. Importance is placed upon catchy and attractive styles rather than upon the truth. Should a preacher’s approach be one that gives delivery and style more importance than content and substance? Should he focus more time and attention on style and delivery to the neglect of truth? Should all of his efforts be funneled into and concentrated on learning a better style and delivery? This approach is very dangerous and can give rise to good sounding, yet shallow preaching. With this attitude, preaching becomes very susceptible to a change for the worse by turning gospel preaching into a performance. With this way of thinking, good sounding orators emerge instead of sound preachers able and ready to defend, uphold, and preach the truth. One can preach with great style and delivery but if it is not the truth, then it profits nothing and is destructible to men’s souls. It is this writer’s concern that with this way of thinking there will be ill-prepared men who are unable to recognize error and defend the truth.

How does God feel about style? The apostle Paul was not trained in rhetorical speech like the Corinthian orators, but he had revealed knowledge (2 Cor. 11:6). Paul had what was important, revealed knowledge. Paul emphasized to the people at Corinth who were influenced by the philosophers of the age the simplicity of the gospel. Christ sent Paul to preach the gospel, but not in cleverness of speech (1 Cor. 1:17). Paul came to the Corinthians not with superiority of speech or wisdom (I Cor. 2:1). Paul determined to know nothing among them except Jesus Christ, and him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2). Paul’s preaching did not come with persuasive words of human wisdom (1 Cor. 2:4). These things were not requirements for Paul to preach the gospel effectively.

The gospel is the power to save (Rom. 1:16). There is no wisdom of man or anything in his own estimation that has the power to save. The gospel draws men to Christ. People are not converted to Christ by reason of man’s cleverness or superiority of speech, but by the plain and simple gospel (Mark 16:15-16). He who preaches in such a way so as to cause people to focus their attention on himself instead of the words of the gospel obstructs the gospel. The emphasis should be placed on the message and not the messenger. All too often people become attracted to a preacher’s style and delivery rather than giving heed to the message. God does not want people to be converted to man because of his speech, but to Christ because of the gospel and its power to save. Do not consider style more important than substance.

Do style and delivery fit in with substance? God doesn’t say to preach with skillful, superior, and clever speech, He just says, “Preach the word …” (2 Tim. 4:2). Given that a preacher is in a place of great influence and is responsible, in part, for the souls of men, by teaching, reproving, rebuking and exhorting, he should be more than sure he has the truth and is leading people in the right direction (1 Tim. 4:16; 2 Tim. 4:2; Jas. 3:1). God obligates a preacher concerning delivery and style only to this extent: (1) Preach with enough clarity and organization so people can under-stand the truth. Paul tells the Corinthians that one who speaks in tongues is speaking into the air unless there is one to interpret so all can understand and be edified (1 Cor. 14). (2) Be oneself and let one’s natural personality shine through so as to not detract from the message (Rom. 12:3-8).

The preacher should remember that he is an instrument of God to proclaim the gospel  he is another person like everybody else and is the same person when he is preaching and when he is not preaching. Delivery and style in this respect will come with time and practice. It should not be something where one spends a lot of time and puts a lot of focus on because all that will amount to is a clouding of the truth and a bolstering of oneself before men. One should first focus his attention on the truth (I Tim. 4:13; 6:11-14). Time and energy should be given to the truth. Importance should be place upon the truth.

With an attitude that puts substance first and style second, gospel preachers will be well equipped to contend earnestly for the faith (Jude 3). True substance is important to the work of a preacher and the salvation of men’s souls, while style is not as important and should only go as far as a man being himself and letting his natural talents shine through.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 10 p. 23-24
April May 1, 1997

By Connie W. Adams

Some of us have been accused of having a “museum mentality” about the church, we just want to “dust off the displays and make sure nothing disturbs the scene.” That put me to thinking. I remember a speech delivered by James P. Miller at the 1951 Florida Christian College lectures on “An Unchanging Kingdom in a Changing World.” While it was acknowledged that social customs and technology change (transportation, communication methods, medical procedures, etc.), it was also pointed out that the kingdom of God has features about it which cannot be changed without inviting the displeasure of God.

