Truth Magazine

By H.E. Phillips

Jesus Christ gave the world a perfect example of walking with God and talking to God. No man can walk with God who does not talk to him and hear (obey) his word. Most people today look upon prayer as a tool for the poor, hungry, suffering, diseased and hopeless. People who have reasonable health and security, a good job and comfortable home surroundings have little use for prayer except for the common ritual when they “go to church” and occasionally just before a meal. Jesus Christ was a man of prayer while he lived among men. He taught his disciples to pray in his great Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 6:5-13; Lk. 11:1).

Why Did Jesus Pray?

Why would Jesus pray to God in heaven? He co-existed with the Father in eternity before the foundation of the world. Why would he need to talk to God when he knew his will and purpose perfectly? Jesus said, “The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand” (John 3:35). “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30). The divine record provides a number of details regarding the prayers of Jesus from the beginning of his ministry to his death. Far more than we can discuss in this paper.

Fellowship necessitates communication. Walking together means agreement. “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3) We are commanded to “speak the same thing” and be “perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). That requires communication. The communication between Jesus Christ and his Father is expected because of their fellowship in the eternal purpose of God.

How Did Jesus Pray?

1. He prayed with thanksgiving. He often expressed thanks to his Father (Matt. 11:25,26). When he established the Lord’s supper he offered thanks (1 Cor. 11:24,25).

2. He prayed that the will of God be done, even in death (Matt. 26:39). “…if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us” (1 Jn. 5:14).

3. He prayed with “strong crying and tears.” “Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers andsupplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared. . .” (Heb. 5:7).

4. He prayed with confidence and humility. At the tomb of Lazarus he said: “Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always. . .” (Jn. 11:41,42). His disciples believed the Father heard him when he prayed: “Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee” (Jn. 11:21,22). Jesus acknowledged that his Father always heard his prayers. “. . . Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always…” (Jn. 11:42).

5. Jesus prayed earnestly and fervently the night before his death. “And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground” (Lk. 22:44).

6. He did not use the power that was available to him through prayer that he might do the will of his Father. He said, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” (Matt. 26:53,54) Twelve legions of angels comprehend a numberless host. Angels did minis-ter to him on occasion. After his temptation by Satan angels ministered to him (Matt. 4:11), and in the garden just before his betrayal, “there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him” (Lk. 22:43).

When Did Jesus Pray?

He prayed upon many different occasions until his death on the cross. He prayed longer and more often when he was alone. He prayed alone before day (Mk. 1:35). He prayed alone at evening at the close of a busy day (Matt. 14:23). He prayed alone before choosing the twelve apostles (Lk. 6:12,13). He prayed alone after a busy day healing the sick (Lk. 5:15,16). He prayed alone three times before his betrayal in the time of his agony. Three times he prayed alone, “Thy will be done” (Matt. 26:39-44; Lk. 22:39-46).

Jesus prayed in his anguish before his betrayal and crucifixion. He went with his disciples to the mount of Olives; “And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground” (Jn. 12:27; Lk. 22:39-46).

He prayed on the cross in his dying hour. The rulers who staged his crucifixion derided him. The soldiers who crucified him also mocked him, and offered him vinegar. As the closing moments of his earthly life approached, and his painful humiliation was at its pinnacle, Jesus expressed his last prayer to his Father: “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost” (Lk. 23:46).

For Whom Did Jesus Pray?

1. Jesus prayed for Peter: “But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren” (Lk. 22:32).

2. Jesus prayed for himself: “These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee. .. And now, 0 Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was” (Jn. 17:1-5).

3. Jesus prayed for his disciples: “I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gayest me out of the world …I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. . . I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thoushouldest keep them from the evil. . . Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth” (John 17:6-17).

4. Jesus prayed for believers through his word: “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (Jn. 17:20,21).

5. He prayed for those who ridiculed, mocked him and crucified him on the cross. “Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Lk. 23:34).

Jesus Taught Us Conditions For Successful Prayer

He taught his disciples to pray with reverence, for the kingdom, in humility, that God’s will be done, making requests for our needs, forgiving as we desire forgiveness, and asking for deliverence from temptation” (Lk. 11:2-4).

