Truth Magazine

By Frank Jamerson

The basic position we are reviewing says: “Ezekiel and Jeremiah bind the Jewish and New Testament era under the same eternal covenant .. . that it is impossible to isolate a distinct `old covenant’ from a `new covenant’ (TEC 23).

Stanley Paher has written two books: The Eternal Covenant of Peace (hereafter referred to as TECP) and The Eternal Covenant – God’s Invitation to Faith and Life (hereafter referred to as TEC). In the first book he acknowledges that his conclusions were “gained in the early 1980s through studies with James Puterbaugh” (286). I have several out-lines of lessons presented by Jim that will also be used in this review.

We will not spend a lot of time on the word “covenant.” It is defined as a solemn mutual agreement, or an obligation imposed by a superior upon an inferior. “In general, the covenant of God with men is a divine ordinance, with signs and pledges on God’s part, and with promises for human obedience and penalties for disobedience, which ordinance is accepted by men” (ISBE). Some covenants are conditional and some unconditional, some with individuals and some with groups or nations. Generally, when we speak of covenants we will be talking about the two laws or the Old and New Covenants (Jer. 31:31-34).

The basic position we are reviewing says: “Ezekiel and Jeremiah bind the Jewish and New Testament era under the same eternal covenant .. . that it is impossible to isolate a distinct `old covenant’ from a `new covenant”‘ (TEC 23). “Countering these notions (that there is only one covenant) is the teaching that God has given to man two distinct covenants  an old and a new one  each of which applies to separate people of God: the first for Jews before the cross, the second for Christians since then. The theory sees contrast rather than continuity between God’s faithful ones throughout the ages . . . Simply stated, no `Christian religion’ was initiated on that Pentecost day or at any other time; in fact, no Bible statement shows that Jesus ever started a new religion. No new law replaced the moral precepts associated with Moses and the prophets. No `New Testament church’ upstaged ancient Israel of Old Testament times, for Israel was the `church,’ the people of God” (TECP 156,158). “In no sense, then, did the death of Christ destroy the law and the prophets” (TEC 115). (The assumption is that if God has always been merciful and man has been “in covenant relationship,” then all were under the same covenant.)

“The Everlasting Covenant”

Jim Peterbaugh said: “Hebrews 6:13-17  The `purpose’ or eternal plan of God for the salvation of man-kind is specifically related to His covenant or oath which He made with Abraham. Verse 17 states: `In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath (that is, with the covenant made with Abraham’ – v. 13). Thus, the expression, `everlasting covenant’ (cf. Gen. 17:1-7) is very similar to God’s `eternal purpose’ (cf. Eph. 1:3-5; 3:9-11). Both are expressions of His love (cf. Eph. 1:4-11) for man and His plans or promises that are ‘unchangeable and therefore provide great encouragement to God’s people  Heb. 6:17, 18” (Outlines published 11/ 13/96).

He equates “the everlasting covenant” here with the seed promise but the passage he uses  Genesis 17:1-7 is not talking about the seed promise. It is talking about the land promise. The “everlasting covenant” (v. 7) is connected with the “everlasting possession” (v. 8) and the “covenant” of circumcision (vv. 9, 10) which was a sign of God’s agreement with Abraham and his descendants (v. 11).

Jim Puterbaugh then gives a list of passages which mention “covenant,” but most of them refer to the covenant to give Israel the land  rather than the eternal purpose of God to save man in Christ.

1. Exodus 6:2-8  He says God’s deliverance of Israel was related to his “remembering the covenant He made with Abraham.” Yes, but it was the land promise the writer was discussing (vv. 4, 8).

2. Exodus 32:13  When Moses interceded for Israel asking God to re-member his covenant with Israel, he was talking about the nation/land promises.

3. Leviticus 26:42-45 “My covenant with Jacob” in this context is the land promise (v. 42)  not God’s eternal purpose in Christ.

4. Psalm 51:1 Jim connects the word “loving kindness” with God’s promise to be merciful and “remember His covenant.” He uses Deuteronomy 7:9, 12 as evidence, but vv. 13-22 discuss God’s promise to bless Israel as a nation and give them the land.

5. Psalm 105:6-11  Jim refers to the covenant in these verses as “an everlasting covenant” (v. 10). But what was the covenant in the context? See vv. 11-45: “Saying, To you I will give the land of Canaan . . . He gave them the lands of the Gentiles, And they inhabited the labor of the nations” (vv. 11, 44).

6. Psalm 106:44-46  Jim says God remembered his covenant and made Israel objects of compassion. Which covenant and who was showing compassion? Verse 46 says pitied “by all those who carried them away captive” (cf. Ezra 9:9).

7. Jeremiah 14:21  “Remember and do not annul Thy covenant with us.” The context again is talking about the land promise (see vv. 2, 13, 15, 18).

8. Ezekiel 16:59-63  Jim simply quotes v. 60, “I will remember My covenant with you . . . and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you.” Again, the context is talking about the land promise (v. 55).

