Truth Magazine

By Andy Alexander

The Lord’s appeal through the gospel is spiritual, while Satan’s appeal is through the flesh or carnal (Gal. 5:16-25; 1 John 2:15-17). In this article we want to notice some of the carnal appeals that Satan uses to keep people in darkness or lure Christians out of the light and back into his kingdom. These carnal appeals of Satan can be clearly seen among those in Ephesus who opposed the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Luke records the efforts and results of the apostle Paul and his companions in Ephesus as they carried out the commission of Jesus Christ (Acts 19). Paul preached the gospel of Christ and at the same time exposed the religious frauds that existed in that area of Asia Minor (Acts 19:1-17). A positive effect of Paul’s preaching in Ephesus was that people repented of their sins, turned to Christ, and the “Word of God grew mightily and prevailed” (Acts 19:18-20). A negative result was that those in error with hardened hearts refused to obey the gospel and sought to destroy the faith of those who did (Acts 19:21-41).

Several different carnal arguments were used in an effort to hinder or destroy the success of the gospel in Ephesus. Let’s notice these various carnal appeals and some examples in our day of the exact same appeals made by Satan. Awareness of these fleshly appeals should help us avoid these deadly traps of Satan.

Wealth

Wealth was used by Satan to blind the eyes of those in Ephesus. “Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Diana” recognized that the gospel could destroy his prosperity (Acts 19:24-25). He stirred up others of his trade and created much confusion. Why would Demetrius not want to obey the truth? Money! Wealth! Materialism! These were his gods and he was not going to give them up for the truth.

Pocketbook religion is all the religion that Demetrius knew and many today follow that same god. They check their pocketbook first and if it going to cost them some-thing financially to serve the Lord, they are not willing to do it.

This carnal appeal is made by many denominational churches today. They preach a gospel of health and wealth. They claim that if you give, give, and give more to their false religion, that you will receive back more in material goods than you gave originally. It sounds good, but the root of the appeal is carnality and its not the appeal of the Spirit.

Successful Religion

Success of the religion was another avenue used by Satan to keep people trapped in false religion. In his effort to create confusion and win supporters, Demetrius said, “so not only is this trade of ours in danger of falling into disrepute, but also the temple of the great goddess Diana may be despised and her magnificence destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worship” (Acts 19:27). What if all Asia and the whole world worshiped the goddess Diana? Would that prove the religion true? Can truth be determined by counting heads?

There are many people in our day who believe like Demetrius. They gather in their religious conventions, councils, or synods and vote on various Bible doctrines, as if a majority vote will change God’s will. The Psalmist said concerning the permanent nature of God’s Word, “For ever, 0 Jehovah, Thy word is settled in heaven” (Ps. 119:89). Some denominational bodies have voiced their approval of homosexuality, abortion, and other sins, but their vote, even if unanimous, cannot change the mind of God.

The appeal of some denominations is to their worldwide success. The Jehovah’s Witnesses denomination points to their world headquarters with pride. When questioned about various aspects of their doctrine that are contrary to the doctrine of Christ, they frequently point to their worldwide success as proof that their erroneous doctrine is acceptable with God. They say something like, “We couldn’t be world-wide if God wasn’t with us” or “Our great success proves that God is with us.” These things do not prove any such thing. What would an appeal to numbers have proved in Noah’s day? Being in the majority in Sodom and Gomorrah carried no weight with God (Gen. 19).

If success or being in the majority was equivalent to having the truth, then we should look for the largest religious sect and join with them. That would make Catholics, Hindus, Muslims, or something else out of all of us. This likely would not appeal to many who use success as a measure of truth.

Emotionalism

Emotionalism is another ploy used by Satan. There is a place in the gospel for emotion. When we learn that Jesus went to the cross and died for our sins, our emotions ought to be affected. We hear the preaching of the cross, become convicted of sins, and obey the gospel for the forgiveness of those sins, our hearts should rejoice. This is the order found in the New Testament. People heard the gospel, responded to the gospel by confessing their faith in Jesus, repenting of their sins, and being baptized for the forgiveness of sins, then rejoiced at the fact that they were new creatures in Christ (Acts 8:35-39; 2:36-42). Emotion follows the understanding. This is the pattern of truth.