In the years since, I freely admit to having preached on that subject with the same emphasis. In 1974, when I edited and published Searching The Scriptures, we did a special issue of the paper using that title as a theme. It was well received and we had to do a second printing to satisfy all the orders for it. To the best of my knowledge, nobody accused us of having a “museum mentality.”

An Archaeological Dig

The editor who has issued this charge, Floyd Chappelear, says that some of us think “the Restoration work has been done” but that he is among those who believe “it is an archaeological dig which must go on continually.” Those connected with the Restoration Movement in this country and abroad, were not right about everything. But they were right about one thing: their plea was valid. It was a call to go back to the Bible and speak as the oracles of God. From the Bible alone can we learn what to do to be saved. It teaches that God’s grace provided a plan of action by which the sinner appropriates the grace, mercy, and love of God. The sinner must hear the word of God (Rom. 10:17), believe it (Mark 16:16), repent of his sins (Acts 17:30), confess his faith (Rom. 10:10) and be baptized for the remission of his sins (Acts 2:38). Has the spade of this editor dug up anything else? Or would he seek to preserve this truth, perhaps “dust off the display and make sure nothing disturbs the scene”?

From the New Testament we learn of the nature of the kingdom. It is spiritual (John. 18:36; 1 Pet. 2:5). Its organization is on a congregational level with elders in every church (Acts 14:23; Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:2-3). Its work is (1) evangelism (1 Thess. 1:8; Phil 4:15-16; 1 Tim. 3:15); (2) edification (Eph. 4:16); and (3) relief of needy saints (1 Cor. 16:1-2; 1 Tim. 5:16). Public worship consists of: (1) singing (Eph. 5:19); (2) praying (Acts 2:42); (3) teaching/preaching (Acts 2:42; 20:7); (4) breaking bread on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7); and (5) laying by in store on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1-2). Has the editor dug up something different from this? Would he contend that these ought to be preserved? If so, does he have a “museum mentality”?

Grow in Grace and Knowledge

Of course, we must all continue to study, learn, and grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18). To accomplish that we must search the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). The word of God is an inexhaustible treasure which can never be depleted. In that sense we must continue to dig into its riches.

Bad Names

Those whose spirits lag, or feel stifled by the “same old things” have found some bad names to call those who think in terms of a divine pattern, or the need for scriptural authority. Some have called us “legalists,” “Pharisees,” “keepers of orthodoxy,” “watchdogs,” and other terms meant to belittle. If “museum mentality” is not a blood brother to these bad eggs, it is at least a first cousin.

I am as ready as the next fellow to adapt modern expedients to the scriptural work the Lord has given us to do in his kingdom, but I will give the last drop of blood I have to see that nothing disturbs the scene when it comes to what the Bible teaches we are to believe, teach, and practice. I will oppose and expose those who seek to change it, water it down or compromise it. If that makes me a museum keeper, then so be it. Jude just called it con-tending for the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). The saints are custodians of that faith and they are under obligation to him who delivered it to see to it that “nothing disturbs the scene.”

Guardian of Truth XLI: 11 p. 3-4
June 5, 1997

By Kyle Campbell

Paul wrote to the churches of Christ in Galatia to expose the erroneous doctrines introduced by the Judaizing teachers and to re-indoctrinate the brethren in their earlier faith. He said, “You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4, NASV). They were looking to Moses’ law for justification, being seduced to accept circumcision and other facets of the Old Testament, as requirements of the New Covenant.

In Galatians 1:6-7, Paul describes their perverted state: “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ.” He was fearful that he had labored among them in vain (Gal. 4:11). Though his relationship in the past with these brethren had been cordial, yet their acceptance of false doctrine now greatly concerned him (Gal. 4:11-15, 17-20). In his concern and anxiety for them, he asked, “Have I therefore become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (Gal. 4:16).