Notes

1. Jim entitled this section in his outline: “God’s constant knowledge of His covenant with mankind produces appropriate or important activity on the part of God for the benefit and blessings of His people.” Then he used eight passages that refer to the land promise to only one nation.

2. The land promise is called an “everlasting covenant” (Gen. 17:7) and was to be an “everlasting possession” (v. 8). This is the “covenant” referred to in the passages above. That “ever-lasting covenant” coincided with the “everlasting possession.” Do either, or both of these continue to today?

3. Jim did give two passages  Luke 1:71-73 and Hebrews 6:13-20 which refer to the Messiah, but he ties them in with the preceding verses with no distinction, as though they were all talking about God’s plan in Christ.

There are Two Covenants

1. The threefold promise to Abraham pertained to two different groups of people under two different covenants. The nation/land promise was given to the descendants of Abraham (Israel) to whom was given the law of Moses (which contained both “moral” and “ceremonial” instructions). The seed promise pertained to all individuals who come to Christ, who are not under the law of Moses, but under the law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:20, 21).

2. The covenant with Abraham was not the covenant God made with Moses. The law, which was made at Sinai (Deut. 5:1-3; Neh. 9:13, 14) required the keeping of the Sabbath. Abraham did not keep the Sabbath because it was part of “the everlasting covenant” with Israel (Lev. 24:8, 9).

3. The nation/land promise was with one nation  Israel. God said, “And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God” (Gen. 17:7,8; cf. Gen. 15:18; 1 Chron. 16:13-22).

4. The seed promise was fulfilled in Christ with “all nations” (Jews and Gentiles). The Law of Moses (the first covenant) was different from the promise to Abraham and the Law of Christ (the second covenant) is different from the Law of Moses. Abraham did not keep the Sabbath, nor did he have to be “baptized into the death of Christ.”

The Blood of the Covenant

Stanley Paher said: “The blood of the covenant was poured out for the remission of sins, and not to initiate a new in-kind covenant or a new will and testament” (TECP 67). Jim argues that “the blood of the covenant” (Heb. 9:20; Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24) refers only to his death “for those who violated the covenant,” not to dedicate a covenant (Notes 11/13/96).

1. Is this what Exodus 24:6-8 and Hebrews 9:18-23 teach?

2. The Hebrew writer said, “Not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood” (Heb. 9:18). Then he goes on to show that the “copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these,” but “the heavenly things with better sacrifices.” (Were “sins” the “heavenly things” dedicated with better sacrifices?!) No, Moses was not sacrificing for an earlier broken covenant (but for one being “dedicated”), and Christ’s blood was dedicating “the heavenly things” (the new covenant), not simply forgiving sins that were past, present and future  though that was also accomplished.

3. Christ “took away the first that He may establish the second. By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:9, 10). Verses 28, 29 contrast those who rejected “Moses’ law” (which was dedicated with the blood of animals) and those who “count the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing.” We were “sanctified” by the second “will,” or by the “blood of the covenant.” Which covenant? The second!

4. Hebrews 9:16 says, “where a covenant is” (referring to all covenants, not just broken ones) “there must of necessity be death.” Christ was not dying to establish the covenant with Abraham, nor the one given through Moses. Stanley and Jim do not like the expression “last will and testament.” The word “covenant” is perfectly agreeable with me (though “testament” does fit with the idea of “inheritance” in Heb. 9:15, 16). After objecting to the word “testament,” Stanley said: “Hebrews 9:16 explains the covenantal significance of Jesus, who had to die to ratify (my emphasis) His Father’s covenant, to confirm the agreement … In verse 17 these assertions are amplified, explaining how covenant is ratified: `A covenant is firm over dead sacrifices (when somebody has died), so it never has force while the appointed sacrifice lives” (TECP 62). So the first covenant was in effect by the death of appointed sacrifices (animals), but the second was in effect by the appointed sacrifice of Christ! That is two covenants dedicated by two kinds of blood!

The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34

Those who deny that the first covenant passed away and the second was established take great pains to get around Jeremiah 31. Stanley said: “Indeed, Jeremiah’s famous new (renewed) covenant of 31:31-34, first prophesied in about 593 B.C., was realized about 60 years later when God’s people in the houses of Judah and Israel, to whom the covenant oracle was specifically addressed, returned from Babylonian exile” (TEC 78). Jim said: “The New Covenant in Jer. 31:31-34 refers to God renewing his covenant first when the Jews came out of Babylonian captivity. To put the law in their hearts refers to Jer. 17:1. God’s law would re-place the sin in their heart. There is no reference to the Old Law and the New Law” (Tape on the Covenant, 2-6-95).