He taught us to abide in him and let his word abide in us (Jn. 15:7), to pray with persistence to him who is able to grant our needs and desires (Lk. 18:1-8). We must be holy (1 Tim. 2:8). We must be humble in prayer, not self-righteous (Lk. 18:9-14). We must pray in the name of Christ (Jn. 14:13,14), and according to the will of God (1 Jn. 5:14).

As Jesus Christ stood at the threshold of death, he could have with one short prayer called the legions of angels from the Omnipotent Father to deliver him, but he chose rather the will of his Father, and gave up the ghost as the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. The man of prayer stopped praying and passed into the realm of paradise. This divine person prayed and taught us to pray to the Father in heaven.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII No.23, p. 20-21
December 1, 1994

By Grover Stevens

Our study is “Jesus: the way, the truth and the life.” This statement, and claim, of Jesus is found in one of the most favorite, familiar, and endearing texts in the Bible. “Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in Me. In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. And where I go ye know, and the way ye know.” Thomas, desiring to understand says, “Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?” The Lord then makes the statement of our text  one of the most remarkable and profound statements ever made  “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes unto the Father, but by Me.”

How full of meaning is the message conveyed in these few brief words. The Lord here and in the conversation that follows plainly declares that he is God  is Deity; not was, or going to be, but is (“Am”). He here equates himself with the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He is each of these as well as all of them together. He is the true way of life. He did not say “I will show you the way,” but “I am the way.” He did not say “I have the truth,” but “I am the truth.” The Lord did not say, “I lead unto life,” but “I am the life.”

“I Am the Way”

Christ is the way to the Father. A way is a path, a route, a roadway. Some say, “How can I know the way when one preacher tells me one way and another some other way? Dear friend, the Lord did not say, “The preacher, or the Pope, or mother or father is the way,” but “I am the way.” Dear friend, do not follow this preacher or that, or the Pope, or anyone else, but the Lord Jesus himself. He is the Way.

We have all, some time or other, followed a marked path to a given destination. I read a story of one of our pioneer preachers riding horseback along a road in unfamiliar territory, when he came upon a barricade with a sign warning that the bridge was out. Distressed, he lookedabout to study just how he might proceed when he saw what appeared to be a marker showing the way. He went to investigate and sure enough just before he reached the first marker he could see the next, and so on through the heavy wooded section of the river bottom. By following the marked trail he was able to pass through the unfamiliar territory and reach his destination. Just so with the Lord Jesus; he is the marked trail  “the way” through this old sinful world to the wonderful city of God and to bosom of the Father. He says, “Follow me and I will take you to the Father.”

Christ is the only way to the Father. “No one comes to the Father but by me.” Hence, he is not only the way, but he is the only way to the Father. This way is referred to as the “the way of God,” “the way of salvation,” the way of truth, and “the way of holiness” (Acts 18:26; Matt. 22:16; Acts 16:17; John 14:6; Isa. 35:8; etc.). Our Lord said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Many say that it doesn’t matter what doctrine you believe just so you have Christ, but dear friend, God tells us, “Whosoever . . . abideth not in the doctrine (teaching) of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine (teaching) of Christ hath both the Father and the Son (2 Jn.9). Yes, indeed, it does make a difference what you believe. Again, the Lord said, “But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:9); and “Every plant (doctrine or practice) which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up” (Matt. 15:13-14). Any doctrine that is not found in the Word of God is “of men,” not God. All spiritual blessings are in Christ (Eph. 1:3). We have redemption through his blood in Christ (Eph.1:7; Col. 1:14). We must be “in Christ” to be a “new creature” (born again) (2 Cor. 5:17), and we get in Christ by being baptized “into” Christ (Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:26-27), and we are “born again” by “obeying the truth” (1 Pet. 1:22-23; Rom. 6:17-18).