Satan uses emotions to override the understanding. People swayed by their emotions instead of the truth will be stirred to the point of ignoring the truth for a “better felt than told” feeling. Assemblies of this sort are often full of confusion and commotion, with little, if any, Bible instruction taking place.

In Ephesus, the city was filled with confusion and a crowd gathered in the local theater. A man by the name of Alexander wanted to make a reasoned defense of Christianity, but when it was discovered that he was a Jew “all with one voice cried out for about two hours, `Great is Diana of the Ephesians”‘ (Acts 19:34). Keep the people confused so that they cannot hear and understand the truth is a tactic that works well for Satan. The people’s ability to stop, think, and examine what they believe is overruled by their emotions.

God teaches us to study, learn, and obey his will (2 Tim. 2:15; Acts 17:11; Matt. 11:28-30; 7:21). The assemblies of the churches of Christ in the first century were to be conducted decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40). The members of the congregation should be edified and they should be able to understand in such a way that they may be able to say “amen” to the prayers that are offered unto God (1 Cor. 14:26, 16). Visitors to their assemblies should also be able to understand the Word of God (1 Cor. 14:23-25).

The holiness, charismatic Pentecostal groups of our day conduct services where confusion reigns supreme. Prayers are uttered and everyone begins to mumble aloud so that nothing can be understood and no true “amen” could be said. It is nothing more than confusion being carried on in the name of the Lord. Studying the truth, learning the difference between right and wrong, and examining the Word of God is far removed from these assemblies. The whole atmosphere is geared toward entertainment and not true worship unto God.

Tradition

Tradition is also used by Satan to prevent people from responding in a positive way to the truth. Satan could not make his appeal to truth, but he could appeal to what the people had always believed. The city clerk of Ephesus made a statement to the crowd in the theater after he had quieted them. He said, “Men of Ephesus, what man is there who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is temple guardian of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Zeus?” Implied in this statement is the idea that Diana has been worshiped for years in Ephesus and any religion that has been around as long this one could not be wrong. “We have always believed in Diana and we always will” is the appeal to traditionalism.

The fact that someone has always believed something to be true does not make it true. For centuries many scientists believed the world to be flat. Did this long-standing belief or tradition make it flat?

This attitude is alive today. The Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, and many mainstream denominations are built around what their forefathers believed. It matters not to them that the truth condemns their practices (Col. 3:17). Infant baptism, sprinkling substituted for immersion, Christmas and Easter observances, and instrumental music are just a few of their traditions that are completely foreign to the Scriptural worship and practice of the New Testament church. Jesus said of the traditionalists of his day, “And in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:9).

Conclusion

These tactics, wealth, success, emotionalism, and traditionalism, are effective tools of Satan. He will use these individually or he will combine them to make them more appealing. He will thread them together to make them appear stronger, but these false appeals cannot stand up to the power of the gospel. Let’s be aware of these carnal appeals and not succumb to the temptation to use these appeals in-stead of the gospel of Jesus which is “the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16).

Guardian of Truth XLI: 11 p. 14-15
June 5, 1997

By Tom Hamilton

More and more we hear about the modern trend of “home schooling.” By this term one normally refers to the instruction of academic subjects at home, as opposed to a private or public school, but let us consider the term differently. True “home schooling” is as old as the first home and has always been God’s intention for his people in every time period. The home has always been the primary schoolroom of life. It is here that we first learn about a world larger than ourselves, the purpose of that world and our role in it, and all the necessary values for functioning in that world, such as respect for authority, respect for other people, and service. It is in the home that we learn about relationships.

This fundamental place of the home in God’s plan is illustrated by the pivotal fifth commandment to honor your father and your mother (Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16). On the one hand, we demonstrate how well we have learned in the home the principle of respect for authority, and we show whether we can transfer that respect to God’s authority in obeying the first four commandments. On the other hand, we demonstrate how well we have learned in the home the principle of respect for other people, and we show whether we can transfer that respect to those beyond our family in obeying the last five commandments.

