Truth Magazine

By James P. Needham

Labels are used to inform. They tell us what’s on the inside. Labels are very common in religion; there are Calvinists, Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, etc. These labels tell us what’s on the inside. Labels are not unusual in the church when divisions occur. A hundred and fifty years ago the church divided over the missionary society and instrumental music. Those who promoted these innovations called themselves “progressives.” Those who opposed them were called “non-progressives.” Then there was division over whether it is scriptural to have multiple communion containers on the Lord’s table and multi-level Bible classes. Those who held to these ideas were called “antis,” “one-cuppers,” and “no-class brethren.”

In our life time we have witnessed division over centralized control of congregational resources under the sponsoring church arrangement where the sponsoring church receives funds and their oversight from several churches to do certain works, and whether churches can scripturally subsidize human organizations to do what is thought to be the work of the church, such as colleges, orphan and old folks homes. Those who promoted these innovations are called liberals and those who oppose them are called conservatives, and a few other choice epithets I won’t mention here. 

As time has passed, the liberals have divided into other groups over what liberties could be taken with the word of God. They have now split into two opposing camps: Conservative liberals and ultra-liberals. 

Ultra-Liberals 

The ultra-liberals are the ones pushing for “a new hermeneutic,” that is, a new way of interpreting the Bible. They deny that the Bible is a pattern. They deny that we can determine authority from examples and necessary inferences. Here are some of the positions taken by this group:

1. Instrumental music in worship is not unscriptural. Some of these churches have instrumental and non-instrumental services. One of their preachers said, “I don’t go around preaching against instrumental music.”
2. The church of Christ is a denomination.
3. There are Christians in all the denominations.
4. Church is always supposed to be a party.
5. They fellowship Christian Church preachers. (The Christian Church is the result of the division 150 years ago over the missionary society and instrumental music.)
6. We are saved by grace only. 
7. Church grants to human institutions, including secular schools and colleges operated by brethren.
8. General benevolence, which looks upon the mission of the church as a sort of a sanctified Red Cross society whose mission it is to improve people’s standard of living, sometimes called the “social gospel.”
9. We need a new hermeneutic; a new way of interpreting the Bible. Which is not new at all. Their concept originated in modernism in the 19th century. It denies any pattern authority in the New Testament.

Conservative Liberals 

The conservative liberals were once with those who are now the ultra-liberals. Originally they were all in the same boat. The more conservative among the liberals broke camp with them when they carried their hermeneutic to its logical conclusion. The breaking point was the preaching of error on the Herald of Truth radio program. They abandoned the Herald of Truth, but continue to defend and practice the sponsoring church concept. Under the leadership of Ira Rice, Jr., the conservative liberals have waged a heated battle against the excesses of the ultra-liberals, but have never renounced the issues that     divided us in the first place, namely, subsidizing of human institutions from the church treasury or the unscriptural cooperation of churches, known as sponsoring churches, by which the Herald of Truth radio and TV programs are operated. They are against church-furnished recreation of all types, and the fellowshipping of the Christian church. They claim to be against church support of secular colleges and schools though they say very little on this issue. 

They have a good deal more in common with us conservatives than with the ultra-liberals, but they bear strong feelings against us and have isolated themselves from both camps. They call us “antis” and never miss an opportunity to bash us in their papers, and continue to have occasional debates with us on these issues, though these are becoming fewer and fewer. This group is undergoing a good deal of controversy at the moment over whether all service is worship and the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They are having some very heated discussions in their papers. 

Conservatives 

The conservatives today can express nearly all their positions from the liberals’ writings of the 1930s and 40s. Nearly every one of them, and especially the leaders among them, used to take the exact same positions that we take on institutionalism, congregational cooperation, and church-furnished recreation, contributions to colleges, etc. If anyone doubts this I’ll be happy to document it from my files. In fact I learned much that I know about these matters as a young preacher from studying the preaching and writing of Guy N. Woods, Foy E. Wallace, Jr., G.K. Wallace, Glenn Wallace, A.C. Pullias, Charles Holt, B.C. Goodpasture, E.R. Harper, N.B. Hardeman, etc. all of whom cast their influence in the camps of the liberals. In the early days of this controversy there were several debates between conservative preachers and those who went liberal. They were confronted with quotations from their past writings. It didn’t take long for them to decide they didn’t want any more debates! They were challenged to answer themselves.