There is no other way. All religion that seeks to “come unto the Father” in some other way than in and through Christ (Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, etc.) is doomed to failure, according to this word of Christ (John 14:6). Again we hear the Lord say, “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not My words (the gospel of the New Testament), hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:48); and all who “obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . shall be punished in flaming fire with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord” (2 Thess. 1: 8-9). This also applies to those who claim to believe in Christ, but reject his teaching. The Lord further said, “Why do you call me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” Many teach that it doesn’t make any difference what you believe, or whether you are baptized or not, or “how” or “why” you are baptized, or whether you worship or not and how you worship, etc. Such people are not following Christ, the way, but their own way the way of their choice. The way of Christ is the way of truth. You must believe what Christ tells you to believe, the truth, the gospel (Mk. 16:15; 1 Thess. 2:13); you obey Christ’s command to be “buried” in baptism (Rom. 6:3-4), “to be saved” (Mk. 16:16), “for remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), to get “into Christ” (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27) who is the true way; and he will add you to the church he established (Acts 2:41,47), not some de-nomination (Acts 20:29-39; Gal. 1:6-9); and you worship the way Christ tells you to worship (John 4:23-24).

“I Am the Truth”

Truth is truth only because of God. Without God there would be no right or wrong, or truth. Truth, righteousness, holiness, light, and love, in any and all fields, whether mathematical, logical, moral (ethical or religious) are all basically the same thing  just different aspects; and they all derive their meaning from the inherent nature and character of God, who is the origin, source, and essence of each. The statement that two and two make four, or that honesty is good and lying is bad, expresses an everlasting principle in the eternal character of God. God and Truth have the same attributes and character; things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. God and truth are both eternal, immutable, perfect, unchanging, accurate, consistent, immortal, infinite, incorruptible, harmonious, faithful, reliable, trustworthy, dependable, right and righteous. Men can say, “I speak the truth,” but only God can say, “I am the truth.” The God of the Bible is the only true God because no other being possesses these attributes. Jesus Christ is one with the Father. To know Jesus is to know the Father. To “see” Jesus is to “see” the Father. He is not speaking of the fleshly body. The words of Christ are the words of the Father. The Father is in Christ and he is in the Father.

“I Am the Life”

God is life. In every nook and cranny of the world around us there is abundance and variety of life  living things. Among the millions or billions of kinds of life, human life stands out in uniqueness and singularity. God tells us this is because it alone is a combination of physical life and spiritual life (Gen. 1:26; 2:7). All life is from God (Gen. 1; Psa. 36:9; Acts 17:24-29). Something is eternal. Something cannot come from nothing, therefore some-thing has always been. All that is in existence had to be in that eternal “something.” Hence, that which existed eternally possessed life. J.W.M. Sullivan, one of the world’s greatest physicists, says, “Life never arises except from life . . . this (fact) leads back to some supernatural creative act”  GOD! (Limitations of Science 94). The Lord Jesus said, “I am come that (men) may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.” “Abundantly” refers to the fullness and richness of the life in Christ  Christ’s way of life  that higher and nobler life of which human life is capable. See John 8:12; Luke 12:15; Jude 10.

Eternal Life. Life is union (Gen. 2:7), and death is separation (Jas. 2:26). Man has both physical life and spiritual life. At death (separation) both go back to their point of origin  the body to dust, and the soul/spirit to God (Eccl. 12:6-7). Spiritual life (eternal life) is to be united with God, and spiritual death is to be separated from God, banished into darkness and despair (Matt. 25:41,46; Rom. 6:23). The Lord Jesus said, speaking spiritually as he points out in v. 58, “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day . . . so he that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live forever” (Jn. 6:54-58). Again God tells us, “He that hath the Son hath life (eternal life,v.13), and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life” (1 Jn. 5:12). Again, Jesus said, I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live” (Jn. 11:25). Indeed, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII No.23, p. 18-19
December 1, 1994

By Mike Willis

Everyone is agreed that there needs to be a balanced diet of preaching. We must preach positively every promise of God and emphasize every moral attribute that needs to be developed in man’s character. A gospel preacher should be equally concerned to preach against every sin and false doctrine that assaults the Lord’s people and his church. He should make specific application of divine principles to current practices to leave no one in doubt about what God’s word says on that subject. I believe that Guardian of Truth should be a balanced journal and have worked diligently as its editor for 18 years to be sure that it is and remains balanced.

Am I Balanced?

Every man who occupies the pulpit and teaches a Bible class needs to conduct a good self-examination on a regular basis to see whether or not he is balanced in his pulpit work, bulletin articles, Bible classes, articles contributed to journals such as Guardian of Truth, etc. to be sure that he does not become obsessed with any one particular issue. Sometimes the charge is made that the editor and Guardian of Truth are obsessed with the divorce and remarriage issue.