In order for the family relationship to function healthfully and to serve as our primary schoolroom as God intended, each party to the relation-ship must fulfill his obligations to the other. And just what is it that parents owe their children? Nothing more, nothing less, and nothing other than to teach and train them. On the other hand, what is it that children owe their parents? Nothing more, nothing less, and nothing other than to learn, obey, and respect. If the home is to fundamentally be as God designed it, parents must train the children and children must honor the parents!

If a father trains his child properly, the appropriate response by the child will be one of honor, as Proverbs 22:16 describes this general principle. But in order to evoke this desired response of honor, fathers must apply their best effort in three areas:

1. Action. To successfully be a father, we must actually spend the time necessary to teach and train the child. This on-going work fills every moment of every day, without stopping until the child is grown (Deut. 6:6-9). Because “father” is biblically defined as actually doing this training, our children are fatherless or illegitimate when we do not train them (Heb. 12:7-n). Biological relation is meaningless; spiritual training is crucial.

2. Aptitude. For a father to provide the training his child needs, the father must actually possess the knowledge himself. One cannot teach another that which he himself does not know. And this training is more than academic, physical, or social. While these things are necessary, they are merely part of the greater training in which we must give the child a spiritual training that embraces all that the child must know in order to function in this world as God intends for him. Therefore, fathers must devote themselves to spiritual wisdom and maturity in order to capably pass it on to their children (Deut. 6:1-9). It is such wisdom that compels us to do what is best for our child spiritually, instead of succumbing to the natural desire to let our child have or do anything he wants.

3. Attitude. Genuine parenting is done out of selfless love for the child. But it needs to be a love which is communicated to the child in all that we do, for unexpressed love is meaningless to the one on the receiving end. Even in our disciplining, we must be careful to demonstrate that it is because of our love for the child (Heb. 12:5-11). It is this same loving attitude that prevents the father from driving his children into resentment or destroying their spirit (Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21). The biblical picture of fatherhood is not that of a brutal, demanding tyrant, but one who exhorts, encourages, and implores (1 Thess. 2:11).

Indeed, worthy of honor is the father who displays spiritual wisdom in his own life, who demonstrates a sacrificial effort to do what is best for his child, and who exhorts and encourages his child in genuine compassion. To the extent that these qualities are obvious to the child, the appropriate response will be honor, which manifests itself in three ways:

1. Obedience. When Paul instructs children to “obey your parents in the Lord,” he cites the fifth commandment as his proof-text (Eph. 6:1-3), equating obedience with honor. Obedience is a fundamental part of both the relationship of the family and the learning experience which

God intends to take place there. Unfortunately, too many parents omit this essential ingredient. They try to be a “friend” with the child which they hope will lead to “cooperation.” But the parent relationship cannot exist without obedience first, and without obedience, the child is incapable of learning about authority or genuine respect for others. This is why the word translated “disobedient to parents” is always found listed among the most abominable and destructive of sins. In Romans 1:28-32, we read that such depravity as disobedience to parents is worthy of death. In 2 Timothy 3:1-5, Paul describes those who are disobedient to parents as incapable of loving God or anyone else besides themselves.

We must appreciate that disobedience is a serious problem, not usually because of the act itself, but because of the lack of respect which it indicates and the corrupted condition of the child’s heart which it reflects. If a three year-old sticks his tongue out at his father and yells “No!” to his commands, nobody will die and no property is destroyed. Because of a “no-harm-done” attitude, too many fathers let such episodes pass without requiring obedience and respect. But this superficial perspective fails to appreciate what the father is really teaching the child, what the child is learning as the real rules of life, and what immense harm is taking place in front of the father’s eyes. Indeed, his child is being killed spiritually one act of disrespect at a time, and the father’s most precious possession of a young, innocent soul is being destroyed.