1. “Jeremiah . . . devoted the first 29 chapters of his book to the history of the period: apostasy, judgment to come, and the Babylonian captivity. This was followed by four chapters (30-34) pointing to the future hope, some-times called `The Book of Consolation.’ . . . In this section Jeremiah speaks of a `new covenant’ (31:31-34) and `an everlasting covenant’ (32:40)….In 30:8, 9 he said they would serve the Lord their God and David their king .. . Jehovah said `And ye shall be my people, and I will be your God’ (30:22), which also existed between Jehovah and His people under the Mosaic covenant (Exod. 6:7; 19:5,6).. . Some advocates of the one eternal covenant theory argue that this looked to the return from Babylon; or, at least began to be fulfilled at that time. Another argument made is that there is nothing new in this that is not found in the Mosaic covenant. If one should grant that this is correct, Jehovah is not making the point that everything  or any-thing  in the New Covenant is new. The point is that the covenant would be a new covenant, a new contract . . . not every term of the covenant would be new, but it would be a different covenant . . . Three differences are outstanding. First, the Mosaic covenant was made with a nation; the `new’ was made with individuals  `he that believeth.’ A second difference is, the first was dedicated or sealed with the blood of animals, and the `new’ with the blood of Jesus: `This cup is the new covenant in my blood, even that which is poured out for you’ (Luke 22:20). Third, Moses is the mediator of the old, Jesus, the God/man, is the mediator of the new and better covenant (Heb. 8:6-9:1; 12:24)” (Unpublished manuscript  “God’s Eternal Purpose,” Homer Hailey, 232-234).

2. No post-exile prophet referred to the law as “a new covenant” or the “second covenant.” Nehemiah said they read the “Book of the Law of Moses/God” (Neh. 9:1, 8)  not a “renewed law.” Haggai said “according to the word that I covenanted with you when you came out of Egypt …” (Hag. 2:5)  not “when you came out of Babylonian captivity. Malachi said: “My covenant with Levi,” a covenant “of life and peace,” “the covenant of Levi,” or “the covenant of the fathers” (Mal. 2:4, 5, 8, 10). Paul said Jesus was “born under the law” (Gal. 4:4)  not a “renewed law, or second covenant. Did the first covenant “become old” (Heb. 8:13) when the Jews returned from Babylon? If it did, the Hebrew writer should have said: “He took away the second that He may establish the second.”

3. Hebrews 10:16-18 totally demolishes the theory that the new covenant was established after Babylonian captivity. After quoting Jeremiah 31, the writer said: “Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.” Did animal sacrifices cease when the Jews returned from captivity, or when Jesus died on the cross?

Hebrews 10:1-10  The First and

Second Covenants

Stanley said: “The two-covenant view assumes that the writer is discussing the subject of covenants, first (Moses) and second (Christ), an old one and a new one. But the word `covenant’ does not once appear anywhere in Hebrews 10:1-10! The subject under consideration is sacrifice, contrasting its frequency during the time of the Jewish nation with the once-for-all-time, all-fulfilling sacrifice of Jesus Christ” (TEC 104).

1. Verse 1 says “the law having a shadow of the good things to come” and v. 8 says sacrifices “which are offered according to the law.” Verses 16-18 (within the context) say that when the new covenant/law was given “their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” Then he said “where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.” Did the sacrifices end, but not the law that taught them?

2. “He takes away the first that He may establish the second” (v. 9), and “by that will we have been sanctified” (v. 10). Verses 28, 29 contrast Moses’ law with “the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified.” Note that we were not sanctified by the “first” but by the second covenant.

2 Corinthians 3:6-18: The Passing of the Glory and the Law

Stanley said the apostle was describing “his adversaries: legalistic Judaizers whose minds and hearts showed that they had not turned to Jesus Christ and thus were blind to God’s ways . . . Further, if the ministry that brought death and condemned men in vv. 7-9 refers to the ministry of Moses, does not this view contradict the `holy, just and good … spiritual’ description of the law, as written by Paul (Rom. 7:12-14)?” (TEC 100).

1. First, his supposed contradiction is a misunderstanding of Paul’s point in Romans 7. He was placing the blame for his sins on himself  not the law, though he had just said we are “dead to the law through the body (death) of Christ” (v. 4).

2. The passage says the “ministry of death written and engraven on stones” (v. 7). That could not be “legalistic Judaizers.”

3. The passing of that which was written on stones (as well as the rest of the Old Testament) was indicated by the passing of the glory on Moses’ face (vv. 13, 14). That was long before there were any “legalistic Judaizers.”

4. Ashley S. Johnson, in The Two Covenants, showed that most, if not all the Ten Commandments carried the death penalty for violation. First and Second (Deut. 13:6-17), Third (Lev. 24:10-16), Fourth (Num. 15:32-36), Fifth (Exod. 21:15), Sixth (Exod. 21:12-14), Seventh (Lev. 20:10), Eighth (Exod. 22:2 not always death for stealing), Ninth (Deut. 19:16-20  death for false witness if his testimony caused death), and Tenth (Josh. 7:20-26). Question: If the first covenant is still in effect with the Ten Commandments (Deut. 4:12, 13), is the penalty for violation still in effect? Were the commandments “moral,” but the penalties “ceremonial”?