I am perfectly willing to lay my work before brethren to ascertain whether or not that is so. The pulpit work that I do is really not available for our critics to judge. They are not present at the local congregation where I preach so they are unqualified to condemn or approve. I might also admit that I am not present where they preach, so the only thing any of us can judge is the written works of each other. Turning to my writings to see whether or not I am balanced, I list these published works:

A Commentary on First Corinthians

A Commentary on Galatians

We Gather Together (A Study of Worship)

Workbooks in the Bible Textbook Series: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Luke (several other books in these series are in the works  Deuteronomy through Esther)

Several tracts on a variety of subjects

In addition to these, I have edited a revision of Walking With God (Pre-school through Primary) and am working on a similar revision of Truth in Life (Pre-school through Primary). In addition to these works which I have personally written, I have been deeply involved in editing the Truth Commentary series.

A review of my editorials for 1994 shows the following list of topics discussed:

The Work Ethic Pray For the Sick

The Gospel in Secular America continued on page 754

continued from pag” 738

Balanced Preaching .. .

Jesus’ Attitude Toward His Enemies For Our Sports Fans

The Wrath of God Is Revealed From Heaven (1-4)

The Value of a Preacher Training Program

Just One Daughter

Dr. Kevorkian and Job

Playing Possum

The Bible Basis For Unity (1-2) Feminist Issues and the Church

The Restoration Plea: An Appeal for Bible Unity Fundamental Axioms for Unity My Heart Is Enlarged

The Grace of Giving

A fair reading of those titles and articles should confirm that there has been a wide variety of subjects discussed in the editorial slot for 1994.

The next time you hear someone say that the editor of Guardian of Truth or the magazine itself is unbalanced, investigate for yourself whether or not the charge is true. I am perfectly willing to place Guardian of Truth side-by-side with any other journal published among us to see whether or not it is balanced. I am willing to compare my work and that of our staff writers with that of any of the editors and their staff among us with reference to balance.

What Is Hiding

Behind the Criticism?

The charge that Guardian of Truth is not balanced is usually generated by those who do not like something published reviewing and exposing the false doctrines on such subjects as divorce and remarriage, false plans of unity (such as loose teaching on Romans 14 as applied to moral and doctrinal error), women in the business meetings, and other troublesome issues among us.

Being balanced is a two-edged sword. What is required of Guardian of Truth and its staff writers needs to be applied equally to others. Can a preacher, editor, staff writer, or paper truthfully be balanced when it never exposes the false teachings and teachers of our day? Examine some of those condemning Guardian of Truth as unbalanced by asking: (a) When was the last time I read an article in this journal or read an article from this man that called attention to the loose doctrine on fellowship which places the divorce and remarriage issue in the category of Romans 14? (b) When was the last time I read an article in this journal that exposed the false teachings of such books on divorce and remarriage as those of Olan Hicks, Homer Hailey, and Jerry Bassett? (c) When was the last time I read a review of the A.D. 70 doctrine in this journal? (d) When was the last time I saw an article in this journal that exposed the fallacy of the “preach Jesus and let everyone alone” approach to preaching? (e) When was the last time I read a review of the errors in the “preach Christ not the church” approach to preaching? (f) When was the last time I read an article from them contrasting the Lord’s church (revealed religion) with the denominations of men (unrevealed religion)? If you have not read any material on these subjects in recent months (or years), or, if virtually every-thing you read in reference to such subjects is complaint and criticism about those who openly oppose those errors, perhaps the journal you are reading is the one that is not balanced!

Sometimes what is hiding behind the criticism of “not balanced” is a loose view of some subject that has been re-viewed in Guardian of Truth. What is desired is not balanced preaching, but preaching that never exposes some subjects, such as loose views on divorce and remarriage, or placing moral and doctrinal error in the realm of Romans 14. When even one article appears ex-posing these loose doctrines, that is too much. Sometimes what is hiding behind the criticism that Guardian of Truth is not balanced is a loose position on these or some other issues.

If a journal published approximately 300 articles a year, how many would be too many on loose views about divorce and remarriage or loose views about fellowship with moral and doctrinal error? Look at our index under these subjects and see how we did. We have been balanced. This is also a good time to look at the index of other journals to see if they have been balanced. Were there any articles published in those journals that exposed loose views on divorce and remarriage, unity-in-diversity with moral and doctrinal error, and other current problems among us?