We are apt to cut our ties with and dislike those who have the courage to tell us the truth about sin in our lives. We do not like for people to be acquainted with our faults. We desire to be flattered, but shrink away from exposure of sin and calls to repentance. We often become easily offended when preachers expose and reprove sin. One of our greatest difficulties is to regard, with steady and unwavering affection, the person who earnestly tells us the truth, yea painful truth! “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but deceitful are the kisses of an enemy” (Prov. 27:6).

Children of God sometimes need to be rebuked! In fact, most of the New Testament was written to instruct, rebuke, and encourage Christians. There are several examples in the New Testament where men had to rebuke one another to save them from sin: Peter rebuked Simon who had recently obeyed the gospel (Acts 8:18-23); Paul rebuked Peter to his face (Gal. 2:11-12); John called Diotrephes by name and exposed the sin he committed (3 John 9); Paul told Timothy to rebuke elders and others, who continue in sin that the rest may fear (1 Tim. 5:17-21).

There are many examples in the Scriptures showing that preaching God’s word often creates enemies. Moses was truthful to Pharaoh but Pharaoh hated him, saying, “Get away from me! Beware, do not see my face again, for in the day you see my face you shall die!” (Exod. 10:28-29). And Moses responded, “You are right; I shall never see your face again!” (Exod. 10:29). The wicked Jezebel, due to the deaths of her prophets of Baal at Mount Carmel and in the matter of Naboth’s vineyard and death, hated Elijah with unbounded enmity (1 Kings 18:16-46; 19:1-18; 21:1-24). Herod and Herodias hated the truth so vehemently that they had John the Baptist beheaded for telling them the truth (Matt. 14:1-12). The enemies of Jesus feared the truth so much that they bribed the soldiers to lie (Matt. 28:11-15). King Ahab said of the prophet, Micaiah, “I hate him, because he does not prophesy good concerning me, but evil” (1 Kings 22:8).

Often people today hate gospel preachers for the same reason. The only difference between them and Ahab is they are not honest enough to admit the real cause of their opposition to God’s messenger. Very few people are honest enough to say, “I do not like that preacher because he tells me the truth.” Instead they hypocritically attribute their dislike to some pretended reason. Isaiah says that people of his day said, “You must not prophesy to us what is right; speak to us pleasant words, prophesy illusions” (30:10). This cry has been heard in every age. The greatest fault in the religious world is man’s efforts to change the Bible to conform to him-self rather than change himself to conform to the Bible.

People generally have fought the truth for two major reasons. The first is that some have been unconscious enemies of the truth, i.e., they fought God and his will ignorantly. Saul of Tarsus did so (Acts 26:9; 1 Tim. 1:13), but seeking truth, and being honest of heart as Saul was, finding the truth he renounced his error and embraced it (Matt. 7:7-8; 13:44-46; Acts 26:9-23; Gal. 1:13-24). Those who do not love the truth will remain blinded in their ignorance and error (2 Thess. 2:10-12). The second reason men fight the truth is that they love darkness, which to them covers their evil deeds. Jesus said, “And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil” (John 3:19). Spiritual creatures of darkness despise light. Their deeds are evil and sinful; therefore, they do not want to hear the truth.

No matter how much the truth of God is opposed, it will survive. Paul’s question and the context of Galatians 4 con-firms the fact that truth must be preached at the expense of making enemies. The truth is the most valuable commodity in existence because it is the revelation from God which can save us from our sins. “Buy truth, and do not sell it; get wisdom and instruction and understanding” (Prov. 23:23). A compromising attitude toward error will always lead to apostasy. Paul details the steps toward apostasy in 2 Timothy 4:3-4: (1) They would not endure sound doctrine, which is the attitude of compromise. They accumulated for them-selves certain teachers who would proclaim their views (?) of truth. Paul called it “having their ears tickled.” (2) They turned their ears away from the truth, not only refusing to hear the truth but in time rejecting the whole counsel of God. (3) Finally they turned aside to myths. All truth was eliminated from their lives. This sad progression began with a disposition of mind and ended with a total rejection of God’s will. It is urgent that Christians realize the trends toward apostasy and meditate upon this frightening succession of ungodly attitudes. Now, in our generation, we are seeing dispositions developing which, if accepted and practiced, will weaken and eventually destroy us.