5. Johnson continued: “Its glory was abolished. It can-not mean anything else. If you confront any of the teachers of our times with the statement like that the answer will be that it is not a fact the Ten Commandments were done away  that Paul had in mind only the carnal ordinances, the ceremonial law, the ritualistic service at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. But he does not say that. He does not intimate that . . . What was written and engraven on stones? Was it the ceremonial law?” (124). Commenting on Hebrews 7:12, he said: “If my friend will show that there never has been but one unbroken priesthood from the be-ginning until now I will admit that there never has been but one covenant or law” (227).

6. Jim says the Ten Commandments are still binding, but the Sabbath has been changed to refer to Christ. If one of the ten has changed, then the law changed! You cannot have an unchanged law and change parts you do not want to keep! The fourth commandment did not mean Christ to the Jews. In their covenant it meant the seventh day of the week. Yes, nine of the ten are repeated in the N.T. just as many other principles of the O.T. are found in the New, but that does not prove that there is not an Old/First Covenant and a New/Second Covenant.

Galatians 4:21-31  The Two Covenants

Stanley states: “As Paul emphatically rebuked entrenched legalism in Galatians 4:21-31, he equated the `covenant’ of Sinai/bondage/Hagar/present Jerusalem with the Christ-rejecting, first-century Judaistic parties whom he and his Master continually encountered…. Here is a stinging, emphatic rejection of legalistic Judaism. . . . Paul is exhorting the Galatians not to entangle themselves in any party-centered Judaistic legal system” (TEC, 109, 111).

1. Paul said, “Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law?” (v. 21). Then he quotes what was written about Abraham having two sons (vv. 22, 23). That was not “legalistic Judaism.”

2. He said “these are two covenants  one from Mount Sinai  not “legalistic Judaism” (which did not go from Mt. Sinai!).

3. The Scripture said: “Cast out the bondwoman and her son . . . so then, brethren we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free” (vv. 30, 31). The “bondwoman” was the covenant from Mount Sinai  not “legalistic Judaism.”

4. The law that was given 430 years after the promise (Gal. 3:27) is the one that was a tutor to bring the Jews to Christ. It was intended to last “till the seed should come” (v. 19). After “the faith” came “we are no longer under a tutor” (vv. 23, 24). When was anyone “under” legalistic Judaism? (That was never a tutor.)

5. A person could be under “the yoke of bondage” by keeping one of the laws of Moses circumcision (Gal. 5:1-3). To explain away Galatians 3 and 4 by calling it “legalistic Judaism” is an interpretation born of necessity to defend a preconceived theory, rather than exegesis of the text.

Colossians 2:14-17  What Was

Nailed to The Cross?

Stanley said: “These verses do not say that the law itself was nailed to the cross; it was rather the bond, which is the curse or the debt it placed upon the Jews … Jesus did not blot out any law on the cross but removed its damning evidence  the curse and debt it created because of sin” (TEC 112, 113).

1. In his first book (TECP), Stanley said: “The eternal new covenant in the Christian era (he couldn’t say “age”) is also `better’ because it abolished the well-used Jewish ceremonial and sacrificial orders (Heb. 8:13, 19-22) which were God’s types and foreshadows of Christ’s one-time unrepeatable sacrifice” (208). He was careful not to say the ceremonial law was “nailed to the cross,” but he did admit that it was abolished. The question is when? Was it when Jesus was nailed to the cross? If so, was “sin” the only thing nailed to the cross?

2. The context of Colossians 2:14 is debatable, but I believe a strong argument can be made for “the handwriting of requirements (ordinances)” referring to the law.

3. The theme is introduced in Colossians 2:10: “You are complete in Him.” Now notice: v. 11: You were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands (in contrast to the everlasting covenant that was made with Abraham [Gen. 17:13] and later incorporated in the Old Law [Lev. 12:3]). You are complete in Christ without this. Verse 12  You were buried and raised by faith in the working of God (when you were baptized into Christ, you are made complete in him). Verse 13  He has “forgiven you all trespasses” (Jews and Gentiles are fully forgiven and complete in Christ). Verse 14  “Having wiped out the handwriting or requirements that was against us” (complete in Christ without the old law). Verse 15  He triumphed over the “principalities and powers” (in Christ we are complete in the overcomer of the devil). The five statements are not saying the same thing, but they expand on the statement “You are complete in Him.”

4. “Therefore” is a conclusion (v. 16). Whatever was nailed to the cross resulted in you not being judged about “food or drink, a festival, new moon or sabbath.” (If sin was the thing nailed to the cross, does that make these things a part of sin? If the law was nailed to the cross, would it make these things part of the law?)

5. The word “requirements” (v. 14) is translated “regulations” (v. 20). The same word is used in Ephesians 2:15: “the law of commandments contained in ordinances.”