Conclusion

The next time you read an article by this editor or some other writer among us reviewing false doctrine being promulgated, remember that Guardian of Truth is presenting a balanced diet of materials on a wide range of subjects. We are publishing a journal that contains both positive and negative material in balanced proportions. Treat the material as you would want any of us to treat yours. When you see an article reviewing error, consider the author as a balanced man who has seen a danger that he feels con-science bound to warn others about. Read it with the understanding that this good, honest and sincere brother deserves the same hearing you want for yourself.

When you hear someone criticizing Guardian of Truth as being out of balance, ask yourself how balanced the critic has been. Has he ever publicly reviewed (either in a journal, a bulletin, or his sermons) the false teachings of those who are a threat to God’s people? Or is the critic able to mingle among the false teachers without ever exposing their false doctrines and practices? Does he hold meetings year after year in congregations known to be taking a false position on some issue, such as divorce and remarriage, without publicly exposing the doctrine? Perhaps the reason he thinks others are out of balance is his judgment is skewed by the angle to which he is leaning.

If he thinks that the editor or writer did a poor job in exposing the pernicious doctrine under review, encourage him to write his own article reviewing the same error and submit it for publication. If he can answer the false doctrines and false teachers of our day in a better manner than the author did in the article that was published, we will be delighted to publish his material. And, I can assure you,that I will add my hearty “amen” to his work. You won’t find me on the sideline taking pot shots at him for doing the work, because I know how it feels to be hit by pot shots.

May we all strive to conduct and measure our work by the New Testament standard of preaching and not by the passing whims and fancies of the age in which we live.

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears (2 Tim. 4:2-3).

Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 1:13).

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also (2 Tim. 2:2).

When we do our best, we can still expect some criticism. We should not be overly sensitive about it, and we can even try to learn from constructive criticism, but then we must also press on and “preach the word.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 24, p. 2
December 15, 1994

By Tom M. Roberts

(This concludes a two-part study of C. Leonard Allen’s The Cruciform Church.Faulty reasoning (non-sequiturs) by the author presents a warped view of the gospel and the church of Christ. If this is representative of the thinking among liberal brethren, there is little wonder as to the source of a “new hermeneutic” and its effect upon churches who adopt it.)

Non Sequitur: Doctrine Idolatry

I am sure that there are some folks somewhere who elevate doctrine to idolatry and who worship the Bible, considering it a talisman to ward off evil spirits. But I must confess that I have not heard such teaching among my brethren. Leonard Allen claims to have heard it a lot.

This non sequitur states that “Even the Bible itself or our own religious tradition can become idols” (p. 88). “It becomes an idol when our faith becomes focused on Scripture rather than in the God Scripture reveals to us.” He feels compell0d to remind us that “Doctrines do not save us; we are saved by Christ” (p. 89). This knowledge is too much! We are awed by such pearls of wisdom. Actually, such smugness of religious superiority does little to commend him. It does not follow that an obedience of doctrine dethrones Jesus (1 John 5:3). It does not follow that a faithful compliance with Scripture elevates it to “doctrine-idolatry” (p. 89). Must it be “either/or” with regard to Christ and Scripture? Can it not (must it not) be “both/and” Christ and his message?

It is not true that since God does “impossibilities” (wonders, miracles), we cannot read the Bible with our “analytic-technical” mindset and grasp what God is doing. The God who does “impossibilities” is the God who has spoken to us in an accommodative way (human language) and requires obedience (Matt. 7:21).

Non Sequitur: The Displaced Cross

According to brother Allen, no other subject comes anywhere near the importance of this one. His charge: “First, as we shall see, `the word of the cross’ has beensignificantly displaced in the history of Churches of Christ. Throughout the four generations since Stone and Campbell we have tended to push the cross into the background and thus to proclaim an anemic and distorted gospel” (p. 113).