It is difficult to explain what happens to people who know the truth and then depart from it, but it happens. It happened in the first century; it happened in the 19th century, and it has happened in the 20th century, and I guess it will keep on happening. Maybe there is an answer in these two passages of scripture: 1 Corinthians 11:19: “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” 1 John 2:19: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would (no doubt) have continued with us: but (they went out), that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. When the devil gets in the church there has to be some way to get him out. Really the only right way to do that is to stand stedfastly for the truth. When that is done, the devil will flee from us, but he won’t stay gone (Jas. 4:7).

What of The Future? 

Conservative brethren are the only hope for saving a remnant today, and yet that is becoming more and more precarious day by day. There is a general wave of softness creeping over conservatives today similar to that which preceded the apostasy of the 1940s through the 1970s. This soft attitude, like in the past, cries out for only positive preaching and writing and for unity-in-diversity; you believe it your way and I’ll believe it mine, and I’ll meet you in heaven! They want to dispose of differences over things that matter to God which are plainly taught in the Scriptures by governing them by the principles stated in Romans 14, that govern things that don’t matter to God. The end result is that they claim God doesn’t care what one believes on the marriage question, etc. It’s not hard to see where this will lead them. It is a fact of history that often today’s radical is tomorrow’s liberal.

Another issue that has come to the forefront is a false interpretation of Genesis 1. There are two main positions: (1) the days of Genesis 1 are not seven literal contiguous solar days of 24 hours, but long periods of time, perhaps even millions of years. (2) The days are literal 24-hour days, but there are gaps between them, perhaps millions of years. Both are futile efforts to harmonize the Bible with the speculations of so-called modern day science. 

Discussion of this matter has been quite intense in the last year, and there is a willingness on the part of some conservative brethren to tolerate it, to slip it under the umbrella of Romans 14 like in the discussion of the marriage, divorce, and remarriage question. Some are saying they don’t believe these concepts, but they are willing to make room for those who do. This is “unity-in-diversity,” purely and simply, though some don’t like the label. If this is not a proper label, what label would be appropriate? Is it really true that we can’t see the Bible alike? The church has not seen the last of division over human wisdom and doctrines. There is a major apostasy in every generation. History will bear this out. 

Is It Wrong?

I hear by way of the grapevine that some are criticizing me for mentioning the names of people with whom I disagree and putting it on the Internet. Of course, this is nothing new. Every gospel preacher who defends the truth against error has the same result. I am told that I should have gone to these people personally. I wonder if they would give this same advice to the apostle John in the case of Diotrephes (3 John 9, 10), the apostle Paul in the cases  of Hymenaeus and Alexander (1 Tim 1:20), Alexander the coppersmith (2 Tim. 4:14), in the case of the Corinthian church, and Paul’s rebuke of Peter before the whole church at Antioch (Gal. 2). Hundreds of millions more people have read these criticisms of persons by name than will ever read mine.

If a person thinks his doctrine or actions are scriptural, why would he resent having his name attached to them? Does he teach truths and commit actions of which he is ashamed, even though he feels they are scriptural? Paul warned about being ashamed of the gospel and those who defend it (Rom. 1:15; 2 Tim 1:12, 16). Or does he realize his actions are not scriptural, so wants to keep them hidden or isolated in the area where they are taught or committed? 

It is obvious that some brethren think exposing error is not part of the doctrine of Christ. If this is true, I wonder why such occupies such a large portion of divine revelation, both in the Old and New Testaments. Why did Christ spend so much of his time exposing the doctrines of the Jewish sects and the Rabbis? It was the late Cled Wallace who said we should not have better manners than Christ and the apostles. Paul said, “Follow me as I follow Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1). That’s good enough for me and should be good enough for everyone. 

1600 Oneco Ave., Winter Park, Florida 32789

By Weldon Warnock

Time and time again we hear denominational preachers say something like this: “You out there in radio land, if you are lost, and don t know the Lord, just fall down on your knees and call upon the name of the Lord, and he will save your soul.” Obviously, these preachers have no idea what calling on the name of the Lord entails.

On the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter quoted Joel, who said, among other things, “Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21). This quotation “call on the name of the Lord” denotes what is to be done, not what is to be said. To call on the name of the Lord is to appeal to his authority. The word “call” in Acts 2:21 does not mean “pray.” Rather, it suggests the idea of an appeal. The phrase “call on” is a translation of the Greek word epikaleo. This is the Greek word Paul uses in Acts 25:11 when he appealed to or called upon Caesar. Here Paul was appealing to the authority of Caesar to adjudicate his case. In like manner, when we call upon the name of the Lord, we appeal to his authority and power as he is the only one who can save. Peter said there is none other name whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12).