6. Ephesians 2:14, 15 (a parallel passage to Col. 2:14) says: “For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of division between us, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace.” Regardless of what Colossians 2:14 means, this passage certainly refers to the law and not to sin. Sin was not a “middle wall of division” between Jew and Gentile. They had that in common, but the law was given to the Jew and not the Gentile (Rom. 2:14; 3:1, 2), and Christ “abolished” that in his flesh (Rom. 7:4).

Applications

1. Stanley says that his one covenant theory emphasizes the mercy of God, “salvation by grace only,” and is a “confidence-builder.” First, the book of Romans, which emphasizes the difference between the Old and New Covenants, gives assurance without perfection. Second, there is a difference between saying “salvation is only by grace” (a true statement) and “by grace only” (a false theory). There is more to salvation than grace, but it is only by God’s grace that we can be saved.

2. Jim uses the theory to teach his doctrine on divorce and remarriage. (He says that the two are not connected.) Several years ago he believed that those who were unbelievers were not subject to God’s marriage law, but in recent years he has decided that anyone who is unmarried, believer as well as unbeliever, can marry (regardless of why they were divorced). He uses the “one covenant” theory in presenting his position on divorce and remarriage. Deuteronomy 24 is part of God’s moral law (which does not change), so what God permitted because of hard hearts (Matt. 19:8) becomes God’s law from the beginning. Jim does not know whether God still permits polygamy and concubinage. His position would require him to prove that these were “ceremonial” rather than “moral,” or they are still God’s moral law! (The truth is that many of God’s moral laws are the same in the Old and New Testaments, but that does not prove that the covenants are the same.)

3. Stanley said that those who teach two distinct covenants assume “that everyone, whether in or out of covenant, is accountable to this new law” (TECP 156). This sounds like the “not under bondage” position. In his second book, Stanley left out this argument.

4. Stanley said: “After AD 33, messianic Jews who worshiped in the Jerusalem temple (Acts 2:46; 3:1; 5:21,42; see also 2:42), very likely praised God and prophesied taught) with lyres, harps and cymbals (1 Chron. 25:1, 6; 6:310, as people `zealous for the law’ (Acts 21:20)” (TECP 162). He left this out of his second book, but if only the “ceremonial law” passed away  is instrumental music “moral” or “ceremonial”? This doctrine demands the impossible task of deciding this about every O.T. practice!

5. Stanley said: “In earlier times God, as the Rock of Israel, had ruled a covenant assembly of people who followed Him even in the wilderness (see Acts 7:38). These same faithful abide in the eternal kingdom which, according to prophecy (Dan. 2:44), would be `set up’ forever, without end, during the period of time surrounding that same Pentecost, with Jesus the new foundation stone or corner stone. “The phrase `set up’ does not necessarily mean establish as a beginning point, any more than Jesus’ statement `upon this rock I will build my church’ (Matt. 16:18) announced that this church-body would be some future institution to appear as something entirely new” (TECP 102). In The Eternal Covenant he said, “So the kingdom of Luke  Acts is a renewed kingdom, fully consummated with the crowning of Jesus as King of kings upon His ascension into heaven” (91, see also quote on p. 1).

So “will build” did not mean it was future and the kingdom existed without a King! (See Matt. 6:10; 11:11; Mark 9:1 and many other passages that show the church/kingdom began on Pentecost.)

“For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law” (Heb. 7:12). If they will convince me that there has been one continuing priesthood, I will accept the doctrine of one continuing law!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 9 p. 18-23
April May 1, 1997

By Steve Wallace

We can often benefit by looking at our own actions in light of what others have done. This is especially true when two divergent courses of action can be contrasted and applied. With a view to possible present application, let us notice two different methods of dealing with the issue of church contributions to missionary societies which con-fronted brethren in the 1800s.

C.L. Loos versus Tolbert Fanning

Brother Loos was a believer in church support of missionary societies. Speaking of those opposed to them, he wrote:

…Those few who have been of late days persistently and noisily denouncing missionary associations, have, by the unsanctified bitterness and rudeness of their at-tacks, given full evidence of the causes of their opposition,  a lack of knowledge, of an enlightened piety and a true spiritual culture. To attempt to teach such men is well-nigh useless, as it is almost hopeless (Millennial Harbinger, June, 1886, 274-275).

Throughout history, when a message has been found to one’s dislike, the tactic of “shooting” the message bearer has often been employed (Jer. 38:1-6; Matt. 12:24; 2 Cor. 10:10).

Contrast Tolbert Fanning’s actions during the same controversy as recorded by James R. Wilburn. In 1859, Fanning attended the national meeting of the American Christian Missionary Society and was given opportunity to speak. Wilburn writes,

While Tolbert Fanning continued to emphasize the church as the proper missionary society, he was also anxious that love and peace might continue to flourish. Before taking his seat he tenderly said, “But I am happy to say, that from what I have heard on this floor, we are one people.”