That this is a faulty premise (before we look at the unwarranted conclusions) can be seen from Allen’s definition of the “word of the cross.” Falling into the same error as C. H. Dodd (seen in Allen’s bibliography), Carl Ketcherside and others before him, Allen limits “the word of the cross” or the “gospel” to something vaguely defined as the “core message” or “apostolic kerygma” that somehow “underlies the New Testament writings” (p. 114). Whether or not Allen knows it, Dodd is a modernist, denying the inspiration of Scripture. Yet Dodd is cited by many as an authority on this disputed “core gospel.” While some demand five or more facts in this core gospel, Ketcherside required seven: birth, life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension and coronation of Jesus. No doctrines or commands are included in this gospel. Dodd claimed to have identified passages that taught this “core gospel” before redactors polluted the gospel with doctrinal demands. Dodd’s (and Ketcherside’s) theology was “faith only” (baptism is a command and not a part of the gospel) with salvation being secured by the acceptance of this “gospel” for justification. After one is saved, he may or may not accept some “doctrines” for sanctification but no doctrinal flaw would interfere with justification or limit fellowship with those who accepted the deity of Christ based on the core gospel.

Allen’s premise is that the “gospel” is limited, by definition, to the facts of Jesus’ atoning work; preaching the “word of the cross” is specific to those alone. Preaching from the epistles would not be preaching the “gospel.” Allen’s unwarranted conclusion, based on this faulty premise of “gospel,” is that many of us have displaced the “word of the cross.” If one allows his egregious definition, he is right. But Peter, Paul and James would also be guilty, and that suggests the fault lies with Allen’s definitions and not our preaching.

“Allen, like Don Quixote, tilts at windmills, because he doesn’t understand true gospel preaching. To him, preaching about baptism, the church, the Lord’s Supper, marriage and divorce, or any doctrinal matter (including, conceivably, the deity of Christ as doctrine) is not preaching `the cross.’

Allen, like Don Quixote, tilts at windmills, because he doesn’t understand true gospel preaching. To him, preaching about baptism, the church, the Lord’s supper, marriage and divorce, or any doctrinal matter (including, conceivably, the deity of Christ as doctrine) is not preaching “the cross.” Therefore he flays about like one possessed, decrying the lack of cross-centered preaching.

No one who is a Bible believer would argue about the necessity of putting Christ as both center and circumference of our faith and practice. Bring out all the superlatives and they fail to do justice to God’s love in Christ on Calvary. But Allen has no corner on the market in appreciating the Savior. We, too, understand atonement, justification, sacrifice and propitiation. He chastises with-out reason for a perceived displacement of Christ’s passion on the cross when the fault lies with his imperfect working hypothesis of the “word of the cross.”

This ill-conceived notion, however absurd, is illustrated when Allen applies his theory to the giants of the Restoration period (Campbell, Stone, Brents, Lard, etc.). They were not “cross centered” in their writing and preaching, we are told. Ignoring the fact that preaching the “word of the cross” includes “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) by testifying “to the gospel of the grace of God” (v. 24), Allen tilted at Campbell’s The Millennial Harbinger and Brents’ The Gospel Plan of Salvation as being “preoccupied with form, structure, and the setting in order of what was lacking” (p. 117), thus displacing the “word of the cross.” Brother Allen gives little weight to the fact that sectarians of that period readily agreed with Campbell and others as to the atoning work of Jesus and the central place he occupied in their faith. He seems oblivious to the fact that there were volumes of things keeping sectarians in spiritual bondage that needed to be addressed. It might be comfortable for Allen to sit in his ivory tower at Abilenein 1990 and second guess the pioneers as they fought daily battles for truth in 1840. But those stalwart men waged battles with the sword of the Spirit and did not tilt at windmills. It is ungracious, at this late date, with Calvin-ism (the error they opposed) on the rise, for anyone to promote fellowship with the very people Campbell and others fought. Much less is it gracious for those in non-institutional churches (sound preachers) today to parrot these unfounded charges against Campbell and Brents, using the same faulty definitions of gospel and doctrine as they relate to the word of the cross. The only thing “distorted and anemic” in this context is the fact that some will not preach the word of the cross in the biblical sense, being “ashamed” (Rom. 1:16) of the full proclamation as too negative, too legalistic, too unloving. Allen should not be too lonely in his ivory tower or tilting at windmills.