If calling on the name of the Lord means to pray in order to be saved, such as in the front of your radio, TV, at an old fashion mourner’s bench, driving along in your car, in a hospital room, etc., why did Peter tell those on Pentecost to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)? In verse 21 Peter said, “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved,” but a few verses later, in response to the question, “Men and brethren, what shall we do”?, he told this same audience to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. Why did he not tell them to pray, if to call (v. 21) is to pray? What Peter commands in verse 38 is what is involved in the calling in verse 21. Their turning to the authority of the Lord in their obedience to the gospel was the calling.

Paul shows that no one can call who does not believe, and one cannot believe unless he hears, and how shall he hear without a preacher (Rom. 10:13-14)? This is the process of calling. Somebody says, “Baptism is not mentioned here.” Well, neither is repentance. Are you ready to omit repentance? This passage does not state specifically all that the Bible says on the conditions of salvation.

Ananias told Saul of Tarsus in the process of his conversion, “And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16)! Is this the way you called on the name of the Lord? Paul’s calling was what he did, not what he said.

Friends, there are preachers who will lie (1 Tim. 4:2). Others are misguided, ignorant of what the Bible teaches. John wrote, “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). When a preacher tells you that an alien sinner can be saved by prayer, he is preaching another gospel (Gal. 1:8).

87 Ormond Dr., Scottsville, Kentucky 42164

By Walton Weaver

There are three definite cases of household baptisms recorded in the New Testament, and there is a strong inference that a fourth case included the entire household. The case where household baptism is strongly implied is that of Cornelius (Acts 10:47-48; 11:14). The three definite cases of household baptisms are those of Lydia (Acts 16:15), the Philippian jailor (Acts 16:33-34), and Stephanas (1 Cor. 1:16).

Whether any of these households had infants in them, and, if so, whether they were baptized, has been a debated issue for centuries. Some years ago, Grover Gunn, writing in the Herald of the Covenant, a voice of the Presbyterian Church in America, and published in Water Valley, Mississippi, wrote a response to the question, “What theology of children does one find in Paul’s sermon to the Philippian jailer?” It is strange that such a question should be asked in view of the fact that in three of the four cases of household baptisms named in the New Testament there is positive proof that there was not an infant in these households, including that of the Philippian jailer.

Cornelius

Cornelius and his house needed words whereby he and his house could be saved (Acts 11:14). But there could not have been an infants in the household of Cornelius because, according to Acts 10:46, those who were commanded to be baptized in v. 47 were the ones who had spoken with tongues and magnified God. Such responses to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit would not have been produced in infants who could neither speak (much less in foreign languages) nor magnify God by speaking. Since Peter directed the command to be baptized to those who had spoken in tongues and magnified God, we know that no infants were baptized. How can commands be directed to infants who are not yet capable of comprehending words? Infants cannot speak words, and they cannot understand words directed to them. This being the case, how could Peter have been directing the command to be baptized to infants? 

The Philippian Jailer

The same may be said for the household of the Philippian jailer. The divine record says not only that Paul spoke the word of the Lord to the entire house (Acts 16:32), but that the jailer rejoiced and believed with his house (Acts 16:34). The cause of the rejoicing was the fact that they had believed in God. Infants are not capable of rejoicing over such favorable responses to the preaching of the gospel, and they are even more incapable of having believed in God. J.A. Alexander, a paedobaptist, admits in his commentary on Acts that “thou and thy house” in verse 31 does not mean that personal faith is not required on the part of the jailer’s household, as though the others could be saved on the basis of the jailer’s faith. He says: “Thou and thy house (or household, see above on v. 15) does not mean that they were to be saved by his faith, but by faith in the same Saviour.” Albert Barnes, another paedobaptist, agrees: “Salvation is offered to his family as well as himself; implying that if they believed they should also be saved.” The simple fact is that Paul could have delivered no discourse to infant children, nor could infants have believed at the preaching of such a sermon, or rejoiced over something they were not capable of doing (believing in God).