Fanning’s remarks were made with the hope of provoking a discussion. Consultation in Tennessee had brought unity among those who were previously divided.

Surely his friends here were capable of the same calm deliberation toward such peaceful fruit (The Hazard of the Die, 194-195).

Brother Fanning’s course of conduct in seeking to provoke discussion of differences as described above was in harmony with biblical cases where differences were dealt with (John 6-9; Acts 17:11-12; Paul’s letters to the Corinthians; Jude 3).

Modern Applications

These two examples have some bearing on present controversies among brethren. Let us note the following, timely lessons that we can learn:

1. Brethren today who engage in impugning other brethren’s motives and putting the worst interpretation on efforts to teach or to combat error are involved in conduct with an unsavory history. Those who promoted error in the past (the missionary society) saw fit to employ such weapons. This led to their dividing from those who were walking in truth and uniting with others who were teaching and practicing error. In the current climate where doctrinal unity-in-diversity is being promoted this kind of conduct is especially dangerous as it can lead to toleration of any kind of error.

2. It is clearly good, right and honorable to seek discussion of issues that are troubling brethren. Brother Fanning’s efforts led to unity with those who were walking in truth and the manifestation of those who were not. As sad as division is, when brethren persist unrepentantly in error it is helpful that they be known for it (1 Cor. 11:19; 1 John 2:19). Brother Fanning had nothing to apologize for in trying to promote discussion between brethren with opposing views. Likewise, we are right to try to promote discussion with those who have taught or promoted the error troubling churches in our day such as divorce and remarriage, unity-in-diversity, centralization, etc. In contrast to this is our next point.

3. When brethren engage in the kind of conduct exemplified in brother Loos’ writing they are stifling Bible study between God’s people. We all know that good will not come by quarantining those who differ with us in order to stifle discussion and debate.

4. Our generation owes a debt of gratitude to men like Tolbert Fanning and other faithful men of his day. They were criticized and even slandered openly in what was one of the most popular brotherhood papers of their day. Yet, they were not influenced by what other brethren or the world thought. They stuck with the Bible and continued to teach the truths that both the lost and the saved needed to hear (1 Tim. 4:16). There must have been unpleasant times for them, but there is peace in walking with the Lord (Phil. 3:17; 4:9). Their work in teaching and defending the Gospel allowed the church in America to continue to our day (Acts 20:28-32; 2 Tim. 4:1-4).

Conclusion

We should soberly reflect upon these two examples from the 1800s. They provide a helpful backdrop for dealing with differences among brethren today. The fact that Fanning’s course would logically lead to unity in truth and Loos’ to unity in error should not be lost on our generation. May we all seek to conduct ourselves in a manner that would lead to the unity that our Lord has made possible through his word (John. 17:21-22; Eph. 4:1-3).

Guardian of Truth XLI: 9 p. 16-17
April May 1, 1997

By Les Maydell

Man has always had a problem in fulfilling his responsibilities to the government, especially when he disagrees with its policies. Many Christians in South Africa were upset with the last government because they were treated unfairly. Lately I have noticed that many Christians are upset with our present government because of its corruption, failure to keep promises, and inability to reduce crime. The government has also passed many ungodly laws such as the removing of the death penalty, the legalizing of gambling, and abortion on demand. I believe that South Africa was also the first country in the world to legalize homosexual marriages. Just about every Christian I know has been affected by crime in some way. This has led to feelings of anger and bitterness towards our government and towards our fellow men. What must we Christians do in this situation?

First of all I think we should not expect our government to be a good government. Our government was elected by majority rule. Are the majority of people in this country true Christians? Matthew 7:13-14 says that few go down the narrow way that leads to life.

The government that ruled in the days of Jesus was also not a good government. The Jews lived under the military rule of a corrupt foreign government, Rome. They had the same attitude problems as we do. They asked Jesus if they should pay taxes to Rome. Jesus reply was simple and clear, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21).

After Christianity began to grow and spread, Christians were persecuted and even killed by both the local Jewish leaders and the Roman government. Yet Paul wrote, “Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due …” (Rom. 13:7)

He also wrote to Titus, “Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men. For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived. . .” (Tit. 3:1-3). The only time we must not be subject to rulers, is if a ruler tries to force us to disobey God (Acts 5:27-29).

Even should we have the most corrupt government in the world, we are not excused from fulfilling our responsibilities to it. If we fail to heed God’s commands, we stand guilty before him. “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. There-fore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on them-selves.”

Brethren, what can we do so that we do not bring judgment on ourselves? How do we handle our feelings? Is there anything we can do that will make this country a better place?

First, we need to have a godly attitude towards our failures and the failures of our fellow countrymen. We must hear the teaching of Jesus, “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted” (Matt. 5:4). Jesus promises in Matthew 11:28, “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” We must not be like those in the world around us, filled with hate and fear; we must rather mourn for our sins and for theirs. Our godly actions, based on the attitude of mourning, will give us the promised comfort and rest. “Godly sorrow produces repentance to salvation, not to be regretted” (2 Cor. 7:10). What are some things we ourselves need to repent of?