2. Gratitude. As the child matures, so does his honor and the means in which it manifests itself. If the child develops properly, his respect also develops into an understanding and genuine appreciation for what his parents are doing for him. The mindless obedience of childhood is replaced by a more mature and perceptive obedience. Even the negative aspects of training and discipline, which at the moment seem joyless, are upon later reflection viewed in gratitude (Heb. 12:5-11). The most poignant moment of such realization and gratitude probably arrives at the time when our children have their own children. It is both the most likely and the most meaningful moment when your children will rise up and call you “blessed” (Prov. 31:28), whether you are a worthy woman or a worthy father.

3. Selfless Love. Of course, the ultimate goal of the spiritual training of our children is the attainment of a sacrificial, selfless life of service toward God and other people. If the child continues to develop properly, this maturity of genuine selflessness will be attained. The father and the child may then enjoy a complete and mature relationship in which the sheer enjoyment of that relationship is its own reward. As parents, we need no longer concern ourselves with motivating our children to obedience by threats or material rewards  the more mature motivation of a de-sire to please the other is what drives our children’s obedience, respect, and honor.

Even after the children have left the home, this respect and honor will remain. In the parents’ old age, this selfless love will manifest itself in caring for one’s aged parents, as Jesus himself applied the fifth commandment to this situation (Mark 7:6-13). It is not that the fifth commandment may be reduced to the simple act of physically caring for one’s parents. Jesus is pointing out that genuine respect and selfless love require this and much more. As one’s parents get older, perhaps reverting back more and more to a childlike state of helplessness, the grown child has an opportunity to demonstrate to his parents how well he learned what they had demonstrated to him.

Indeed, the home is the schoolroom of relationships, and we should ask how well we have learned honor toward our own parents, God, and other people. To what extent have we learned obedience, gratitude, and self-less love?

Guardian of Truth XLI: 12 p. 3-5
June 19, 1997

 

By John R. Hurt

Dear Lord as I travel blithely along in this earthly pilgrimage, help me to be ever mindful that my journey in this physical realm will not last forever. May I always remember the words of your servant David who said, “Man is like a mere breath; his days are like a passing shadow” (Ps. 144:4). Help me then Lord, to prepare for my death. May I plan, not with some morbid gloom or despondency, but for the happy day that I will be “gathered to my people.” Give me aid and counsel as I consider the awful finality and separation of the end of life. Fortify my belief, I pray, so that I may not be afraid and overwhelmed by the terribleness of death.

Then, when at last I come to the end of life’s journey and I finally hear that irresistible whisper from the angel of death, “Come, go with me.” Please, oh Lord, draw near to me (Heb. 13:5). As I stand there on the banks of the dread river of death, my prayer precious Lord, is please hold my hand. As I look down into the horrible black waters of that sullen stream, be with me dear God. Strengthen my faith, so when I make that final plunge down into the cold cruel current of death, that I may do so with the steadfast hope, with the firm expectation, with the confident trust, that I will emerge victorious, triumphant and jubilant, safe at last upon the other shore.

Oh Father, what a joy it will be when I finally look and see that great city, the holy Jerusalem, coming down from heaven. The city four square with its jasper walls and its foundation adorned with jewels. That precious city that has the Throne of God and the Lamb. What a blessing it will be as I enter the gates of pearl and walk those streets of gold in that wonderful city where there is no pain, no death and no tears (Rev. 21:4-21). How marvelous, when at last I come to my place of final abode, that mansion prepared for me by my blessed Savior Jesus (John 14:2). What a happy privilege, there to enter in, and hang my sword for-ever on the jasper walls of that celestial city.

Blessed Father, if it be your will and I be permitted to look back into my life’s journey and see the steps I have trod forever fixed in the sands of time, it is my fervent prayer and hope that I may see that, occasionally, if only infrequently, but at least every once in a while, my steps will have fallen into the steps of my blessed Lord and Savior Jesus (1 Pet. 2:21). This is my ardent prayer, oh God, offered humbly and reverently in his blessed name. Amen.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 11 p. 9
June 5, 1997

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