One expression of compromise is the statement, “Preach the Bible but let everybody else alone.” Every true student of the Scriptures knows this is impossible. You would have to shun preaching the creation of the world and of life (Gen. 1:1-31; Heb. 11:3) for fear of enraging the atheist and evolutionist; avoid preaching the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:1-17) for fear of irritating the polytheistic pagan; forego preaching pleasing God through faith (Heb. 11:1-40) for fear of annoying those who live their lives by their con-science. If the general of an army were to say, “Shoot, but make sure you do not hit anybody,” it would bring certain defeat! Several years ago an elder of a church said, “The trouble here is our preacher is a professional ball player. He winds up on Sunday morning and throws a curve around everybody in the house.” A preacher has advanced spiritual astigmatism if he cannot hit some of us sinful creatures once in a while! One preacher would not preach on heaven nor hell because he said he had friends in both places! We desperately need men who will “break unto us the bread of life” and deliver “the whole counsel of God” (John 6:31-35; Acts 20:20, 27). Preaching the Bible, while making sure that we do not step on anybody’s toes, will do nothing for the saving of souls, development of the local congregation, and preparing saints for eternal life in heaven (Acts 20:32).

Another sentiment is, “Don’t preach a negative gospel.” How can we not preach a “negative” gospel? This thinking indicts God, himself, because he did not always deliver a “positive” message to his prophets and apostles. A careful study of Exodus 20, will show eight of the ten commandments stated in a “negative” fashion. Paul said, “I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction” (2 Tim. 4:1-2). Two of the three of those commands are “negative”! In naming the works of the flesh, Paul mentioned seventeen “negatives” (Gal. 5:19-21). In naming the fruit of the Spirit, he lists only nine “positives” (Gal. 5:22-23). We need to preach the “positive” truths of the gospel. We need encouraging lessons which comfort us in difficult times, which help us understand God’s love, and which aid us in becoming better servants of Jesus. We need to know we are doing God’s will correctly! But we also need preaching on adultery, fornication, gambling, smoking, hatred, envy, lasciviousness, drunkenness, church discipline, immodest apparel, respect for authority, and other vital subjects.

A final attitude of compromise is, “Let’s please the people instead of saving the people.” Paul’s statement to the Galatian brethren needs to be read and imprinted in our hearts: “For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10). Pleasing the people has caused a steady moral and spiritual decline in our nation and in the kingdom of God. Denominational churches allow homosexuals, adulterers, and heretics to fill pulpits and proclaim a “saving gospel” while their souls are condemned to hell! Anyone who can read the daily newspaper, or watch the television news, can see the religious world in a mad race to see which one can make religion the most palatable to the public. I am convinced that if we do not improve our preaching and teaching, to make such more Bible-centered and Scripture-filled, the Lord’s church, in an effort to please the politically-correct public, will become a sect among sects. Let us always stand for and preach the truth of Jesus Christ, else we will pay the disastrous consequences of lost souls at the judgment seat of Christ Jesus (2 Cor. 5:10; Rom. 2:16).

It is shameful to hear of and see preachers fired and meetings canceled for preaching truthful messages which are so needed in our time. It is even more shameful to see congregations and their elders unwilling to stand for and back up the truth. We ought to never consider as enemies whose who have our soul’s best interest at heart. If I am indulging in a course of conduct which will condemn my soul or cherishing erroneous doctrine which endangers my salvation, my greatest and best friend is the one who will warn me of my perilous, dangerous course.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 11 p. 6-8
June 5, 1997