1. Pay the government what you owe. If you are earning money that the government does not know about, it is your duty to report that income to the government and pay tax on it. If you have not been doing this, you need to repent (Matt. 22:21; Rom. 13:6). You need to phone or go to the tax office and ask for forms to report your income.

If you have been boycotting paying of rent or water and lights, you need to repent and start paying all that you owe (Rom. 13:7-8).

If you have a TV, have you paid your TV license? Yes, it is unfair that so many get away with not paying for this license. But God says you must pay it (Rom. 13:7-8). If you can’t afford the license, you must get rid of your TV. That is the law, and we must obey it.

2. Repent of materialism. Many who fail to do the above, do so because they rather want to spend the money on their own personal needs  a fridge, new clothes, or a car, etc. Such people are guilty of the sin of materialism. Many of our brethren, even those who are poor, are guilty of this sin. This is evident by the poor collections I see taken up in congregations around the country. I know of brethren who spend more on TVs, sweets, cool drinks, and other unnecessary items, than they spend on the Lord. When I see only small change and no notes going into the collection plate I know this is so. Then we wonder why God withholds his blessings from us and why we lack joy in our lives (2 Cor. 8:2; 9:6).

3. Other attitudes we need to repent of are anger, hate, and bitterness. Sometimes our anger is also rooted in materialism. I have been hijacked at knife-point and also had two other cars stolen. I was very upset, but it made me think: Are my possessions really so important to me? (Matt. 6:19-21). We also need to remember that, unless it was for the grace of God, we would also be condemned to hell. Therefore, we need to love our enemies, do good to those who hate us, and pray for those who spitefully use us and persecute us (Matt. 5:44). Above all, we must not be guilty of being angry with a whole group or race of people be-cause a few persons of that group or race did evil to us. “Whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment” (Matt. 5:22).

4. If the crime in this country is causing me to worry unduly, I must repent (Matt. 6:44). Jesus said, “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” If we spent more time making sure we are pleasing to God, we would not have so much time to spend in worry. Philippians 4:6-9 tells us that instead of worrying, we should pray to God, let our minds dwell on good things, and do those things that are right.

There are also some positive things that we can work on that will generally improve things in our country, no matter what kind of government we have.

1. We must work harder at fulfilling the Great Commission of Jesus in Matthew 28:18-20. We must teach people the plan of salvation and the way of Christ. The more people who become Christians, the less crime and evil there will be.

2. We must be like leaven (Matt. 13:33). We must al-ways be a good example. Whenever possible, we must influence those in authority to make wise decisions and we must influence those around us to do the right things. “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12:21).

3. We must pray for all who are in authority that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence (2 Tim. 2:1-2).

Brethren, let us concentrate on obeying all the laws of God  both laws governing our deeds and laws governing our attitudes. Let us also be certain to obey the laws of the land lest we find ourselves spending eternity with Satan and the same evil men who are presently trying to work us harm. Let us concentrate on spending eternity in the land where God himself is the light, where all is peace and joy.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 9 p. 12-13
April May 1, 1997

By Connie W. Adams

The inevitable, persistent march of time is depriving us of a whole generation of preachers who have worked in the vineyard for many years. Within the last month (this is being written on March 11) we have said goodbye to three men who left large footprints on the sands of time. Others will write more extensively about each of these men, but I offer here a few words of my own.

Rufus Clifford

This brother was from the Lanton community near Spring Hill, Tennessee. His local work was all done in middle Tennessee, mostly in the Nashville area, but his meeting work took him to many places. When James Arthur Warren was preaching at Taylor Blvd. in Louisville and began to drift into modernism, Rufus Clifford was one of the men who was called in to help set the record straight and oppose the error being taught by Warren. One Sunday morning in 1949, Warren preached that the Bible was in error in reporting that Balaam’s ass spoke. That night Rufus Clifford and J.T. Marlin were called in to refute error and advance truth. The first time I heard brother Clifford was during a tent meeting in Tampa, Florida. His subject was “repentance” and I still re-member the basic outline of that sermon, though that was nearly 50 years ago. His preaching was simple and straightforward, yet it possessed a certain elegance and sometimes eloquence. It was delivered with passion and obvious concern for the souls of men and women. For the last few years he had suffered from Alzheimer’s disease. He was a Bible preacher. I will miss him.

Grover Stevens

Brother Stevens passed away the same day as brother Clifford. What a remarkable man he was. Having trained to be a Baptist preacher, he learned the truth and obeyed the gospel. He preached many times on “Why I Left the Baptist Church” and published a tract by that title which has been circulated by the thousands. This unique brother had a special way of teaching with directness and plainness of speech, yet with a kind manner that made it difficult to become angry with him. At the barber shop, service station, supermarket, on a plane, or wherever, he did not fail to ask people about their religious convictions and to tell them about the Lord and his church. His work was especially fruitful in Louisville, Kentucky where he spent many years. When he left Taylor Blvd. it was the largest congregation in Kentucky with over 700 members. He preached for a while at Wendell Avenue and then at Park Blvd. which later became Gardiner Lane. He also spent many years in Lubbock, Texas working with two congregations in that city. His longest work there was at Caprock. Meetings took him to many parts of the nation.