Craig S. Keener makes an interesting observation about what was expected in Roman households: “Romans expected the whole household to follow the religion of its head; they also expected the head to lead his household to the worship of Roman gods. Here conversion is not automatic; the whole household must hear the word of God” (The IVP Biblical Background Commentary: New Testament 370). He also adds the following note about Roman soldiers and shows why the passage cannot be used in support of infant baptism: “In view of 16:20-21, the jailer risks getting in serious trouble here. If he is a retired soldier (which is not clear — v. 23), he may have young children (soldiers were not permitted to marry officially until retirement); but this is far from certain and therefore cannot be used to prove infant baptism (as some have attempted)” (370). Remember, too, that even if he had children, the fact that the whole household had to hear the word of God is enough to show (as pointed out earlier) that no infants were involved.

Stephanas

In the case of the house of Stephanas, those who were baptized later “set themselves to minister to the saints” (1 Cor. 16:15). What “theology of children” does one find in this passage? If one finds infant baptism in 1 Corinthians 1:16 (if this is the “theology of children” found in this verse) because the passage says Paul “baptized . . . the household of Stephanas,” would not consistency demand that his “theology of children” from 1 Corinthians 16:15 be infant ministers in the church, because this passage says, “the house of Stephanas set themselves to minister to the saints . . .”?

Lydia

The only other case is that of Lydia, and the assumptions required in her case make it impossible to build a defensible argument for infant baptism from the baptism of her household. J.W. McGarvey cites several paedobaptist authors (those who believe in infant baptism) of earlier times who saw no argument for infant baptism in the baptism of Lydia’s household.

It may be that no inference of infant baptism is hence deducible (Henry Alford).

Evidently the passage in itself cannot be adduced as a proof either for or against baptism; there is in it no indication whether there were or were not infants in the household of Lydia (Paton J. Gloag)

 . . . no trace is to be found in the New Testament, speaking of the baptism of the children of Christians (H.A.W. Meyer)

This is to say that the references to household baptisms have nothing per se to say on the subject of infant baptism.

1820 Hairston Ave., Conway, Arkansas 72032

By Connie W. Adams

Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is often the subject of millennial or dispensational teachers. That the four parts of the image seen represent the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, and Roman empires is seldom disputed. It is also generally understood that God would “set up a kingdom” in the days of the Roman empire, and many of these teachers insist (while others admit it under pressure) that the Roman empire will be resurrected in order that the prophecy might find its fulfillment at the time of their imagined millennium. Their major contention hinges upon a misconception of the nature of God’s kingdom “consuming all these kingdoms” (v. 44) and the “smiting” of the image and “breaking” it to pieces (v. 34). The issue then, is whether the “smiting” and “consuming” are accomplished by martial force or spiritual compulsion; by physical impetus, or spiritual might.

The Kingdom: Material or Spiritual? 

The resolving of the problem involves a discussion of the nature of Christ’s kingdom. Is his kingdom in nature to be compared with the earthly empires of the past or present? Is his kingdom to be inaugurated by the gathering of an army to be led by a Christ armed in a coat of mail, with a gleaming sword of steel in his hand, and plunging his troops into violent conflict with the citadels of human empires? This is the impression some millennial teachers have. Robert Roberts, the biographer of Dr. John Thomas (a heretic from the faith and founder of the Christadelphians), said: 

His coming in the Spirit draws near: a people is in preparation, increasing in number, faith, zeal and service, to whom he be revealed with the thousands he shall bring forth from the dead by his power, and by means of whose recruited forces he will enter into conflict with the world, drive Gentile power from every throne, and establish his kingdom under the whole heaven. Christadelphian operations will then be transferred from the arena of debate to that of military coercion. 

Once, in debate with A.D. Norris, a Christadelphian from England, we were told that preaching had thus far failed to consume the nations, and that they would be consumed by “might.” R.H. Boll, in his book The Kingdom of God taught that this “smiting” and “consuming” would be “a violent impact” and he spoke against the idea of its being done by spiritual infiltration. To the Millennialist, the kingdom is material and its subduing of the nations is to be accomplished by martial force.
In order to better appreciate the full import of this “consuming” let us  consider (1) the consuming king, (2) the consuming sword, and (3) the consuming kingdom.

The Consuming King

That Christ is the consuming king is a point of general agreement. “Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice from hence­forth even forever” (Dan. 9:7). Daniel pictures him as he comes to “the Ancient of days” and is given a kingdom “which shall not be destroyed.” The wise men inquired about one “that is born King of the Jews” (Matt. 2:2). The Angel announced that he would be given “the throne of his father, David,” and that “of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Luke 1:32-33).