Non Sequitur: Covenant or Contract

In no other place of his book does Allen reveal his ignorance of the Bible more than when he contrasts covenant (gospel) and contract (doctrine). He charged that under Campbell (and others) “the gospel of grace became a gospel of duty, law, and perfect obedience. Covenant, we might say became contract. . . Consider the difference between covenant and contract. Though similar in some ways, they differ radically in spirit. A contract defines a precise set of relationships and obligations, and if these are correctly observed then the contractual obligations are fully discharged and the benefits fully received.

“But covenant in the biblical sense is far different” (p. 122).

Further, “God’s covenant with people, unlike a contract, always arises out of grace…. Contracts contain little room for slippage. . . God’s covenants, in contrast, always begin with an act of grace . . . because they are rooted in love and trust they contain elements of spontaneous giving and forgiving” (pp. 122, 123). It is difficult to know where to begin to correct such monstrous error.

True, the Law of Moses was a contract that required perfect obedience to merit salvation (Gal. 3:100, but faithful obedience was never condemned (cf: life of Abraham, Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:1 ff; etc.). The Law of Moses was also a covenant (Deut. 29:1; Jer. 31:31f; Heb. 8:8; 10:16; Exod. 24:3-10) that was a gift of God’s grace. On the other hand, the gospel of Christ is a law (Rom. 8:1-3; James 1:25), defining “a precise set of relationships and obligations” (Matt. 7:21; 2 John 9-11; 1 John 5:3).

We are under law today. It is no less law because it incorporates grace and forgiveness (Rom. 8:1-3). It is different from the Law of Moses in that it does not require perfection (provision for forgiveness implies sin, 1 John 1). Grace and law justification are mutually exclusive; but grace and obedience to the Law of Christ (gospel and doctrine) are inclusive of each other.

Brother Allen betrays his lack of knowledge even further by quoting from K. C. Moser (The Way of Salvation). Moser advocated Calvinism regarding the imputation of righteousness, the very thing Campbell, Stone, Brents and others were fighting to destroy. By quoting from Moser and his Calvinism (p. 123), Allen manifests ignorance as to the necessity of the Restoration battles and intimates his own Calvinist leanings. Had Leonard Allen lived during the Restoration era, he would, no doubt, have been on the opposite side from Campbell and those who were studying themselves out of Calvinistic error.

Non Sequitur: Spirit of the Age

By this time we should know that it is impossible to defeat the secularization of the world without the full message of the New Testament. The good news about Jesus’ deity, alone, will not suffice. It is impossible for one to be converted to Christ and to be motivated to godlyliving and self-denial without a knowledge of the “whole counsel.” When Paul wrote to Timothy, he spoke of doctrine which is “according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God” (1 Tim. 1:8-11). The doctrines of this gospel included the truth about the lawless and insubordinate, unholy and profane, murderers, fornicators, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, etc. While some might be too timid to preach like Paul, you can be sure that he preached the gospel. When Paul stood before Felix and spoke concerning “the faith in Christ,” he “reasoned about righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come” (Acts 24:24-25). That is gospel preaching, “word of the cross” preaching, “core gospel” preaching and “doctrinal” preaching, one and the same. Gospel and doctrine are mutually inclusive; they are equally related to the sinner’s salvation and the saint’s edification.

Conclusion

This is not an exhaustive review of the errors made by brother Allen in The Cruciform Church. Such a review would require a line-by-line examination. What has been listed is supplied as a warning that faithful preachers should not be put on the defensive by charges that we are guilty of not preaching enough about the cross of Christ. Some conservative preachers are already parroting this line, inadvertently lending credence to this foolishness. Dangerous consequences are sure to follow when we incorporate unscriptural language in our writing and preaching. It is misleading, to say the least; divisive, at the worst. If we don’t want to be identified with these men and go where they are going, let’s don’t be guilty of duplicating their material. Likewise, it is a warning against falling prey to yet another fallacious distinction between gospel/doctrine, this one called cross/doctrine. Compromisers will never be comfortable under the scrutiny of the whole counsel of God. Let us not give them the edge by defining biblical terminology so as to bring doctrinal preaching into disfavor.

Those who love unity in diversity and who want to broaden the borders of fellowship with error will love this book. It has an air of scholarship and religiosity that will provide just the right touch. We urge all who read it to read carefully, with a Bible at their side “for we are not ignorant of the Devil’s devices” (2 Cor. 2:11).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 24, p. 6-8
December 15, 1994