I recall an incident when I was in a meeting at Park Blvd. and we called on woman who was in a denomination. Her husband was a Christian. The young women was very prejudiced. She was also in her eighth month of pregnancy. We awakened her from a sound sleep, and she was not in a very good mood. When she found out who we were, she was even more displeased. It was obvious (at least to me) that she was trying to get rid of us as fast as she could, but Grover persisted. Finally she made some general statements such as any good denominationalist would make, and Grover responded directly to it and asked if she had a Bible in the house. She assured us that she did and with that he insisted on coming in and showing her a passage of Scripture she needed to think about. To my surprise, she let us in. The conversation was strained (on her part) but Grover forged ahead. I kept thinking we were going to be invited (or ordered) to leave at any moment. When we did leave, he was all excited and said, “You know, if I can go back over there and show her the distinction in the covenants, I can convert her.” I said, “Grover, if you ever convert that woman, please drop me a note and tell me about it, for I don’t much think you will.” About five weeks later, he sent me a post card which said that he had just baptized that woman the day before. But that was Grover Stevens.

About two years ago we had a meeting at Manslick Road and asked him to preach on first principles. He did so with great skill and compassion. His preaching was Bible preaching. He drew the line between truth and error. He did not back up, or back off, but he did it with kindness whether in the pulpit, on the radio, in the bulletin or in a periodical, or in one-on-one teaching situations.

His last work, at Lawrenceburg, Kentucky, was outstanding. Some of the younger people thought he might be too old for the work, but after a short while, one of them said that brother Stevens was about to work him to death. He died at the building where he was working on material for a class he expected to teach. The large number which attended his funeral bore testimony to the respect in which he was held. Our best wishes are with his wife and children.

Yater Tant

We also mourn the recent death of Yater Tant, son of the legendary J.D. Tant and father of David Tant, well known preacher of the gospel. Known throughout the country for his meeting work, he was even more widely known for his writing. His book about his father, J.D. Tant, Texas Preacher remains a classic. It was as editor of the Gospel Guardian in the I950s and 60s that he became best known.

During a turbulent period in the history of the Lord’s people in this nation, he charted a course that was steadfast and unwavering. With those who resisted the inroads of institutionalism, he became a hero. With those who favored them, he was a hiss and a byword. Few were ambivalent toward him. In the hottest controversy, he maintained his poise, dignity, and sense of humor. His column “The Overflow” was widely read and appreciated and provided barbed humor which produced many a chuckle to relieve what would otherwise have been unbearable tension. His editorials were classics. His writing style was polished and reflected the mind of a well read man.

He was the first to encourage me to write. He published every article I ever submitted to him. When we went to Norway in 1957, he did much to help us locate support and carried ‘many reports on the work there. I attended his second debate with E.R. Harper at Abilene, Texas in 1956 on the Herald of Truth. It had much to do with helping a young preacher see what these issues were all about. During the last years of his editorship of the Gospel Guardian he drew criticism for his suggestion for a “box in the vestibule” to provide a means by which unity could be maintained over contributions to benevolent institutions while the matter was being studied. I was one of those critics, though I never doubted the sincerity of his motives in this. He later edited Vanguard until it ceased publication. While it contained much good material from able men, it lacked the punch of earlier writings. A second effort at the “box in the vestibule” was no better received than the first one. An effort also to reach out to the controversial “Crossroads” church of Gainesville, Florida produced a great deal of criticism. He was much concerned with peace and harmony among brethren. Advocates of institutionalism in the 50s and 60s would take issue with that, but I am confident that his later attempts were motivated by a sincere longing for peace among divided brethren. Someone needs to write an objective history of his work and the times in which that work was done.

The last time I saw brother Tant was about two years ago while in a meeting in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. He came one night, listened intently and said when he spoke to me afterwards, “Well, my boy, that had the old Jerusalem ring.”

Every woman who is a Christian would be well served to read the book Nannie Yater which brother Tant published about his mother. It is actually a manuscript which she wrote about her experiences as the wife of J.D. Tant, the Texas preacher.

Helen Tant is in very poor health. Our love goes out to her and to David, in this great loss to that family.

One by one we are losing that whole generation of preachers. We are poorer for it. But none of us can stay the hands of time. Those of us who used to be “young preachers” awaken to the reality that we are now the older generation and that we too will soon be “Going down the valley one by one, with our faces toward the setting of the sun.” What we are going to do, we must do soon. And we must do it well, for we cannot return to do it over.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 10 p. 3-5
April May 1, 1997