He made a battle declaration when he said, “I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34). When questioned by Pilate regarding his kingship, he said, “Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born” (John 18:37). In Acts 2 Peter announced his coronation and showed that it was the fulfilling of the prophecies concerning David’s throne. It was pointed out that he had been exalted to God’s right hand, and that as the first official act as reigning king he had “shed forth this which ye now see and hear” (Acts 2:33). Paul declared him to be “the King of kings, and Lord of lords” in 1 Timothy 6:15. “A sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom” (Heb. 1:8). There can be no doubt but that Jesus Christ is the king who was to “consume these kingdoms.”

The Consuming Sword 

Here the issue centers. Around this pivotal point the whole question turns. What kind of sword does the king use in “smiting” and “consuming” these kingdoms? We shall notice only a small part of the abundance of Scripture available on this matter. “And he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked” (Isa. 11:4). “Out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword,” said John in Revelation 1:16. He is further described by John as “he that hath the sharp sword with two edges” (Rev. 2:12). He “sends a sword” into a family when one in it obeys the gospel and the other does not (Matt. 10:34-38). The “sword of the Spirit is the word of God” (Eph. 6:17). It is “sharper than any two-edged sword” (Heb. 4:12). This is the sword that “brings into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5).

Peter wielded the “sword of the Spirit” on the day of Pentecost. Fifteen nations were represented by the Jews present that day. With the drawn sword Peter “smote” them and they were cut to the heart. About three thousand of them fell before its withering power and cried out, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Later, at the house of Cornelius, Peter again joined battle with the same sword and “smote” the hearts of the Gentiles present with the result that they obeyed the gospel of Christ. They were “consumed” by the “sword of the Spirit.” On and on throughout Acts we observe the smiting and consuming of the nations. Men are consumed by Christ when they hear, learn, and come unto him (John 6:44-45). In the statement to Pilate, Jesus connected his kingly mission with instruction of his word. “Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice” (John 18:37).

Any remark to the effect that this sword is ineffective, that it has not and is not succeeding, is not only a denial of “the power of God unto salvation,” but is, as well, a reflection upon him who molded that sword in the eternal counsel of his own mind. If the kingdoms are not falling under its power quickly enough to suit us, then the fault is not with the sword. It is perfect (Jas. 1:25). It was “once delivered” and needs no improvement. If the consuming is too slow, then the fault is either with those who wield the sword, or the condition of hearts that are assaulted by it. But don’t blame the sword!

The Consuming Kingdom

Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). It is certainly “in” the world, but not “of” it. It is not in nature as the kingdoms of men, inaugurated and perpetuated with carnal conflict and conquest. This kingdom “cometh not with observa­tion” but is “within you” (Luke 17:20-21). Since the nature of this kingdom differs from earthly kingdoms, the manner of its growth must also differ. If the kingdom is spiritual, then so must be its conquest. “The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened” (Matt. 13:33).

Christians are the soldiers of this kingdom and they fight by teaching. Paul charged Timothy to “commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also” the things he had been taught. In the next two verses he called him a soldier and spoke of his warfare (2 Tim. 2:2-4). As these soldiers wield the sword in every nation and souls fall before its power in obedience, the “stone that smote the image” becomes “a great mountain and fills the whole earth.” The early Christians who were scattered abroad “went   everywhere preaching the word” and were “consuming” in the sense of Daniel 2:44. As every Christian now recognizes the individuality of the Great Commission and goes into his own world to teach the gospel, he is even as leaven and thus is “consuming.” The responsibilities are therefore weighty which are imposed upon this kingdom. The consuming is to be done to the end of time for Jesus said, “Lo I am with you always even to the end of the world.” Let us analyze our own hearts and activities and deter­mine whether or not we are working as leaven in the world. It is only through proper love for and devotion to the King we serve that we may be “more than conquerors through him that loved us.”

Summary

The fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy that the kingdom would be established in the days of the Roman empire has certainly occurred. Jesus said, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand” (Mark 1:14-15). The prophecy concerned not only the establishment of the kingdom, but the spreading of it as well. It has been established; it is consuming the kingdoms and filling the earth. Its king has all authority and his sword is perfectly adapted to the task assigned to it. Any weakness within the kingdom is not in the King, or his sword, but results from the failures of citizens who stumble in the discharge of their duties as soldiers.

P.O. Box 91346, Louisville, Kentucky 40291